The Integrative Tendencies of the Civic Culture in the Age of Globalization

AuthorElena Nedelcu
PositionAssociate Professor, Ph.D., Social and Administrative Sciences Faculty, “Nicolae Titulescu” University
Pages447-457

Page 447

Introduction

This paper intend to explore the integrative tendencies of the civic culture and education in the globalization era.

Today against the more and more accelerated globalization process, and in the context in which citizenship gains new, supra-national dimensions, the multidimensional exploration of civical culture versus political cultural particularities, as well as of its integrating tendencies has become significantly important.

Recent sociological studies (G.Devin and others) infirm Norbert Elias’ hypothesis according to which the multiplication and the complicate “interdependent connexions” established generate a mechanical tendency towards the integration and even unification of the international communities. One has noticed that the mentioned interdependent relations lead to stable integration forms only if they are supported by an appropriate axiological-normative system: values, beliefs, democratic procedures. In other words, European integration must be supported by a political culture founded on knowledge, communication, civical involvement and tolerance.

For discovering the integratives tendincies of civic culture in the contemporary society I intend to begin with the analyse of the following two essential and inerent problems: ThePage 448 “Aggregate Sovereignty” concept in the Age of Mondialization and The Inclusion, multiculturalism and interculturality in the democratic societies.

In time, research work has offered a large number of explanations as to the definition and structure of the political culture concept, as to its different levels of fragmentation and homogeneity, the political culture types co-existing in society and the ways in which they influence democratic stability, perception, evaluation and the enforcement of the normative-legislative system, as well as the relationships between civical culture and the human rights domain etc.

In our days, the major role attributed to civic culture in accomplishing social inclusion and in creating a common identity in the globalization era (J.Baudouin, G.Devin and others) encourages and justifies the deep and multidimensional analysis that it is subject to, as well as it reveals the importance of performing research work in this field, thus bringing solid arguments for my option.

I hope the present study will contribute to the completion of some significant knowledge niches in the political research area and it will open new exploring fields regarding the role of civic culture in the Age of globalization.

Literature Review

Civic culture has been a topic of significant interest for a large number of research workers. G. Almond, S. Verba (1956) and L. Pye are known as the parents of political culture, and thanks to their effort the research in this field has drawn the attention to more and more specialists generating an important number of controverses in the course of time. R. D. Putnam, J.Coleman, S.M.Lipset, R.Lane, M.Duverger, Ch. Foster, D.Easton, A. Wildawsky, F.Fukuyama, S.Huntington, G. Sartori, G. Devin are just a few famous names that have brought substantial contributions to the research work performed in this field. After 1989, research work concerning political culture patterns has become more intense in Romania, too. D. Sandu, O. Trasnea, V. Magureanu, A.Craiutu, V. Tismaneanu, D.Pavel, M. Miroiu,V.Pasti, A. Mungiu are only a few of the researchers that have substantially contributed to the study of the particular features concerning socialization and Romanian political culture. Althogh the number of studies dedicated to socialization and the political - civic domain has continuously increased, research work opportunities in this field are still generous, and they reveal areas of study that remained unexplored or insufficiently explored, of which some will represent the object of our research.

The Complexity of the World in the Age of Mondialization The “Aggregate Sovereignty” Concept

At the end of the 60s, the general perception of the international scene radically changed: the increase in complexity of the international system, the multiplicity and variety of its actors became more obvious.

The academic researches (especially the extension of the tangible research) have emphasized the emergence of new and significant subjects in the international scene, from individuals to international and supranational organizations.

Ever since 1957, John Herz noticed the decline of the “territorial state” due to the double movement of “vertical intrusions” (which show up with the aviation) and “horizontal intrusions” (which came up with the increase in international exchanges).

In the same context, James Roseneau notices that today we witness a “division into two” of the international scene: on the one hand, a “state-centred” world, articulated around the diplomaticPage 449 and interstates classical model, and on the other hand, “multi-centred”, in which national states must confront the more and more harsh competition of other forms of collective governing and individual involvement which, although different between them, have as the common goal to diminish the role of the state, to eliminate the substance and the legitimacy from its actions.

The idea that the state-actor, subscribing to a network more and more dense of international connections and various interests will have a reduced capacity to decide in a sovereign manner, will be made to reduce its autonomy limit, has more and more followers. Today, the world presents itself as a complex network, with multiple trans-national connections which bring together the internal levels (national and subnational) with the external ones (international, supranational). The theorists of the international relations cannot relatively ignore the new international phenomena: the development of the multinational enterprises, of the intergovernmental organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and of the transborder movements: migration, trade, tourism, terrorism (G. Devin, 2002). They ask themselves more and more often to what extent these actors respect the principle of national sovereignty, towards what do the new or the old organizations move, what part do they play, what power do they have? To what extent do the governmental organizations tend to delimit themselves from supranational organizations? Do these organizations stay as active intergovernmental actors (interstate) on the international scene or they are inclined to become suprastatal actors? Does the force of the supranational and subnational actors grow to the detriment of the interstate actors?

In his well-known paper “The New Diplomacy”, Shaun Riordan analyses United Nations, European Union and NATO at the supranational level of the international scene, in other words, he thinks that these organizations are suprastatal actors. He formulates pertinent arguments in support of his point of view, revealing attitudes, rules, and suprastate practices used by these organizations. Instead of the national sovereignty concept he proposes another concept which, he asserts, better reflects the international reality, namely, the concept of “aggregate sovereignty”.

NATO, EU, UN, WTO, “they either limit the freedom to act of its members (states), or take over the defence and the foreign policy”. (Shaun Riordan, 2004).

USA, the only superpower, although it despises UN (it refused to pay its debts for a long time) cannot avoid it. It must at least create the appearance that it acts under its authority. After the 11th of September attacks, the level of acceptance of the UN by the USA has increased. USA understood that isolation, even for a superpower, is not a viable option, and so, they changed their attitude, paid their debts to UN and have entrusted to it the mission to reconstruct Afghanistan. Although WTO is entirely an American creation, USA must take into consideration its rules, just as any other state. USA subjects itself to WTO and NATO rules not because of altruism, but because they want the other...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT