The “Pax Americana”: A Look at the Assumed Responsibility of a Global Superpower

Have you ever been abroad in search of food and all you see are a few McDonald’s restaurants? Or shopping at a shopping center abroad and see all the stores you would see at home? With the increase in international business, this has become a more common occurrence. Though the process of globalization is perceived by some as a process that destructively endorses a homogenous monoculture, it also increases economic prosperity and social interconnectedness. However, the implementation of these ideas is flawed and can be remedied through international interventional policy and with the changing personal attitudes.

globalization by chechi amah

Globalization connects commodities on an international scale to lift the people in developing nations out of poverty. Greater international trade leads countries like Singapore, a country “so poor that its very survival was problematic” to a place that has a higher per capita income than Great Britain (Yergin 607). The economic consequence of globalization is seen by some as a symbiotic relationship. Because of how cheaply they are made, goods made in developing countries are more desired by global companies. The ability of poorer nations to take part in the global market economy helps create jobs and improve infrastructure that could positively affect their economies. Unfortunately, the countries that participate often do not anticipate how severely the economic and cultural ties are intertwined. The decision to be globally interconnected, however, should not be made without considering the implications of Western cultural dominance on non-Western cultures.

Furthermore, to fully embrace and contribute to world cultures and customs, Americans must adopt a cosmopolitan outlook of their dominance. Adopting tolerance would not be a challenge due to the increase in global interconnectedness. The rise of cosmopolitanism is meant to quash xenophobia and diminish social barriers. A poster child for this ideal is the father of Kwame Anthony Appiah, a man described as someone who recognizes that his obligations as a cosmopolitan “existed not only in his home country and in his hometown but also the international arena” (Appiah 6). In its truest form, cosmopolitanism is about being able to equally celebrate and respect the contribution of all global cultures. For the process to work properly, people must have mutual respect for all cultures, something that is an issue in this modern era. It seems that we have veered away from the idea of unification and insist on using an arbitrary hierarchy to place importance among us. Thus, Gianpiero Petriglieri argues that we must be “welcoming and reaching out or expecting to be always welcome” (Petriglieri 6). In international policy, more tolerance would entail the establishment of sanctions that would welcome and increase the global involvement of the United Nations by closely working with countries in need.

Western culture should use its dominance to promote global prosperity as the Romans did. During the time of the Roman Empire, the Romans were the dominant culture that served as a military and political force. The Romans sustained peace for two hundred years or the “Pax Romana”, an impressive feat for the ancient world. Now America is the head of Western domination and dubbed by Salman Rushdie as the “Pax Americana” (Rushdie 268). Both differ in how they dominate. The Romans used political tactics to unify people between multiple nations under the Roman Empire. In contrast, the United States leads with its economy and uses it as an instrument for aid and economic prosperity. So, the United States should use its economic power to aid other countries in the world. Despite having the common goal of human welfare, people on both sides see the globalization process as a cultural Goliath that needs to be either slain or heralded as it is. Moreover, if we want peaceful cultural diffusion to take place that satisfies the majority, we must compromise through international policy to ensure that it is done properly.

What if we as people make all the attempts, can be cosmopolitan but our attempts to embrace the ever-changing world and its cultures are to no avail? In the book The English Patient by Michael Ondaatje, the character Kirpal “Kip” Singh from India learns to dismiss the post-colonial mindset of the 1930s and embrace the English when being stationed in England for war. Despite the hatred that he observed from his older brother, Kip still concluded that “we are communal histories, communal books” and our stories are more intertwined than we could ever imagine (Ondaatje 261). His worldly optimism, however, dims toward the end of the novel. Like many others when they realize that there will always be a dominant culture that enforces its ways on the masses, Kip is forced to bring his walls back up again. He shows the same nationalistic cynicism as people like his brother when saying that they “were all Englishmen” (Ondaatje 286). During most of the 19th and 20th centuries, the British ruled a large portion of the planet. In the modern era, it is the turn of the US. Kip points out the blatant disregard that Westerners have for others when it comes to what would be in their self-interest. Because the domineering effects of cultural and economic globalization are almost indistinguishable in today’s market, the same things that Kip observed have not changed, but, rather, transformed its mode of influence. Therefore, we are more in need of intervention than ever before.

The economic benefits of globalization cannot be realized without acknowledging certain cultural and social implications. According to Helena Norberg-Hodge, globalization creates a Western monoculture that undervalues the cultures of others and portrays itself with “overwhelming images of wealth and power” (Norberg-Hodge 612). Her fear that the whole world would start to homogenize is like the concerns of Vandana Shiva, an advocate for the preservation of unique, local cultures. Shiva argues that government policy not only protects against economic threats but also shields countries from the philosophical, political, and ecological dangers of “the bankruptcy of the dominant world” (Shiva 620). The process of globalization is not as dominant as it is without the exploitation of labor and other resources. It is the responsibility of international organizations to establish accountability to ensure that parties involved in the process are monitored.

Government organizations should be more hands-on and intervene to ensure that the benefits of globalization are experienced equally and in a way that would allow distinct cultures to flourish. Contrarily, due to the United States being the Rome of the modern era, if countries want to be interconnected and prosperous, they must make some compromises in exchange for international exposure and an increase in foreign trade. However, the partnership does not mean that developing countries must relinquish the main pillars of their culture. With that being said, the involvement of corporate companies should also be reduced due to their tendency to disregard the needs of foreign nations. Furthermore, the job of cosmopolitans will be to ensure that attempts to unite the world are not in vain and will work to implement these ideas on a smaller scale- where it matters most.

Works Cited

Appiah, Kwame Anthony. “The Importance of Elsewhere: In Defense of Cosmopolitanism.”Foreign Affairs, Mar./Apr. 2019, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2019-02-12/importance-elsewhere

Norberg-Hodge, Helena. “The March of the Monoculture.” The Informed Argument, edited by Robert K. Miller, Thomson, 2007, pp. 610–616.

Ondaatje, Michael. The English Patient. Vintage, 1992.

Petriglieri, Gianpiero. “In Defense of Cosmopolitanism.” Harvard Business Review, 15 Dec. 2016, https://hbr.org/2016/12/in-defense-of-cosmopolitanism.

Rushdie, Salman. “March 1999: Globalisation.” Step Across This Line: Collected Non-Fiction 1992–2002, Random, 2002, pp. 267–269.

Shiva, Vandana. “The Living Democracy Movement: Alternatives To The Bankruptcy Of Globalization.” The Informed Argument, edited by Robert K. Miller, Thomson, 2007, pp. 619–625.

Yergin, Daniel. “Giving Aid to World Trade.” The Informed Argument, edited by Robert K. Miller, Thomson, 2007, pp. 606–608.