Both are examples of a pushback against the sterile forces of globalisation which doesn’t recognise nativist tendencies
Every nation, race, society or community has some core values and beliefs — they have a way of life. They also have a large base of so-called traditionalists who seek to protect this way of life. Neo-capitalists and neo-liberals have their own inherited culture of competition, free flow of labour and goods, a keen pursuit of globalisation, absolute freedom of speech, support for promotion of products, a mistrust for any form of authority or control (except, perhaps, when a large corporation or institution needs to be bailed out by).
The modernists are largely full throated reformists who staunchly oppose anything associated with the tradition.
Interestingly, leftist intellectuals have now largely moved away from Marxism to neo-liberalism and they are now aligning themselves with the modernists and capitalists, except in call for labour reforms and abolition of the public sector. They are opposed to this.
There is, therefore, inevitably a conflict between these neo-liberals and the large groups of indigenous peoples or locals or traditionalists. The latter oppose the rough ride of globalisation. A very recent and startling instance of this opposition manifesting itself can be seen in Brexit.
Brexit is a warning of how the Western liberal order is threatened by the the alienation of people who feel they have been left behind by market forces.
In Brexit, one important factor, apart from the economic factors, was the utter disregard of indigenous public opinion in Britain by the unelected authorities in Brussels.
A similar example is brewing in the US. Protectionism is raising its ugly head there too. US Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, riding on the waves of such populist anger, is likely to win the race to the White House.
In India too, regionalism and demand for rights of self-determination are getting more pronounced day by day.
In this connection, it may be worthwhile to recall that the World Trade Organisation’s attempts to expand free trade have been stalled for quite some-time and other regional trade blocks too are moving slowly.
The fault really lies with the no holds barred aggression of neo-capitalists, neo-liberals and modernists. Globalisation processes have caused a general sense of hankering for immediate results.
Therefore, they have come to possess a need to see immediate results. But, at the same time, they never consider the opposing views or needs.
Take the example of Apple Inc. The technology company has been locked in a major legal battle against law enforcement officials over privacy and national security. There is no move to compromise, and the matter is yet to be resolved.
Yet another example is of the issue of film censorship in India. Priyanka Dasgupta, a journalist, pointed out in the Bengali daily Ei Samay that aggrieved film-makers are actually taking the position that if erotic scenes and slangs are censored, the film inevitably loses its artistic value. Yet, much worse censorship is present in many other countries, though many quality films are made there. This is an example of extreme self-righteousness and of crying wolf, when the actuality is a lack of creativity/critical thinking and a sterile rootlessness.
Even on major social issues like capital punishment or homosexuality or uniform civil code etc, there has been no attempts at convergence. Instead, there is a stiffening of respective positions. You cannot impose your views particularly when the opposing views are deep-rooted and draw their sap from tradition.
There is no absolute right or absolute wrong in these matters. But what makes it worse is that there’s no attempt even at appreciating each other. Without mutual respect and understanding there cannot be any progress. It has to be a positive sum-game. There is, therefore, a need for a balanced and open approach to such major unresolved issues for the sake of peace, harmony and progress.