On the other hand...

Thought about this some more while skating at a rink with my kids, hip hop pounding through my skull (which actually helped with the in-line skating, which is harder than it looks).

The bit about countries competing for citizens in the future like cities do inside America today got me thinking that maybe Israel does speak to the future of globalization more than I give it credit for (so tied is it in regional security issues).

There's no question that Israel is one of the most globalized economies and societies in the world. It really has no choice, given the regional hostility and the small size of its market (it's like . . . a major U.S. city). To start a business in Israel means you've gotta set your sights on so much more than Israel if you have any ambition for growth.

Thus, by all descriptions, Israel's got a risk-tolerant entrepreneurial environment second only to the U.S. (really, it's the two of us and the rest of the world), and frankly, for this Gentile (who never felt more Catholic than the moment when I met my Jewish girlfriend's father my freshman year in college and realized that no matter what she or I felt, this relationship was never going to go anywhere), that's my biggest attraction to the country (and why I think, along with its liberated women, it scares its neighbors so).

So you think about an Israel and it's almost like a bedroom community within globalization: doesn't really have much to do with the neighborhood and other than a minimal domestic focus (the basics of life), its economy is largely outwardly focused. I mean, clearly, Israel's located there because of the Holy Lands, but other than that, Israel as a concept of concentrating the world's Jews could be anywhere (Ron White's got a funny bit on that).

So putting aside the religious conflict issue, maybe Israel's a poorly appreciated model of what ethnic enclaving might eventually look like in the future: bedroom communities that attract specific ethnic groups with the promise of gated-community security. "Come here and be among your own!"

Maybe we'll see states somewhat superseded by these ethnically-shaped urban entities.

What triggered this thought, which I toss out like everything else in this blog (not to offend, but to share in real-time [or, "pontificate on" according to those whom I fear take this blog--and blogs in general--too seriously]), is the personal realization that I'm living right now in a state I would not otherwise choose (no offense to Indiana), and the reason why I'm living here is my wife's mother. "I married the eldest daughter," is my usual reply to the question, "why did you pick Indiana?"

Admittedly, Indianapolis is a bedroom community as far as I'm concerned. I don't really work here, although we pay taxes, buy stuff from local vendors, and have our kids go to school here. But truth be told, we're here primarily according to the Meussling family's "law of return," which is a fairly universal one: marry the eldest daughter and you better expect to live within a short drive of your mother-in-law about the time she approaches retirement age.

Frankly, we're sort of odd ducks here: pretty liberal couple (although the Dems can't really stand me for my foreign policy views) living in a Red Sea, where I couldn't even find a Democrat to vote for in local elections (because none were running)! So yeah, I sort of feel for Israel on that basis, and maybe now I'm wondering if their model is more workable than I realized.

Of course, none of this logic erases the underlying demographic threat Israel faces. I'm just suggesting that Israel's fate is perhaps far from historically sealed.

Plus, I guess I just wanted to end this series on a more hopeful note.

Comments

[Lexington Green]

These thoughts about future globalized communites forming by choice, remind me of that ingenious work of science fiction, The Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson. In that book, set about a century from now, states as we have known them have disappeared due to encryption technology which made taxation impossible. After a "time of troubles" communities based on common values formed, some based on voluntary membership, others based on ethno-cultural ties. The Jews, of course, are still around, and still networked. The big four communities are New Atlantis (basically the core community of a cluster of Anglosphere communities), Han (China), Nippon (Japan) and Hindostan (India). The idea that new sources of primary loyalty will replace states is something that many people have been writing about (van Creveld, John Robb). Stephenson gives us a sketch of what such a world might look like. If you haven't read it, it is worth a look.

[Jim G.]

Risking sounding like a racist, I want to share a saying with you that my grandmother used to say to me. "Birds of a feather flock together and so do pigs and swine. Ducks and geese will have their choice, and so will I have mine."Your post reminded me of it. We humans do have thatflocking/herding instinct.

[Joseph]

Have you ever been to Dubai and seen the "gated community" they're building (the continent islands, etc.)? There's a single ethicity they are looking for - green.

[Michal Shapiro]

Just watched the doc "49 Up" wherein a working class Brit couple are building their dream home for retirement in Spain. But it's not like they are moving to some lovely little village where they can enjoy the tapas and sherry-- they are moving to a community with a nice British Pub and all the reminders of the UK culture they are leaving. So I can see that there is a possibility of these communities morphing into the cultural/ethnic enclaves you are thinking about, within another generation.Back to Israel, I agree with most of what you posit. However, having been raised by parents who helped to establish the state of Israel, but who returned and raised me as a US citizen to keep me safe, the holocaust has been something that has walked with me most of my life. It's important to remember that for persecution, Jews have been the flavor of the millenium. And it's still going on, albeit on a smaller scale. Why raise this issue? Because it will always be the 400 pound gorilla in the room when Jews talk about Israel, and without understanding that, communication is flawed. I am a Jew by heritage, not religion. (I was the kid who would always ask "If God hardened Pharoah's heart, wasn't it God's fault that Pharoah wouldn't let the Jews go?") But I know that if a pogrom were to occur, I would still be a Jew, and dead. I don't know how many generations it will take to erase the race memory of genocide, or if it is even possible. Ask the Armenians, the Cambodians, the Ruandans, the black Sudanese, the Chinese communities in Indonesia....Mankind is still a flawed creature, with only thinly controlled reptile behavior. Perhaps thathindbrain reflex of attacking the "other" will fade away with greater and greater ethnic integration and security. I hope so- swapping cultural identity for a world without hate would be a good bargain.And yes, I live in New York City. Where else, Hollywood?

[stuart abrams]

The concept of ethnically-unified "bedroom communities" existing in the globalized world reminded me of the back-story of the Chokotay character on Star Trek Voyager - from a planet colonized by descendants of Native Americans who wanted to try to preserve their culture. However, the planet was also claimed by the Cardassians and became a flash-point in the conflict with the Federation. The lesson: this only works so long as nobody else wants to live in your bedroom.

[DonB.]

Thomas P. M.'s comments about the basis of national identity (i.e. Israel) I believe have broader implications. What does it mean to be British, Japanese or Indian without homogenous ethnic or religious identity? Can a nation define itself otherwise? Historically, it seems only through empire can these identities be either repressed or superseded. Even so empires often still have had dominant ethnic and religious components. It's hard not to think of the British and Ottoman empires without essentially thinking about the qualities of their home countries and beliefs of their native peoples. I can think of only three entities (any others?) that have succeeded in crafting an identity beyond their essential ethnic and religious origins; the Soviet Union, Imperial Rome and America. The weakest example is Soviet Russia. Even though it's empire was short lived it's ideology was sufficiently attractive for many to subordinate (and often repudiate) their own ethnic and religious identity. In comparison Rome was a much more successful and long lived empire. Even so, many struggled against it when they decided identity was more important than economic or political advantage. Last, is the American example. Not withstanding it's repression of indigenous peoples and it's civil war, at it's founding were independent states voluntarily ceding a portion of sovereignty for protection against foreign threats and mutual economic benefit. America is a continental empire of the willing who place a philosophy of freedom and a constitution of rights ahead of religious and ethnic privilege. The West in general but America specifically provides the only modern example where ethnic and religious identity don't necessarily also impart national identity. Try to differentiate a Pennsylvanian from a Coloradan. Even attempting to do so seems silly. I believe it is the issue of identity that furnishes much of the opposition to globalization. The American model means no faith or culture is dominant. All are free to be what and who they are but are not permitted to impose their vision onto another. With the American example, national identity based upon religion, ethnicity or even location (e.g. Pennsylvania and Colorado again) is no longer possible. Many are vested in the current system of national identity and so resist globalization. Globalization means a reduction and perhaps even loss of traditional national identity. Those who benefit from that identity will lose as identity is diminished. In other words, you can no longer be special by being a member of a particular group. You can only be special as an individual. Some find that very threatening.

[Hugh]

Tom, you crack me up every time you try to convince yourself on how liberal you are; you are about as liberal as I am; and I'm the one who sprays for Democrats! Keep up the good work.

[TM Lutas]

I would second Lexington Green's endorsement of The Diamond Age, Tom. It's a fun read and highly educational on multiple levels. The principle of future society association is very likely to be more complex as human beings associate in multiple ways, forming states on ethnic, shared interest, territorial, and shared philosophy foundations. All these methods will compete and have their fans. You can see some early experimentation with alternate forms with the virtual taxation project of the Kosovar albanians a decade and more ago as well as synthetic community ambitions like the failed "Laissez Faire City" project.

Sometimes noneconomic preferences trump economic ones. You still have Gap and Core and most of the rest of your analysis translates to the noneconomic preference just fine except for one thing, it's a completely different map.

If you were aligned more strongly in terms of faith (and I'm taking this only from your own recent comments) you'd instantly feel this in your bones but instead you seem to be groping the elephant on this one. I would guess that this is a major source of right-wing dissatisfaction with your vision as you currently present it. And that italicized portion is the heart of the matter. It's a presentation problem but one that can have serious consequences for early mass acceptance on the US right-wing.

[gringoman]

Globalization means a reduction and perhaps even loss of traditional national identity. Those who benefit from that identity will lose as identity is diminished. In other words, you can no longer be special by being a member of a particular group. You can only be special as an individual. Some find that very threatening.

Yes, but psychiatry knows about the individual with identity problems. Identity crisis indicates a need for help. Will today's globalists function as super shrinks, having whole countries or nations for patients?

As for being special as an individual, many wil agree that Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Tolstoy, Beethoven etc etc were pretty special as individuals. And even though each had universal qualities, which are even thinkable, let alone possible, aside from their respective national identities?