The Emergence of Virtual Nations
In 2006, when the farmer suicide epidemic in India peaked, I found myself severely distressed at their plight. Even more distressing was the apathy of the Government (especially the then BCCI chief, visionary educationist and industry czar Sharad Pawar, who also held the union portfolio for Agriculture and Food), the media and the society. My anger and distress was impotent – there was nothing I could do, and this frustrated me even further.
Then, during a morning walk in late 2008, I suddenly realized I didn’t care. The suicides continued unabated, but it began to hurt me less and less. I was alarmed at my disinterest: was I transforming into another Sharad Pawar (without a fraction of his wealth, of course)? Why didn’t the deaths move me as they did before? But the question returned and has haunted me ever since: Why should I, a software engineer in Bangalore, worry about farmer suicides in Vidarbha? I don't get troubled by deaths in sub-Saharan Africa, for me it's another continent, another culture. Logic, patriotism, humanity, etc. imply that I must, however, be troubled by my countrymen’s deaths in Vidarbha. But it is as good as another continent for me, I have no connection with them. And yet, not being troubled by the farmer deaths also does not feel right: it violates humanity and empathy.
Upon some reflection, I am beginning to get a feel for an answer: the farmers of Vidarbha and the software engineers in Bangalore inhabit different countries, and as a citizen of a country does not bother too much about the travails of another in a far-far land (how tormented is your soul over the recent deaths of citizens in Urmqui in Northwest China?), the epidemic of suicides in Vidarbha – or say Hassan, or UP – needn’t trouble me at all. The epidemic could have as well occurred in Rwanda, occupying a few column inches of space in the international pages of the newspaper. (As P. Sainath has shown, the epidemic of suicide received even lesser coverage in our mainstream media.)
The answer to my question is neither startling, nor, I fear, original, but I would like to codify the thoughts behind it and pose a few more questions.
a) The increasing pace of Globalization since the 1980s has meant nations interact (or have to) much more frequently than ever before and though the interaction is mostly driven by the needs and channels of commerce, cultural exchanges are on the rise. The process of learning from other societies occurs much faster, and values begin to change.
b) The awe-inspiring development in ICT (Information and Communication Technology) in the recent years means physical distances matter less and less for interpersonal transactions. Thus, de-territorialization begins to occur, and the ‘social space’ for communication is no longer dependent on the physical space for such communication.
c) The rise of mammoth Transnational Enterprises, whose reach of power and influence spans across several nations at once, further encourages this proximity. Coupled with the exchange of values outlines above, this gives rise to large interest groups who identify with a common cause, agenda, and increasingly, identity. I call these emerging social structures/interest groups as virtual nations.
d) A ‘physical’ nation like India (and especially India!) can be a host of several of these virtual nations. The set of professionals staying in gated communities in Indian metros, who celebrate the US Independence Day and Halloween, is an example of a virtual nation.
e) An individual can be a citizen of several virtual nations at once and can derive his/her identity from an interrelationship of each of these nationalities. I am at once a software engineer working in a large MNC, a member of the great Indian Middle Class, a practicing worshipper of the deity of consumerism, a reader of Marathi books, a failed blogger and writer of terrible prose, etc. Some of these identities clash with each other and some reinforce each other: the point is, there are tens of more identities available to me than to my father.
f) The 1648 Treat of Westphalia, which "establishe[s] the important principle of sovereignty that remains the foundation of contemporary international politics…” can be thought to apply to these virtual nations as well. This means the virtual nations are pretty much on their own when it comes to managing their own affairs, with minimum interference from the physical/geo-political world. Two examples would suffice: consider the virtual nation comprising of the super-rich, some citizens of which inflected great misery on the world economy by creating and trading toxic financial instruments. Till date, none of these citizens have been penalized for their actions, rather, most developed nations have bailed out the institutions inhabited and managed by these citizens, because ‘they are too big to fail’. The virtual deeply impacts the physical.
As another example, consider the virtual nation of Marathi fascists, spanning from Mumbai to New York. A citizen of such a nation, originally belonging to suburban Mumbai but now settled in Brisbane, has no qualms supporting Raj Thakre (the President-for-Life of this nation) and his MNS goons (an instance of virtual nations having an army) bash poor migrants in Mumbai from UP (these inhabit the great virtual nation, the Other/Real India, as our news TV anchors like to say). And yet it is this very migrant to Brisbane who will feel threatened when Aussie racists (nothing virtual about them!) thrash Indians. Again, the virtual contradicts the physical.
If this trend about the emergence of these virtual nations is true, then it raises some philosophical questions:
- Are ‘old’ moral values, the foundation of our civilization, valid?
- Does the notion of justice hold any good?
- Does national loyalty mean anything anymore? Do we need it?
- What are the boundaries of humanity and empathy? Are these values dispensable? What economic purpose do they serve?
In short: how does globalization impact ethics? Are there any immutable values left?
Any thoughts?
Possed by Bhushan Y. Nigale
