A Flat World (for AccessLine Iowa)

A Flat World (for AccessLine Iowa)

17 January 2013

Tony E Dillon-Hansen

There are many people who like to describe the world as “flat”, notably New York Times columnist, Thomas Friedman. This is supposed to describe globalization as a measure of the growing competitiveness and interdependence between cultures and countries of the world that has been a feature of modern society. This supposedly indicates that cultures are working together more while relegating national borders to mere dots on a map. In contrast, others suggest that these claims are quite exaggerated compared to actual data.  Their assertion is that there are relatively small interactions between cultures and countries.  We can see examples of this in our own community where we do not have to look far to see that true global interaction is far from realized due to the divided nature our society is embroiled. 

With some empirical observation, we can see how some markets and communities have changed from local to global in scope as espoused by Friedman’s allies.  Some aspects of capital markets may be spread across the globe, however, the places people go to buy the finished product is local. As well, the interactions that we have are with our selected communities.

Friedman further argues that the current globalization trend is primarily driven by individuals creating and collaborating through a common flat technology platform across the vast networks.  With social media that allows interactivity and connections to span multiple continents between billions of people that were previously unable to connect, there is reason to believe that people are much more connected as a global community through a simple button-click. While some networks, like Facebook, have expanded to over 500 million across several continents and supply chains have allowed for global connections, there is a bit of generalization based upon hopeful perceptions.

The overstatement is evident in how people interact within and outside of their respective communities. There may be a common technology (e.g. social media, currency, telecommunications and others), but people are self-selecting their conversations they wish to participate.  This inhibits the true realization of globalization.

As I have argued before, we can consider the quick action of making a connection via social media versus the action of having a conversation with someone from across the ocean and learning the culture. We know that people, in the same room, can have totally different conversations in complete opposition to each other without ever saying a word to each other. We can cross the globalization threshold only if we are willing to learn from others regardless whether we agree with the different ideas. 

We are more likely to agree, participate and rally around points that favor our own perceived interests based upon notions of philosophical openness and growth. Yes, we should affirm truths, and we should not be afraid to call out erroneous ideas. Listening only to what we want to hear and yelling above the opposition, however, limits our own ingenuity, resourcefulness and expansion.

We may live in a world that enjoys accessibility to ideas, but we find ourselves contained within our own realm of thinking, sometimes deliberately.  Whether called the “big sort” or “wisdom of the flock”, people tend to get their desired information and opinions from the people around them. We can see this in how people organize throughout different parts of the country, the state, and within cities. Even religious organizations that claim the same denomination, within a few blocks of each other, do not want to understand the other religious opinions and priorities (e.g. marriage or other traditions). 

People want to believe they have the correct ideas (regardless of logic) and will reject anything that conflicts with that.  When leaders promote conflicting ideas, they get rejected as not leading (e.g. Obama) because they do not align with those paradigms. Those who never found themselves considered lower class do not want to understand the pride of those wanting to be included in the Promised Land of equality and fairness, even when pride is all you have. Being beholden to biases and traditions can destroy the fortunes of merit. 

Technology can help to overcome supposed localizations, physical limitations, as well as outdated ideas that people have built over time. Yet, to claim that people are actively reaching across various barriers is muted if only 10% do the stretching when using the technology. Whether with the LGBT community, local city, school or family, one only has to look at your own connections to see with whom you and your friends interact and the events you participate. We self-select, intentionally or not, to be parts of those communities. 

Now, capable leaders may be able to transcend barriers.  Effective leaders not only transcend deterrents, but they are the workers that get people to think in terms of a community of action and cooperation. Moreover, they help to focus minds and discussions. They simply do.

There are more issues that have global impacts like equal rights, climate change, oil supply, and expansion of technology. Still, we cannot insist to hear solutions only from people like us. Any issue that impacts more than one community requires cooperation. Those issues require more drastic actions than a button click, and leaders to do the work.

Globalization can teach us much about ourselves and our expectations, but we have to go beyond our own perceptions. The technology and capacity is ready if we are willing to expand. Of this I agree with Mr. Friedman, we should do what we think is possible, however improbable, because someone somewhere will do it, and they will be the leaders.