Jung Choi & John Murphy, Barry University, Miami Shores Postmodern Critique of Neo-Liberalism The Culture of Globalization Globalization does not occur in a vacuum. In other words, this approach to regulating social life does not consist merely of new communication technologies, computers, and management strategies that emphasize speed and flexibility. None of these considerations would make any sense unless they are sustained by particular cultural formations. Specific definitions of space, time, and privacy, for example, must have widespread acceptance before the use of the new communication technologies makes any sense. Why would someone want to have a personal phone that is constantly operational, unless personal space has shrunk to almost nothing? In this example, space has become homogeneous and minimally differentiated. So, what are the key traits of this culture? Critics of globalization argue that this process moves in two, and apparently opposite, directions. On the one hand, globalization is thought to encourage the gradual homogenization of the world. Because of the emphasis that is placed on reason, standardization, and materialism, for example, cultural differences begin to be viewed as impediments to rational and efficient action, and thus they are repressed and gradually disappear. As Alejandro Serrano describes, when these unique cultural traits are compared to archetypes and illustrated to be deficient, uniformity is almost inevitable (Serrano 1995: 13). Reminiscent of Plato, the specifics of various cultures are subordinated to ideals that transcend place and time. Clearly this trend is thought to be dehumanizing. On the other hand, globalization is blamed for the fragmentation that pervades most modern societies. Due to the importance of what Serrano calls the "total market" (el mercado total), individualism is also a key trait of globalization (1995). At the global market place, autonomous individuals come to buy and sell their goods and services. Very similar to Durkheim's notion of organic solidarity, this style of autonomy is thought by some proponents of globalization to be liberating. But as also discussed by Serrano, this mode of individualism has very narrow parameters. The rationality of the market place can only be challenged at great personal risk. In this way, cultural diversity becomes a liability and is gradually purged from the market. Central to globalization is the compression of the world. This transformation has occurred through both the imposition of cultural ideals and the operation of the global market. Speed, standardization, and efficiency have become the new idols. The movement of capital, goods, and personnel from one place to another is the centerpiece of the modern world. Uniqueness and diversity impede this activity and must be minimized, unless these traits can be controlled and integrated into a marketing plan. They diversity is not threatening but useful and something that should be tolerated. Some time ago, Herbert Marcuse described this approach to diversity as "repressive toleration." In this regard, the world has become smaller but not any more intimate. The trend is under way to establish a global society, with few authentic cultural enclaves and other sources of resistance. Movement is thus streamlined and persons are replaceable. But none of this change is thought of as repressive. Quite to the contrary, most persons have been convinced that the elimination of uncertainty is beneficial, something that enhances the quality of life. In fact, spontaneity and creativity are experienced mostly vicariously, through television advertisements and other flights of fantasy, and should remain sequestered from the serious business of accumulating wealth and becoming secure. As Baudrillard argues, the modern world has become a "simulacrum" - a model of itself (Baudrillard 1983). Indeed, social process continue to become fancier, more refined, and, of course, very efficient. The "final touches" are being applied to almost every product and service. But at the same time, daily existence seems to be harder to navigate and more difficult to survive. In many ways, the human element has been left behind, submerged further in the most recent machinations of economic necessity and social regulation. In this scenario, the globe is more tightly integrated than ever before, while the resulting connections are purely systemic rather than human. The use of the term simulacrum at this juncture suggests that the world is an object to be worshiped, rather than a site where experiences are exchanged and order is negotiated. The Rise of Neo-Liberalism Serrano claims that neo-liberalism was introduced to combat the economic failures of the 1970s (Serrano 1995: 23). Following the Great Depression, the work of Keynes was used to guide the growth of capitalism. An important part of his thesis is that both the government and the market are important elements in fostering prosperity. Keynes recognized, in other words, that the economy does not consist merely of an exchange system; equally important is the social side of economic life. And if capitalism is not constrained in various ways, the social components of the economy will become so unbalanced that production and consumption will slow considerably and disrupt the exchange process. Nonetheless, during the 1980s, the intervention recommended by Keynes was thought to be a liability. In fact, the capitalist system was believed to be affected adversely by this kind of meddling. As a result, different theorists began to be consulted to describe and analyze the economy. Names such as Hayek and Friedman became increasingly visible in academic and governmental circles. Most important about this shift is that the economy is portrayed to be devoid of social considerations. Accordingly, intervention could only disrupt the flow of information, goods, personnel, and so forth that occurs at the market place. The economy, in short, is transformed into an abstract system of circulation. In this regard, some critics believe that neo-liberalism and globalization are almost synonymous. After all, both have characterized the world in a manner that obscures social considerations that are becoming difficult to ignore in capitalism. The obvious impoverization and marginalization of minority groups, for example, are obvious features of modern capitalist societies. Nonetheless, interventions that are targeted to ameliorate these problems are criticized as ineffective, and even harmful to these persons, and abandoned. In their place, faith is placed in the market to correct social inequalities and any accompanying maladies. Neo-liberalism, therefore, is consistent with the compression of the world that is central to the process of globalization. In each case, cultural diversity has no role to play in the efficient management of a society. This need for homogeneity at the market place is actually an outgrowth of Hayek's philosophy, despite his claims to the contrary. A close look at Hayek's thesis about "spontaneous order" reveals that spontaneity should be strictly controlled at the market place. Market stability is insured, in other words, by instilling in traders basic norms and values about profit and loss. Diversity is fine, in Hayek's view, unless these economic fundamentals are threatened. And if the economy faces this sort of challenge, further cultural compression should be inaugurated. Clearly establishing a causal relationship between globalization and neo-liberalism is impossible. In actuality, they support and reinforce each other. The final product of each system, however, is a very sterile image of society, whereby cultural and other particularities are replaced by technical, communicational, or regulatory mandates. In theory, at least, removing restrictions from these systems allows wealth to flow freely and circulate to everyone. Nonetheless, if social factors are given credence, a different story may emerge. The distribution of income and wealth, for example, will be exposed as extremely concentrated and very problematic. For this reason, both systems must remain acultural and thus ahistorical. Serrano and Neo-Liberalism Initially, Serrano provides a straightforward Weberian critique of neo-liberalism. In this sense, he argues that the market has become autonomous, "an ontological category," (categor’a ontológic‡) and guides the development of capitalism in an extremely rational manner (Serrano 1995: 27). Because the market epitomizes rationality, this economic system is touted to be moving gradually toward equilibrium and perfection. Flaws may currently exist, but these imperfections will be corrected at the market place. And because reason is unbiased and unforgiving, any attempts to manipulate or skirt the market place will be detected and rejected. After all, without passing through the crucible of reason, an idea or product is not properly tested and will not receive serious attention. Serrano refers to this idolization of the market as indicative of "totalitarian capitalism" (1995: 27). Also, similar to Weber, Serrano argues that this elevation of reason diminishes all other values. Questions pertaining to justice or fairness is either resolved at the market place or they are not addressed at all. As a result, a very technical but na•ve picture of social existence is provided. What this model overlooks are what he call the "structural contradictions" (contradicciones estructurales) and social conflicts that are ubiquitous to capitalism (1995: 39). He argues that the "structural causes" (causas estructurales) of poverty, for example, are ignored. Failure at the market place, and the accompanying marginalization, is the result of personal shortcomings rather than discrimination or exploitation based on class or race. Unless tampering occurs, natural selection is brought to fruition at the market place. Though in the short run the market may be nasty, overall social improvements are inevitable. Of course, Serrano rejects the neo-liberal focus on the market. He believes that a host of issues related to justice and social welfare are obscured at the market place, because they cannot be neatly condensed and processed as a cost/benefit ratio. Social life, notes Serrano, cannot be reduced to an algorithm without a serious loss of information and distortion. In this regard, he claims that social existence in Latin America in general, and Nicaragua in particular, will not improve until far-reaching institutional reforms are undertaken. As Serrano is fond of saying, a sound economy cannot be built on an unstable and unfair society (1995: 42). But changes such as these are seldom a part of the agenda that sustains the market place (1995: 39-40). For the most part, Weber would not disagree with Serrano's conclusions about market rationality obscuring the social contract (1995: 42). In a very important respect, however, Serrano deviates from Weber. That is, he stresses that the market is not autonomous but is grounded in culture. Although at times Weber alludes to this connection, he does not go as far as Serrano and link reason to praxis (1995: 11). Due to this theoretical maneuver, Serrano is in a position to describe anew the relationship of persons to the market. Most important is that they are not subordinate to this method of coordinating behavior. Now the possibility exists that persons can organize themselves, rather than rely on autonomous forces. In other words, if market relations are a human invention, perhaps these associations can be re-articulated in a more humane form. Individualism, for example, does not have to be atomistic and anathema to community. Serrano hopes that many of the social themes that have been monopolized by the market, such as individualism and interaction, can be made more compatible with democracy (1995: 36)1. In this way, the market will be in the service of humanity, instead of generating alienation among the citizenry. The problems that Serrano face are his inconsistencies with regard to supplying an alternative philosophy to laissez-faire. At various places throughout his work he describes social order in a manner that is consistent with so-called continental philosophy, particularly postmodernism. Nonetheless, at others, he perpetuates the prevailing misconception that this philosophy either supports capitalism or undermines culture and creates chaos. Yet there is a third rendition of postmodernism that can also be found in his writing, but has received scant attention. This last version, moreover, may be the philosophy Serrano needs to substantiate the image of social life he finds desirable. The Three Faces of Postmodernism Typically postmodernism has been divided into two camps (Smart 1990: 14-30). The first has been labeled accommodative, and is the version criticized by writers such as Jameson and Eagleton. In this mode of postmodernism, emphasis is placed on fragmentation, difference, and uniqueness. Because these traits are often synonyms for individualism, postmodernism is understood to be compatible with neo-liberalism. Persons strive to recreate themselves, accordingly, as novel packages that will triumph at the market place. Constant transformation and ever increasing novelty, in other words, are necessary for capitalism to expand and create more wealth. In fact, in the later stages of capitalism these changes must become more rapid and extreme. Postmodernism, in this sense, supports the survival of the capitalist economy when this system may be most ruthless but vulnerable to attack. The second option is the one that is regularly criticized by conservatives. These critics focus on what they believe are the dangerous components of postmodernism, namely deconstruction and anti-foundationalism. Due to these elements, social order and morality are thought to be undermined. If moral standards no longer exist sui generis, as postmodernists claim, society is condemned to devolve into relativism and chaos. Such a proposal may be radical, but is not very useful in constructing a more humane society. According to most conservatives, deconstruction amounts to destruction. Serrano has similar opinions about postmodernism. Nonetheless, his work is replete with postmodern concerns, language, and themes. The new approach he takes to describing the individual, cultural difference, and community, for example, might be called the third face of postmodernism. The heritage of this version can be traced to existentialism and phenomenology, in addition to progressive artistic movements, where importance is placed on authentic individualism, intersubjectivity, and collective praxis. For example, rather than atomistic Serrano understands the individual to be linked to others in the form of a multi-dimensional community. As he says, "universality should not assume the form of standardization, but rather the possibility of co-existence and interaction among social and economic interlocutors, which recognizes the existence and the legitimacy and necessary differences of the other (1995: 36).1 This portrayal of order has a very clear postmodern tone. What Serrano wants to develop is a fair society that recognizes the wide range of differences - cultural, economic, and social - that are present in Nicaragua. The phrase he uses constantly to describe this new situation is unity in diversity (Serrano 1993). He hopes that eventually a fair and just order can be established without the interference of either the market or the state. In postmodern parlance, this order is embodied and regulated through the direct co-presence of persons. Through the development of "participative societies" (sociedades participatives), he believes that barriers to fairness can be overcome and true democracy achieved (1995: 57). In these societies, persons manage themselves and outline the future they believe can be attained, instead of having their options dictated by a priori strictures imposed by the market or government. In the sense intended originally by the Yugoslavs, Serrano wants Nicaragua to be self-managed by the citizenry. Neither State nor Market A part of his program to conceptualize a participative society, Serrano challenges the metaphysics that is at the root of neo-liberalism. Specifically, he believes that the so-called "invisible hand" (el mano invisbible) is fictitious and disruptive. He contends this mechanism distracts persons from having to address one another and organize themselves (1995: 10). With this abstract vehicle laboring to secure order, why do citizens have to pay attention to this activity? As a result of the invisible hand and similar abstractions, persons are gradually transformed into atoms that no longer understand the idea of social commitment. This anti-foundationalist maneuver, however, does not result in chaos. He believes that in the absence of the old, abstract universals, new and more productive modes of integration can be discovered. In other words, the deification of the state or the market is not necessary to foster social order. Within what Serrano calls the "public space" (el espacio publico), a place obscured by the metaphysics of neo-liberalism, social and cultural differences can be negotiated and integrated without ever reaching a consensus (1995: 108). In a postmodern sense, within this sphere integration is possible without "totalizing" and reifying order. To paraphrase Althusser, a parallelogram of forces can be established without any one achieving dominance (Althusser 1970: 120). Through this recognition of difference, a social whole may be formed that is neither sui generis nor intolerant of dissent. Accordingly, like many postmodernists, Serrano is searching for a new social imagery that does not require the consolidation of human differences for order to prevail. For example, postmodernists have introduced the rhizome, systase, montage, and quilt as suitable replacements for the machine, organism, and system. Consistent with these examples, Serrano contends that unity can be extracted from diversity (1995: 122). Similar to supporters of collage, he argues that through the co-existence of cultures social hegemony can be avoided. As should be noted, a collage conveys meaning and a sense of harmony through juxtaposition and contrast, rather than superposition and hierarchy. In the end, Serrano hopes that eventually Nicaragua will embody "the convergence of multiple [cultural] determinations" (la convergencia de multiples determinaciones); he wants his society to diversify officially without concern for so-called economic or political necessities that he maintains have been unduly deified (1995: 134). Conclusion Despite his reservations about postmodernism, Serrano borrows from this philosophy in several ways to contribute significantly to the on-going discussion about globalization. First, he illustrates that the market represents merely a particular mode of discourse about how society should be organized. The market, therefore, does not represent the end of history, but is simply a descriptive device that has serious flaws (Serrano 1991: 9). Accordingly, Serrano's critique of globalization is not restricted to the usual strategy of merely tinkering at the margins of the market. With this new freedom, he is able to offer a wide range of institutional reforms that will enable citizens to manage their institutions directly and make them more inclusive. And second, he provides new social imagery that is compatible with his desire for increased inclusiveness. Unity and diversity, writes Serrano, are not antipodes but co-exist. As a result, cultural and other modes of diversity do not have to be sacrificed to promote social harmony. Moreover, following this change in imagery, the reforms recommended by Serrano are not utopian and unreachable. His proposals are utopian only when the market is allowed to monopolize the discourse about how order should be engendered. Due to these insights, Serrano is not confined to treating globalization as something that is inevitable. Persons do not have to adapt to this trend, but can require that social change reflect human needs (Serrano 1993: 35). A new telos is thus at the basis of history - praxis that is self-constituted and self-directed. Rather than a trap, globalization is simply a unique combination of rhetoric and practice that can be eclipsed with sufficient inspiration and effort. Through his historical and theoretical work, Serrano provides his readers with a glimpse at this new world. Notes 1 "La universalidad no debe asumirse como estandardización, si no como posibilidad de coexistencia e interacción de los interlocutores economicos y sociales, lo que implica reconocer la existencia otro y de la legitimiadad y necesidad de las diferencias." (Translation by the authors). Works Cited Althusser, Louis (1970): For Marx. New York: Random House. Baudrillard, Jean (1983): In the Shadow of the Silent Majorities. New York: Semiotext(e). Serrano, Alejandro (1995): Los Dilemas de la Democracia. Editorial Hispaner. ------- (1993): La Unidad en la Diversidad. Managua: Editorial San Rafael. ------- (1991): El Fin de la Historia. La Habana: Editorial. Smart, Barry (1990): "Modernity, Postmodernity, and the Present," in Theories Of Modernity and Postmodernity. Edited by Bryan S Turner. Newbury Park: Sage.