…And why should we bother about ‘the Rest’?

Recently the Finnish member of European Parliament, Alexander Stubb argued in Helsingin Sanomat that Finnish foreign policy was shifting too much to the direction of ‘globalisation idealism’ instead of concentrating enough on issues such as transatlantic relations. Whatever the exact meaning of this globalisation idealism, this column is to argue that not only Finns, but also Europeans, should be more – not less – preoccupied with questions related to globalisation and critically reconsider the knowledge, especially in Political Science, that we hold about outside Europe and the United States.

Various authors, whether globalisation enthusiasts or not, argue that what is crucial about the ‘global perspective’ in general and within Political Science in particular, is the fact that it expands the notion of political. That is: in the contemporary world, what is political is not only limited to states, but rather is something like a challenge of the state. This is hardly anything new for students in the field of International Relations. However, it does not automatically presume or indicate that World Politics today is simply run by global governance or multilateral deals, even if we wish so, but it does consider and apply the stretched notion of what consists of political as an analytical approach. And this is an important factor for conducting research and policies. By recognising the shift into a world with boundaries of different nature than before, or indeed, a possible boundlessness altogether, it manages to capture better the political realities we live in and also the World Politics, in which foreign policies are constantly conducted. In my opinion, to pooh-pooh and belittle this analytical approach would result in serious failures in any enquiry of contemporary Politics.

Obviously this does not facilitate the complexities we experience in Political Science but it does shed a light on the processes, structures and phenomena in which political is constructed. According to Koskenniemi, for instance, World Politics today is characterised by fragmentation in which different political actors (not only those of states) conduct overlapping policies, creating multiple hierarchies and dispersed centres of power. What is interesting, as well as questionable with this is the possibility of leadership and action from surprising and unexpected parties. It can take the old form of power relations between states. Yet it is as possible that it will not: could it be that due to the insufficiency of this global approach we were so surprised by terrorism at this century? Or by the sudden rise of Asian Tigers? Was it all so sudden? Or did we just fail to realise these phenomena early enough?

On the other hand, this fragmentation, something that Wallerstein calls ‘bifurcation’, enables the devolving and transition of real power behind the scenes. Clearly again, a system with hidden faces of power enables the rise of a counter process in which legitimacy is questioned. An example of this is the crisis democracy faces today despite its global triumph in the last decades. Therefore, some authors have concluded that what we in Political Science ought to investigate is this dialectics between ‘top-down processes’ and ‘bottom-up processes’, as summed up by Robert Cox, that characterises the contemporary Politics.

Bearing this in mind, the shortcomings of the ‘realist’ state-to-state approaches become obvious. We need to take globality as an analytical approach as to capture political events and processes; the forms of power and power relations they are folding into. It is not only relations between or within states but phenomena and structures that characterise World Politics today. Political Science becomes a tool to unfold the concepts and also to create concepts. When lacking the global perspective, it is threatened by irrelevance and incompetence.

Finally, this takes on a special significance for Europe, including Finland, that has been wishing for a world rather multipolar than unipolar. We need an extensive acquirement of that fragmented world with its processes and structures. Having awareness of the United States and Europe, and concentrating on their roles in World Politics, is not sufficient enough. Stubb’s statement, as being only one among many, is limited to what we should treat as political at the 21st century. As the argument goes, it is absolutely crucial for the contemporary and historical world – for its political realities, and for Political Science – that the production of knowledge consists of every corner of the globe. Including ‘the Rest’. Call it ‘globalisation idealism’ but count me in. Since as a political scientist in this century, it would be a tremendous flaw not to be included.

Hanna Laako is a PhD-candidate in the program ‘Procesos Políticos Contemporáneos’ at the University of Salamanca, Spain.