حول هذه المادة التدريسية لكي نفسّر كيف أن العولمة تعيد بناء السياسات العامة والسلوكيات الاجتماعية، ندرس التبادلات والتفاعلات بين مختلف الجهات الفاعلة السياسية والاقتصادية، والاجتماعية - العامة أو الخاصة، الفردية أو الجماعية- والطريقة التي تعيد فيها صياغة العلاقات الدولية. هذه المادة التدريسية تعتمد على المقاربات السوسيولوجية والتاريخية الفرنسية العائدة للعلاقات الدولية. وهي متوفرة أيضاً في نسخة باللغة الإنجليزية (www.coursera.org/learn/global-studies)، وأخرى باللغة الفرنسية (www.coursera.org/learn/espace-mondial-fr)
مفهوم مستحيل التصدير
Loading...
来自 Sciences Po 的课程
"Espace mondial" الرؤية الفرنسية للدراسات العالمية
16 个评分
从本节课中
الدولة القومية
هل الدولة القومية لا تزال تعمل في كل مكان حول العالم ؟
与讲师见面
Bertrand BadieProfessor
Marie-Françoise DurandProfessor
Jana JabbourLecturer
[MUSIC]
State has something particular.
It the only kind of political system which is founded on rationality.
The legitimacy of the state is coming from its special relation to rationality.
All the other kinds of political system are different.
Some of them are based on tradition some others on charisma but
State is consider first of all as a rational expression of the particle order.
For this reason State is supposed to be universal for
this reason State must be extended in all the parts of the world.
Even if cultures, histories,
social structures are quite different from the Western model.
This exportation.
Of the state model took place in America,
toward America during the 19th century.
And towards Africa and Asia with the de-colonization process.
If we take into account the American adventure the process
was rather successful for a very clear reason.
The main culture in America in North America and
South America is coming from Europe.
And the main state builders In all the parts of America,
we're trained as Western leaders.
And we're really trained by the Western cultures.
They.
Now, it's quite different for the African and
Asian case for many reasons and
I would just point three reasons.
The first is a question of temporality.
The colonization implies to build a political system, the definite
political system, the sovereign political system, in a very short time.
The time of the colonization is quite different
from the time of state building in Europe.
Keep in mind that the European, the Western nation state was built
according to a long process which lasted several centuries.
Probably from the end of the middle age to the 19th century but
Africa and Asia and in these continents,
those countries which were decolonized
didn't have centuries for building their own prodigal system.
They didn't have even some years they had
I would say some minutes, those minutes of the independence.
The second reason, the second factor is of course the Western Culture in
Germany which was very important,
clear, obvious, dense during the colonial period but even or
so at the time of decolonization.
That's to say, the only model that the leaders
of independence had in mind was the Western model.
And for a nationalist, an African nationalist, or
an Arab nationalist, The political model that
they had to implement was obviously the Western state model.
The third reason is a reason of political hegemony,
that's to say to admitted in the international
arena In the second part of the 20th century.
That's to say the very moment of the colonization implied to
introduce itself as a state, as a formal state if
a new political system wanted to be admitted at the UN,
it had to present the main attributes
of the classical traditional western mother of state.
These reasons
transformed the state builders into importers.
And this probably one of the main features and
the main ambiguities even one of the main of contradictions of decolonisation.
It's a contradiction because a state builder was strongly a nationalist and
however He had to build in his society,
in his culture a political system which was
imitating the political system of the colonial power.
This strong contradiction, Is probably at the basis
of the process which took place during decolonization.
These importers were, all of them, socialized
by the Western culture Through Christian missions.
And you know how Christianism in Africa contributed
to socialize and offered to train the new leaders.
Like Julius Nyerere in Tanzania in Tanganyika this time.
Or for instance Fulbert Youlou in the French Congo.
Or the best nationalist leader
Michel Aflak one was trained in the Christian school,
so Christianism is an important agent of this importation.
The second one is Western universities,
that's to say the main nationalist leaders, went to
Western universities for being trained Nehru,
the great Indian Nationalist leader was trained in Cambridge
or KwameN'krumah which is considered as
one of the main progresses and anti Western leaders of Africa.
And was the first president of Ghana, was trained in Lincoln University in U.S and
this is probably one of the main bases of this contradiction.
That's to say the nationalist ideology in Africa and
in Asia was learnt In Western universities and
what shape according to the main structure of meanings
which are the characteristic of the Western culture.
The third [INAUDIBLE] was the Western Parliament most of these leaders
seated in the French or British Parliaments, where they were trained,
like the Ivory Coast leader, Houphouet-Boigny,
who was even a minister in the French government of the.
Or Mamadou Dia and Leopold Sedar Senghor in Senegal and so on.
And the fourth agent of socialization are the Western parties.
Socialist party, communist party which played a very
important role in socializing sequence in
was attending the congress of tool in 1920
in which was created the french communist party.
And we can add also or
[FOREIGN] who were trained in France
round this communist environment.
These importers were triggering two kinds of importation,
what I would call the conservative modernization and
what I would call the revolutionary modernization.
Conservative is
a way for keeping the throne for the traditional princes
who were at power formally or informally during
the rule and will try to save the throne and their crown
by importing some lemons of this Western culture for
consolidating their power and for bearing these new independents.
In the case of the Meiji Japan, in the case of Ottoman Empire,
which was westernized along the 19th century
for reinforcing an Ottoman power,
which became more and more fragile.
It decays of Persia.
It decays of Siam,the former, which was after Thailand.
It decays of Burma, and so on.
And the revolutionary modernization Is the same importation,
but not for consolidating traditional legitimacy, but
for breaking with traditional legitimacy and for
building a state on the basis of a new legitimacy which was an imported one.
And this is another paradox that's to say the revolutionary modernization
implied the mobilization of the traditional
elements of the Western culture for breaking with the traditional elements of
the traditional order in Arab or African societies,
as the case for instance of Nasser in Egypt or the Basque party in Syria or
in Iraq or the FLN in Algeria and so on.
Ladies and gentlemen, I said the question.
Can these imputation be successful.
Is it possible to import a state as someone would import
a plant, factory of cars or
of different kinds of economic activities, of course not.
This importation was widely a failure.
It's a failure because these imported institutions were not legitimate.
It's very difficult to conceive the legitimacy of a political order,
which is not generated from inside, but which is imported from outside.
That's why in the new states in Africa or
Asia and especially in the Arab world the civil society and
even the traditional civil society appears nowadays
as more legitimate than the prodigal power.
Because the prodigal power seems to import structure of meanings coming from abroad.
And in this situation power is getting authoritarian.
The less a power is legitimate the more it's authoritarian, and
this is probably the main source of authoritarianism that we
can find in newly independent countries.
And for these reasons or so this power
is effected by a strong extraversion that's to say
why they are not legitimized inside they have to look for
outside some new resources.
That's why this new leaders are particularly more dependent on
powers and western powers, also eastern powers.
This is also as we will see later, one of the sources of collapsing state
and of war societies that we can observe.
In Africa or they are in world elimination.
That's why this contradiction
between the state coming from abroad and
oppression coming from the local society
is one of the main features of this new world and
this new age, North vs South.
[MUSIC]
