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)
عودة السياسة
Loading...
审阅
4.7（21 个评分）
- 5 stars17 ratings
- 4 stars3 ratings
- 2 stars1 ratings
从本节课中
الهويات
الهُوية هي مفهوم يتوجب إعادة النظر فيه واعتباره بناء اجتماعياً وسياسياً.
教学方
Bertrand Badie
Professor
Marie-Françoise Durand
Professor
Jana Jabbour
Lecturer
[MUSIC]
Let's move now to the political nature of identities.
That's to say now politics is back.
When we talk about identities,
we feel that we're in a new world which is less political and
more, let's say, identitory.
That's an illusion.
Politics is back means that politics is still shaping,
structuring identities, and
especially on the international arena, in the world arena.
I mentioned in my previous lecture that identities was constructed and
was particularly constructed by political and identity entrepreneurs.
That means that identities play an important and
major role in the international arena because identities
have not only a particular substratum but are permanently manipulated
by a prodigal strategies, that's to say by political actors.
That's to say also that identities
must be considered as a part of political expression,
as a part of political mobilization,
as a part of strategy of political legitimization.
Expression, mobilization, legitimization.
Those three famous levels of the political
action must be considered as the different level in
which the identity's shoes are really involved.
The role of political substratum for interpreting identities and
competitions among the identities is a permanent factor of shaping and
reshaping of the international system.
Let's consider for instance the partition of India.
Partition of India was achieved, as you know,
in 1947 at the moment of the independence of the former
British Empire of India, the famous Raj, India.
In first look we can consider that this is an identitory partition,
that identity play a search role in shaping,
structuring these two states.
India and Pakistan, but this is an illusion.
It would be a grave illusion to consider the Indian partition
as result of two antagonist identities.
If we consider for
instance the founding father of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah.
Muhammad Ali Jinnah was a Muslim, but
he was not a radical Muslim, he was not a fundamentalist.
He had a very liberal and even secular vision of Islam.
The man was eating eggs and bacon, had his breakfast and was
also drinking whiskey and was widely emancipated
from vision of, a religious vision of Islam.
The problem of Jinah was not to consider that Muslims and
Hindus were not able to coexist.
His problem was to consider Muslims as a minority.
As a minority inside the Indian empire as
searched Muslims had no chance for
him to reach the level of power, of domination inside the new state.
And the only chance for Muslim people to rule the state
would be to share India between Pakistan and
India, that's to say to construct the famous two nations.
It was not for a religious reason, it was not for an identity reason,
but the real motivation has to be found in the minority status of Muslims.
That's to say in a political condition.
This political condition is probably one of the main
factors which have to be considered when we try to understand
these situations made of apparently conflicting identities.
And we have also of course to taken into account the strategies of the identity
entrepreneurs when manipulating, when instrumentalizing identities,
the political entrepreneur as a political strategy, that's to say,
is reaching a political goal which is generally
conquering the power inside the prodigal system.
So the two questions we have now
to settle would be first, what are the factors
of these identitary dynamics in the world order?
Why is it more active in some countries than in others?
And the second question is, what are the political reasons?
First, what are the factors of these political manipulation of identities?
Why this political manipulation is so high in some countries?
I think that we have distinguish four factors.
The first one would be the ideological collapse.
That's to say what we commonly call, the end of ideologies.
I'm not sure that ideologies are ending.
But my point is to say that there are some situations in which ideologies plays
a major role as was the case during the Cold War, for instance, the bipolarity,
and there are some other situations in which ideologies are declining.
When ideologies are declining, as was the case just after
the bipolar political collapse, the identity
plays a role of substitute when ideologies are no more mobilizing.
For instance, in Algeria after independence, identity is much more abled
to mobilize people than in a situation in which competition
is structure by the duality or the polarity of the competing ideologies.
The second point, the second factor would be the institutional collapse.
When the state is no more working, when the political institutions
are no more working,and that's to say are less and less legitimate.
Of course, people are prone to go to a culture and
ideology for finding a substitute to this absence of
political institutions and political organizations.
That's why when a state is collapsing
we can observe this interesting influence of identities.
The third one would be empire collapse.
Our world is made of several empires which are generally coming from very far.
That's to say our very
old are very strongly rooted in the history of the world.
I mean the Chinese empire, Russian empire, Ottoman empires and so on.
When an empire is declining or even more,
when it is collapsing, this is liberating,
emancipating identities which are not able to fix themselves through new nations,
and that is creating a very strong, very tough, very harmful competition
of identities like was the case in the former Yugoslavia for instance.
But the case now in Cacus or the case also
in Ukraine and so many other countries.
Because we know that the collapse of Russian Empire is a very
strong event which is really redefining the international and
especially the regional context.
The force factor is to be found in the integration collapse.
Integration, that's to say when international social integration is low.
It develops when people are determined
by high level of poverty,
low level of human development.
The reaction is commonly to go back
to its own identity and use it as an emblem for
protesting against this situation of law integration.
So ideological factors, institutional factors, empire collapse,
integration collapse.
All these factors are very important in our present world are playing a major role
for providing, to identity very
structuring role in the present international system.
What are now the results?
The results, now, are considered as something
which would be very close to anarchy.
We had with us the nation order,
a kind of harmonious coexistence among people.
Of course, sometimes this coexistence was moving to war.
But however, the national order was ordering,
was structuring the international arena.
Identities, and identity competitions is not really resulting in a new order.
And this is the crucial
point of the present international instability for many reasons.
Because identity is made of community terrorism.
And not made as nation was.
Not made of political programs,
of political vision of the city of the order
of the political order, of the political institution and the political structures.
Identity is a strategy of expressing
the self against the others but
which is not looking for defining a new particular order.
The second point, in that, identity does not consider alterity.
Identity, as I mentioned, is a vision of oneself,
but is not a vision of the others and
is not sating the question of how coexisting with the others.
The third one is of course the risk of transformation
of identity to radical identity and
to radical vision of identity and
to radicalism and fundamentalism.
But the main dangerous results is that
identities are not territorialized.
It's impossible to imagine an harmonious and
homogeneous city made of one identity.
This incompatibility between territory and identity is
the major difference between identity and nation.
Nation is made of territory of a territorial support and
especially as we mentioned in its political vision.
But identity is made only of ethnicity,
that's to say of cultural properties.
These cultural properties cannot be transferred to a territorial order,
that's why this association of the world is a kind of polar.
[MUSIC]
