European Union

On Alternative(s) to Neoliberal Globalization

From 17 to 19 June 2015, I attended the 14th Annual Conference of the International Social Theory Consortium (ISTC) “Reconstructing Social Theory, History and Practice” at the University of Cambridge, with presentation “On Alternative(s) to Neoliberal Globalization” on the 17th of June 2015.

First, the ISTC conference addressed reconstruction, deconstruction, as the past thirty years can been named Age of Deconstruction; and possibilities of a return of history, discussing, whether there are limits to the deconstruction project? Have these limits been reached? What are the possibilities for the “reconstruction” of narratives of long-term historical change? Is it possible to incl. and integrate the insights and contributions of various critiques of knowledge, while at the same time developing new forms of knowledge? Can we submit the project of deconstruction itself to deconstruction? Etc.

Return to history acknowledges history’s “continuing importance as a social-theoretical category and frame, considering [history’s] persistent utility after […] realizations, and accepting the fact that, by most accounts, history has not reached its end.”

“● How would social science disciplines benefit from new perspectives on understanding long-term change?

● What might, could and should a new philosophy of history – subsequent to so many “turns” – look like?

● What are the possibilities for practice in addressing social justice and democracy, with the benefit or in the absence of long-term historical consciousness?”

Second – The text of my presentation:

The Structure:

Two main premises:

1)  The philosophy of history could have had different development as it has today;

2)    Could there be an alternative or alternatives to neoliberal globalization.

Subquestions:

● Socialism (revolutionary socialism, reformist constitutional socialism) vs. industrial capitalism – as a starting point

● „Traces of moral thought“ and „religious injunctions“ influencing law (Klabbers, Piiparinen)

● Defining normative order (Klabbers, Piiparinen), political ideology (Heywood) and morality (Kant)

● Justifiability of law on moral grounds or on normative grounds (religion, social norm, cultural practice, etc.)

● Examples of different levels (Christianity-Judaism; Judaism-Islam; Marxism-capitalism; Soviet socialist law-capitalist civil law; structuralists-poststructuralists; poststructuralists-Islam; Western cultural practice-Islam; etc.) /The initial idea was to compare modernism-postmodernism, socialism-postsocialism, liberalism-neoliberalism, critical theory-positivism, naturalism-positivism, and then postsocialism-postpostsocialism, postmodernism-postsocialism, poststructuralism-postmodernism, neoliberalism-psotstructuralism, etc./

● Kant’s idea of international and cosmopolitan justice – perpetual peace – in the light of the previous

● The politics of framing in global (and EU) governance / agenda setting

● The role of a lawyer – drawing extralegal concerns into law?

● Who could decide?

Problems:

● Could legal history have developed differently if human thought had in history developed differently?

● Why could there be alternative(s) to neoliberal globalization?

For the structure, I have used the texts of Kant, Klabbers/Piiparinen in order to make my argument that follows in the body:

[I] most recently have worked with EU accountability, incl. political accountability

According to Aristotle, things have both: form and substance / content.

For better understanding political accountability, I first attempted at mapping politics, by mapping political parties at European level and in Estonia, which method – combined with history research – allowed me to estimate transformation of politics in Estonia. – Such research was oriented toward form / structure, and did not say much about political (party) ideologies, except making some conclusions according to the parties’ own assertions about their position on the political right-left scale, although my research also established that more important than what a political party says about its ideology, should be its actual behaviour.

My research also established – agreeing with Chantal Mouffe – that political party ideologies are not easily distinguishable in the contemporary World, because – and Mouffe names two reasons: 1) the right-wing addresses for populist aims left-wing arguments, whereas the left-wing uses right-wing arguments, and 2) there are certain concerns that all political parties would address, such as environment, women’s rights, etc.

Mouffe concludes that although it is dangerous phenomenon, because it limits choice – and, consequently, antagonism always remains and should remain into politics – today’s political parties mostly seem to have reached consensus at the centre btw. centre-right and centre-left.

Mouffe explains such as impossibility to find an alternative to neoliberal globalization.

Now, this was the turning-point for me, because it made me think about the history of political thought from different angle.

One example of antagonism is socialism that – as utopian idea and reaction – appeared against industrial capitalism, resumed by Heywood as having an aim to end capitalist economy and replace it with common ownership. Such development can be divided into: revolutionary socialism (that developed into Communism), and reformist constitutional socialism that turned into social-democrat ideologies.

I understand Mouffe’s conclusion about impossibility of finding an alternative to neoliberal globalization as a-kind-of stop in socialist thought, although neoliberalism refers to greater community / State influence in markets (and, thus, to socialist influence).

One has to take into account that reality exists independently of human cognition, even though humans may not identify it and despite our understandings of reality, which is an old description of the relation btw. objectivity and subjectivity (the latter being constrained in time and space too much to adequately understand and communicate objectivity.)

The relevance for law of the previous:

Jan Klabbers and Touko Piiparinen in book “Normative Pluralism and International Law” (Cambridge University Press, ASIL Studies in International Legal Theory, 2013), explains law as a social phenomenon, containing: “traces of moral thought” or “religious injunctions” detaining meaning and changing over time. They establish that also religions contain normativity, and define “normative order” as “normative control system” – signifying a set of related commands: “Do’s” and “Don’ts” that stem from the same or related source(s).

That way, normative orders are understood as wholes of norms of social control.

Based on understanding “norms” as “rules of behaviour” … whiches breach is accompanied by liability. For that reason, Klabbers and Piiparinen see law as a distinct normative order.

Similarly, religion can be regarded as distinct normative order.

What concerns morals, I would understand morals as quite a distinct from normativity phenomemon, because all human thought does not contain coercive capacity like law or norms. I would derive from Kant who explains morals also as sth. Developing through experience, incl. knowledge about different thinkers.

At the same time, law is related to political morals, ideologies and philosophical thought. We all live in politics – a human being is already by the very nature Zwv noLitikwov.

Schaffer has a concern related to that – if decisions in a society are not grounded in empirics and experience (for example, here lies an advantage of American sociology that is indexial), they can be dangerous, unpredictable, and even have disastrous consequences.

Unger if of opinion that law is an expression of political ideology – thus, the same applies toward legal decisions, and applies toward international law that regulates international relations – thus also social and political processes.

There coexist several normative orders, for example, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, in addition to law. Then, there exist different political ideologies, such as social-democracy, … And there coexist different moral theories, most recently, such as poststructuralism, postmodernism, neoliberalism, critical theory, etc., the latter do not entail enforcement mechanisms.

Although these all are not equal categories, one can bring the following examples: 1) while Christianity is centred around liberation, Islam and Judaism are centred around commandments, thus, prescribing for the “free will” how to behave for the benefit of the community and the governors – thus, Islam and Judaism can actually be considered political ideologies, too, although normative; 2) while Marxism favours nationalization, capitalism favours unequal distribution of capital; 3) while speculation under Soviet Socialist laws was punishable under criminal laws, regulation of resale forms a common part of capitalist civil laws; 4) while structures / forms are important for structuralists, poststructuralists consider ideas / content more important than form; 5) while poststructuralists justify human pleasure, some forms of it are forbidden in Islam; 6) while headscarves are not common in Western cultural tradition, they are prescribed for women in Islam. 7) One could continue here, and actually, before reading Klabbers, Piiparinen, my initial idea was to that way compare modernism-postmodernism, socialism-postsocialism, liberalism-neoliberalism, critical theory-positivism, naturalism-positivism, and then postsocialism-postpostsocialism, postmodernism-postsocialism, poststructuralism-postmodernism, neoliberalism-psotstructuralism, etc.

Thus – society (and law) have to deal with collision of norms, but not solely of norms, but also of concerns of real politics or justice.

Immanuel Kant – who has defined morals – advanced the idea of international and cosmopolitan justice – perpetual peace – being possible, when mature societies reach consensus in peaceful coexistence. All moral questions, according to Kant, are thought in a particular situation – thus “applied moral questions.” Kant also talks about inability to use one’s own understanding without the guidance of another, because various selves interrelate in a community.

Francis Fukuyama’s idea was that liberal democracies do not go to war with each other – and here, to my mind, the word “democracy” refers to consensus and “common moral character.”

Thus, it is relevant to relate law with morals, and in such context analyse historical development of moral thought.

Piiparinen claims that not only one but more spheres of authority are in control of the World – and they may all derive their authority from legal or other norms and theories, for legitimacy.

Still, my presentation derives from the premises that: 1) law should be morally respectable; 2) law should be in harmony with the society it aims to regulate; 3) law can have effects on the society if regulates.

Important is what are the individual moralities who should shape law (that shapes individual moralities) similarly to different normative orders.

Klabbers and Piiparinen explain such as the politics of framing. And to illustrate that, asks, whether the intervention over Kosovo should be judged by moral standards or legal standards?

For lawyers, such position of question is connected with legitimacy, meaning – if illegal, would one be allowed to derive justification from morals (which could be a slippery slope, because morals is fragmented – a comprehensive understanding of universal morals is absent, and understanding and interpretation of morals is subjective, depending on the interpreting person’s education, life experience, intellectual and cognitive abilities, etc.)

Klabbers and Piiparinen still conclude that if morally acceptable, an illegal practice may be accepted and even become new law. The same authors see the problem in drawing the line btw. morally justifiable and morally unjustifiable – which is determined by subjective people.

The problem is that if to question people, many would feel that there was a conflict btw. law and morals at Kosovo, but if to ask people to specify what kind of morals was breached in Kosovo, even the lawyers would have problems with finding the relevant arguments.

On the other hand, maybe such is not the task of lawyers at all – because a good practising lawyer is supposed to rather apply law as precisely as possible than to make a new law through interpretation (be it critical or not).

Then – where from and how to draw extralegal concerns into law? With the aim to justify illegal acts?

Because if every judge or other person applying law would independently justify by moral concerns – such could easily laed to a situation, where, say, judge A would justify a behaviour by poststructural “praise” of pleasure, whereas judge B would justify the same behaviour by Islamic understanding.

Could there exist a common understanding of which religion (if religion to be brought into play at all) or which morals or politics to follow in case law is silent or just does not seem right. (Could such be allowed at all, as by such law looses some of its authority.)

If still needed, could a “common frame of reference” be here possible for global governance? Because – according to Aristotle, democracy is only democracy if everyone feels s/he belongs, and no one feels oppressed, excluded or disempowered.

Politics of framing in global Agenda-setting.

Legitimacy is one of the magic words, justifying moral grounds. Hanecke who has interpreted Hegel, talks about psychological need for Recognition, and I would connect that somehow with legitimacy.

Then – can legitimacy take place of normative orders and morals, and if so – who would shape in media and educational processes the common understanding of situations? Who would guide communitarism?

Klabbers and Piiparinen pose such: Who would decide (for common people) what qualifies as legitimate?

The most reasonable way seems to find a reason from history of philosophical thought – and therefore, I would suggest History of Philosophy for the modern society to replace the position, Marxism had before its aims collapsed. Such common theory as one common frame of reference, could demonstrate how politics and law are always contextual and historically situated. There is no such thing as a purely original idea, but development based on previous developments, changing in line with changing contexts.

Not a small problem is that the so-called “Western” philosophical thought could not be understandable (and thus, acceptable) by the rest of the World, which means that if we base international decisions on Western morality solely, we might only be legitimate in the eyes of the Western part of the world.

I ended here, I did not explain, although in the beginning I intended to, why did I head my presentation as “On Alternative(s) to Neoliberal Globalization” instead of “On Alternative(s) to Neoliberal Democracy,” that could have demanded analysis of democracy and offering alternatives to democracy. As I could not think out more other than meritocracy, it was easier for me to talk about globalization instead.

Theory or ideology – as cultural artefact –may well be replaced by some other cultural artefact. This also applies toward neoliberalism. It is difficult to agree upon political action that could be regarded as “best utopian practice.” The question is how to reach an agreement btw. different multicultural actors on some basis of equality that applies toward democratic law-making procedures as sth. similar to Kantian theory of law describing all legal philosophies, while critical interests are only subjective and everyone’s critical interests cannot be the same over all history. I would not dare to say that sth. ontologically new should emerge, but development has entailed certain rules – a new development always builds on previous development.

Questions my presentation received (as far as I am able to de-/reconstruct):

-Is Mouffe arguing for de-antagonistic politics?

-Why did socialist movements emerge? And don’t they emerge anymore as capitalism is still criticized by socialist ideas?

-What is legitimacy?

-Doesn’t legitimacy mean institutional legitimacy? (I explained that L. has different dimensions and levels; in addition, today I started to think that L. probably may mean Hegelian “Recognition,” too.)

Other important questions raised:

The post On Alternative(s) to Neoliberal Globalization appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

On 19–20 June the European Board of National Archivists (EBNA) and the representatives of the European Archives Group (EAG) are discussing one of the main priorities of the Latvian Presidency of the Council of the European Union – the Digital Europe.

I would like to invite you to an informal meeting of the Heads of State or Government of the euro zone and the President of the Commission on Monday 22 June 2015 at 19.00.

Given the outcome of the Euro Group meeting on 18 June, I consider that we cannot wait until our regular meeting to discuss the situation of Greece at the highest political level. The current economic assistance program to Greece runs out in 11 days. The purpose of the summit is to make sure that we all understand each other's positions and the possible consequences of our decisions. The summit will not be the final step and there will be no detailed technical negotiations. That remains the task of the finance ministers.

I have also invited the Presidents of the ECB, of the Euro Group and the Managing Director of the IMF to join us.

The situation of Greece is getting critical. The current economic assistance programme to Greece runs out in 11 days. Four months of negotiations have not led to the necessary compromise. The Eurogroup meeting yesterday did not manage to break the deadlock. The game of chicken needs to end, and so does the blame game. Because this is not a game and there is no time for any games. It is reality with real possible consequences, first and foremost for the Greek people.

This is why I have decided to convene a Euro Summit on Greece on Monday evening. The purpose of the summit is to make sure that we all understand each other's positions and the consequences of our decisions. We need to get rid of any illusions that there will be a magic solution at the leaders' level. The summit will not be the final step. There will be no detailed technical negotiations. That remains the job of the finance ministers.

We are close to the point where the Greek government will have to choose between accepting what I believe is a good offer of continued support or to head towards default. At the end of the day, this is and can only be a Greek decision and a Greek responsibility. There is still time, but only a few days. Let us use them wisely.

Watch the video

On 16-17 June, the Document Lifecycle Management (DLM) Forum members met in Riga to discuss the information policy and governance issues in the European Union. 

Monday 22 June 2015
14.30  Meeting with Mr Bill Gates from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
19.00  Euro summit

Thursday 25 June 2015
12.30  European People's Party Summit (Académie Royale de Belgique)
15.00  Meeting with Prime Minister of Latvia Laimdota Straujuma
16.00  European Council

Friday 26 June 2015
10.00  European Council 

The #mindpower short film project dedicated to the 150th anniversary of Latvian poets Rainis and Aspazija visits the Spanish film director and producer Toni Marín Vila who reflects on how people are in constant movement.

On Friday, June 19, the Minister for Finance, Jānis Reirs chaired the meeting of the EU Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) in Brussels. During the meeting, the EU Member States expressed their views on the Banking structural reform, Capital markets union and other issues.

On 16-17 June 2015 the meeting of the Heads of Medicines Agencies (HMA) Clinical Trials Facilitation Group (CTFG) took place in Riga. The main focus was on the implementation of the Regulation (EU) No 536/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Clinical Trials on Medicinal Products for Human Use which came into force in June 2014 and will be applied no sooner than 28 May 2016.