How do they define “cultural regionalism”?

I would change the word “is” to “can be”.

Regionalism may lead to globalization, but it is not a foregone conclusion that it will.

I think your assumption is that regionalism already implies some loss of local cultural identity (to be part of the region), and that the steps from there are unstoppable. I disagree with that.

Presumably, cultural regionalism is supposed to be a social parallel to economic regionalism. So if economic regionalism entails two separate areas tying themselves together economically without necessarily giving up their own local economy or joining some larger (e.g., global) economic system, then cultural regionalism would be something like two separate areas coming to share some cultural elements without necessarily giving up their own local culture or assimilating into some larger (e.g., global) culture.

In other words, cultural regionalism is when area A and area B have their own respective cultures A and B, but there are also some cultural elements that are not just shared, but that rest on some relationship between A and B (call them AB elements). So a person in A may not share or participate in culture B, but they can relate to (and partially identify with) people from B because they share whatever is in AB.

If that’s the case, then consider a world in which only areas A and B exist. If they managed to establish the same sort of relationship that would count as cultural regionalism in the real world, then that relationship would constitute full globalization in a world where they are the only two cultures. In other words, the difference between regionalism and globalization is scale.

Therefore, globalization in the real world (where there are more than two cultures) is really just an iterative process in which A and B create AB, C and D create CD, E and F create EF, G and H create GH, and so forth until we get AB and CD creating ABCD, EF and GH creating EFGH, and then ABCD and EFGH creating ABCDEFGH, and on and on until everyone is connected.

At least, that’s a plausible argument that could be made in the context of a debate.

@elbanditoroso It’s a school debate. The claim that is being argued for or against cannot be changed, even by just a couple of words.

I think it’s crucial to first define terms (both “cultural regionalism” and “globalism” clearly. If you don’t, listeners may tend to wonder what you mean and/or invent their own inaccurate ideas about what you’re suggesting. It’s common for people who don’t know what you mean exactly, to think of arguments why what they guess you mean, is incorrect.

My sense is that “cultural regionalism” means either formal regional agreements between governments (and/or communities/ethnicities/religions/groups) in a region, and/or a popular sense of shared identity, community, shared interests and cooperation. And the idea of globalism is hopefully something like that too. So it could be argued that transition from one to the other might be naturally possible by first including a few nearby communities and nations, after which adding more communities and nations, and even all nations and communities, might be more natural and workable.

On the other hand, I’m still not entirely sure what you mean, and I know some people may tend to mean very different and negative things when they say “globalization”, such as the sense that there is some movement or even conspiracy to impose control on the entire planet and dissolve the rights of countries or religions to self-govern, or to retain their values and identity.

@Zaku so I am thinking of regionalism in terms of the Arab League etc. I’m not even sure what cultural regionalism specifically means. I guess cultures associated with regional blocs. And then globalisation as the world becoming more interconnected. I just can’t think of a reason why the culture of one bloc would help accelerate globalisation. Thank you so much for your help by the way you are saving my skin because my teacher picked this topic to test if I was up to it lol (clearly not)

@SavoirFaire thank you so much! that was so helpful. I think I understand your point as basically cultures make other cultures. I could probably use an example of an A and B culture as the cold war. Do you know of any ways I could link this to regional blocks like NATO and the Arab League? You’re answer is so helpful by the way thank you! Sorry I sent this in two seperate places not sure how you normally see it!

@elbanditoroso thank you! I agree with you but I have to debate in favour which feels impossible to be honest haha

@amelie124 good luck, then.

@elbanditoroso @Zaku @SavoirFaire I have thought of a way to answer the question at last! If you have a few minutes to spare to read and respond to this I would be so so so grateful. I have found a way to see my opponents points. They are arguing ‘cultural regionalism is a stumbling block in the process of globalisation’. Her points are:

1. Cultural regionalism hinders cultural globalisation, because if a region is only sharing cultural values within their own borders, then cultural homogenisation isn’t happening. For example, the Pacific Islands Forum was formed to resist the influence of Westernisation and work in the interests of their own cultural values instead.

2. Cultural regionalism hinders technological globalisation. If countries start to only work in their own culturally similar regions and refuse to engage with the rest of the world it can hinder technological advancements. An example of this is the fact that the UK now has no part in the EU’s Galileo satellite system project due to Brexit, a referendum that was mainly decided by people who didn’t want to be part of the EU, as it’s becoming more politically and culturally regional.

3. Political globalisation – countries with similar cultural values are far more likely to create closer connections because of it. The EU has been able to become a political regional organisation due to the fact that the majority of its member states hold the same liberal values as each other.
The growing strength in regional bodies/agreements have undermined the influence of international organisations when solving global issues. In many countries throughout the pandemic it hasn’t been the WHO organising vaccine dispersion, but regional bodies such as the African Union and the EU. This shows how many countries have more trust in regional agreements rather than global ones.

4. Economic globalisation – the majority of regional trade agreements are agreed due to cultural or geographical similarities. In the case of ASEAN it’s geographical, but for the Arab League it’s more cultural – with the countries in the area wanting to be able to compete against the Western powers. Therefore, cultural regionalism hinders economic globalisation as many regions will have lower taxed trade between themselves, which is the opposite of the economic globalisation idea of having a global free market.

Is there any chance you have any hints or tips on how I could counter these arguments? Or any suggestions that favour the idea that cultural regionalism is a stepping stone in the process of globalisation? You’re help is appreciated so so so much!

All of her arguments make the assumption that those are desirable outcomes; that may or may not be true.

You can counter the EU argument by saying that several countries besides the EU have wanted to leave but are unable to, and that the a political union without a single economic system is asking for trouble (think Greece a couple years ago, when Germany was playing the heavy).

Same with Globalism and homongenisation. I think that you will see a lot of minority populations that do not want cultural regionalism, because it results in a reduction or watering down of that group’s historical (and often religious) identity.

My argument against regionalization is that it tends to take decision making out of the hands of the local people who have to live with it, and puts it in the hands some other entity that is less likely to respect local needs. Look at the EU for an example of new level of government that has really taken away autonomy from the member states.

I would play that up – in theory regionalization is like socialism, in that it sounds good. But in practical life, it turns out to be negative and dehumanizing.

One approach to argue against that general thesis, is to point to the changes that have occurred in historical examples. If they’re arguing about the limitations of the EU and Brexit, you might compare what Europe was like before the EU, and how much has changed in the direction of “globalization”, and what relations between Europe and the rest of the world were like before and after the EU… but of course one would need solid definitions of terms first.

The term “globalization” seems to be easier to find definitions for than “cultural regionalism”, but the definitions even for that term differ from each other significantly:

* “the development of an increasingly integrated global economy marked especially by free trade, free flow of capital, and the tapping of cheaper foreign labor markets”

* “Globalization means the speedup of movements and exchanges (of human beings, goods, and services, capital, technologies or cultural practices) all over the planet.

* “the process by which businesses or other organizations develop international influence or start operating on an international scale.”

* “Globalization is [...] the growing interdependence of the world’s economies, cultures, and populations, brought about by cross-border trade in goods and services, technology, and flows of investment, people, and information.”

I would start with studying this Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/globalization/

Which says in part:

“In contemporary popular discourse, globalization often functions as little more than a synonym for one or more of the following phenomena: the pursuit of classical liberal (or “free market”) policies in the world economy (“economic liberalization”), the growing dominance of western (or even American) forms of political, economic, and cultural life (“westernization” or “Americanization”), a global political order built on liberal notions of international law (the “global liberal order”), the proliferation of new information technologies (the “Internet Revolution”), as well as the notion that humanity stands at the threshold of realizing one single unified community in which major sources of social conflict have vanished (“global integration”). Globalization is a politically-contested phenomenon about which there are significant disagreements and struggles, with a growing number of nationalist and populist movements and leaders worldwide (including Turkey’s Recep Erdoğan, Poland’s Jaroslaw Kacyzńki, Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, and US President Donald Trump) pushing back against what they view as its unappealing features. Fortunately, recent social theory has formulated a more precise concept of globalization than those typically offered by politicians and pundits. Although sharp differences continue to separate participants in the ongoing debate about the term, most contemporary social theorists endorse the view that globalization refers to fundamental changes in the spatial and temporal contours of social existence, according to which the significance of space or territory undergoes shifts in the face of a no less dramatic acceleration in the temporal structure of crucial forms of human activity.”

As for “cultural regionalism”, I would challenge the debate instructor to offer even one appropriate and complete definition for that phrase. Say that (as I have) you have looked at over a dozen academic articles and books that mention the term, often in their title, but they all fail to define what they are talking about.

So starting with the basic and most authoritative sources, the Oxford English Dictionary defines “regionalism” as:

“The theory or practice of regional rather than central systems of administration or economic, cultural, or political affiliation.”
or
“A linguistic feature peculiar to a particular region and not part of the standard language of a country.” https://www.lexico.com/definition/regionalism

Which is a very sane place to start, and has almost NOTHING to do with whatever political science term the debate question seems to be alluding to.

Ask the instructor at least for pointers to where one might find a definition of that term!

@amelie124 I think that NATO is an excellent example. It started out as nothing but a military treaty based on a small number of shared interests. But over time, a whole set of norms has grown up around it, and the member states have come to identify with the alliance.

This doesn’t happen with just any old treaty. The UK is a party to the United Nations Convention against Corruption, but no one really goes around thinking of themselves as part of a UNCAC state or expects their leaders to affirm their loyalty to its central provisions each year.

But when the former President of the United States failed to affirm article 5 of the NATO treaty, it was big news both internationally and within the US. There is a shared cultural norm among the NATO states that demands new leaders reaffirm their country’s commitment to the alliance. So this little treaty has managed to create a few shared cultural elements (what I called “AB elements” earlier) for its member states.

But NATO also has an important relationship to the European Union. The treaty was basically the first step in Winston Churchill’s call for a “United States of Europe” (one goal of which was to make war between European states unthinkable—the same thing that Article 1 of the NATO treaty tries to achieve). It’s not a coincidence that 21 out of 27 current member states of the EU are also member states of NATO or that another four NATO states are seeking admission to the EU.

So in short, we arguably already have evidence of the stepping stone progression. The transition from unaffiliated states to NATO states to EU states represents a continued increase of integration, which is what globalization is all about). Just because there have been some bumps along the way doesn’t mean that regional organizations hindered globalization. And in fact, cultural regionalism may be one of the primary reasons that we were able to make it over those bumps in the road (as opposed to just all going our own ways at the first hint of trouble).

I don’t want to do all of your homework for you, so I’ll leave it to you to work out the parallel case for the Arab League. But I will point out that it’s main goal (“draw closer the relations between member states and co-ordinate collaboration between them, to safeguard their independence and sovereignty, and to consider in a general way the affairs and interests of the Arab countries”) seems to share a lot of the underlying principles of statements like “the Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations” (from Article 2 of the NATO treaty) and “the Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened” (from Article 4 of the NATO treaty). It’s not exactly the same, of course, but it suggests a similar trajectory.

I will try to address your most recent post about objections to your position tomorrow, but I hope this helped with the positive case for your position. Sorry if it’s a little long.