The problem of the globalizaci?n has been long time being one of the discussion centers already that worry and entertain more to the different intellectual centers from the western world. The problem has been taken to the word with diverse names and from diverse perspective, for example, like the dilemma between the “universalidad” or the “particularitity”, same that can be understood like a variant of the classic discussion on the relation between the whole and the part.
Also we can observe the subject from the perspective of the political philosophy, there one appears as the debate, that persists between us from the Greeks, on the best form of government and organization of a State, this is: how to organize in a whole the diverse parts that integrate it, as much those that are different as those that is equal to each other. In this sense one is with clarity that the problem with that we treated forces to us to reflect and to put in discussion the question of the equality and the difference. This implies that to speak of the concept of the globalizaci?n, from the political philosophy, it is necessary to make speeches on the equality and the difference. Then arises the question, the speech that speaks of the equality and of the difference he is other people’s to the equality and the difference? the one that elaborates the speeches remains neutral to this dualidad? It is here where patent is done to us that single is possible to speak seriously on the politician when it has been made previously, at least, a minimum reflection on the man and his relation with the language.
With the saying the way has been put in the open that I am going to follow in my communication when speaking of the speech that is made on the equality and the globalizaci?n. In this communication I will follow the following footpath: in the first part I will try to maintain the following ideas: 1) that the discussion on the possibility of the globalizaci?n is a variant of the problem of the relation absolutely with the parts, 2) that to think about ?sto from the political reflection that supposes the question of the justice meditates and, 3) that the discussion on justice not only implies the reflection on the equality and the political inequality, also it requires of the reflection on the equality and “the linguistic” difference. That is to say, can be neutral a speech that speaks on the globalizaci?n or it will always participate in the equality or the difference? In the second part I will look for to exemplify previous through a brief presentation and interpretation of novel 1984 of George Orwell, and will try to expose and to clarify the position that has the English writer on the problem of the speech of the equality. I will finalize my presentation with brief critical commentaries on the opinion of Orwell.
Election of author and of subject not is fruit of selection arbitrary, since, on the one hand, the problem of the equality turns out to be one of the central problems of all reflection that it tries to seriously investigate the thematic one of the contemporary speech on the globalizaci?n and, on the other hand, the speech on the equality is one of the central axes of the novel at issue.
The subject of the communication is complex, so I must recognize that only I will limit myself to give a small outline of the indicated points. The attempt is not superfluous, because it allows me to try one first presentation of the subject, where the error will be able to show me the way the truth.
In the presentation of this communication to afir me that the globalizaci?n is a subject that has been calling the attention for a long time to the intellectual world of the West. This must, among other many reasons, to that the portion of the world that we included with the term of “the West” it is advancing (or at least that is what it thinks and “says”) towards the other part of the world that, at first, was not included/understood in her. In this sense, which is considered like the phenomenon of the globalizaci?n (understanding here with it things like the incredible expansion of mass media, the interference of the technique in intimate and more and more ample spheres, etc.) it is only possible because there is a part that thinks that it is separated from the western world. Here it finds place the discussion on the possibility that some part exists that can remain excluded (not to say abandoned) and other people’s to the globalizaci?n, or if it is the case that in any corner of the planet is counted, at least, with some of the “advantages” that the man has obtained through his technology, and does not have where to take refuge of the technological attack of the West. But if ?sto outside thus would be some discussion on the globalizaci?n? The peculiar thing is that they are the men of the West, and those that have been touched by, who speak, discuss and make speeches on the globalizaci?n. Here the debate consists of deciding if the part is able to include the Whole. If the technology, science and the western economy will become world-wide, that is to say, global.
The way of this reflection took to think the question to us from a political perspective, in where it appears the problem of the equality and the difference to the light of the discussion on justice.I want to call the attention on the fact that the problem appears in the discussion on justice. ?sto is important, because with it it is not only revealed that the reflection on the globalizaci?n, whereas is political, is in favor half-full of the language, because it is through him since the speeches become that speak of the politician, but because in addition the language is the necessary budget of the politician. For example, in the scope of the politician where the reasons that causes that are discussed somebody is or it is not considered like a citizen of a determined State. Here the discussion and the agreement or the discord on the citizenship imply not only the reflection on the equality and the inequality, but that also it requires of the equality and “the linguistic” difference between which they discuss. I understand here by equality and “linguistic” difference, not the one that is spoken or to not same language it, but that in speaking is spoken of the same. That is to say, it seems that they are equal those that speak of the same and are unequal those that they speak of the different thing. That is to say, the reflection on the political equality implies the linguistic equality, because the necessity that is shown the hablantes speak of the same when speaking (to share the “same thing”, would say hermen?uta), so that it is possible the mutual understanding. This is the reason that allows me to affirm that the discussion on the equality and the difference in the scope of the politician (as in any other scope) requires that it meditates on the equality and the linguistic difference.
Now we can put in relation the previous ideas: the problem of the possibility of the globalizaci?n appears when we absolutely examined the subject like a variant of the relation with the parts. When analyzing the question from a political perspective appears the problem to us of justice and, with it, the problem of the equality and the difference (that, by the way, absolutely appears like another variant of the problem and the part). When we entered the discussion on the equality and the inequality, within the political scope, appears the difficulty clearly that “the linguistic” speech, that is made on the equality and the globalizaci?n, remains neutral. Now I will try to show the relations that exist between the three indicated ideas, exemplifying them with the novel of Orwell, to see what answer gives us with respect to our problem.
The English writer, George Orwell, in his novel 1984, made an interesting exploration and exhibition of the organization of the speeches that, according to him, allow to the government and the manipulation of the man. Its examination was carried out when exploring in its work which at that time was considered a totalitarian State. In the 1984 world the “all politician” is organized of the following way: three powers exist that to each other fight Eurasia, the Australian Continent and Eastern Asia. The social structure of the Australian Continent, where the novel passes, is divided in three sections: the one of the Outer Party, the one of the Inner Party and the mass it informs into proles. The principles of the world recreated by Orwell in 1984 are three: the “neolanguage”, “doblepensar” and the “mutabilidad of the past”. We will stop in these principles.
The mutabilidad of the past is possible, in the novel, because it thinks that what we know as last is to us the present in thanks to that the one is the language that allows him to remain in the memory of the men; ?sto happens, of preponderant way, through the oral word and of the writing. The linguistic presence of the past in the present is what allows to modify to the past. ?sto is obtained modifying the way in that it is pronounced the past in the language of the present, thing that can only be made when it is controlled the present. In they eslogan that it is reiterated throughout the text affirms:
So that the man controls the present requires itself to control to the language, because that dominates the language, he controls the present how is possible that of this control? It is possible to control the present from the language through two means: 1) by means of the creation of a language (“neolanguage” in the novel) in which, on the one hand, he is made disappear to the old words, because these can disturb the orthodox thought and, by another one, cancels the ambiguity of the meaning of other words, expressing concepts with a unique word, whose meaning is decided rigorously. This way one thinks that the reflection and expression power is limited which the man enjoys thanks to the language. It is clear that the budget of the novel is that the thought and the language maintain an identity relation, reason why the reach of the thought depends on the language that expresses it. In this case of limiting the language it is to limit the thought. When limiting the thought it is avoided what they call “crimental”, that is all that thought that leaves the orthodox limit (ortodoxia means not to think) established by the represented totalitarian regime in the novel.
The other procedure that allows to control the present from the language, is “to doblepensar”, concept that is dark for the reader of the novel by the multiplicity of its meaning. Doblepensar opens the access to the control of the reality, because it allows to modify the past, which is obtained altering what it is said or is written on him, at the same time in which the fact that forgets the past it has been modified. Flock the past and, forgetting the same act to erase, the lie is transformed into truth. The past, or what it is known the past, he is changeable. Once altered the writing only we have left the problem of the people who remember, which is fixed when these are annihilated. In the 1984 world it is possible to detect the men who remember due to the cancellation of the private life. It is a world in which the private life has been annulled. How it has been managed to annul it? Through the technology. The technological development suppresses the scope of the deprived life, which happens by two routes: 1) through the uniformity (ortodoxia) of the thought, product of the control of the public opinion and the expansion of the neolanguage, and 2) by means of the permanent monitoring through “telepantallas” (an apparatus that is fruit of the development of the television and that allows simultaneously to receive and to transmit the images produced before the machine); both routes must their existence to the technological progresses.
The homogeneity of the thought of the man and the human life is an indirect product of modernity, of the technological era. The technology by itself does not produce the uniformity of the thought, which produces it is the use that becomes of her, and for that it is for which it has been used, according to the novel.
For Winston Smith, the protagonist of the novel, the inequality has been the price of the civilization; since from the remote times but there have only been three classes of people: the Stops, Medium and the Low ones. These types of people have been named of diverse ways, but the personage thinks that the essential structure of the society never has changed. History has been developed through the fight of Medium and the Stops, first to raise and the seconds to stay. Whereas the low ones, although have participated in the fight looking for the equality, always have remained in the same place. In the novel the political conflict unfolds that always appears between the equality and the inequality of the man. In her the importance of the speeches stands out that on this conflict make the different regimes political. The thesis at which it points the novel is: that the spiritual decay and the technological development go of the hand. The technology allows simultaneously to present/display an invested world, in which the inequality settles down permanently between the men, that is hidden by means of the speeches on the equality.
In the world imagined by Orwell, the neolanguage, doblepensar and the control of the public opinion allow to hide the natural inequality of the human condition. The control of the public opinion, that is possible thanks to the expansion of mass media (cinema, television, press and radio), gives to the man the possibility him of homogeneizar the vision of the world, even though the same one is unreal. With the aid of the technology one spreads and the apparent equality between the citizens of the State appears. The technological and discursiva equality blinds the man preventing to see the real inequality him. With it the fight by the equality is avoided. The words of the language of the neolanguage mean, in fact, the opposite of which tries to mean. The meaning of the words is reversed like the world presented/displayed by the technology was reversed. The world pretends prevails on the real world, and in fact there is no a real world outside which the public opinion indicates like so. The speech of the equality allows to maintain the stability of the State in a world that is, by nature, unequal. The question is Happens something similar to the contemporary speech of the globalizaci?n?