Rating: 
Summary: Great idea; poor execution
Review: Jihad vs. McWorld contains at its heart a very intriguing concept - the relationship between mass consumer culture and xenophobic subculture. Many significant modern events and movements can be explained in terms of the uneasy relationship between these two social phenomena. Unfortunately, the Jihad vs. McWorld paradigm is the most valuable part of this book, and you can get it by reading the title and back cover. On the inside, the book gets worse.One problem is that the author, while he has done exhaustive research, does not apply it well in his arguments. For example, he asks us to contrast the growth of two forms of alternative energy sources. He describes the growth of one by the increase in the number of kilowatt-hours of power it generated over several years, and describes the growth of the other by its increase as a percentage of market share over a different set of years. No meaningful comparison can be made between these two very different measurements; the author is comparing apples and oranges. Another problem is that the author occasionally meanders into interesting discussions that do not advance his thesis and which he does not connect to it. His discussion of Russia's post-Communist collapse is fun, but even he admits that circumstances there are so unique that the lessons to be drawn from it may not apply elsewhere. Finally, the author's writing style is frustratingly dense and pretentious. He hasn't met a ten-dollar word he doesn't like, and his attempts at poetic technique made me want to bang my head against the desk. This is not merely the nature of the material: astrophysicists have explained more complicated concepts with simpler language. The Jihad vs. McWorld paradigm is a useful one that I have found myself using as I think about current events. The author deserves a place in political history for having identified and named it. However, his elaboration of the concept leaves much to be desired.
Rating: 
Summary: profoundly wrong
Review: America's current conflict with Islamic fundamentalism has breathed new life into several nearly forgotten geopolitical metaphors,
including Samuel P. Huntington's notion of a "Clash of Civilizations", Robert D. Kaplan's theory of a "Coming Anarchy", and Benjamin
Barber's juxtaposition of "Jihad vs. McWorld." As discussed in earlier reviews, the first two, though problematic, seem to have some
legitimacy, but the third, Barber's, is only accurate to the extent that it is misunderstood. If by "McWorld" Barber meant the liberal
democratic capitalist nations of the West and meant by "Jihad" the totalitarian nations of Islam, then the image of these two worlds being
in conflict would be true. However, he means something quite different, and he is quite wrong. Barber's main concern is with something that he refers to as "participatory democracy" or "civil society", a kind of political system in
which each individual takes an active role in nearly every decision of government. He sees both Jihad and McWorld as threats to this
system, Jihad because it represents a cultural sectarianism "rooted in race" which : ...holds out the grim prospect of a retribalization of large swaths of humankind by war and bloodshed: a threatened balkanization of
nation-states in which culture is pitted against culture, people against people, tribe against tribe, a Jihad in the name of a hundred
narrowly conceived faiths against every kind of interdependence, every kind of artificial social cooperation and mutuality: against
technology, against pop culture, and against integrated markets; against modernity itself as well as the future in which modernity
issues. McWorld because it represents : ...onrushing economic, technological, and ecological forces that demand integration and uniformity and that mesmerize peoples
everywhere with fast music, fast computers, and fast food--MTV, Macintosh, and McDonald's--pressing nations into one homogenous
global theme park, one McWorld tied together by communications, information, entertainment, and commerce. In essence then, Jihad is a threat because it overemphasizes our differences; McWorld is a threat because it eliminates those differences.
Never mind the fact that the U.S., where McWorld is most advanced, would seem to have ample diversity as it ranges from Anchorage
to Honolulu to New Orleans to Miami to New York City to Boston, perhaps the oddest aspect of Barber's whole analysis is that, while
he dislikes both, he actually favors Jihad over McWorld. He does so because he thinks that the peoples of Jihad are at least likely to be
actively involved in their cultures, while the people of McWorld have become nothing more than passive consumers. But, at any rate,
Mr. Barber is less concerned with the clash between these two systems than he is with the clash between each of them and the
participatory democracy that he thinks we should have instead of either. There are so many problems with Mr. Barber's understanding of the world that it is hard to know where to begin and impossible to
address them all, but we'll try to take on a few of the bigger misconceptions. It may be that his biggest mistake is to view Jihad and
McWorld as anti-democratic forces when, in fact, they are precisely the aspects of democracy which conservatives have for so long
warned about. As far as Jihad, or sectarianism, is concerned, the Founders quite consciously set up a representative, rather than a direct,
democracy, with extensive checks and balances and express limitations on the power of government, in order to protect minorities from
what they well understood would otherwise be a tendency of the majority to impose its own ideologies and practices on unwilling
dissenters. Equally important, but less well understood, is the conservative tradition of criticizing democratic capitalism, not because it won't work,
which is the Left's view, but because it will work so well that unless we cultivate other facets of the culture, the great mass of people
will decline into a comfortable but meaningless affluence. It was the great Albert Jay Nock who perhaps put this best when he said : [Edmund] Burke touches [the] matter of patriotism with a searching phrase. 'For us to love our country,' he said, 'our country ought
to be lovely.' I have sometimes thought that here may be the rock on which Western civilization will finally shatter itself.
Economism can build a society which is rich, prosperous, powerful, even one which has a reasonably wide diffusion of material
well-being. It can not build one which is lovely, one which has savour and depth, and which exercises the irresistible attraction that
loveliness wields. Perhaps by the time economism has run its course the society it has built may be tired of itself, bored by its own
hideousness, and may despairingly consent to annihilation, aware that it is too ugly to be let live any longer. Nock's "economism" is something akin to Barber's "McWorld", a kind of unfettered consumerism. But where Mr. Barber assumes that
this consumerism is somehow imposed from above by all-powerful multinational corporations that manipulate the people, Mr. Nock
understood that, on the contrary, the people are likely to eagerly embrace this fate. We see here the fundamental difference between conservatism and liberalism; where liberalism proceeds from the assumption that Man
in the state of Nature was some kind of idyllic being, willing to share in the Earth's abundance while devoting himself to ethereal
pursuits, conservatism accepts that Man, in the absence of societal restraints and institutions, is a selfish being wholly devoted to the
self. Mr. Barber is correct that the McWorld we saw ourselves rapidly becoming in the 1990s was unlovely, but the fault lay with us,
the American citizens, not with some dastardly multinational conglomerates. No one was forcing us all to obsess over stock prices and
stock up on electronics and drink $4 cups of coffee. The burgeoning economy gave us a period of extravagant wealth and we chose to
indulge ourselves. Not surprisingly, at a time when the livin' was easy, other concerns--the political, the cultural, etc.--were shunted
aside while we spoiled ourselves rotten. I say not surprisingly because as a conservative I would have expected this behavior. Mr.
Barber's problem is that, because he expects people to behave selflessly, he must find a culprit to blame when they act selfishly. And
so, on the basis of little more than an apparently visceral dislike, he settles on multinational corporations as his villain.
[...]
Rating: 
Summary: Rampant Pessimism
Review: This book would appear to be timely and, not surprisingly, has been selling well since the events of 9/11. It's an interesting read, one which certainly caused me to think. What I think, however, is that I disagree with the author's thesis and the arguments he presents to support it. Barber asserts that "the epoch on whose threshold we stand -- post communist, postindustrial, postnational, yet sectarian, fearful, and bigoted -- is likely also to be terminally postdemocratic." This is a bold and startling prediction. He foresees the imminent and permanent end of democracy. If he is right, then we have every reason to be alarmed. But, happily, he fails the test. He makes some wildly bizarre statements, such as "the world has been sent spinning out of control." Really? It sure doesn't look that way to me. I see a world of increasing peace, harmony, cooperation, prosperity, and good will. Even the cataclysmic events of September 11 did not plunge us into despair and disintegration as their perpetrators had hoped. Barber challenges "the belief that markets ultimately defeat ideology", but the evidence he provides is anecdotal and based on transitory conditions. He derides "rhetoric that assumes capitalist interests are not only compatible with but actively advance democratic ideals". I agree that it may not always be in the short-term interests of business and markets to promote democratic ideals; but I would assert that in the larger scheme of things, influential capitalists recognize not only the pragmatic benefits of freedom and self-determination, they also cherish the inherent goodness of such values independent of their narrow personal economic concerns. Mr. Potter makes a great villain and serves as the perfect foil for George Bailey (in "It's a Wonderful Life"), but he is only a character in the movies, and that's not real life. Bill Gates, Jack Welch, Rupert Murdoch, and other business leaders are not evil, nor are they amoral. They are human beings, just like us. They have strengths and weaknesses, good points and bad points. We may not always like what they do, but to suggest that they are indifferent to the advancement of the human condition is ridiculous. Perhaps the most laughable statement in the book is "the collapse of state communism has not delivered people to a safe democratic haven." Tell that to the people of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Germany or even Russia. Would they prefer to exchange their lives today for the way they lived 15 years ago? I doubt it. More to the point, let's see how those former communist states are faring in 2025, and then ask them if they would like to go back to 1975. Even the former Soviet states that today are struggling will be significantly better off after another two or three decades of development. It is ironic that Barber challenges the reader to look beyond the apparent realities of the present, but he himself is guilty of interpreting the apparent realities of the mid 1990's as an end. He begins the book by stating "History is not over", then spends the next 300 pages unwittingly proving that he believes precisely the opposite. He views the landscape of world events not from the 30,000 foot level, but from the 30 inch level, unable to see past even the most transient phases of development. I find his outlook myopic, not to mention reactionary and conservative. Throughout history, there has always been -- and probably always will be -- a ready market for authors who cry doom. The evidence, however, shows that in the largest sense these pessimistic alarmists are ever wrong. The relatively steady progress of culture, civilization, ideology, religion, science, and technology has produced more freedom, better health, higher living standards, more education, greater prosperity, and better hope for the future. I choose not to fear the future, but to welcome it; not to decry humanity's accomplishments, but to celebrate them. The all but certain continuation of present trends will take us into a time of greater freedom, equality, health, prosperity, longevity, and well-being than we have ever known. Democracy is not on the verge of extinction, as Barber suggests, but is poised for sustained expansion. This, in fact, is what history teaches us: that our best is always yet to come.
Rating: 
Summary: breathtaking, interdisciplinary work
Review: Benjamin Barber has written a brilliant, breathtaking interdisciplinary work that will provide you with an answer when people ask, "Why did the terrorists attack us?"
The title is somewhat misleading, as "Jihad" refers not only to the Islamic holy wars, but to all wars waged by tribal groups or religious fundamentalists, even ones like Jerry Falwell. "McWorld," of course, refers to global capitalism, which the US markets to the Third World without the restraints and buffers which a democratic society has built in, at home. Barber takes pains to emphasize that he is not against capitalism, which he feels has its virtues; he is only against its vices which are unbridled in the world marketplace. In reading the book one feels that he "protests too much", as he acknowledges that capitalism now creates needs, rather than responding to legitimate needs, and turns citizens into consumers. He also points out that, while pretending to offer consumers more choices, it is the capitalist marketing that offers and limits the choices. In the US, one can choose which automobile to purchase; but to choose not to purchase an automobile is unrealistic for most people. Barber goes so far as to say that "consumer choices" really just amount to choosing which topping to have on that fast-food baked potato...Global marketing is not loyal to any creed, is not committed to any nation, does not addres the spiritual nature of its "consumers." Its sole aim is profit. World capitalism in the form of "infotainment" has spread American culture throughout the globe, often against the will of people in European countries like France, as well as in Islamic lands, and in communist China. This "infotainment" is often base, lowest-common-denominator stuff, which offends religous people of any creed. Third World people, including children, labor for 12 and 15 hour days for pennies an hour, producing clothing and household goods for the American market, as the megacorporations "farm out" their factory work, always looking at the bottom line: High profit and low expenditures....
Barber is optimistic that we can combat the vices of world capitalism and once more become citizens, by investing our time and effort in civic organizations, like schools, voluntary associations, churches and synagogues. He acknowledges that the people of Third World countries, and also the nations of the former USSR, must be patient, as democracies take time to build,and cannot be imposed by some fiat by some "nation-building" American president, or by the UN....My husband and I, somewhat insulated from consumer mentality by the groves of academia, are longtime community volunteers. Both of us have found this involvement to be satisfyingly worthwhile. Years pass for us without one visit to the mall. Decades of tv sitcoms have come and gone without my viewing even a single episode. We try to be "nonstarters" in the consumer frenzy, and although I am not as optimistic as Barber in his enthusiam that consumerism can turn back into citizenship, I do highly recommend his book.
Rating:
Summary: Progress vs reactionaries
Review: The title of the book may deceive some readers. Barber does not refer to Jihad as the supposed 6th pillar of Islam and call for a holy war on the Big Mac and the infidel Ronald mcDonald who corrupts Muslims as a new prophet who revelas his message in happy meal boxes. No. This book uses Jihad as a metaphor for reactinary movements that are looking ever more inward to their traditional cultural and tribal structures to fight the globalization process symbolized the world over by Mcdonalds. In short: Consumerism vs. Religious and Tribal revivalism. let's hope the world doesn't choose any of these options on the menu. The book is also an analysis of the new post cold war order and the anarchy that seems to be spreading. It's somewhat dated as it exagerates the threat from Russia, which is steadily improving and has become a staunch ally of the West almost to the point of joining NATO, while not emphasizing enough the threat of fundamentalism from the east and religious revivalism everywhere. I enjoyed it however.
Rating:
Summary: Same Old Tired Analyses
Review: While the overall thesis of this book is that Globalism and Tribalism are the major forces shaping our globe, Barber gives half of the book to dissecting and criticizing globalism, using tired and tiring lefty-academic criticism. The greatest offense of the rise of free-market economies, it would appear to be, is that the newly freed peoples of the former Soviet bloc exhibit the bad taste of embracing Western pop culture rather than supporting the elite cultural institutions of symphony, literature, etc. Barber, like the many left-leaning academics who have expressed similar views exhibit an implicit wistfulness for the good-old-days of Soviet censors deciding that the masses are too stupid to decide for themselves and must be protected from the insiduous influences of Disney, McDonalds, and MTV. So what if Muscovites would rather watch naked women reading the news on TV than atending readings of (now irrelevant) dissident poets? Professor Barber: get over it. Your type of cultural paternalism is alive and well only in that rarefied, artificial, protected-from-the-real-world environment of academia. Your Ivory Tower has no relevance to the rest of the world. I think I'll go have a Big Mac and watch some CNN so I can brainwash myself some more.
Rating:
Summary: Nothing new
Review: If you are new to the topic of global consumer driven capitalism this may be of interest to you but as a person with a good grasp of the topic, Barber's book provided no new insights. The relationship to "Jihad" as he describes the phenomenon of tribalism and religiosity was not well developed so it was just a bit more of the same ol same ol about what I would call "cultural impearalism". Also, Barber's affect for psuedo intellectual prose is annoying.
Rating:
Summary: globalization
Review: interesting book
made me think of our importing of ideas and cultural items into other socieities ina different light
i didnt agree with everything inthis book and i didnt know of all the references the author made(people) but it was written in a very intelligent manner
Rating: 
Summary: Dangerously Thought Provoking
Review: I'm a novelist with my debut work in initial release, a government instructor, and a social activist. I'm currently teaching within the California State University system, and I first read Barber's JIHAD VS. MCWORLD in its original release. It raises thought provoking questions about global capitalism. It also raises thought provoking questions about tribalism. Barber discusses these movements and their offshoots. He speculates on how they are and will influence the world in which we live. This book is important. I recommend it highly.
Rating:
Summary: Jihad and Cultural Creatives versus McWorld and Davos
Review:
Others have written good summaries of this book, so I will focus on bringing out one key point and recommending two other books.
The heart of this book, in my opinion, is on page 210 where the author carefully distinguishes between the Jihad's opposition to McWorld consumerism and development patterns, as opposed to democracy or other political notions.
All groups have their extremists and lunatics, and all groups have their bureaucracies and overly-rigid institutionalizations of past preferences. The one needs to be stamped out, and the other radically reformed--no matter what beliefs you aspire to.
Where I see the vitality and promise of this generation is in the possible energizing of the publics of many nations, including the nations of Islam, and public engagement of the core question of our time: what changes must we make in our corporate and consumerist behavior in order to, at once, establish both a sustainable model for the quality of life and choice we aspire to, while simultaneously establishing new forms of regional political and cultural accommodations that respect very strongly held beliefs?
There are two books that bracket this one in interesting ways. The first, readily identified from top-notch reviews such as appear in the Los Angeles Times, is Chalmers Johnson book, "BLOWBACK: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire". The second, less readily perceived, is Howard Bloom's "GLOBAL BRAIN: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century." ]
In a nut-shell, then, we are engaged in three world wars right now: one between cultures that cannot talk to one another because the necessary portions of the brain have been literally killed in the course of intra-cultural development; one between the political and economic manifestation of our respective cultures, between a politics subservient to corporations on the one side and a politics terrified of the religious zealot individuals on the other side; and a third war, the most important, the war that has not really started yet, between individuals and corporations over campaign finance reform and the consequent outcomes that can be managed with respect to politcal economy and political education.
|
