這是倫敦大學金匠學院社會系講師戴米恩‧懷特在【工會、環境與全球化】研討會中的專題演講稿。按照慣例，漢譯在前，原文在後。
他在這場演講中，從對紀登斯Anthony Giddens第三條路的批判出發，提出了一些實驗性的思路，討論英國及其他地方的進步主義者應當如何矯正英國及歐洲內的全球化議題。
◎全球化、第三條路與紅綠政治：打造另類科技文化、民主全球化與另類現代性
戴米恩‧懷特Damian. F. White
倫敦大學金匠學院社會系講師
※導 言
過去十年來，人們如何理解、分析、與定位個人與全球化間的關係已經變成我們這個時代裡的核心政治議題。很明顯地，這個問題很龐大，它包含了許多重要的解釋性及策略性的問題。在英國，我們「紅綠研究會」的讀書會，已經討論這個議題有超過一年的時間。經由這些討論我們了解到，即使是我們紅綠份子（red-greens）內部，對於全球化的議題也有著許多不同的見解及主張；同時我們也深深受懾於全球化議題中有關實證及理論上的巨大複雜性。我相信各位在台灣也同樣會覺得全球化這個議題很具爭論性同時也很刺激。
那麼，到底「紅綠政治」(red-green politics)這樣一個從歐洲的角度來看世界的政治能夠對全球化的議題提出什麼樣的洞見呢？這些洞見又與所謂的「第三條路」如何區分開來呢？進步主義者該怎麼作才能一方面避免被邊緣化同時又能思考未來再主導這個議題的可能性呢？
在這場演講之中，我希望開始來思考這些問題。我將簡短地回顧一下紅綠思想起源的問題以及第三條路的紀登斯（Giddens）版本。我們待會會看到，這二者都是試圖在思考共產主義與戰後社會民主(social democracy)崩潰之後的左派未來。同時，這二者也都受到新左派政治傳統的啟發。然而，我要告訴各位，這二者在實踐上將會導致不同的結果。接下來我將談到第三條路的政治現實、它所擁護的全球化概念、以及它在英國國內為了反對那些所謂的「反全球化運動」而「組織編造」全球化論戰的整體方法。然後，在演講的最後，我將針對一個新興的問題提出一些實驗性的思路：英國及其他地方的進步主義者應當如何矯正英國及歐洲內的全球化議題。
我主要將提出三個論點。第一、（由於台灣已經對安東尼‧紀登斯（Anthony Giddens有所了解）我認為，若就英國的例子而言，事情已經變得愈來愈清楚，作為一個學術討論的第三條路（特別是紀登斯那個吸引人的形式，它常常把自己表現成是一個「重新思考社會民主」的過程），與作為一個實際政治的第三條路（事實上，像這種政治我們應該稱它為「新自由主義者的默從」(neo-liberal acquiescence)比較貼切）之間有著明顯的落差。
第二、我認為，儘管有著這個顯著的落差，在英國，擁護第三條路的政治家及其支持者們已經變成一股專在意識形態上排擠當前那些反對新自由主義全球化運動的最有效的勢力。它們的目標已經達到了：藉著把第三條路包裝成是在跟全球化過程作一個前瞻性、建設性、進步性的參與結盟，好把自身與那些退步的、反現代的、反全球化的運動有所區隔。我認為這個現象需要基進者(radicals)來審慎思考。
在演講的第三部分，我將談到在英國上述這個現象已經促使一些學者及運動人士來重新思考關於全球化的爭議。到目前為止，它仍是一個開放的對話，不過，在英國，我們可以發現，愈來愈多的人認為，我們應該把反對的對象（究竟我們是在反對什麼東西）說得更具體一點，同時我們也應該更努力思考我們可能會有什麼樣的未來。我相信，台灣的運動人士必須針對這些反省及行動作某些修正與調整，來配合他/她們所處的政治情勢及條件。然而，我在演講中將提到，長遠來講，反對新自由主義全球化的運動終將成功，只要我們的左派超越以往那個總是照著「所反的東西」來定義自己的政治。相對於用「在地」之名來反全球，而把自己弄成是一副科技恐懼症的樣子，或是乾脆將現代性的遺產讓給右派來接管，一個可信的二十一世紀紅綠政治需要從一個極為不同的討論來出發。很重要地，這個討論將談及我們如何能一方面反抗新自由主義的全球化形式以及新自由主義的現代性，在此同時，我們也能開始藉著發展一個民主的科技政治來收回、駕馭科技，並且也能開始想像一些另類的民主全球化以及另類現代性。
※紅綠思想：原始的全球第三條路？
現在請容我回到紅綠思想的根來展開我的論點。在許多方面，我們可以觀察到，若是我們思考紅綠傳統的根源時，那麼，很諷刺地，紅綠思想比湯尼‧布萊爾（Tony Blair）的計畫更適合來宣傳第三條路。
紅綠思想的根源可以把它定位於新左派的政治當中。新左派政治是出現在一九六○年代的美國、歐洲及日本。它有著許多不同的團體，包括民主社會主義者、環保人士、興起中的女性主義思潮、反戰人士、社區運動人士、人權運動者等等。儘管有著各式各樣不同的成員，我們可以這樣說，有一個共同的欲求把新左派的各個團體串聯起來：它們都試圖找到一條新的、基進民主的、平等主義的、以及生態的「第三條路」來超越東歐國家社會主義威權統治及西歐戰後社會民主的失敗經驗。
正如「不是華盛頓也不是莫斯科」這個口號所揭示的，新左派的「第三條路」試圖設想一個不同的政治。這個政治強調階級壓迫，同時也強調生態學、性別、族群/種族及性別壓迫等較新的議題；它強調經濟的不平等，同時也意識到社會宰制其實也可以來自於那些不能化約成經濟的機構形式及意識形態上的假說。新左派堅決反對菁英主義與先鋒主義，它也反對費邊主義及列寧主義中的核心主義，新左派在它最前進的形式中試圖發展一些新的、能預見及勾勒出新基進民主化社會之輪廓的參與機構、經濟形式、及文化。更廣泛地來說，新左派所捍衛的世界觀乃是一個有著基進國際化願景的世界觀，它跨越國家的界線與捍衛人權、捍衛勞工權、捍衛環境及捍衛和平的社會運動有著共同的目標進而團結在一起。
新左派在視野上及野心上都是全球性的。儘管它在一九六○年代末期分裂，不過，它的社會學及政治遺產卻是深刻的。許多第一波紅綠思想的核心人物如美國的Murray Bookchin及Barry Commoner，法國的Andre Gorze，Ivan Illich與Henri Lefebvre 以及英國的Raymond Willaims他們一方面是新左派思潮的形塑者，另一方面也深受新左派思潮的影響。一些社會運動如德國的綠色份子(German Greens)與現代環境主義者，與其他「紅綠」的形式都直接受到這個（新左派）政治運動的激勵及啟發。同時，一些英國新工黨(New Labour)第三條路的最活躍的學院捍衛者也引用了新左派的若干主題來發展他/她們的政治。這種現象也許在紀登斯（Giddens）身上看得最清楚。
※紀登斯（Anthony Giddens）的第三條路及實際存在的第三條路
過去這些年來紀登斯的思想歷經了許多的波折及轉型。他最近這些年所寫的兩本政治文本《超越左派右派》(Beyond Left and Right)及《第三條路》(The Third Way)值得我們來談談，因為這兩本書代表了學術界對第三條路的大眾看法。當紀登斯寫這兩本書時，他仍是把自己定位在左派的問題意識內。第一本書的次標題是《基進政治的未來》(The Future of Radical Politics)，第二本書的次標題則是《社會民主的革新》(The Renewal of Social Democracy)。在這兩本書中最值得我們注意的是它們對舊式國家社會主義與社會民主的國家形式之批判，這些批判其實有很多是新左派思潮的中心思想。
紀登斯在這兩本書中指出，一連串相互連結的社會過程已經進步地毀壞了當年舊左派出現時的社會學情境：舉其大者如，全球化的加強、去傳統化（在西方，越來越多的人認為應把傳統視為解釋、合理化自身而不是單看它的表面意義）、新社會運動所帶來的挑戰（女性主義、綠色運動），以及社會反身性(social reflexivity)的興起（個人逐增地暴露在新資訊面前，經由這些新資訊來行動，並試著根據這些資訊來打造一個「有個人特色的生命」。）
也就是說，照紀登斯的講法，我們現在生活的社會與以前那個左派出現的社會在社會學上來說已有著深刻的改變。既然社會的類型變了，那麼基進政治所倡導的也應該做類似的轉變。一九九四年時，紀登斯指出，新的基進政治需要一連串的改變。挑幾個來說：基進者需要一個新的民主化國家，需要進行一些新形式的對話型民主的試驗，需要一個更加民主化的家庭。同時，人們需要嚴肅地關心環境的議題，更廣泛地來強調風險、科學及科技的管理。他認為，福利國家必須對新時代做出反應，它必須變得更靈敏，更民主，更加注意改變中的性別關係，更加體認到其實消極的福利體系並不會創造出自主的情境，它反而只會加深依賴及被動的關係。
紀登斯許多關於「北大西洋外緣」先進工業國家社會變遷的社會學分析確實是重要且具有洞見。另外一個有趣的地方是，紀登斯在第三條路的思想中（照他一九九四年時的定義）開始發展出一套針對傳統社會民主的批判，這些批判與紅綠所做的批判有許多類似。然而，到了一九九八年，在《第三條路》這本書中，紀登斯卻大幅降低了他之前所做的承諾，他現在大力強調市場的重要性，並把自己放在一個「基進中間」(radical center)的位置。
因此，他一九九四年所提出的社會民主改革連一點也不剩了，取而代之的是他逐漸高舉安格魯薩克遜模式的資本主義。正如Duncan昨天所講的，在許多方面這只是反應了新工黨向下沉淪的確實道路。湯尼‧布萊爾的政治，或者我們該這麼說，湯尼‧布萊爾實際的第三條路，其實是一個相當粗糙的意識型態，它等量混合了新自由主義的市場基本教派、科技決定主義、以及現代化理論這三樣東西，事實上它根本沒有執行新型的「聰明社會民主」(smart social democracy)。歐洲社會民主的優點（課較高的稅金、更多的福利體系及公眾基礎發展）被它揚棄，美式的資本主義逐漸地成為整個英國學習的對象。正因為如此，國家總體的經濟政策，如Luke Martell所言，主要是：
「設計來排除那些阻擋國內資本自由競爭的障礙，像是課稅、社會法規所導致的成本損失等等。（中略）政策是建立在國家競爭力、對私人資本慾望的默許、以及新自由主義商業優先的原則這三者之上。這些政策可能包括降低營業稅、彈性的勞動市場、穩定的總體經濟、財政的精打細算、以及限制公共支出與商業法規。」(Martell, 2001)。
當然，同情新工黨的人會說，人們在某些方面，比如說新工黨在教育及醫療的公共支出上，還是可以找到傳統社會民主的關懷。不過，我要指出來，即使在這些公共支出上，新工黨的社會民主可信度還是值得懷疑的，君不見它宣稱英國公共部門的未來取決於各種不同形式的公私合營上(public-private provision)。如果要知道新工黨與新自由主義意識型態是多麼契合，我們只需看看以下這件事：當實際證據顯示公私合營策略將會比既存的公共服務計劃更昂貴或是更沒有效率時，新工黨還是一昧地、獨斷地將市場模型奉為解決社會議題的無上方案。毫無疑問地，第三條路之所以會緊抓著這些（新自由主義的）位置不放的原因（除了因為它們被一九八○及九○年代工黨的政治失敗嚇壞了之外）是導因於它對全球化這個概念的理解。
※第三條路對全球化的看法
「如果我們要繁榮，我們便不能自外於全球市場，如果我們要繁榮，我們便不能忽視全球市場中的新政治主張。」Tony Blair （引自Kiely: p. 2）
「大致上說來經濟全球化是成功的，現在的問題是如何把它所產生的正面結果最大化，同時又能減少那些較負面的效應。」(Giddens, 2000 p. 124)
一九九九年西雅圖事件之後，「第三條路」政治的鼓吹者逐漸對全球化的爭論做出若干重要的干預。當然，不容否認第三條路中的政客、新聞從業者、及學院支持者間存有些不同，不過在此我將第三條路的政客們如何了解、討論全球化的方式歸納整理成以下五點。
l 全球化：一個單一的過程
第三條路的政治常常有一個傾向：它們把各式各樣不同形式的全球化當成是一個單一的現象。於是，自由市場的全球化、人權的全球化、私有化及科技傳輸的全球化、文化的世界大同主義，以及華盛頓公約的全球化，全部都被當成是同一現象的一部分。第三條路的政客們不斷地在暗示我們，要嘛就全部接受，不然就全部拒斥，沒有把它們拆開的餘地。也就是說，若是你/妳反對自由市場及私有化計劃的全球化，那麼你/妳也就對文化世界大同主義或人權的全球化充滿了敵意。
l 全球化＝現代化
第三條路的政治家們同時非常熱衷於把現階段全球化的形式與現代性的傳播或現代化的過程連在一起。我們現在大家都已知道，湯尼‧布萊爾對所有冠上「新」這個字的東西有種獨特的拜物情節。新工黨必須與現代連在一起，必須與那些dot.com（網路）企業，而不是與礦工連在一起，與礦工連在一起顯得自己好像是落伍了。由於新工黨大致上贊成福山(Francis Fukuyama)的觀點，認為我們已經走到了「歷史的終結」，所以對新工黨來說，現代這個字的意義只能是單一、單線的。現代化或現代性只能走單一的路。
l 現階段這個形式的全球化乃是不可避免的
另一個常常被人提及的相關論點是：現階段這個形式的全球化大致上說來乃是不可避免的。這種命定論式的論點是藉著兩個（有時是相關的）方法來強化自身。首先，有時候人們會把現階段形式的全球化加以自然化，全球化被人們講得好像是天經地義、自然而然一樣。像這種自然主義在以下的宣稱裡面呈現得很清楚：「世界本來就是會這樣發展」。較強的自然主義論述常常把全球化類比成天氣，或者用一些隱喻，像是紀登斯所說的，我們現在是生活在一個「脫韁的世界」(runaway world)裡，這是一個停不下來的過程。其次，那些把全球化看成是無法避免的人常常藉著把全球化呈現成，套用Colin Hay的說法，「一個沒有主體的過程」(a process without subject)來自我辯解。因此，政客們特別喜歡的全球化形象是一個將自身邏輯施加於事件之上的無情力量。它是一個完全獨立於任何個體之外的結構。
l 全球化行得通
關於這一點我們幾乎不需再多談。第三條路的政客們以貿易規模的擴大與開放市場的名義來論證現階段全球化的形式好處多多。
l 基進中間的政治：調適
第三條路的思想家所做的最後一個陳述是：調適是面對全球化時唯一可信、可行的回應。第三條路提供人們一個超越目前政治的兩個極端的最可信手段：新自由主義與那些所謂的反全球化人士。「基進中間」的政治乃是當今世上唯一一個有著實際現實主義基礎而擁抱全球化美景，同時也有能力來調節負面面向的嚴肅政治。
正是基於這麼一個獨特的描繪全球化的方式，第三條路的政客們及其學院裡的支持者們最近同心協力地來邊緣化那些所謂的反全球化運動。因此，John Lloyd說，這些反全球化運動說好聽一點是未能與全球化接軌，講難聽一點則是孤立主義分子。英國外交部的部長Peter Hain指責那些「左派反對分子」為食古不化(引自Kiely, 2002: 1)。同時那些反全球化的抗議者也被人一慣地講得像是科技恐懼者、沉緬過去、往後看、以及自身根本無法提出一個可行的方案等等。
※挑戰第三條路
關於上述的分析，紅綠能夠在某些特定的、明顯的議題中加入戰局。舉例來說，第三條路的提倡者的中心論點之一：全球化行得通的說法，很明顯地，紅綠份子將不會同意。
環 境
舉例來說，在環境的問題上，就算我們用最保守的估算方法，全球化離「行得通」還有一大段距離。在氣候變化上，即使是像Bjorn Lomborg這麼一個多疑的人也相信人為的全球溫室效應與空氣中二氧化碳含量的遽增確實是個嚴重的問題。Lomborg 指出，熱帶雨林（地球上最多植物與動物生長的家）每年以0.5%的比例在消失當中（頁159），生物多樣性(biodiversity)的消失是「自然狀態下絕種的1500倍」（頁235）。就土壤表層流失的情形而言，Lomborg估計在一九七四年美國每一公頃有12噸（頁105）。此外，Lomborg同意「聯合國環境規劃署」 （UNEP, United Nations Environmental Programme）所做的調查，調查中顯示超過17%的土地在某個程度來說是正在退化當中。同時，過度捕魚也是一個問題，人們所捕的魚當中有超過三分之一是來自於那些總數正在下滑的魚類（頁107）。另外，Lomborg還指出，中國空氣污染的情形壞到讓中國政府每年損失大約8%國內生產毛額。
不平等與貧窮
就不平等與貧窮來說，Robert Wade指出，儘管過去幾年中印度與中國經歷了快速的經濟成長，但是新的證據顯示，「全球性不平等的現象正在惡化，而且惡化的非常快速。」（Wade, 2001: 4）他指出，連英國「經濟學人」雜誌（Economist magazine）都相信市場的快速自由化可能會擴大收入不平等的現象（Wade, 2001: 20）。他說的沒錯，就所得的分配而言，世界上大約有80%的收入是集中在世界上20%的人口手中。
發 展
就發展來說，即使新工黨內部出現一種絕對主義，這種絕對主義認為現階段全球化有一些隱性的利益，不過，有些人如前世界銀行的首席經濟學家Joseph Stiglitz可不這麼想。如Stiglitz所說的：「西方主導全球化的議程，在主導的過程中，西方確保自身將會得到高於自身應得的利益，而這些利益是犧牲發展中國家得來的。」舉例來說，Stiglitz指出，如果我們來看看貿易，以及發展國家與較不發展國家的產品價格，那麼我們會發現，「在一九九五年的貿易協定之後，一些貧窮國家因為它們的產品價格調降而導致收入減少，同時它們卻得花更多的錢來付它們進口的費用。這種情形的結果便是，一些貧窮國家變得越來越窮。」（Stiglitz, p. 7, 2001）
民 主
大致上說來，就民主而言，我們的確看到在一九八九年之後這段期間自由民主機構的大爆炸。然而，這些民主它們的品質如何呢？公民參予以及民主生活的品質又是如何呢？
目前所得到的實證資料是否顯示現階段全球化的形式行得通呢？關於這個問題，在這裡我們可以做永無休止的討論。當然，實證的資料的確很重要。不過，我們有更好的理由相信，如果要挑戰第三條路的全球化，我們需要的不只是實證上的資料。特別值得提出來的是，對進步份子來說，我們極需挑戰第三條路的幾個核心哲學預設，我們需要將我們的用語區分得更清楚，同時我們也需要重新定義、重新架構整個關於全球化的爭論。
※重新定義全球化：一個紅綠的觀點
事情似乎已經愈來愈清楚了，我們需要把整個關於全球化的爭議帶到下一個階段，在這個階段中我們必須跳脫以往那個簡單化的問題：妳/你到底是「支持或是反對」那個整體的全球化？進步的思潮愈是照著這個方法來架構政治爭議，他/她愈容易被人邊緣化。
多元的全球化
正如巴布‧傑索柏Bob Jessop所說的，全球化「不是一個單一的因果過程，而是許多不同力量在不同層面運作所產生的複雜產品。」（2000: 331）因此，他必須被看成是一個一連串的複雜現象，它與資本主義的擴張有關，不過卻不可以把它化約成資本主義的擴張。
在過去二十年中，我們目睹了權力的擁有者，爭論著要開發中國家的市場自由化、要求它們國內經濟去管制及私有化，藉此，這些權力擁有者試圖把世界上其它國家改變得跟自己一樣。我們目睹了同質化娛樂機構的擴張、麥當勞速食文化、以及伴隨它的美國軍事權力的全球化：這是新自由主義全球化的興起。不過，在此同時我們也目睹許多不同類型的全球化的擴張。人權論述的全球化、國際機構及勞動組織的全球化、近乎在全世界都出現的挑戰父權體制（Castells）、全球化的環境以及全球性環境改革的出現（Mol）、溝通及流動的全球化（Urry）、以及透過網路與資訊科技革命的政治參予（Castells）。在英國我們目前正在處理先前幾個全球化階段所產生的效應，現在的英國（與其他歐洲大國與美國一樣）是個擁有高度多元文化及世界主義的社會。
一個可信的紅綠分析必須從堅持當前各式各樣全球化形式的多元性開始。不容否認，目前新自由主義版本的全球化影響力是相當巨大，不過，除了新自由主義的全球化之外，這個世界上尚有許多不同形式的全球化正在運作中（在文化、環境、與人權的領域），它們與經濟有關，但絕不可化約成經濟。像這些形式的全球化很有可能會導致不同的結果。
重新喚回主體
紅綠思想所需採取的第二個相關戰略是揭穿三條路中的結構主義、決定主義、及命定論式的觀點，全球化不是一個沒有主體的社會過程或意識型態。像紀登斯那種我們是活在一個「脫韁的世界」的講法其實是一個意識型態，若是用Doreen Massey的話來說，這個意識型態是作為一個「合法化的論述，它在世界成形之後再自圓其說。」（Massey, 1999:17）正如Colin Hay所說的，它掩蓋了一個重要的事實：現代世界的形成是由許多實際的、積極的行動者在背後操盤。國際貨幣基金會、世界銀行、以及美國政府正是那些把全球化弄成目前這個形式而且還加以制度化的主導力量。不過，除此之外，有些不同於上述機構組織的「積極的行動者」，如人權團體、那些鼓吹財富及技術轉移的團體、那些試著在不同工會運動人士間發展國際合作的團體、以及那些透過網路或周遊世界試圖在南方北方的不同環保人士間發展聯繫的團體等等，它們建立對話、連結、及政治討論，這些團體的努力也許正為一個不同形式的全球化帶來生成的契機。
總之，一個紅綠觀點的分析必須從一個論點出發：不是全球化本身(per se)有問題，有問題的是那個新自由主義的全球化。
拒斥空間的拜物主義
全球化不只是個一連串的多元過程，同時它是發生在許多不同的地域空間。舉例來說，經濟的全球化不只是在全球的層面運作，它不只牽涉到全球性機構的興起，它其實是在許多不同的經濟層面運作。我們現在可以看到許多不同層次的創造及重建，比如說，地區性貿易的形成；一些積極的、在地的、地區性的、往往跳過國家的權威機構之發展；全球都市，它們往往相信世界上其他的全球都市比本身鄰近的邊陲地帶有著更多共同的利益；我們看到「跨越邊界」（都市的、國家的、大範圍的地域性質的）的重要性逐漸增加（Jessop: 341）。
那麼我們該如面對上述這些現象呢？最近這幾年來我看過最具洞見的反省及回應之一乃是來自於地理學家Dorren Massey。她指出，我們必須避免掉入空間拜物主義的陷阱，我們必須避免用「在地vs全球」來談全球化的問題。如她所說：
「全球化的問題不應該把它看成是「在地vs全球」。在地可以好也可以壞，端賴你/妳們的政治。想想印度的農民，他/她們被跨國公司入侵，這些跨國公司裝備著基因改良產品，然後拿著一些文件宣稱植物與種子的專利權是「在地的」，它們願意為「在地」權利捍衛打拼到底。然後是那些歐洲堡壘(Fortress Europe)或是那些投票贊成不給那些「非法」移民公共服務的加州人。那些反對「全球性跨國資本」漫遊世界的論點，那些使兩個團體對抗好坐收漁利的論點總是很令人心動。不過，那些鼓吹人與人之間應有更多文化交換的論點也同樣令人心動。」(Massey, 1999)
此外，對紅綠份子而言，以在地之名去反對全球性的事物，與他們的觀點並不一致，同時也不符合他/她們在政治上的期待。在美國與歐洲，我們已經看見許多法西斯主義團體的出現，極右團體（像Jean Marie LePen，法國極右「國家陣線」的首腦）或右翼的民粹主義運動（美國的Pat Bucannon）都宣稱將反全球與全球化，以利於自己在地的一方。紅綠份子早就不贊同這樣的趨勢，他/她們的分析提出了更廣的觀點與建議：很清楚地，我們需要在空間的政治上，去做更多具創造性與想像性的連結，在不同的空間規模上運作，以達成我們的目的；我們還需要透過更多社會關係的語言來作思考，透過了解更多的特殊性，以確認這個全球與在地之間的問題。
對抗科技恐懼症—發展民主的科技政治
最後，在這裡我要強調的是一個關於科技與現代性的議題。當「第三條路」思考的特點已對科技發展產生出一種盲目的信仰時，另一個現象卻發生在反對運動（特別是那些具有生態學背景）的部份趨勢裡，他們可能反過來，完全地輕視那些因科技發展與現代性所帶來的、更一般性的獲益。紅綠份子對於科技決定論，以及對科技毫不保留予以支持的思考，當然是加以批判的。然而，自Barry Commoner， Murray Bookchin 到 Andre Gorz以來，這些紅綠的思考中有一個明確的特質，他們都早已拒絕了科技恐懼症，同時也宣稱現代性可能為我們帶來許多不同的路徑。下面我將呈現這些可能性在哪裡。
舉個例子來說，如果我們同意Andre Gorz的觀察，一個可信的生態計畫必須將它的希望紮在：「不是回到過去，而是要在現代社會所擁有的能量上，超越現代社會本身；要在形構現有社會的發展基礎上，開始進入另一種不同的發展模式。」（Gorz, 1994:7）看來很明顯地是，要想進入另外一種發展模式，沒有一個可行的方法將發生在缺乏徹底移轉進步技術以及考慮其潛在好處（同時也明確評估它所帶來的阻礙）的情況下。簡單地說，如果現在想要了解與勘測出當前的環境變遷，技術上便須牽涉到使用最高階的電腦計算模式。除此之外，為了要讓我們所處的這個日趨複雜、密集及高流動性的社會（Castella, 1996 ; Urry, 2000），能適應未來的社會生態變遷（更不用說要改善那些令人討厭、卻可能發生的變遷），沒有相當先進的科技來協助，也是不可能辦到的。
更一般性地看，紅綠觀點的分析將指出，有一系列不同形態的永續性科技創新，從再生能源的新模式到新型態的清潔工業過程，就像是工業生態學（industrial ecology），可以在先進工業社會轉變為一個更重視永續發展的路徑上扮演一個主要的角色。紅綠思考本身並不在於拒絕科技，而是拒絕科技決定論（認為科技的發展是獨立、外在於社會的），同時要論證的是，科技發展是可以採取許多不同的道路。（Feenberg）
紅綠思想尋求提出批判性的質問，也就是：在什麼樣的範圍內，企業與既得利益者（石油工業尤為明顯）將能真的接受生態科技的改變。紅綠思想致力於調查工業技術使用的形態，它質疑科技的變遷是否為人的自主性創造新的可能性，還是反而產生更多的依賴性與造成去技術化的結果；它也試圖完整地科技發展對環境與社會所造成的影響，以及揭露科技變遷所帶來的利益。
總之，紅綠政治致力於讓科技社會化，以便在關於科技創新、科技如何創造更多的可能性以建構一個另類現代性的這些議題上，開啟更多民主的對話機會。（參考White，2002，對這個觀點有更多的闡釋）
※創造不同的全球性對話：民主全球化，另類現代性
那麼，這些思考引導我們走向哪裡呢？
紅綠份子反對企圖將新自由主義全球化的政治計畫，而正致力於由下形成一種另類的民主全球化。在運動的層次上，現在已有許多立即的變化，這些變化來自於一大群持續在推動上述那個巨大價值與重要性的團體，它們毫不遲疑地努力在進行著。我知道希拉蕊（Hilary）的演講將對這些發展著墨更多，但我提一點點現在在英國的狀況。世界發展運動（the World Development Movement）已逐漸將不同的非政府組織團結在一起，來共同對抗由世界銀行及國際貨幣基金所主導的，反發展的結構調整計畫（structural adjustment programmes）。一些運動，像是法國的ATTAC也已經發展出出色的運動策略，它們將焦點鎖定在推動托賓稅（Tobin tax） — 要求對貨幣市場裡的投機性交易進行課稅。ATTAC估算，即使設定0.05﹪這麼低的稅率，托賓稅一年可以收到將近100億元的稅金。從紅綠觀點來看，近來最有趣的政治發展之一，是環境正義運動的出現。這類運動試著動員窮人、勞工社區裡的人、工會以及環境主義者，一起對抗工作場所及社區中所遭受的環境破壞。更一般性地看，西雅圖的抗議，指出了一個新的關注方向，用以回應了跨國工會間難以形成國際連結以及產生更多靈活的勞工鬥爭的困境。上面這些例子絕對都是重要的發展，但我將要摘出幾個之前已經提過的核心論點，來總結這次演講。
這篇文章中，我的核心主張在於，紅綠政治質問那些由「第三條路」擁護者所高舉的全球化，在經驗與理論上的宣稱究竟有哪些該被爭議的。他們也努力駁回「第三條路」加諸在這些抵制新自由主義觀點者身上的一連串論述陷阱。
拒斥虛假的選擇
紅綠政治拒斥目前出現在全球化議題辯論中那一整套虛假不真的選擇。真正的問題並非攸關你是否贊成全球化、科技或是現代性這些選擇上，而是議題應如何設定，紅綠政治努力地提出新的問法：哪一種全球化、哪一類科技，還有什麼樣的現代性是我們真正想要的？是在哪些條件上尋求發展？為了符合哪些人的利益呢？
拒斥順應之說
紅綠政治也拒斥另一種觀點，這種觀點認為只有順應不可改變的社會力量（social forces）的政治，才是有效的政治。他們致力去證明這些被認為應該是不可改變的社會力量，實際上是許多行動主體們執行決定後的成果。唯有透過發展出多重且同步的聯盟，建構新的、想像的政治社群，也透過各類勞動、環境、市民與人權倡導者的世界性網絡，共同挑戰另一方全球性權力聯盟的新網絡，如此一來，由底層發展出的另類的、世界性與民主的全球化形式，當能挑戰當前新自由主義式的全球化。
(姚人多、賴曉芬譯)
參考書目：請見英文講稿之後。
Globalisation, The Third Way and Red Green Politics：
Fashioning Alternative Technocultures, Democratic Globalisations and Alternative Modernities
Damian .F. White
Lecturer in Sociology
Goldsmith College
University of London
damianwhite@cwcom.net
Introduction:
Over the last decade, the question of how one understands, analyses and positions oneself in relation to the debate about 'globalisation' has become one of the central political questions of our time. Clearly this is a huge issue which raises central explanatory and strategic questions. In Britain, we have been discussing globalisation in our study group for over a year. And what has become apparent is not only that amongst us 'red-greens' there are a diverse set of positions in relation to this debate but equally we have been struck by the huge empirical and theoretical complexity of the debate. I'm sure that you in Taiwan have found the debate similarly vexing and stimulating.
What tentative insights though might a red-green politics, a politics which views the world very much from its own partial and parochial European lens have to offer these questions? How might these insights differ from the perspective of the 'third way'? How might progressives avoid being marginalised and think about how one could re-orientate the debate in the future?
In this talk, I'd like to make a start at thinking about these questions. I will begin by briefly returning to the question of the origins of red green thinking and Giddens' version of the third way. As we will see both are an attempt to think about the future of the left after the collapse of Communism and post war social democracy. Both also draw inspiration from the political tradition of the new left. In practise though, I'll demonstrate that this leads to very different outcomes. I'll then go on to consider the political reality of the third way, the understanding of globalisation it espouses and the broader manner in which it has sought to 'frame' the globalisation debate in the UK against the so-called 'movements against globalisation'. I'll then finish with some tentative thoughts on the emerging debate about how progressives in the UK and elsewhere are thinking about reclaiming the debate in the UK and Europe more generally.
I will develop three main arguments. Firstly, - and given that Taiwan has already been exposed to Anthony Giddens - I will suggest that from a UK perspective it has become increasingly clear that there is a notable disjuncture between the third way as an academic discussion particularly in its seductive Giddenian form-which often presents itself as a processes of 'rethinking social democracy' and the actual politics of the third way which are better described as 'neo-liberal acquiescence'.
I will secondly go on to suggest that despite this, in the UK, third way politicians and their supporters have become some of the most effective political currents to ideologically marginalise current protests against the globalisation of neoliberalism. This has been achieved - by presenting the third way as a forward looking constructive and progressive engagement with globalisation in opposition to the backward looking, anti modernist 'anti globalisation' movement. And I will suggest this critique deserves to be studied very carefully by radicals.
In the third part of the talk, I suggest that this critique has promoted signs that the debate about globalisation is being rethought in a range of academic and activist circles in the UK. This is still very much an open ended conversation but what we can see now in the UK are growing calls to be more specific about what we are against and to think harder about what we might be for I am sure that Taiwanese activists have to tailor their arguments and actions to fit the discrete conditions of their political situation. However, I will argue that resistance to the globalisation of neo-liberalism will only be effective in the long run if our left moves beyond a politics which constantly defines itself in terms of what it is against. Rather than rejecting the global in favour of 'the local', allowing oneself to be portrayed as simply technophobic or simply ceding the legacy of modernity to the right a credible twenty first century red green politics needs to start a rather different discussion. Notably, a discussion on how we can resist neo-liberal forms of globalisation and neo-liberal modernities while simultaneously start to reclaim teachnology through developing a democratic politics of technology, imagine alternative democratic globalisations and alternative modernities.
Red Green Thinking - The Original Global Third Way?
If I may though, I would like to begin by returning to think about the roots of red green thinking. In many respects, it could be observed that if we think of the roots of the red-green tradition, somewhat ironically, it has a better claim to be considered advocating the third way than Tony Blair's project.
The roots of 'red green' thinking can be located to the politics of the New Left. The New Left emerged in the 1960's in the US, Europe and Japan with a wide assortment of groups democratic socialists, environmentalists, emerging currents of feminism, peace activists, community activists, human rights activists and so on. While much divided this motley crew, it could be argued that one thing that did unite the New Left was a desire to find a new radically democratic, egalitarian and ecological 'third way' beyond the authoritarianism of state socialism in the East and the inadequacies of post war social democracy in the West.
Informed by the slogan, 'nether Washington nor Moscow', the 'third way' of the New Left sought to imagine a different politics. This is a politics that sought to address class oppression while also seeking to address newer issues of ecology, gender, ethic/racial and sexual oppression, addressing economic inequality while also being aware that forms of social domination could also come from institutional forms and ideological assumptions not reducible to the economic. Firmly rejecting the elitism and vangardism, centralism of both Leninism and Fabianism, the New Left in its most advanced forms sought to develop new participatory institutions, economic forms and cultures that could anticipate or prefigure the contours or a new radically democratised society. More generally, the New Left defended a world view that was radically international in outlook, making common cause with social movements defending human rights, labour rights, the environment and peace across state boundaries.
The new left then was global in its horizons and ambitions. It fragmented towards the end of the 1960's yet its sociological and political legacy was profound . Many of the central figures of the first wave of 'red green' thought: Murray Bookchin and Barry Commoner in the USA, Andre Gorz, Ivan Illich and Henri Lefebvre in France; Raymond Williams in the UK were both shapers and shaped by this current. Movements such as the German Greens, modern environmentalism more generally and other 'red green' forms directly trace their inspiration to this political moment. Rather less remarked on though is that some of the most articulate academic defenders of New Labour's version of the 'third way' in the UK also selectively appropriated many new left themes to develop their politics. This is perhaps no more apparent than in the work of Anthony Giddens.
The Third Way of Anthony Giddens and The Actual Existing Third Way
The very considerable corpus of Anthony Giddens has taken on many twists and turns over the years. The two political texts he has written over recent times though 'Beyond Left and Right' (1994) and 'The Third Way' (1998) are interesting since they present a public academic face to the Third Way. At the time of writing these text Giddens still situated himself within the problematic of the left. The subtitle of the first text is 'The Future of Radical Politics' and the second runs with the subheading 'The Renewal of Social Democracy'. What is most notable about these text though is the extent to which both provide a critique of old style state socialism and statist forms of social democracy which actually draws from many of the central criticisms that the new left made of these currents.
Giddens argues in these texts that a series of interlinked social processes notably: the intensification of globalisation, de-traditionalisation (the growing demand in the West that traditions explain and justify themselves rather than be taken on face value), the challenge posed by the new social movements (feminism, the green movement) and the rise of greater social reflexivity (individuals are increasingly exposed to new information, act on this information and seek to fashion a 'life of ones own in the light of this information) has progressively undermined the sociological conditions of possibility for the old left.
According to Giddens then, we live in societies now which are profoundly sociologically different from those which sustained the old left. As such the types of changes which radical politics now advocates needs to similarly change. Giddens in 1994 argued that a whole series of changes were necessary for a new radical politics. To focus selectively Giddens argued radicals needs to be push for a new democratic state, experimentation with new forms of dialogical democracy and a further democratisation of the family; there was a need to take environmental concerns seriously and address more broadly the governance of risk, science and technology. He argued the welfare state needed to equally respond to new times, becoming more responsive, democratic, and attentive to shifting gender changes and senstive to the extent to which passive welfare systems can simply embed relations of dependency and passivity rather than create conditions for autonomy.
Much of Giddens sociological analysis of changes in the advanced industrial societies of the 'North Atlantic rim is indeed important and insightful. What is also interesting is that in many of the areas of Giddens' third way, as defined in 1994 he starts to develop a critique of traditional social democracy which has some resemblance's with the type of critique that red greens would make. Yet, by 1998 in 'The Third Way' Giddens radically waters down many of these commitments placing a much strong emphasis on the importance of market forces and positioning himself at the' radical centre'.
Thus, even the modest reformulation of social democracy that he proposed in 1994 appeared to be increasingly replaced by writings which increasingly celebrate the Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism. In many respects - as Duncan mentioned yesterday - this merely reflects the actual road that New Labour has gone down. Far from implementing a new form of "smart social democracy" Tony Blair's politics or the 'actual existing third way' as we should call it is a fairly crude ideology which mixes in equal proportion neoliberal market fundamentalism, technological determinism and modernisation theory. Discarding the virtues of European social democracy with its higher taxes, more generous welfare systems and public infrastructure development, it is the American model of capitalism that is increasingly viewed as the model that the UK should learn from. As a result and as Luke Martell notes macro-economic policy is thus primarily 'designed to reduce any obstacles to the competitiveness of domestic capital, such as taxation or costs imposed by social regulations… Policy is based on national-competitiveness and relative acquiescence to the desires of private capital and to neo-liberal business priorities. They may include low business taxes, labour market flexibility, macro-economic stability, an emphasis on fiscal prudence and restrictions on public spending and business regulations' (Martell, 2001).
Sympathisers of New Labour have of course argued that in certain areas notably public spending on health and education one can still detect more traditional social democratic concerns being addressed. Yet, even here, the social democratic credentials of New Labour are doubtful given that it has declared that the future of the public sector in the UK lies in various forms of public-private provision. To demonstrate how wedded new labour is to neo-liberal ideology even when there is substantive empirical evidence that public-private strategies are going to be more costly or less efficient that the existing public service provision, the market model is nevertheless dogmatically championed as the solutions to social issues. There is no doubt moreover, that the reason why the politics of the third way holds to these position (beyond being so traumatised by the political failure of Labour in the 1980's and 1990's) is because of its understanding of globalisation.
The Third Way on Globalisation
'we cannot refuse to participate in global markets if we want to prosper,. We cannot ignore new politics ideas in global markets if we want to prosper' Tony Blair (quoted in Kiely: p.2)
'economic globalisation, by and large has been a success. The problem is how to maximise its positive consequences while limiting its less fortunate effects' (Giddens, 2000 p.124)
Following from the Seattle events in 1999, advocates of 'third way' politics have come to make increasingly important interventions into the globalisation debate. While there are differences in emphasis between third way politicians, journalists and their academic supporters, I'd like to draw out five key features of how the third way politicians understand and discuss globalisation.
· Globalisation - A Single Process:
Third way politics often show a distinct tendency to talk about the various forms that globalisation has presently taken as a singular phenomena. The globalisation of free markets and human rights, the globalisation of privatisation and technology transfer, cultural cosmopolitanism and the globalisation of the Washington consensus are invariably viewed as all part of the same phenomena. As such, it is regularly implied by 'third way' politicians, you either accept or reject the package as a whole. That is, to be against the globalisation of free markets or privatisation schemes by definition means that you are also hostile to cultural cosmopolitanism or the globalisation of human rights.
· Globalisation = Modernisation
Third way politicians are also very keen to associate current forms of globalisation to the spread of modernity or processes of modernisation. As is now well known, Tony Blair has a particular fetish for all things 'new'. New Labour must associate with the modern , with dot.com entrepeneurs rather than miners or it will be assigned to the past. And since New Labour largely shares Francis Fukyikama's view that we have reached the 'end of history', the modern for new labour can only be viewed in a singular or unilinear fashion. Modernisation or modernity can only take one path.
· Current Forms of Globalisation are Inevitable.
A related claim that is now regularly made is that current patterns of globalisation are by and large inevitable. The inevitabalist argument is secured by two (sometimes inter-related) means. Firstly, current forms of globalisation are sometimes naturalised, rendered like nature. A soft form of naturalism is present in the claim 'well that's just the way the world is going'. Stronger forms of naturalistic arguments can often liken globalisation to the weather or through the use of metaphors such as Anthony Giddens' idea that we now live in a 'runaway world'. This is an unstoppable process. Secondly, an inevitabilitst position on globalisation is frequently defended through presenting globalisation to use Colin Hay's term as 'a process without a subject'. Thus, an image of globalisation particularly favoured by politicians is that it is an inexorable force that imposes its own logic on events.
It is a structure that exists entirely independently of human agency.
· Globalisation Works
It hardly needs to be said that it is argued by third way politicians that the benefits of current forms of globalisation in terms of greater trade, open markets clearly out weights the costs.
· The Politics of the Radical Centre :Adaptation
The final claim made by third way thinkers is that the only credible response to globalisation is adaptation. The third way offers the most credible means of moving beyond the two extremes of current politics: neo-liberals and the so -called anti globalisation rejectionists. The politics of the 'radical centre' is now the only serious politics that has the hard nosed realism to embrace the desirability of globalisation while being able to mediate its less desirable aspects.
As a result of this particular third way depiction of globalisation, third way politicians and their academic supporters have made a concerted effort over recent times to marginalise the so-called 'anti-globalisation' movement. Thus, John Lloyd has argued that at best the movement fails to constructively engage with globalisation and at worse it is isolationist. British Foreign office minister Peter Hain has attacked the 'rejectionist left' for being stuck in a timewarp (cited in Kiely, 2002:1). Protesters are regularly presented as technophobic and nostalgic, backward looking and offering no credible agenda of their own.
Contesting the Third Way
Now there are certain basic and obvious debates that red greens could get into concerning this analysis.
For example, if we take one of the central claims of third way advocates that current forms of globalisation are working red-greens would obviously contest this issue.
Environment
If we take the question of the environment, for example, it could be pointed out that even on the most conservative or skeptical estimates, it is far from self evident that globalisation 'works'. Thus, on climate change, even someone as skeptical as Bjorn Lomborg accepts the reality of man-made global warming (p.259) and believes the dramatic increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a serious problem. Lomborg's notes that that tropical deforestation (home to the largest mass of plants and animals on the planet) is running at 0.5 % per year (p.159) and biodiversity loss is running at a rate ‘about 1,500 times higher than the natural background extinction’ (p235). In terms of top soil loss Lomborg estimates that the US lost 12 tons per hectare in 1974 (p.105). He agrees with UNEP figures that argue over 17% of land is degraded to some extent and regarding overfishing, it is conceded a third of fish are taken from stocks showing decline (p.107). While, Lomborg notes air pollution in China is so bad as to cost something in the region of 8% of China's GDP per year.
Inequality and Poverty
In terms of inequality and poverty, despite the experience of rapid growth in India and China over the last few years, Robert Wade has argued that new evidence is emerging that 'global inequality is worsening and rapidly' (Wade, 2001:4). He notes that even the Economist magazine believes that rapid market liberalisation is likely to widen income inequalities. (wade, 2001:20) Indeed, in terms of income distribution, roughly 80% of the world's income is going to 20% of the world's population.
Development
In terms of development more generally, it could be observed that despite the absolutist claims that emerge from New Labour concerning the unqualified benefits of current forms of globalisation, other figures such as the former chief economist at the World Bank, Joseph Stiglitz have taken a rather different view. As Stiglitz has argued 'The West has driven the globalisation agenda, ensuring that it garners a disproportionate share of the benefits at the expense of the developing world' (Stiglitz p.7). For example Stiglitz notes that, if we look at the terms of trade the prices which developed and less developed countries get for the products they produce - 'after the last trade agreement in 1995…the net effect was to lower the prices some of the poor countries in the world received relative to what they paid for their imports. The result was that some of the poorest countries in the world were actually made worse off'' (Stiglitz p.7, 2001)
Democracy
More generally, in terms of democracy, we have indeed seen the explosion of liberal democratic institutions in the post 1989 period. Yet, what is the quality of this democracy? The quality of civic engagement and democratic life?
Now, we could go on an on here about the extent to which the current empirical trends demonstrate that current forms of globalisation are working or otherwise. The empirical debate is clearly important. However, there are good reason for feeling that a credible challenge to the third way's view of globalisation needs to do something more than this. Notably, there is clearly a need for progressives to challenge some of the central philosophical assumptions underlying the third way, differentiate our terms more clearly and reclaim and reframe the debate about globalisation.
Reclaiming Globalisation: A Red Green View
It seems increasingly apparent that the current phase of the debate we are moving into is one where we need to move beyond the simplistic question of whether you are either 'for or against' a generalised 'globalisation'. The more progressive currents allow the political debate to be framed in this way, the more easily they are marginalised.
Multiple Globalisations
Globalisation as Bob Jessop notes 'is not a single causal process but the complex emergent product of many different forces operating on many different scales' (2000:331). As such, it must be viewed as a complex series of phenomena which are related to but by no means reducible to the spread of capitalism.
While the last twenty years have seen the dominant powers seek to transform the rest of the world in their own image by debating that the developing world frees up markets, deregulates and privativsies internally; we have seen the spread of of a homogenising corporate entertainment, fast food McDonalds cultre around the world and with this the globalisation of US military power - the rise of neo-liberal globalisation. At the same time we have also seen the spread of a whole range of other types of globalisations. The globalisation of discourse of human rights, international institutions and labour organisations, the emergence of a near world wide challenge to patriarchy (Castells); the emergence of a global environment and global environmental reform (Mol); the globalisation of communication, mobility (Urry) and political engagement through the internet and the information technology revolution (Castells). In Britain, we are presently dealing with the effects of previous phases of globalisation in the sense that the UK (like many large European countries and the USA) are now highly multicultural, cosmopolitan societies.
A credible red green analysis needs to start then by insisting that the various forms that globalisation is presently taking are multiple. It is certainly the case that at present neo-liberal versions of globalisation are massively influential. However, even as the globalisation of neo-liberalism is occurring, there are other forms of globalisation emerging (e.g. in the spheres of culture, environment, and human rights) which are related to but not reducible to the economic. And such forms of globalisation potentially could operate to different logics.
Reclaiming Agency
A second and related manoeuvre red green thinking needs to take is to demystify the structuralist and determinist or inevitablist view of globalisation held by the third way by insisting that globalisation operates as a social process and ideology which has been pushed by various agents. The idea we live in a 'runaway world' is an ideology, which can act to use Doreen Massey's words as 'a legitimising discourse which justifies after the event how the world is being made (Massey:1999:17). It obsures the fact as Colin Hay has argued that there are indeed active agents at work in making the modern world. It is the IMF, the World Bank the US government that have been in the driving seat of pushing and ultimately institutionalising the present form of globalisation. Moreover, it is another set of 'active agents' whether human rights groups or those campaigning for wealth and technology transfers, those seeking to develop international co-operation between trade unionists or develop links between environmental campaigners between the North and the South whether through the internet or by flying around the world to establish conversations, links and political discussion which perhaps offer the possibilities for a different type of globalisation?
A red-green analysis needs to start by arguing that it is not globalisation per se that is the problem but the globalisation of neo-liberalism.
Rejecting Spatial Fetishism
Globalisation is not only a multiple series of processes but it occurs at different spatial scales. Economic globalisation for example is not just operating at the global level, its not just about the rise of global institutions buts its working at many levels; we are seeing the creation/restruction of a range of diffent levels, e.g. the formation of regional trade locals; the development of more active local and regional authorities which now sometimes by pass the nation state; the rise of global cities that sometimes believe they have more interests in common with other global cities than their own perifepheries; we see the growing significance of 'the cross boarder' the urban; the national, the macro regional (Jessop:341)
What implications flow from this? One of the most insightful responses I have read over recent times comes from the thinking of the geographer Dorren Massey. She has argued we need to avoid the trap of fetishing the spatial by posing the question of globalisation as one of 'local versus global'. As Massey notes
'The question of globalisation should not be posed in terms of local versus global. Local may be good or bad depending on your politics. The peasant farmers in India, being invaded by multinational companies armed with genetically modified products and bits of paper claiming patent rights over plants and seeds are 'local', fighting to defend 'local' rights. Bit then so are the proponants of Fortress Europe or those in California who vote for propositions banning 'illegal' immigrants from access to public services. The arguments against 'global multinational capital's ability to roam the world , playing one group off against another are certainly appealing. But then so are too the arguments for more cultural exchanges between people' (Massey, 1999).
For Red Greens then it is not coherent or politically desirable then to pose the local against the global, In the USA and in Europe, we have seen the emergence of Fascist groups, Far Right groups (such as Jean Marie LePen) or Right Wing Populist Movement (Pat Bucannon in the USA) both claiming to be aginst the global and globalsiation and in favour of the local. Red greens has absolutely no sympathy for these currents. The broader point though is that a Red Green analysis suggests that we clarly need to link more creatively and imaginatively about the politics of space and work at various spatial scales to pursue our ends. needs to think in more social relational terms and identify the problem with greater specificity.
Resisting Technophobia - Developing A Democratic Politics of Technology
A final issue that I would like to address here is the issue of technology and modernity. While a characteristic of the third way has been a blind embrace of technological development it is also the case that certain currents in the protest movement (particularly coming from a deep ecological background) can be sweepingly dismissive of technological development and the gains of modernity more generally. Red Greens are certainly critical of technological determinism and technological fix thinking. However, from Barry Commoner and Murray Bookchin to Andre Gorz, a defining quality of red green thinking has also been to reject technophobia and assert that modernity could take many different paths below the present.
For example, if we accept André Gorz observation, that a credible ecological project needs to stake its hopes 'not on a return to the past but on the capacity of modern societies to transcend themselves and enter on a different mode of development from the one which has shaped them up to now' [Gorz, 1994:7], then it would seem evident that there is no feasible way that this is going to occur without fully sifting through and considering the potential advantages (as well as judiciously weighing the drawbacks) of advanced technology. Simply understanding and mapping current environmental change at present involves using advanced computational models of the highest order. Moreover, adapting our increasingly complex, dense and hyper-mobile societies [Castells, 1996; Urry, 2000] to future socio-ecological changes (let alone ameliorating undesirable change where this is still possible) is simply going to be impossible without availing of certain advanced technologies.
More generally though, a red green analysis will point out that there are a whole array of forms of sustainable technological innovation, from new forms of renewable energy to new types of clean industrial processes such as industrial ecology which could play a central role in the shifting advanced industrial societies to a more sustainable path. As such Red Green thinking is not about rejecting technology but rejecting technological determinism (the idea that technological development is external from society) and arguing that technological development could take many different paths (Feenberg).
Red green thinking seeks to ask critical questions about the extent to which corporate and other vested interests (most notably the Oil Industry) will actually allow ecotechnological change to occur. It seeks to investigate the form that technologies take. It questions whether technological changes create new possibilities for autonomy or generates dependency and deskilling and it seeks to fully scrutinise the environmental and social impacts of technological development and expose the interests that technological change can serve.
In short, red green politics seeks to socialise technology so as to open up democratise discussions about technological innovation and the create the possibilities for constructing alternative modernities, (see White, 2002 for further elaboration of this idea).
Creating Different Global Conversations: Democratic Globalisations, Alternative Modernities
So where does this all lead us?
In opposition to the political project that seeks to globalise neo-liberalism, red greens in effect are seeking to generate an alternative democratic globalisation from below. There are many immediate changes at a campaigning level which are currently being pursued by a range of groups of enormous value and significance which are implicitly trying to do this. I'm sure that Hilary will talk much more about these developments, but to name a few in the UK, the World Development Movement has increasingly brought together a range of NGO's to campaign against the anti development structural adjustment programmes of the World Bank and the IMF. Movements such as the French movement ATTAC have begun to develop a brilliant campaign focused specifically on the need for a Tobin tax, , to tax speculative transactions on the currency markets. Even set at a very low rate of 0.05%, ATTAC estimate that the Tobin tax would gather close to 100 billion dollars a year. From a red-green perspective, one of the most interesting political developments to have occurred over recent times is the emergence of environmental justice movements. These movements seek to mobilise people in poor and working class communities, trade unions and environmentalists to campaign about environmental damage in the workplace and in the community. More generally, the Seattle protests have seen a new way of interest in returning to the difficult process of building international links between trade unions across countries to generate more informed labour struggles. These are all absolutely vital developments but I'd like to conclude by summarising the central theoretical arguments I have made.
The central claim that I have made in this paper is that a red green politics seeks to both contest the empirical and theoretical claims about globalisation made by third way advocates. It also seeks to reject the series of traps that the third way has laid for those who reject neo-liberalism.
Rejecting False Choices
Red Green politics rejects the whole set of false choices that currently can be found in the globalisation debate. It is not a question of whether you are for or against globalisation, technology or modernity. Rather, it seeks to pose the question what kind of globalisation? what kind of technologies? and what kind of modernities do we want? Development on what terms? to suit whose interests?
Rejecting Adaptation
It also rejects the idea that the only politics available now is the politics of adaptation to inexorable social forces. It seeks to demonstrate that these supposed inexorable social forces are actually the consequence of decisions taken by active agents. Through developing multiple overlapping alliances, constructing new imagined political communities, through challenging the new networks of corporate power with global networks of labour, environments, civil and human rights advocates, neo-liberal globalisation can be challenged through developing an alternative, cosmopolitan and democratic globalisation from below.
Bibliography:
Bookchin, Murray (1971) Post Scarcity Anarchism Montréal, Black Rose.
Castells, Manuel (2000)The Rise of the Network Society - Second Edition Oxford, Blackwell.
Commoner, B (1971) The Closing Circle. New York: Bantam.
Feenberg, A. (1999) Questioning Technology. London: Routledge.
Giddens, A (2000) The Third Way and Its Critics Cambridge, Polity Press.
Giddens, A (1998) The Third Way Cambrdige Polity Press.
Giddens, A (1994) Beyond Left and Right: The Future of Radical Politics Cambridge, Polity Press.
Gorz, André (1994) Capitalism, Socialism, Ecology, London, Verso.
Harvey, D. (1996) Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hay, Colin (2000) What Place for Ideas in the Structure Agency Debate? Globalisation as a Process Without A Subject' available at
www.theglobalsite
Jessop, Bob 'The Crisis of the National Spatio-Temporal Fix and the Tendential Ecological Dominance of Globalising Capital' International Journal of Urban and Regional Research Vol.24. 2 June 2000.
Kiely, Ray (2003) 'The Global Third Way or Progressive Globalism' Unpublished Manuscript
Martell, Luke (2001) Capitalism, Globalisation, Democracy: Does Social Democracy Have a Role' available at the globalsite
Massey, Doreen 'The Geography of Power' in After Seattle: Globalisation and Its Discontents ***
Massey, Doreen 'Imagining Globalisation: Power Geometries of Time-Space' in A.Brah (et al) Global Futures: Migration, Environment and Globalization: Basingstoke, Macmillian pp.27-44.
Smith, N. (1992) Uneven Development: Nature, Capital and the Production of Space. Oxford, Blackwell.
Wade, R. (2001a) 'Is Globalisation Making Income Distribution More Equal?'. LSE-DESTIN Working Paper, No.01-01.
http://www.lse.ac.uk/Depts/destin/workpapers/wadeincome.pdf.
Wade, R. (2001b) 'Winners and Losers: The Global Distribution of Income is Becoming Ever More Unequal.' The Economist, 28th April, pp79-82.
White, Damian Finbar (2002) 'A Green Industrial Revolution? Sustainable Technological Innovation in a Global Age' Vol.11, Summer 2002, No.2.
