Localism and Globalism

What´s an address? It once was descriptive and straightforward: 346 Elm St. Madison SD.

Today, an address, IP address to be specific, looks more like this: 178.15.127.6.  
It does not describe at all. It’s just code.  

Phone numbers had already made the switch from physical description to digital code.  At one time, there was still a one-to-one link between code and location. Now, dialing a phone number starting with a Missouri area code could reach someone in Arizona, Ohio, or even Dubai.

We are witnessing, most likely have already witnessed, a change  in the primary meaning of “address.” It has switched from identifier of a specific geographical location, to a de-localized code. In a way this transformation sort of symbolizes our mobile, uprooted age.  It also identifies a tension which constantly needs to be renegotiated: that between the local and the global.

The ancient Stoics sidestepped the tension. They opted for one term only, declaring themselves to be “cosmopolitans,” citizens of the world. In 18th century Europe,  Enlightenment thinkers, promoting democratic republics, tended to lean in the cosmopolitan direction. They formulated documents like “Declaration of the Rights of Man” in France, and the “Declaration of Independence” (key phrase “all men are created equal”) in the United States.

 Unfortunately, as history reveals, the label “Man/men” was taken in a limited sense, neither including non-European peoples, readily colonized and enslaved, nor women, deprived of the theoretically “universal” rights.

As universalism was faltering in practice, localism gained prestige in theory.  The entire idea of democracies seemed dangerously misguided for those who wished to embrace traditionalist localism.  An Adolf Hitler, for example, could dismiss a country like the United State as little more than a “mongrel” mess.

The post-WWII era, with Fascism defeated,  tended more and more to move in the cosmopolitan direction, a direction well exemplified by United Nations’ 1948 “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

The first decades of the 21st century tend to be characterized by neo-localisms of various sorts. In Europe, nationalist sentiments chafe at the rules imposed by the European Union.   In the United States a kind of nativist “us versus them” localism, helped elect Donald Trump.

In the food realm, cosmopolitanism showed its negative side with the worldwide expansion of fast food and the takeover of food production by large, globalized agribusiness. This was met by a localist trend most prominent in the  Slow Food
movement,
in exhortations to buy local,
and in legislation allowing “food sovereignty.”

The cosmopolitan/localist tension thus takes on a specific food form in the 21st century. This brings with it a special challenge for those of us who don’t want to leave behind entirely the old meaning of “address” (local, concrete, rooted in tradition): can the emerging food localisms avoid the temptation of political nativism, where support of the local undermines entirely the cosmopolitan/universalizing tendencies, and  morphs into opposition to anything foreign?

To safeguard ourselves from such an overreaction, a few steps can be taken:  First, recognize the danger. Second, keep in mind the ancient Greek notion of  “moderation.” Ideals self-destruct if they are isolated and taken maximized to the exclusion of others, i.e. either cosmopolitan or localist.  The Greek term for excellence was “virtue,” and excellence in living, as with excellent diets, always results always results from a proper blend and mix of elements. Third, reasonableness and common sense should be guiding principles.  Several states have passed food sovereignty laws allowing local producers to sell directly to purchasers. Typically, though, meat and raw dairy products, more susceptible to contaminants than zucchini and brownies, continue to be regulated.   


Finally, care should be taken in the language used to defend reasonable localism.  Defense of the local needs to be distinguished from the white racist slogan “they will not replace us.”



Worries about neoliberalism should be separated from nativist complaints about “globalism.”   

Temptations to excess, to short-cuts, to simplifications, to avoiding the difficult task of finding the right middle, will always be with us. They emerge forcefully as false dilemmas, insisting on a sharp either/or separation.  The model of a nutritious diet, avoiding oversimplistic dilemmas, while working hard to get the mix and blend right, continues to be a good a model for virtue.