IS WORLD INTERGRATION INCREASING?

IS WORLD INTEGRATION INCREASING?

            It has been argued that the post-modern global tribal system is moving toward a higher level of integration; the world of nation-states is obsolescent and is being superseded. Others have countered that the nation-state is not declining; on the contrary, nationalism shows a new momentum, both as the disintegrator of empires and as the force which shapes the relations of new nations to each other and to their member units. It is as important in the communist parts of the world as it is in Western ones; it helped to transform monocentric blocs into poli-centric ones, if not to split them outright.

Many of the arguments advanced to support the first proposition that the nation state system is obsolescent – are phrases in dichotomous, imprecise, and a – sociological terms.  The dichotomous approach can be seen in the controversy about whether or not the nation-state system is being superseded.  Actually, the integration of the world as one system could increase, but the world would still constitute a tribal system; increases in world integration (until it reaches a high level) do not make nation – states obsolescent.  Considerable additional increases in the level of integration might occur, but  this additional integration, while it might be made somewhat more likely by whatever increases in the level of integration have taken and are taking place, is not automatically set into motion by them.  So far as the nation-state is concerned, first, the sum of the new extra-national elements is still rather limited, and, in tests of power between these elements and nationalism and international organizations, most of the time the nation-state is concerned, first, the sum of the new extra-national elements is still rather limited, and in tests of power between these elements and nationalism and international organizations, most of the time the nation-state prevails. Second, the nation-state is not likely to disintegrate but rather to be transformed as additional layers of inter-and supra-national integration are imposed on top of the tribal system of nation-states.  Transformation often takes this form of adding new elements to existing ones rather than closing one shop to open another.

            Imprecision enters when future developments are confused with the presently available means, and the means available to super-powers are confused with those available to most other nations.   Thus, much has been made of the modern means of communication – e.g. a world linked by one set of television satellites beaming the same programmes to everyone.  But no such arrangement is yet available.  To introduce it, not only are post-modern satellites needed, but also television sets will have to be distributed to people in countries where few of them can be found.  While this, theoretically at least, can be accomplished relatively rapidly by a donor country, large local maintenance crews will have to be trained and spare parts be provided.  Even if these were to become available, the peoples of the various nations will still have to learn to be able to absorb, in terms - of their languages and cultures, the broadcasts.  Similarly, much has been made of the decline of the significance of distance and territory as security factors in the age of long-range projectiles.  The primacy of the nation-state, it is suggested, is based on its capacity to protect itself inside a shell from outside aggression, and this shell has been cracked by the jet bomber and the intercontinental missile.  But so far, very few nations have such long—range weapons, and those which have them have found them ineffective for most political purposes. It is small wonder that the missiles did not have them have found them ineffective for most political purposes.  It is small wonder that the missiles did not have the expected integrating effect.  It is not that the argument is faulty, but that the missiles have not – or have not yet – cracked the national security shell of most nations.  All this may well occur, but not in a few years as has often been implied, and one cannot expect to see in this decade the integrating effects of a trans-national system that may be introduced in the text.

Moreover, much of the increase international flows – trade, tourism, and communications – are concentrated in a few countries, mainly the ‘have’ ones.  The world is not shrinking; it is rather that the elite countries are in more contact with each other and in relatively less contact with the ‘have – not’ countries.

QUESTIONS FROM THE ABOVE PASSAGE

By using the various techniques learnt in this study, answer the following questions on the text below.

·        Read only the title of the text below.  Predict and write down at least five   vocabulary items-key words, which you expect to come across in the text.

·        Skin the text quickly in not more than two minutes, looking for key words in the text.

            Re-read the text carefully to answer the following questions:

·        If you had to pick out one sentence in the whole passage to sum up the main ideal, which one would be chosen?

·        What seems to be the writer’s intention: to inform or to persuade?

·        Now, write down (in not more that fifteen words of your own) the main theme of the text.

·        Identify the topic sentence in paragraph two.

·        Which word connects paragraphs three and four?

·        What does “the dichotomous approach” refer to in the passage?

·        Give one word of your own to describe the writer’s attitude to the subject matter in the text.

·         Give the meanings of the following words and expressions as used in the text obsolescent; a-sociological; poli-centric; supra-national integration; primacy.

By

Eguriase S. M. Okaka