Globalization and The Globe as System Theoretical and Empirical Considerations Copyright 1994 by Joseph J. Matvey, Ph.D. Degree: Sociology, University of Pittsburgh, 1987 Abstract Globalization and The Globe as System Theoretical and Empirical Considerations Globalization refers to the objective and subjectively- perceived tightening up of the world within an ever more compact and interdependent social landscape. This paper centers on the issue of globalization with reference to five distinct processes of globalization: 1) the buildup of global moral density; 2) heightened global interconnectivity; 3) global federalationalism; 4) global cultural development; and 5) the systamatization of the globe. In examining these processes emphasis is placed on empirical factors such as the development of global organizations, the growing global moral density in post secondary education, and the cultural bonds evident in various global rituals. I. Globalization: Initial Considerations Globalization represents the evolutionary process first connecting, then interdependitizing, and then finally systematizing the globe, thus allowing us to refer to the globe as a social system. Globalization, in other words, alludes to the objective set of processes and subjective perceptions lending themselves to idea, image, and fact of "the world as a single place" (Robertson, 1987a,b,c). The conceptualization of a "global system" or "single world" does not necessarily depict "a global village" or a absorption of present national societal forms within a larger global societal form (Robertson, 1987b; Meyer, 1980: 109). Rather, a single world refers to a heterogeneous, varied, and diverse but more "compressed" and interdependent landscape. (Robertson, 1987a). There are however, many processes. Globalization not only includes the tremendous degree of political and economic systems interlinkage (Boli-Bennett, 1980; Bergesen, 1980; Wallerstein, 1979), it also revealed in the emergence of a "highly institutionalized" quasi World Polity (Meyer, 1980: 110) and proliferation of globally-situated social spheres, institutional sectors, and organizational structures (Matvey, 1988). It is further revealed in the increasing technological, informational and communicational connectedness of the world; observations of an emergent global culture and the commitments and obligations of societal forms to this culture (Meyer, 1980; Robertson, 1987a). Additionally, globalization involves the concentration of a global informational network and corresponding societal linkage to this media. Moreover, the expansion of global urban environments and increased frequency of contact and exchange among societal cultures are further evidence of the processes of globalization. Robertson (1987a), would go further, in suggesting a growing density of perceptions and consciousness of the global--including increases in perceptions of order and societal/individual identity within the modern global system. These processes suggest a multidimensional expression of globalization involving not merely a select group, but rather, the entirety of societies. Despite the diversity of manifestations, there are analytical denominators common to a majority, if not all, of the processes of globalization. II. The Infrastructure and Structure of Globalization A) Global Moral Density The infrastructure of globalization consists of a steady build-up of what will be termed global moral density. Global moral density (Matvey, 1988) refers to a heightened density of interaction, dialogue, contact across societal lines. Global Moral Density is refined from Durkheim's concept of moral/dynamic density. Keep in mind that for Durkheim, macrostructural change was brought on by primarily by an intrasocietal increase in dynamic social contact or what he termed moral dynamic density, whereby the intensified social density created new social facts, collective frames of reference, and subsequently fostered the conditions for societal differentiation (Harms, 1981: 403-04). Also important to note is the fact that Durkheim's concept of moral density did not merely refer to an increase in volume or population density. More to the point was an interaction of consciousnesses with density representing "the amount of interaction or the rate at which particular consciousnesses come into contact with each other" and reacted upon one another. (Harms, 1981: 403). In refining the concept, global moral density suggests a growing density of interaction, but at the distinctly global level, which, in turn, has implications for the development of social change and new collective frames of reference at this level. One should also take note that direct face-to-face interaction is not a necessary prerequisite for the build up of global moral density. In today's world, computerization can be utilized across national boundaries facilitating the build up of density at the global level. Computerization functions to facilitate the build up of global moral density through the creation a numerous "indirect social relationships" (Calhoun, 1987) on the one hand, and providing a format for a fairly comprehensive degree of interactivity (Rogers, 1986) between connected parties on the other. Calhoun (1987) has demonstrated that one of the hallmark features in both the shift toward and unfolding of progressive modernity rests with an increase in the number and volume of indirect relationships social and institutional life rely upon. Computerization's power rests with the capacity to create extremely comprehensive indirect relationships through providing a particular technological format for the multidimensional interaction of consciousnesses. It permits, in other words, not only the rapid transfer of large volumes of information over great geographic distances, but interactive on-line communication, dialogue, conferencing, tasking and "telework" (Rogers, 1986: 188). Only relatively recently removed from an era of dependence upon postal and telephone networks, "what" we can do and the "ways" we interact in the absence of face-to-face relationships have necessarily expanded through computerization. Due to this fact, computer- assisted global density provides the potential for not only interconnectedness, but an alternative dimension for the development of new forms of solidarities, communal ties and collective frames of reference. An Illustration: Global Moral Density in the Educational Sphere Increases in raw international contact in the past half century have undoubtedly--though not exclusively--played a significant role in fostering the proliferation of perceptual awareness of the "global" which Robertson (1987a) has emphasized. An additional dimension of global moral density, then, aside from the rising rates of raw international contact, are the growing perceptions and commitments to the "global" in various spheres of social life. One example of the build up in perceptual global moral density is revealed in the educational sphere where the sharpening escalation of international education creates intensified commitments among administrations and university bureaucrats to the reality of "global" education. There are, in other words, stronger and bolder commitments in the university system to all of the various dimensions of internationalized education. Global Moral Density here, is revealed in not only raw contact, but the awareness and subsequent institutionalization of international education in many post-secondary schools. There are at least three central realms of international education at the modern university. These realms include a) programs encouraging direct international contact through students travelling abroad; b) a strong international focus through internationally oriented programs, departments and majors along with a strong international orientation of traditional majors; and c) international student migrations outside of structured programs, particularly with the First World acting as a magnet force attracting these diverse migrations. 1) Programs with Direct Student Contact Abroad. At the most basic level, is the traditional oriented student exchange and study abroad programs where students journey to different nations and live with host families for an academic semester or more. In general, these programs have been made much more accessible to students in recent years. Another form of direct international contact are international oriented field trips designed to increase the students awareness of another culture and the international community. Both these orientations are based are an underlying principle of a "transcultural" experience as essential to the learning process. The notion is that in an increasingly globalized world, higher learning cannot be totally complete or intellectually self- actualized without touching base with a second culture--a variation in the overall continuum of humanity. The Study Abroad Program at the University of Maryland reveals this principle in one of its orientation brochures: "...much more diversity exits around the globe. Understanding this diversity, appreciating what is universal and what is unique to culture, learning how to ask questions and answer them in ways natively unfamiliar, and appreciating what at first may be strange and then perhaps beautiful: these tasks are basic to a college education. Study Abroad offers you the possibility to experience a particular culture or area which may have nothing to do with your major but is important for its own sake." There is also a view that individuals have relationships which transcend beyond the individual\society relationship. It is the transcultural experience, which allows the individual to jump above his or her own cultural perspective and examine several cultural perspectives at one and the same moment. Relativizing culture in this way develops another viable relationship: the individual/global relationship. The Maryland Study Abroad Program asserts: "By studying abroad, you will be forced to examine your assumptions about yourself, America and the culture in which your living. In the process you will gain a unique awareness of yourself and the world." Yet another rationale for the educational transcultural experience, is the notion that transcultural experiences bring us closer to our commonalities--the humanity in all of us. Kansai Gaidai, of Japan, a University which exchanges exceptionally large numbers of its student body each year with students at sister universities in a variety of countries offers this insight: "..we believe that a knowledge of traditions and cultures different than our own draws us closer to the human family of which we are all a part, while making us more aware of both the possibilities and limitations of our own heritage." 2) International Focus. Universities have also increasingly developed an international focus through internationally-oriented majors, field and area studies programs. While these do not necessarily take the student out of the home society, these programs focus specifically on international studies or some specialized field of focus in international studies. They also tend to foster international contact, dialogue, research and interaction through a heavy recruitment of international faculty. Latin American Studies, Soviet/Russian Studies, Asian Studies, along with growing study programs and majors in International Affairs are major departments within central academic universities. The core underlying rationale behind many of these programs is not merely an investigative knowledge of the outside world, but a growing "international focus" to deal with the complexities of a globalizing world and to prepare students for roles in a more globalized world. These principles are reflected in many administrators descriptions and rationales of their International Studies Programs. At the University of Pittsburgh International Program, for instance we find the following descriptions and rationale: "International relations are no longer primarily relations between governments. All of the actors on the global scene, including corporations, associations, societies, and significantly, universities, confront common international challenges"...."The bonds between countries are becoming more critical and we should be prepared to nurture these relationships. An International education is a vital step in developing the necessary awareness of an increasingly interdependent world." Similarly UNC's International Program states: "The office of International Programs of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill recognized that the world wide situation is one of changing relations, institutions, and values...the future of society is international in scope, not national, regional, or local... ...We need to be prepared for global citizenry and for contributing to international decisions and issues in a world of growing interdependence of nations." Wesley Posvar, former President of the University of Pittsburgh noted the following regarding the international focus of a modern university: "As we approach the 21st century, no educational institution in this country can claim to serve American students, American Science, and American policy if it fails to incorporate internationalism at the core of its educational mission. 3) Student Migrations Direct International Contacts and the growing internationalization of universities through international programs and a global focus are not the only expressions of global moral density within the University. Major universities, particularly in core centers act a magnets for large migrations of students from a variety of societies, particularly peripheral ones. The university, as a kind of global institution, then, draws and brings together international diversity. In the US for instance, there has been steady increases in the number of foreign students studying in the US. In 1989 some 366,354 foreign students attended US colleges. This represented an increase in 10,167 students from 1988. Asian students constitute about 50% of the total foreign student enrollment in the US, but there are also sizable contingents form India, Iran, Pakistan, and Nigeria in the US. Many of these students are clustered at major Universities and provide a considerable source of dialogue, exchange, contact and interaction with American students. The neighborhoods surrounding the major University are often the most internationally diverse settings in the US. Student Migrations and the communities which spring up as a result of this diversity must be regarded as a major source for international social density in the US. Bureaucratic Mechanisms The international orientation of many major universities, has propelled the specialization of an administrative and bureaucratic apparatus to deal with the variety and complexity of "international aspects" within a university. At Pitt, for instance, the University Center for International Studies is the bureaucratic mechanism which manages this international complexity. Holzner remarks on the bureaucratic mechanism: "UCIS, is the focal point for the University international research, teaching, and public service activities. It is a University wide center, not a school or department. USCI has no faculty of its own but works with hundreds of members of the faculty. It awards no degrees but reaches more than 10,000 of the University's students each year... ...UCIS supports international work of all of the University's schools and departments, providing horizontal links across the vertical structures of the institution. It offers assistance to students wishing to study abroad and to foreign students studying at Pitt. It helps faculty obtain grants and identify resources. It develops and manages international programs and projects across disciplinary boundaries...In all its activities UCIS seeks to promote linkages across national boundaries for the purpose of strengthening the University's International Dimension. While Pitt is one case, there are similar bureaucratic mechanisms at other major Universities. Some Universities have developed extensive structural linkages with Sister Universities in a variety of countries and have generated stable flows of faculty, students, research, and other academic materials across societal lines. Global Education and Social Change Global Education is not only a major mechanism through which peoples of differing cultures are brought into contact, dialogue and interaction with each other, it can also be a significant force for future social change. It is not that far off-base to suggest that a major difference in tomorrow's institutional elite from today's institutional elite may well be that while today's international elite know each other through fighting along side and against each other in the Second World War, tomorrow's international elite will know each other because they attended the same universities and endeavored in the same programs together. B) Global Connectivity The structures of globalization, through which the complexities of global moral density are ordered, integrated and managed consist of a dual-dimensional configuration of global ritualization and global connectivity. While the ritualization of global life is fairly self-evident, involving the ceremonial rites and formalities of patterned, ongoing, and structured interactions at the transsocietal level, Global Connectivity (Matvey, 1988) represents a quasi-evolutionary pattern toward the formation of global spheres of social life. The increasing international- orientedness and internationalization of societal sectors represent this dynamic at lower levels, while the rapid proliferation of global institutional and organizational forms represents a more developed form of connectivity. The internationalization of societal sectors has steadily expanded over the past century, and is characterized by heightened interconnectivity and flows of information, communication, and commitments across societal lines, specifically through sectoral channels. There is of course, a wide variation in the format of these networks ranging from open and volunteristic flows between specialists within, let us say, the academic or medical sectors, to highly integrated flows within financially-oriented networks. Global institutionalization represents a substantially elevated structure of global integration and embodies not only the development of global institutions and organizations at the distinctly global level, but the increasingly legitimate--and in some cases, quasi-sacred--salience of these institutions in the global context precisely because they are perceived to hold a fundamental relationship to individual societies, the system of modern societies, the individual and mankind--what Robertson (1987a) defines as four central components of the "modern global circumstance." In other words, the telic-concerns, objectives and prime-directives of particular institutions play some functional role in relation to the whole of human kind and its systems. Global Connectivity is guided by an underlying working logic meriting further theoretical attention at this point. First, Global connectivity is a multifaceted process, which is to say, in other words, that a variety of social sectors witness some degree of internationalization and global institutionalization. Second, this multifaceted character of connectivity is guided by the pre- existing degree of differentiation in societies in general. Central to the concept of progressive societal differentiation is not merely the splitting up and compartmentalizing of the spheres of social life, but chiefly it is the institutionalization and legitimation of these spheres as specialized stages of authority in orchestrating particular sphere-specific affairs of social life. What occurs on an intersocietal level involves the coming together, hence the term, connectivity of "like" spheres. Third, for global connectivity to proceed in the truest sense of the term, there must be a relatively standard level of intrasocietal differentiation of social spheres across societies. As a case in point, Wuthnow (1980: 27, 43-46) notes that while there was internationalization in science and an international scientific community as early as the 17th century, internationalization primarily was limited to European boundaries. This limitation can be primarily explained by an era of uneven intrasocietal differentiation across the globe at this time. As Wuthnow (1980: 27) correctly points out to us, China surely held scientific achievements in her history but no autonomous "institutionalized" scientific sphere approximating what was occurring throughout the European continent. Thus, the result was not a global scientific community, but rather a European-bound community where a fairly standard level of differentiation across these societies had begun to unfold. The past century and a half can be most accurately viewed as an era of standardization or universalization of intrasocietal differentiation across the globe. More recently, trends in modernity point toward an increase in the level of differentiation within what are primarily considered eastern Gemeinschaft, agrarian, and Third World societal systems. As a Department of Education, Department of Environmental Resources, and a Department of Cultural Development, etc, become commonplace collective household terms in these societies, the commitment to the overall normative structure of modernity equips societies with a host of sphere-specific realms and representatives. Finally, it is becoming increasing problematic in the modern world to locate central spheres of social life which have not undergone some degree of internationalization. In environment, education, health, economy, culture and other domains, intersocietal contact, ritual, and in many cases institutionalized organization is highly evident. This is not to suggest that global-oriented spheres operate with the same degree of power, status and force as the nation state. It is clear that any discussion of the global must recognize the nation state as the most vital and often times absolute mechanism of steering action over its society. Nevertheless, the salience of an increasingly diverse number of actors at the global level must also be taken into account, and not merely as mechanisms which legitimate the state system (Meyer, 1980: 122)--although, this is, indeed one of the functions of such entities--but as global oriented spheres which have a degree of influence upon societal and global life. Again, I wish to make a point about computerization and global connnectivity. Global connectivity--in the form of both internationalized sectors and global institutions--tends to encourage computer dependence among associated societal sectors and specialists. A number of global institutions, like the World Health Organization, for instance, function at a much more extensive capacity than a annual ritualistic gathering of various national representatives. Some are complex enduring work environments necessitating continued interaction and inputs from sphere-specialists operating in various national contexts. In this sense, intensified commitments to globally-oriented interaction make geographic space problematic. While increases in the frequency of regional and global conferencing partially solves this problem, the development of a global computerized infrastructure in societal systems allows masses of information and interaction to flow quite easily across national boundaries. Global Computerized Infrastructure refers to the technological hardware, and apparatus societal systems and sectors within those societal systems plug- into in accessing wider global networks. It essentially provides connectedness and linkage, and the most fundamental expression of a global infrastructure of computerization includes the GAN (global area network). There is a proliferation, in recent years, of GANs, primarily in the form of international network systems which provide opportunities for communication, dialogue, techno-informational flows, and an increase of social density at a distinctly global level. GANs are not only utilized by highly structured global institutional forms, but also by specialists and individuals who form temporary loose knit global associations. GANs take numerous forms including international conferencing by specialists in the academic, scientific, and political spheres. They are also increasingly used to tighten the interdependence of the global financial communities and multinational corporate networks. What is central for our purposes here, with regard to GANs, is the ability and degree to which societal sectors and specialists can access the variety of GANs, as access tend to be more difficult and expensive for least developed nations. In the less developed world increased pressures and expectations to computerize interface with numerous internal structural constraints creating particularized tensions and frustrations not common in more developed societal systems. Tombaugh's (1984) evaluation of an International Scientific Computer Conference provides one example. Although close to one-third of the invited scientists from the developing world and slightly over twenty percent from the developed world participated in the computer conference, Tombaugh surveyed non-participants from both socio-economic settings to categorize reasons for non-participation. Tombaugh noted that "time constraints were a greater problem for those in the industrialized countries, while difficulties with costs, the telecommunication link, and access to a terminal had higher mean ratings" for the scientific community in the developing world (1984: 138). Moreover, another consideration is the need created in the less developed world for a qualified scientific/technical personnel to maintain computerized infrastructure and systems, once initiated. An Illustration of Connectivity: Growth and Legitimacy of the UN In the discussing the global connectivity dynamic, one must make a distinction between governmental global institutions and non-governmental global institutions. The epicenter of governmental organization is the UN, an association of dozens of specialized agencies, programs, sub-organizational forms and autonomous but affiliated global organizations. The most common global organizations affiliated with the UN are 1) UN Programs: organizational forms which are highly specialized, but directly responsible to the authority and budget allotments of the UN; 2) UN specialized agencies which are more autonomous global institutions affiliated with the UN. Some of the UN specialized agencies were in existence long before the creation of the UN. The Universal Postal Union, the International Labour Organization, the World Meteorological Organizations represent global institutions existing prior to the UN but becoming UN affiliates in the late 1940s. This, in itself, indicates the UN as a centralized quasi- governmental body attempting to provide social organization at the global level. It should be pointed out that, although, the scope is much larger, UN affiliated global organizations do not operate with the same power and authority as the Nation State. The UN, for instance, holds a peacekeeping force, but it has no world military machinery to speak of. It can pass resolutions, but has no real way to enforce these resolutions if individual States do not act upon these agreements. Similarly, world environmental organizations hold no power to enact world environmental standards which individual nations must then impose upon their peoples and business units. They usually disseminate information and recommend changes in industrial pollution policies in various States, but again, it is the State Bureaucracy which must give its seal of approval before such recommendations become established. Nevertheless, governmental global organizations do play a key role at attempts disseminating information, diplomacy, and in attempts to plan and coordinate social action. Non governmental global organizations are simply independent, non-UN affiliated global organizations and institutions. The World Council of Churches, International Olympic Organizing Committee, the International Council of Scientific Unions are examples of these. A look at the governmental global organizations can prove quite useful for our purposes here. In the following sections and we consider two dynamics of the globalization process with respect to global institutionalization: 1) the growth in global organization since the creation of the UN; and 2) notions of legitimacy regarding global organizations. Growth in global organization is revealed in two dimensions in Table One. In the first set of indicators, we track the growth of the UN from the standpoint of the number of nation states joining the UN as official members. The decolonization of nations, particularly of African states in 1960 caused a substantial increase. The question of global culture, however, would ask why nations who have established independence seek connectedness with this global institution. The second set of indicators views the development of UN related global organizations. These suggest that while some international governmental institutions existed prior to the UN, most became affiliated with the UN following 1945. The UN's structure continues to develop as well. Only three major UN affiliated organizations developed in 1945 at the time of the UNs creation. The bulk of global organizational development and differentiation has occurred after the initial development of the UN and is fairly spread out over 5 year periods. Keep in mind that these organizations are only major UN- affiliated global organizations. They do not include global- oriented sub-organizations which are affiliated with these organizations, non-UN affiliated global organizations, or smaller UN organizational affiliates which have a global orientation. In Table Two, these major UN-affiliates (and three non-UN affiliated global organizations) are listed based on the year established, member nations served or participating, sphere of specialization, Status, and official title of the organization. We should note that not all of these organizations are formatted to include representatives of all 160 nations. Several are more specialized entities created by the UN which may include UN designated specialists from a set of the larger community of societies. The issues which these global organizations confront also vary. Some, like the UNDP, may be involved in specific projects relating to Third World Countries. Others, like the UNTAD are specialized in coordinating international trade relations across numerous societies, core and peripheral. UNDRO, on the other hand, deals specifically with training and relief for large scale disasters. Differentiation in society is a process through which a single institution begins to split into two or more institutions, specializes in a particular need and is thereafter regarded as a legitimate stage of authority to coordinate actives, interaction and organization upon this specialized stage. The development of global organization clearly reflects a process of differentiation and specialization at the global level. Even though the UN is viewed as the central force for governmental global organization, there has been extensive differentiation and specialization of this global institutional form since its creation. At the global level, however, the connectivity dynamic also operates by generating needs for sphere specialists and representatives across societal lines. A UN-affiliate specializing in problems of the environment draws its membership not merely from one society but a plurality. This will be discussed in detail in an upcoming section. Issues of Legitimacy A key point of interest is the "perception" of the concept of "global organization." Do elites, organizations and institutions within society view global organization as a legitimate and appropriate stage for aiding in managing the complexities of the modern world? One way to examine this phenomenon is to examine how social units describe an organization. A person who views a global organization as an "satanic force or the beast of the Revelation" obviously neither perceives the organization as legitimate or appropriate. An organization, however, which is described as a "moral hope for mankind" is fusing a great deal of moral legitimacy into the organization. One indicator of the descriptive imagery surrounding the UN can be gauged in the way Heads of State describe the organization. This of course, does not take into account other sociocultural entities like social groups, religions, social movements, or even individuals, but Heads of State do represent the pinnacle of societal authority. How do top societal elites describe a global organization like the UN. In 1985, the UN held a special 30th anniversary commemorative session. Heads of State were asked to give addresses regarding the UN. Table Three represents a content analysis of those speeches. Searched for in this content analysis were specific descriptions of the UN as a global organizational format. In other words, specific references were sought which embodied some form of descriptive imagery of the organizational body itself. Many Heads of States utilized no descriptive imagery. Rather than making specific reference to the organizational body itself, they gave historical accounts of the UNs successes, pitfalls and future potentials. In a majority of the addresses the UN was given high rates of praise. There were however, a significant minority of Heads of State who took a moment or two to make specific descriptive reference to the UN as an organizational format. These organizational descriptions were distinguished on the basis of "mechanistic" imagery and "humanitic" imagery. Mechanistic imagery describes the UN as some type of forum or organization which is necessary or indispensable in the growing complexity of the modern world. Humanitic descriptions, on the other, tend to fuse certain moral or quasi sacred qualities into descriptions of the UN. The content analysis reveal both mechanistic and humanitic descriptions present across every geographic sphere. Tables Three and Four reveal a gauge and sampling of both types of these descriptions. Findings in Table Three reveal roughly equalized levels of mechanistic and humanitic imagery. Also broken down on the basis of regional blocks, the analysis reveals a fairly even distribution of mechanistic/humanitic imagery across continents-- with the exception of a significant clustering of mechanistic imagery in the old Eastern Europe/Soviet zone. Important to emphasize is both forms of descriptive imagery, mechanistic and humanitic, afford legitimacy, but it is the latter which tends to fuse the organizational form within a higher moral dimension, hence elevating its legitimacy to a quasi-sacred level. III. Global Federationalism: The Integrative Feature of the Global System Globalization, as revealed through connectivity, does not involve the dissolving of national society within a larger global one. The structures of globalization, particularly in global institutions, have often ordered social density through an integrative process of Global Federationalism--that is, a drive toward the full representation and participation of national representatives and specialists in formally structured transsocietal institutional environments. While these environments tend to center around supra-national goals and global-humanistic themes, they also verify the present State system through orchestrating, integrating and ordering national societal identities within a larger organizational context. Global Federationalism, to elaborate, can be defined as the interwovenism and ordering of societal specialists and/or participants within global organizational frameworks in conjunction with a supranational prime directive or objective. In transcending the societal context, rather than producing stressing tensions pointing toward the deterioration of the state system, global- oriented frameworks generally reconfirm the fundamental value of national societies. Reconfirmation, and in some cases, veneration of the state system, is evidenced with the fact that representatives of the various states are viewed as necessary stitches in the overall fabric of an international organization or ritual. The core theme underpinning such institutions often appears as a supranational prime directive or objective, primarily sphere-specific as in the case of one of the World Health Organization's directives to approximate "heath for all" by the year 2000 (UN Chronicle, 1986). Revolving around particular prime- directives are representatives and specialists of the state system, integrated and given legitimacy in the interwovenism, degree of connectivity and commitment of the set of states participating in these institutions. Thus many of these organizations institutions take on the appearance of the "federation of planets" in the Star Trek scenario--cultural and nationalistic divergences are not merely expected, they are embedded within the very grid of the sociocultural entity. In other words, it is the divergence and differences which must gather and participate upon this common stage to legitimate the very essence of "global" in a global- oriented organization. A structured example in the institutional sense is the opening and closing ceremonies of the Olympic Games. The Games reflect particular aspects of humanity and the human circumstance; on one hand competition both inter- and intrasocietally, and on the other the social and individual dimension of sport and sportsmanship in the context of community, society, and globe. As one of the more longstanding global institutions, a number of symbols (ie: the torch, the flag of rings, the releasing of the doves, etc) are interwoven within the Games and can be analyzed as symbolic properties deriving specifically from the substantive content of the transsocietal sphere rather than properties which emerge from the sum of the parts involved. Nationalities and national sentiments are not diminished within this transsocietal context, but on the contrary, enhanced. Fueling the enhancement process are precisely the sphere-specific supra-ordinate sentiments and symbols through which patriotic and nationalistic sentiments are ordered and given meaning on an international level. In terms of the federationalism embedded in the Games, the norm that full participation of the diversity of nation states acts to legitimize this event offers explanation to the fact that two recent Olympics (1984, 1980) unfolded on a down note. The stage failed to be filled with its proper combinations of "differentness" and differentness is central part of the transsocietal spherical equation. This norm reverberates through other global organizational forms and events as well. Although not representing nations, but rather religions, the very success of the gathering of religious elites in Assisi in 1986 (Time, 1986) directly depended on the degree of diversity present. If the gathering only included Christians, Muslims and Hindus a large chunk of world religious picture would be missing, and hence the event viewed incomplete. Federationalism is also heavily embedded within the organizational format of the World Health Organization. Legitimation of the "Health for All by the Year 2000" strategy was granted by World Health Executive Board and the World Health Assembly only after the initial strategic report compiled and synthesized "data supplied to WHO by 140 countries" (UN Chronicle, 1986). Moreover, a calling for a truly global response to a "global epidemic" requires a diversity of scientism from a plurality of national contexts--not merely an American or British response. It was thus a significant media event that China, even though only reporting two cases of Aids in 1988, sent for the first time, a representative to the World Conference on Aids in that year--the stage is made more complete. Another illustration includes the World Conference of Cities. The Conference centers upon the directive of making cities more livable, and again, important and vital is the congregation of representative elites from the major and minor world cities for dialogue and comparison. The federationalism embedded in the grid of global organizational form also fosters an internal pull from the given organization to the external world further inducing increases in the number of participants in the organization. On the reverse end, as societies continue to differentiate, looking outward toward the world produces an active societal push to link with world on a multidimensional basis. In the Olympic Games of 1984, despite the Communist absence, numbers of nation participants continued to increase from previous games. Again, decolonialization of much of the Third World also acts as a mechanism of increase, but the crucial question is why the societal system desires linkage. Reasons for individual linkage may vary, however the crucial point is we now witness the rapid creation of sphere-specific global environments opening space for the participation of a plurality of societies. Federationalism can be most accurately defined as an ideal global-organizational format derived from the interface of the heightened value placed upon humanity and the system of societal polities on the one hand, and the increasingly standardized level of intersocietal differentiation across societies on the other. "Ideal" should be emphasized. Throughout the history of the Olympic Games, the UN, scientific intergovernmental organizations, and other organizational forms, numerous objections have emerged regarding matters of politicalization and bias, unfavorable balance of power, exclusionary practices, and First World dominance. Nevertheless, inherent in the core of such objections is, in fact, an underlying appeal for the empirical real to approximate the ideal. IV. Global Culture In speaking of the "global" as system, one must consider not only structural features such as global moral density and global connectivity, but cultural features as well. One must consider theoretical conceptualizations such as the Global Normative or Global Cultural as the overarching body of standards, norms, value orientations and expectations, and sets of meanings and ends influencing and governing the processes of societal and institutional life in the global system. These include not only orientations governing decentralized international interaction or highly structured global institutions, but significant systems of meaning through which particular entities and aspects of global condition--including societalization, modernity, globality, technology and change, population, cultural integration and revitalization, and the vast array of issues, problems, and potentials confronting the whole of modern societies--are interpreted. In short, the Global Cultural represents "patterns of meaning" which "give the action system (in this case, the global system) it primary sense of direction (Parsons, 1977: p. 178). It is possible at this point to examine a small portion of this "system of meaning" for our purposes here. In this section we will situate notions like societalization, modernity, globality, and humanity within a working "systems" context. At the most general of levels, these notions are held as ideals by the system of societies, ideals bought into by individual societies and governing very large portions of the social realities of nation states. In Parsonian imagery, terms like "modernity" and "globality" are the cultural reserve feeding information into the entire system of societies. They, simply put, are pattern maintaining ideals and ethics for individual societal systems. This is an interesting twist, for terms like modernity and globalization have often been referred to as agents of "social change" for the individual society. Yet, at the global level, and if we are to speak of the globe as a system, societalization, modernity, and globality stabilize order and structure at the world level. In short, societalization adds more legitimate actors to the family of nations, modernity standardizes social infrastructures and structures across societies, and globality provides a sort of rush hour of connectedness between societies. Societalization, for instance, generally refers to the process of becoming a legitimate societal unit in the modern world. At the level of global culture, societalization is defined as achieving the status of the "nation state." It is the nation state which is now the most widely accepted form for complete societalization. Ethnic and Religious forces may be constantly at work in the heart of many societal systems, but they are not viewed as appropriate global actors unless these forces are tied to a legitimate state system. Individual societal cultures must be backed by the structural apparatus of the "nation state" if these cultures are to have legitimate voice in the modern global system. A large part of global history for individual societies has been the breaking away from colonial baggage and the subsequent joining of the world as legitimate "nation state" actors. Thus becoming a society has not meant "change" for the global system as much as it has solidified a global order of legitimate state units. The volatility of ethnic conflict in the world today only magnifies the importance and value social actors place on "societalization." Each actor, through violent (the conflict in Yugoslavia) or peaceful (Ghandi and India) is striving for a legitimate voice in the world system. But to achieve that voice means "nation state" status. It is the "state" system which is recognized as the means to achieve accepted identity in the modern world. This propels societalization as not merely a process, but an ideal in the modern world. Becoming a society, however, involves more than achieving "nation state" status. Once a "state" is initiated in the modern world, then an array of other process become imperative. For an individual society these include the kind of values expressed, heritage put forward, and the kind of "societal identity" presented to the larger world order. These are all cultural questions, questions from which societal systems draw upon their own unique histories for answers. Societalization is ongoing, and the problems of structure (attaining nation state status) give way to the problems of culture (attaining unity and presenting the societal self). Modernity, most interestingly, can be conceptualized not just as a program of action, process, or state of being, but rather, an ideal and ethic operating in the global system. In one of his earlier essays Wallerstein asks the question of why poor nations do not rise up and smite the rich (1979). The answer, I suggest, is that a ripe global culture exists which situates "modernity" as a societal work ethic bought into by rich and poor societies alike. For the first world, it may very well be a work ethic of "post- modernity" or post industrial society, but the ideal is held with all the vigor of a cultural ethic. Less developed societal systems also buy into the ethic, for it is something strived for no matter the economic and social condition of the particular peripheral society. At the broadest of levels, "modernity" simply means success in the world system; how that "success" is defined is opened to interpretation based on the interpenetration of the individual societal system's cultural store with global notions of modernity. There are, however, some accepted guidelines. Notions of societal modernity are guided by what Boli-Bennett terms "a fairly uniform set of standards" defining "external success" in the wider system of societies, internal prosperity for one's own society, and the "mechanisms to be used to achieve internal and external success" (Boli-Bennett, 1980: 87). This is not to equate "modernity" with "westernization", although a plethora of notions of modernity are fueled by the success of the western world in what might be termed societal modernization. There is however, a store of cultural energy in each individual societal system which will work in combination with more standardized conceptualizations at the global level for enacting programs and plans of actions toward modernity. Along with modernity, globality itself can be conceptualized as a cultural ideal. Globality, simply put, refers to a society's integration within the global order, the connectedness of the individual society--and its respective sectors--to the larger global whole. Connectedness, it should be stressed again, does not indicate a withering away or melting of the "State" system in the face of some larger global village or community. Connectedness, to be sure, refers to the connectivity of the nation state system and its sub-sectors to the larger global order. Federationalism, as previously discussed, more accurately defines this condition. National societies are not stripped of their flags when they join the larger global system, but rather the flags are celebrated. There is in other words, individual identity (the societal system) in the larger group context (the family of nations). While modernity on the one hand, equips states and their sectors with a daily work ethic for societal upgrading, globality creates a sort of rush hour of connectivity. Nation States buy into federationalism and connectedness as much as they buy into notions of modernity. Globality defines one's proper place in the world, or the larger scheme of things. Connectedness, in the face of a plethora of nation states, means coming up for air. Connectedness unites states with something much larger than themselves in terms of participation in global events, rituals, organizations, and institutions. These are all part and parcel of the larger global order. An order which has become more distinct and real in the past few centuries than at any time previous in civilizational history. In speaking about the heightened value societies place upon globality, computerization plays a vital role in allowing connectedness to proceed. At the most general of levels, computerization is essentially perceived as one of the more significant instruments facilitating the technological "compression" and "interdependence" of the globe. This, of course does not suggest technological primacy in the globalization process, rather, a dynamic socio-cultural formation evolving in the direction of intensified intersocietal interaction and utilizing computerization as a kind of social highway to assist this process. Computerization is valued for its power of linkage--in other words, it represents accessing the wider global system for individual societal systems. Globalization ordains and demands a sort of rush hour of association and participation of societal and sectoral entities within larger global contexts and formats. As this dynamic intensifies, computerization's significance continues to expand. Plugging into the world and accessing the system may be catch phrases, but they also accurately describe a dynamic process lending itself to the creation of a "single world." In fact, as computerization is more comprehensively embedded in the technological aspects of globalization, it now becomes possible to speak of global computerization or the objective computerization of the globe. Global Computerization refers to the proliferation and degree of intersocietal computerized or computer-assisted linkages binding societal systems, social sectors and various institutional entities at the distinctly global level. The important point however, is that access is both critical and paramount for all societal systems and other societal/global institutions, and computerization is increasingly valued for is its perceived and very real ability to assist in access and connectivity. In much of the less developed world, the significance of computerization intensifies in highly urban corporate sectors where numerous channels and avenues of communication open between central sectors and wider global networks. In addition to notions of societalization, modernity, and globality, are other global cultural ideals such as the notion of "humanity." In extending this line of reasoning with specific reference to the creation of global institutions and organizations, humanity can be categorized as a sort of pre-contractual solidarity at the global level, acting as a common frame of reference, permitting and encouraging a dialogue of diversity at the global level. The greater intensity through which sociocultural entities and collectivities respond to the symbolic significance of humanity as a crucial reference point, it is increasingly likely emergent "humanity" solidifies as the social solidarity underpinning a heterogenous cultural mosaic at the global level. Humanity further provides the symbolic substance of higher appeal global organizational forms and events draw upon. Consider, for instance John Paul II's remarks at the spiritual summit of 160 religious elites in Assisi in late 1986: ...Our meeting attests only--and this is its real significance for the people of our time--that in the great battle for peace, humanity, in its very diversity, must draw from its deepest and most vivifying sources, where its conscience is formed and upon which is founded the moral action of all people (Time, Nov. 10, 1986) Diversity here is recognized, if not applauded, but the concept of humanity and the fact the "religious" is viewed the "deepest and most vivifying" part of humanity is more fundamental. On this basis, particular "ways of prayer" are relativized in relation to humanity, and prayer as part of the human condition and circumstance becomes more paramount, in turn, permitting and encouraging a gathering of styles of prayer. Humanity, as a force being appealed to as the common frame of reference, allows us to jump above fences previously separating social units. While it can certainly be questioned whether such an event is even quasi- organizational, similar appeals to humanity can be found in highly structured institutional forms such as the UN. At the closing of the UN Assembly's Fortieth anniversary session in October of 1985, Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar--speaking to what was coined the "largest gathering of world leaders" since the UN's creation--noted in his address: Leaders of nations are assembled here and behind them all is the single collective constituency of the human race. Every such gathering at a historic point involves a report to that constituency-- to its vast, silent majority which wants peace with justice and dignity, with freedom from fear and the hope of a better tomorrow (UN Chronicle, 1985). Similarly, President Ershad of Bangladesh, commented, "we may have gathered here as sperate nations, but we should not forget that we are all members of a family...we are all here representing mankind (UN Chronicle, 1985). In the World Health Organization's mobilization against AIDS, terms such as "global epidemic" and "global attack" are stressed in reference to the protection of humanity and the global community (UN Chronicle, 1987). Ultimately, the evolutionary commitment of individuals and sociocultural entities to an intercultural concept of humanity encourages particular goals (AIDS prevention, health, peace, etc) to be constructed not merely as societal goals, but as transsocietal goals for the whole of humanity, which in turn allows for an active integration of social diversity on a common stage. V. The Globe as System: Theoretical Considerations Figure Two ------------------------------------------------------------ A G ECONOMY POLITY Economic Development The Nation State Resource Ownership Globalizing Sectors World Trade Networks Global Institutions Core/Peripheral Status ------------------------------------------------------------ L I GLOBAL CULTURAL GLOBAL INTEGRATION Societalization Ideals Federationalism Modernity Ideals Global Institutionalization Globality Ideals Global Ritualism Humanity Ideals ------------------------------------------------------------ In many respects, throughout this paper, the notion of "systems" has been present in speaking about the modern global condition. Globalization is a process, simply put, systematizing the globe. Loose knit interaction on the global level, in recent years has witnessed institutionalization. Problems in the modern world are not merely societal problems but "global problems." And these problems are increasingly addressed by global institutions and organizations. Even the nation state, increasingly employs a federation scenario to tackle particular issues. The Gulf War was one such issue. But how do we speak of "systems" when we are dealing with the globe. If a "systems" approach is to be utilized, we can follow the Parsonian lead by suggesting that there must be adaptive, goal attainment, integrative, and pattern maintaining features of this system. An AGIL schema can be useful in pinpointing various aspects of globalization we have been discussing in previous sections. Simply put, the thrust of this paper has suggested that globalization represents a tightened world, but one which retains features such as the nation state, while adding dimensions such as the global institution and a heightened amount of contact and interaction at the global level. In "systems" terms, federationalism, by and large, is a fundamental integrative feature of the system. It is a working logic for ordering and structuring the coming together of nation states and their sectors in global organizational formats. Federationalism is integrative precisely because it provides the format for fitting the parts into the larger whole. Whether this is the UN where formal nation states are represented or a longstanding organization like the World Health Organization, federationalism provides a schema for ordered integration and interaction. Consequently, Federationalism is situated in the integrative sector of the AGIL model. As we discussed at a previous point, notions of societalization, modernity, globality, and humanity occupy part of an emergent global culture. As societies strive toward modernity (post-modernity) a global system solidifies. We can begin to speak of customary socio-structural features like common structures of intrasocietal differentiation across the system of societies. Many of these features, non-existent one hundred years ago in many peripheral societies, are now common properties of core and peripheral societal systems alike. The commitment of a large number of societies, to an ideal we have come to call "modernity," undoubtedly has been one of the central forces at work in creating standardized levels of intrasocietal differentiation. We can further speak of pattern maintenance in terms of the degree of the societal system's connectedness with the larger whole. Structures of intersocietal connectivity can be discerned and distinguished as patterned forums and frameworks for the gatherings of global diversity, while a highly held ideal such as "globality" is the significant aspect of global culture ordaining this very process of connectivity. In the goal attainment sphere, we find a distinct set of actors at the global level. First and foremost, is the nation state, or the political state, which operates with the most fundamental force of societal authority. In addition, globalizing societal sectors are also included. Sectors are not merely joined to the nation state vertically, but linked with like sectors horizontally. They represent embryo's for future global ritualization and institutionalization (another integrative feature of the system). There are also the plethora of global organizations and institutions already on the playing field in the modern global system. These cannot be dismissed, especially the UN as a coordinating institution, for they represent goal attaining action units at the global level. They may not act with the same authority of the nation state, but they nevertheless exist in the modern global circumstance. Finally, in this scheme, the economy, or rather, world economic system is put forward as the adaptive sphere. Societies in a larger system are viewed not only in terms of their level of economic development and impacts upon the distributive system, but in terms of their core or peripheral status in the world system. A peripheral status coupled with a base of low economic development and poor resource allocation or ownership is most likely situated in the fourth or fifth worlds. As a system, it's adaptive capacity is generally weak or poor, and this in turn adds tensions to the society's relationship with the larger global system. Central problems in this society converge with basic needs and adaptation. The purpose of this section is to begin thinking in, at least, "systems terms" when discussing globalization or aspects of the global condition. From Durkheim to Parsons, there is a strong "systems" imagery in sociological literature. The problem has been that the term "system" has been rather restricted to use in conjunction with the "national society" or nation state. How we get beyond that point is to map out the very features and properties of the modern global system. Is a global institution merely an organizational format in the human circumstance or does it, in addition, serve some broader and wider purpose. In other words, how does it function in the larger scheme of things. Global connectivity, as expressed through global institutionalization is merely in its infancy. In the past half century we have seen the embryo for new goal attaining formats and forums in the modern human condition. We cannot say, at this period, that we are at the "end of history" with the development of the constitutional nation state. The nation state is but one development in the overall processes of globalization. Future societies, for instance, may place a very high premium on global institutional formats (ie: social control, global problems, etc) rather than the volunterism of a small set of national societies (ie: nation states participating in the Gulf War). Global organization and organization of at the level of the globe are evident processes at work. They have systems generating potential and can be viewed to function in that light. Time will eventually tell how much more common they will actually become and with what scope of authority they will essentially act. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bergesen, Albert. 1980. "From Utilitarianism to Globology: The Shift from the Individual to the World as the Primordial Unit of Analysis," in Albert Bergesen, ed., Studies of the Modern World System. New York: Academic Press. Boli-Bennett, John. 1980. "Global Integration and Universal Increase in State Dominance, 19190-1970," in Albert Bergesen, ed., Studies of the Modern World System. New York: Academic Press. Calhoun, C., Drummond, W., Whittington, D. 1987. "Computerized Information Management in a System-Poor Environment." TWPR 9 (4) 361-379. Calhoun, C. 1987. "The Infrastructure of Modernity: Indirect Social Relationships, Information Technology, and Social Integration." in Neil Smelser, ed., Modernization and Social Change, Berkeley: University of California Press. Food and Agricultural Organization. 1977. The Fourth World Food Survey. Rome: U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization. The Futurist. 1986. "High-Tech Expansion in China." November- December. 44. Harms, John B. 1981. "Reason and Change in Durkheim's Thought: The Changing Relationship Between Individuals and Society," in Pacific Sociological Review. 24:4 : 393-410. Kaye, Lincoln. 1988. "The Brainstorming Way to Success." Far Eastern Economic Review. January. 60-61. Maier, John H. 1988. "Thirty Years of Computer Science Developments in the People's Republic of China: 1956-1985," in Annal of the History of Computing. 10 (1) 19-34. Matvey, J. 1988. "Global Connectivity: Theoretical Considerations of its Form and the Role of Societal Differentiation." Presented at ASR Meetings, Atlanta, GA. (Unpublished) Meyer, J. 1980. "The World Polity and the Authority of the Nation State," in Albert Bergesen, ed., Studies of the Modern World System. New York: Academic Press. Miller, G.T. 1979. Living in the Environment. Belmont: Wasdsworth Publishing Company. Parsons, Talcott. 1977. Social Systems and the Evolution of Action Theory. New York: The Free Press. Population Reference Bureau. 1978. World Population Data Sheet. Washington DC: Population Reference Bureau. Robertson, Roland and Chirico, JoAnn. 1985. "Humanity, Globalization, and Worldwide Religious Resurgence: A Theoretical Exploration," in Sociological Analysis 46:3 : 219-241. Robertson, Roland. 1987a. "Globality, Global Culture and Images of World Order," in Neil Smelser, ed., Modernization and Social Change, Berkeley: University of California Press. Robertson, Roland. 1987b. "Globalization, Modernization and Postmodernization: The Ambiguous Position of Religion" presented at New ERA Seminar, October 7-11, St. Martin, French West Indies. (Unpublished). Robertson, Roland. 1987c. "Globalization and Societal Modernization: A Note on Japan and Japanese Religion," Sociological Analysis 47:2 : 35-42. Rogers, E. 1986. Communication Technology: The New Media in Society. New York: Free Press. Tate and Maier. 1987. "Dateline Beijing: The China Syndrome." Datamation. 1 September 33-42. Time, November 10, 1987. "A Summit for Peace in Assisi." Tombaugh, J.W. 1984. "Evaluation of an International Scientific Computer-Based Conference." Journal of Social Issues. Volume 40, No. 3. 129-44. UN Chronicle. 1985. 22:4 : 1-72. UN Chronicle. 1987. "WHO launches world-wide AIDS 'awareness' campaign." 24:8 :74. UN Chronicle. 1986. "WHO Board reviews 'Health for All by Year 2000' Strategy." 23:3 :88-9. Universal Almanac. 1991. Kansas City/New York: Andrews and McMeel. Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1979. The Capitalist World Economy. Cambridge: University Press. Wuthnow, Robert. "The World-Economy and the Institutionalization of Science in Seventeenth-Century Europe," in Albert Bergesen, ed., Studies in the Modern World System. New York: Academic Press. Table One Growth in UN Affiliated Global Organizational Structures Number of Member States and Principal UN Affiliated Global Organizational Forms Years # Nations Total # Cumulative UN Related Total # UN Joined UN Nations % Global Related Global Organizations Organizations ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pre-1945 6 6 1945 50 50 0.31 3 9 1946-1950 10 60 0.38 4 13 1951-1955 16 76 0.48 0 13 1956-1960 24 100 0.63 4 17 1961-1965 18 118 0.74 4 21 1966-1970 9 127 0.79 3 24 1971-1975 17 144 0.90 5 29 1975-1980 9 153 0.96 3 32 1981-1990 7 160 1.00 0 32 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: Compiled from Universal Almanac, 1991. Pages 462. Table Two Major UN Related Organizational Forms Established Organization Member Nations Sphere Headquarters Status Title ----------- ------------ -------------- ------------------ ----------------- ------ ----------------------------------------- 1865 ITU 160 Communications Geneva UNSA International Telecommunication Union 1873 WMO 158 Environment Geneva UNSA World Meteorological Organization 1875 UPU 168 Communication Berne UNSA Universal Postal Union 1883 WIPO 112 Academic Geneva UNSA Intellectual Property Organization 1919 ILO 150 Labour Geneva UNSA International Labour Organization 1923 INTERPOL 146 Criminal Justice Saint-Cloud, Fr IND Criminal Police Organization 1945 FAO 158 Food Strategy Rome UNSA Food and Agri Organization IBRD 151 Finance DC UNSA World Bank Reconstruction and Development IMF 151 Finance DC UNSA International Monetary Fund 1946 UNESCO 158 Cultural Relations Paris UNSA UN Ed., Sci., Cultural Organization UNICEF 159 Children NY,NY UNP UN Children's Fund 1947 ICAO 156 Airspace Montreal UNSA International Civil Aviation Organization 1948 GATT 125 Economy Geneva UNSA General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade WHO 166 Health Geneva UNSA World Health Organization 1950 UNHCR 159 Refugees Geneva UNP UN High Commission for Refugees 1956 IFC 131 Finance DC UNSA World Bank Finance Corporation 1957 IAEA 113 Environment Vienna UNSA Atomic Energy Agency 1958 IMO 127 Environment/Econ London UNSA Maritime Organization 1960 IDA 135 Finance DC UNSA World Bank Development Agency 1963 WFP 159 Food Strategy Rome UNP World Food Programme 1964 UNCTAD 159 Economy Geneva UNP Conference on Trade and Development 1965 UNDP 159 Modernity NY,NY UNP UN Development Program UNITAR 159 Modernity NY, NY UNP UN Institute for Training and Research 1966 UNIDO 118 Modernity Vienna UNSA Industrial Development Organization 1967 G-77 127 Economy NY, NY IND Group of 77 1969 UNFPA 159 Population NY, NY UNP UN Population Fund 1972 UNDRO 159 Disasters Geneva UNP UN Disaster Relief UNEP 159 Environment Nairobi, Kenya UNP UN Environmental Program 1973 INTELSAT 144 Communications DC IND Telecommunications Satellite Organization UNU 159 Academic Tokyo UNP United Nations University 1974 WFC 159 Food Strategy Rome UNP World Food Council 1977 IFAD 139 Food Strategy Rome UNSA Fund for Agricultural Development 1978 HABITAT 159 Housing Nairobi, Kenya UNSA Centre for Human Settlements 1979 INSTRAW 159 Women Santo Domingo, DR UNP Institute for Advancement of Women Source: Universal Almanac, 1991. Pages 461-69. Table Four Samples of Mechanistic/Humanitic Catch Terms UN Special Commemorative Session, October 1985 (page # in parentheses) Mechanistic Descriptions: "...international forum..." (24) "...indispensable instrument..."(24) "...international body will remain an essential instrument..." (31) "...irreplaceable framework..."(39) "...most efficient instrument created by mankind to meet the challenge confronting it during this stage of its evolution..."(27) "...international instrument..."(53) "...forum of multilateral diplomacy..."(53) "...universal framework..." (54) Humanitic Descriptions: "It embodies the conscience of the world...last moral threshold..." (65) "...moral force..." (27) "...moral authority of the collective voice of mankind..." (27) "...international embodiment of the ideals of peace and the liberty of peoples..." (27) "...ultimate hope..." (35) "...conscience for peace and ray of hope in the midst of the dark forces of evil...(38) "...the authentic voice of humanity's conscience..." (40) "...the basis of hope in the material and intellectual progress of peoples and countries..." (56) "...humanity's only hope..."(26) Source: UN Chronicle. 1985. 22:4 : 1-72. Table Three Content Analysis of Addresses by Heads of State UN Special Commemorative Session, 1985 Total # of Region Addresses Mechan Humam NR ------------------------------------------------------------- Africa 27 4 5 18 Asia 30 4 6 20 L.A. & Carr. 25 4 3 18 E. Europe 10 5 1 4 W. Europe & other 21 2 3 16 Others 7 1 1 5 ------------------------------------------------------------- Totals 120 20 19 81 Source: UN Chronicle. 1985. 22:4 : 1-72.