Chapter 19: Global Crisis, 1910 – 1939
World War I was the first modern war, and its consequences were fundamental on a grand scale. Adelman et al. (2017) state that WWI’s aftermath expedited the trend toward mass society and hastened the debates on how to measure progress and organize people (p.784). Mass society translated into production and consumption at a startling level, which meant that meeting the population’s needs became a major challenge for rulers around the world. It resulted in the emergence of three completely different programs: liberal democracy, authoritarianism, and anticolonialism. These particular ideologies competed for dominance in the world before World War II.
The policies of liberal democracy prevailed in Western Europe and American countries in the decade after World War I. According to Adelman et al. (2017), liberal regimes had been unstable even before WWI – and the Great Depression affected free-market liberalism for the worse (p. 799). The 1930s saw the rise of authoritarian regimes: Adelman et al. (2017) noted that they seemed to be better suited to satisfy the masses in accordance with the requirements of the times (p. 802). Authoritarians deemed liberal democracy weak and corrupt and considered it inappropriate for strong nations. Their regimes mobilized the masses to establish orderly societies; it often involved violent repressions and demands for unquestioning compliance. Strangely enough, it appeared to renew pride and instill a sense of purpose into ordinary people.
Meanwhile, in Asia and Africa, people thought about ways to escape colonial authority. Granted, some considered liberal democratic models as options for state-building, but others negated them due to liberalism being associated with colonialism. As per Adelman et al. (2017), anti-colonial leaders proposed establishing nationalism to traverse democratic liberalism’s contradictions (p. 810). Other paths that were contemplated included fascism, socialism, and communism. Whatever the preference, however, most colonies treasured their religious and cultural traditions and deemed them sources for people’s political mobilization.
Chapter 20: The Three-World Order, 1940 – 1975
The three-world order emerged as the result of the breakdown of the European and Japanese empires and Europe’s loss of its world leadership. According to Adelman et al. (2017), World War II confirmed the nation-state order’s preeminence over the empire as the main form of community organization (p. 830). The United States and the Soviet Union took the vacant place of the new superpowers due to their economies’ sizes, the transcontinental influence of their policies, and each embodying a civilization model applicable to everyone else. The rivalry between the two received the name of the Cold War due to the lack of direct military conflicts between them.
The world’s organization into three blocs continued until the middle of the 1970s. This ordering contributed to western Europe and Japan’s economic recovery from the damages of the war. The recovery of these countries came from their choosing the side of the United States. According to Adelman et al. (2017), the United States, which developed democratic governance forms and the capitalist economy which gave rise to the production of enormous quantities of affordable goods, was on one side (p. 837). The Soviet Union, with its communist egalitarian ideology and prompt transition to high industrialization, was on the other side. Third world countries, stranded, on the one hand, by their inability to minimize poverty, and, on the other, by the two superpowers, fought for their own way. Some states supported democratic institutions and advanced economic development; however, many collapsed into dictatorships and authoritarianism.
In other words, the Third World aimed at radical transformation, both social and political, seeking to find ways differing from both American capitalism and Soviet communism. Although unsuccessful, it still gave rise to significant tension in the three-world order. This tension increased in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and, more than thirty years after the end of the war, the post-1945 world order began to recede.
Chapter 21: Globalization, 1970 – 2000
Even a few centuries ago, it was impossible for many to imagine leaving their local region, let alone do it. There were some exceptions in the face of prominent explorers and travelers, but it took them months and years to cover the distances it now takes hours to cover. The world resembled more a series of separate communities than a global community sharing culture, capital, and networks for people to communicate with one another.
By the end of the 20th century, the world had begun to assume its current shape. Adelman et al. (2017) note that, around the world, food, clothing, and entertainment started to become more similar (p. 894). The trendsetter for all of these changes was the United States – the world’s most influential culture. However, not only did America influence the world, the world influenced America too: many American residents came from somewhere else, and brought their culture with them. Moreover, the United States’ nation-state power was challenged by transnational forces. As a rule, globalization functions through various networks, which operate not depending on the nation-states, and challenge entrenched norms of social and political identification. However, American nation-states are still essential for democratic institutions’ establishment and human rights protection.
It is interesting to note that new technologies, methods of production, and the increased importance of education and personal health as the quality of life improvers along with new possibilities have created greater inequalities. Adelman et al. (2017), report that the disparities between those who have access to products and services and those who are not in the 21st century are striking (p. 911). As humanity learned to master new technologies to advance exchanges between cultures and within them, a wider gap separated global network participants from those who had no chance to become ones. This inequality has been giving rise to a number of different political and cultural forms since the breakdown of the three-world order.
Reference
Adelman, J., Pollard, E., & Tignor, R. L. (2017). Worlds together, worlds apart (Vol. 2). (6th ed.). W.W. Norton.