The Advantages of Applying a Multidisciplinary Perspective to Analysis of Complex Events - Coursework Example

The advantages of applying a multidisciplinary perspective to analysis of complex events Essay Paper 2183 words of School Introduction With globalization comes climate change and with humanity growth comes more climate change and gas emissions. The advantages of applying multidisciplinary perception in combating globalization and climate change is continuously finding solutions that can be reached by way of consensus. The issues, processes, as well as dilemmas that have been a result of globalization have shaped new forms of politics. In addition, they have outlined some of the bluntest challenges faced in the modern-day era. Some of the key challenges have been in the areas of governance and cosmopolitanism. Governance Concerning governance, it is all about questioning of governance by exploring the changing conditions of politics, which illuminates why statism as well as nationalism provide insufficient political resources to meet the problems brought about by a further global age. While cosmopolitanism can be perceived as, a more relevant and appropriate means of framing todays politics. In addition, cosmopolitanism is centered on four basic principles, and it can be argued that cosmopolitanism is the political project of the present day. Points of clarification need to be recognized. Firstly, globalization has nothing new to offer. There have been various phases of globalization in the last two millennia’s, which include world religious developments, discovery age, and the spreading of empires. In recognition to this, it is significant to note that the present form of globalization has something new that is particularly converging activities across humanity 1. This can be traced by measuring the extent, velocity, intensity, and networks of human impact as well as relating to all core areas of social activity of which include political, economic, legal, environmental and communicative. Contemporary globalization expresses common elements with phases of past but is distinguished by unique organizational features that create a world in which the extensive human relations reach and networks is matched by relatively high intensity, velocity as well as high propensity impact across various aspects of social life. As a result a global economy emerges, whereby there are 24 hour financial trading markets, corporations of multinationals that command economic resources in surplus of those enjoyed by numerous countries, new formation of international regulation, regional and global development of governance structures as well as global creation of systemic problems, which include ozone depletion, global warming, AIDS, market instability, mass terrorism, money laundering, international drug trading, among other activities. These developments pose numerous striking challenges to the form and nature of governance.2 Globalization: Governance challenges Firstly, globalization as well as regionalization contemporary processes are a creation of overlapping power and interaction networks. This spreads out across territorial boundaries creating pressures and straining a world order that has been designed in harmony with the principle of Westphalian of which is the sovereign exclusive rule over a territory that is delimited. A consequence of this is the effective political power of locus, which is no longer that of national governments; effective share power, bartered as well as contested by diverse forces as well as agencies, private and public, crossing of national, regional, as well as international territories. This shift has resulted in the surfacing of global politics of which is a distinctive element. Political actions are one aspect of the world that can quickly get global effects. Political action sites can be linked via quick communications through complex political interaction networks. The global political idea tends to challenge the traditional differences between the domestic as well as the foreign, and the territorial and non-territorial, as fixed in the modern ideas of the political. These distinctions did not only shape modern political theory but also shaped institutional building as an obvious division of labor that was established between ministries of state founded on focusing on matters domestic as well as those created to follow geopolitical queries. Global politics points out the richness as well as complexity of interconnections, which transcend states as well as societies within the global order. In addition, global politics today is anchored in large diversification of social as well as ecological questions. Human rights, pollution, terrorism, and drugs are some of the increasing numerous transnational policy concerns that cut across jurisdictions territories and current political boundaries of which require international cooperation in order to have their resolutions satisfied. Alongside the background of solid global interaction networks, the power of the greatest states depends on cooperation of others for effective execution. Nothing portrays this better than the current war on terrorism led by the U.S. The fight on terrorism is not dependent on military intelligence alone or personnel and hardware globally but on the capability to fight and win the hearts and minds of people in various regions, of whom people perceive the U.S as a self-interest nation.3 The second governance challenge pertains to the development of three political and regulatory gaps, which weaken national, international, and political institutions, and these are jurisdictional, incentive and participatory gaps. While global order governance involves multilayered, multi actor processes and multidimensions, in which politics and institutions matter a lot to the outcome of policies. A shift from government to multilayered governance is in theory an unstable shift, with the capability of reversal of engendering a vicious reaction, and a reaction drawn on nostalgia and a search for a national state. However, this reaction by itself is quite unstable and is probably a short or medium term activity. To comprehend why this is the case, nationalism has to be disintegrated. Nationalism Cultural nationalism as it is, will always be a central part of human identity, however with political nationalism the assertion of exclusive political priority of national identity as well as national interest may not remain as important. 4Political nationalism cannot deliver various wanted public goods without pursuing accommodation with others, within as well as through global and regional collaborations. 5In this regard only, a cosmopolitan outlook can accommodate itself with the political challenges of a global era. The most significant advance in the comprehending ethnic as well as national identity has certainly been the realization of its relational nature. A nation or ethnic group is not a self-defined monad of some sort, but an existence in and through its interactions with others. To regard ethnicity as well as nationalism as being relational phenomena begs the question of nature of the relationship. The fundamental view is that of differentiating. A nation or even ethnic group is defined by dissimilarities of history, culture, mentality, physical look and so forth, that is perceived to exist between others as well as itself. In 1969 Barth who first developed this perspective, viewed ethnicity as the usage of signs of cultural differences to mark structural interactions and social boundaries across all boundaries. The tendency to perceive constructive identity has been taken to radical extreme studies influenced by post structuralism. Here, the idea of differences carry a sense given by it, Derrida (1978) who suggested that the classifications are created negatively and hence lack intrinsic content. With this kind of perspective, ethnic groups as well as nations depend on their reality for processes of exclusion that marginalized others. In turn, these subaltern classifications can form a foundation from which oppositional identities emerge and mobilize themselves through resistance. Cosmopolitanism This ideology claims all ethnic human groups belong to one community based on morality that is shared.6The community of cosmopolitanism could be based on morality, an economic shared relationship, or a structure of politics that encompasses diverse nations. Within cosmopolitan communities, individuals from other places (for example nation-states) create relationships of mutual respect. This being said, they are four basic principles that communities must recognize when relating. (1) Individual people are the ultimate units of morality, (2) acknowledgement by everybody for equal status, (3) the consent principle, and (4) the principle of collective decision-making. These four principles set the core for a moral as well as political cosmopolitan universe. However, cosmopolitanism must adhere to these principles and furthermore they are not self-justifying. From the beginning, it is vital to distinguish between two things that usually run concurrently. Questions concerning principles of origin and questions concerning their validity. The first question of principles of origins illuminates ethical circumstances committed to a set of principles; while the second principle of validity focuses on inter subjectivity. Regarding this, the rationale of justification for cosmopolitan principles depends on two central metaprinciples of discourse ethics-one historical and cultural, the other philosophical. These respectively are the autonomy metaprinciple and the impartialist reasoning metaprinciple. Climate change Cost assessments for mitigating climate change seldom address the benefits of damage avoidance because doing so is a hard task and there is uncertainty involved. 7Because of this, the argument that surrounds climate change mitigation compares the moving costs from familiar as well as understood situations of ample supply of cheap fossil- fuel energy, to one where the result is unclear. 8The effective management of risk climate through reduction of greenhouse gases can be achieved in situations whereby the benefits of damage avoidance outweigh the mitigation costs. Damages are usually assessed by monetary as well as non-monetary methods. While the main scientific uncertainties that affect climate change assessment are accounted for by way of risk weight damage calculations. Mitigation versus adaptation Managing of climate change associated with risks can be reduced by greenhouse gas emissions or adapting to climate change effects. Climate change is reduced by mitigation by reduction of rate as well as global warming. The chances of the remaining risks can be increased by adaptation. The ability of a system in coping with changing climate increases adaptation, which include variability as well as extreme events. Mitigation and adaptation reduces risk from opposite extremes of projected ranges of climate change. Adaptation is needed in order to manage risks of climate change that were already committed by historical emissions as well as those anticipated in the nearby future. Adaptation is very crucial for risks that have already been experienced as well as those that are only sensitive towards small changes. Mitigation helps reduce the uppermost climate change possibilities by reducing the possible volume of stored future emissions. 9Where adaptation limits are exceeded, for instance, when adaptation is very expensive, or unfeasible, mitigation may be viewed as the most realistic risk treatment. Unbalanced risks Unbalanced risks are created when short-term economic losses go up against long-term uncertain gains hence creating debate on what action to take concerning climate change. For example, an aversion towards economic loss will focus on the damage that the action on climate change will cause the economy in the short term. This could include perceived economy growth risk at below optimal rate. Those averse towards environmental loss are very sensitive to long-term threats in relation to human and natural systems. Because of the asymmetrical nature, these views are hard to balance. By presenting the issue differently concerning which side of the notion issue of loss as well as gain is attached, proponents of whichever opinion have different burdens of proof. The risks of natural systems as well as water resources are generally high, whereby majority of systems with solid socio-economic components face reasonable risks due to ability to adapt. However, few studies have comprehensively measured the impacts of global warming, (Australia being a case study), show serious damage to the ecosystem of Australia. Concerning global impacts, a further assessment of non-monetary benefits of mitigation climate change include four main indicators: risk extinction of species, coral reefs, North Atlantic thermohaline circulation, as well as melting of the Greenland ice sheet. Each of these natural resources is valued and has limited adaptive capabilities, and hence depends on mitigation. Conclusion Summing up, in today’s modern world almost all areas of life need to apply a multidisciplinary approach, of which has verified to be very advantageous in that it helps in problem solving as well as solution providing that cut across various ethnic groups, nations and also environmental concerns. The perception is usually approached by combining several fields of expertise by professionals who lack similar, but are connected through their educational or professional backgrounds. Bibliography HELD, D (2003) Cosmopolitanism: globalisation tamed?’ Review of International Studies 29 (04) pp 465-480 HARRISON, S (2003) Cultural difference as denied resemblance: reconsidering nationalism and ethnicity. Society for Comparative Study of Society and History 45 (2). pp. 343-352 and 356-359 HOFFMAN, Matthew (2013). "Global Climate Change" in The Handbook of Global Climate and Environmental Policy. Robert Falkner, ed. Wiley-Blackwell. Read pp. 3-16. JONES, R.N. and B.L. PRESTON (2006) Climate Change Impacts, Risk and the Benefits of Mitigation. A report for the Energy Futures Forum. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. pp.5–11. MCINTOSH, I, Sims, D and ROBERTSON, D (2004) ‘We hate the English, except for you, cos you’re our pal’: Identification of the ‘English’ in Scotland, Sociology, 38 (1) 43-45, 46-56 and 56-59 Read More