The Condition of Twenty-First Century Societies - Essay Example

The Condition of Twenty First Century Societies There is still a large degree of uncertainty regarding how the twenty first century will shape up in terms of the political alignments that it is likely to throw up. While many have argued that the systems that are likely to be created would be anarchic and violent, many have also disagreed and argued for the possibility of a certain degree of order even to this seemingly chaotic arrangement. This would then seem to indicate the possibility of a society that cannot be pinned down as this or that. The lack of fixity in modern society can then be looked upon as the reason for this. There is a certain kind of instability that law would display as a social institution in the twenty first century. Apart from this, there would also be a certain privileging of diplomatic ties between nations. This would lead to a situation of anarchy within the society that one is a part of. This paper shall argue that the chaos that is likely to prevail in the twenty first century needs to be problematized. It is not something that can be analyzed through earlier definitions of chaos and anarchy. Many have argued that law is not a viable mode of controlling society in the event of societies being controlled by pragmatic forces rather than the law. Diplomatic ties and the maintenance of economic structures can then be looked upon as the reasons as to why the law is adhered to in the society of the twenty first century. In cases where the law does not facilitate this, it may be flouted with the consent of the very people and institutions which had created them. This flexibility in the operation of the law is a phenomenon that is expected to continue in the twenty first century. The possibilities of chaos thus remain even in the twenty first century that shows no signs of effecting a change in this regard. This has implications for the way one views social institutions and their methods of functioning. This also implies a change in the conventional notions of what constitutes a civilization and civilizational ethos. By the time of the end of the cold war itself, “it was clear that law could not constrain the external behavior of nations in any serious way; only the use of force was respected. If realists were correct that states were rational, unitary actors concerned with their own survival, then they would be loath to enter into agreements that in any way constrained their ability to act.” (Raffo et al. 2007, 5). Here, what is important is the primacy of politics in shaping the way the world is. The role that is to be played by law in shaping politics and political formations is not taken into account. In fact, such views state that law does not play a role at all in shaping such formations and policies. On the other hand, however, there are those that argue that laws do not arise from a vacuum. Laws, they say, are the result of a consensus among the people who decide to create accepted codes of behavior. This is a notion that is advanced by the constructivists. It is then to be noted that laws are the result of the efforts of many, amongst whom the public too is included. This then brings one to the notion of law as something that is the collective effort of many people. “By this account, norms may emerge initially through the efforts of a few norm entrepreneurs. Over time, these entrepreneurs are able to convince actors to adhere to their norms, and at some point, when a sufficient number have adopted a norm, a tipping point is reached and it becomes embedded.” (Raffo et al. 2007, 11). This then reverses the notion of action following the law. Law then becomes the result of action that was previously committed. This then makes law an instrument in the hands of the society and its institutions to maintain status quo. What then appears to be anarchy may merely be an expression of churning within the society. This churning would be the first step towards the creation of new laws within the same society where others existed. This would then lead one towards a new definition of what constitutes anarchy within any given society. Till the last century, it was believed that there would be upheavals in history which would then lead to a return to a normal state for humanity and politics. “This meant living with a perpetual state of international anarchy—a euphemism for near-constant warfare—realists and their neo-realist descendants were confident that the equilibrium of the world system, whenever disturbed, would always be restored."” (Arquilla 2007, 203). An adherence to this belief system would then mean that there would be chaos even in the twenty first century. Anarchy would prevail; however, this anarchy would be justified as an essential condition of modern society. Postmodernists have always argued for the impossibility of unearthing a universal truth. This has also led to truths always being perceived as relative. This also then leads one to think of the atrocities that are committed on people without the assignation of responsibility. In the event of an effacement of history as mere narrative, there is the possibility that politics may become nothing but the play of pragmatic necessities. The situation of permanent anarchy is something that would result and this is not necessarily something that is always desirable. This tendency towards anarchy has been strengthened also because of the proliferation of technology. There are hardly any difficulties that people experience when they need to communicate owing to the development of the internet and social networking that happens through it. There is thus, scope for the dissemination of ideologies of different kinds that may delay the process of the formation of norms. There is thus, a change in the ways in which one looks at law and civilization that happened in the twentieth century. The disjunction between law and politics in the international arena is something that would lead to a consolidation of the nation states of the twentieth century. Law would be created for the nation state rather than the people. Within such debates, however, one must not lose sight of human agency and look at it as something that is an inevitable consequence of history. The development of law as a result of consensus is also an area that needs to be looked at. Already in the twenty first century, there have been assertions of human agency from various parts of the world. while some of these may have descended into anarchy, this state of anarchy is not an unproductive one as it may throw up new formations and cultural configurations. There is thus, also the possibility that law may turn into a more humanist entity, evolving from a consensus that develops from below. This would then be in consonance with histories from below that have begun to be written. Works Cited Raffo, Veronica, et al. 2007. "International Law and International Politics -old divides and new development." International law and International Relations: Bridging theory and practice. London: Taylor and Francis Routledge. Print. 5, 11 Arquilla, John. 2007. "Of Networks and Nations". Brown Journal of world Affairs 14, no.1 (2007): 203. Read More