« The Week So Far | Main | Trouble with Blogger »
March 10, 2005
Anglosphere
There are many ways in which we're fighting the War on Terror: bombs and bullets, seizing terrorist bank accounts, sharing intelligence information within our country and with intelligence agencies abroad, propaganda, and economic aid. But who exactly will lead this effort? The United States, obviously. But contrary to what the left would have you believe, we have not, are not, and will not "go it alone." Anyone not trapped by their ideology knows that we have allies around the globe. And you'd have to be blind not to notice that by and large most of these these are English-speaking countries. Not all, but most.
James C Bennett calls this the "Anglosphere". His book, "The Anglosphere Challenge", is reviewed in the latest print edition of National Review. You can view it on-line only if you have paid subscription. I have not read the book but find the premise interesting. The reviewer, Keith Windschuttle, describes Bennett's Anglosphere:
The Anglosphere he envisages would be a "network commonwealt"� of English-speaking nations based on the existing shared values of Anglo-American cultural and political traditions. His concept offers the prospect not of radical change but of a reaffirmation of deep cultural roots. Politically, it is diametrically opposed to the two major movements that, since the demise of socialism, have absorbed the Western intellectual Left: radical multiculturalism at home and bureaucratic internationalism abroad.
Bennett has been making his case for some time, and although I've read snippets of it, this is the first full review of his ideas that I've come across.
It makes sense. Windschuttle points out that it was mainly United States and Australian naval forces that make up the bulk of the tsumani relief efforts. International organizations spent much of their time complaining that we were trying to "freeze them out" or "undermine" them.
It is not so much language as values that make up the Anglosphere, Bennett says. Windschuttle summarizes
"It is our core values and characteristics that have made us dynamic," he writes, "and it is to those values that we must return": individualism, rule of law, the honoring of covenants, and an emphasis on freedom. The core of Bennett's Anglosphere comprises the countries where these values are dominant: the U.S., the U.K., Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, English-speaking Canada, and the English-speaking Caribbean. He also includes the educated English-speaking populations of South Africa and India as important "nodes." He describes some other former colonies, including Zimbabwe and the Philippines, as outside the inner circle but still closer to the center than to the periphery.
What about Europe? I have often used the term "the West" in this blog
Bennett wants to distinguish the Anglosphere from other models of international alliance that he believes have outlived their usefulness. The principal one is the concept of "the West": the European-descended countries that constituted Western civilization. The widening gulf between continental Europe and the U.S. shows that the concept of the West is already anachronistic. It was artificially prolonged anyway, Bennett argues, by the need for an identity to tie NATO together during the Cold War. In the post-Soviet era, there is nothing to inhibit the development of a separate identity for the English-descended civilizations.
Windschuttle's not so sure, and neither am I. All of the nations in Europe are tied together by a shared heritage that flows from ancient Greece and Rome, and infused by Christianity. For all our differences, they are much closer to us than any Asian, African, or Arab/Muslim philosophy, culture, or values system. I would put them on an "outer circle" or something; still part of us, but not quite as close.
How would the Anglosphere work?
It makes sense, although I'll have to think on it more. It does seem that the English-speaking nations have a shared set of values and ideas on how to approach the world that are somewhat different than even our Western allies. There are times when we can come together, the Cold War being the most obvious example.
...he (bennett) argues that he is not talking about short-term national interests and conflicts: His Anglosphere would not be a traditional treaty alliance based on geopolitical strategy or the sharing of a common enemy. Instead, Bennett sees the Anglosphere as a long-term civilizational relationship, more between the citizens of its various nations than between their governments.His "network commonwealth" would be a series of links to promote the flow of informational products, software, and people, bypassing the gatekeeper institutions of the past. The main policy mechanisms to do this are the familiar ones of security alliances and trade and immigration agreements. Bennett emphasizes, however, that the network commonwealth cannot emulate the nation-state. Indeed, it is not a state at all, though it could potentially fulfill some of the traditional economic functions of the state. It is a means of linking smaller political communities so that they can deal with common concerns and take up common opportunities.
Other proponents of the Anglosphere include Robert Conquest and Andrew Sullivan.
For those interested in more information, Wikopedia has a good article which includes a discussion of Bennett's critics. Those who oppose use of the term and concept of an "Anglosphere" tend to fall into maybe four categories:
- Anti-ethnocentric critics - they see it as code for racism
- Regionalists - they see an Anglosphere as undermining regional interests. These include "Atlanticists" who stress the importance of U.S. - European unity.
- Realists / Realpolitic - they do not see culture as as important as traditional "power politics".
- Autonomists - say that culture is much more complicated than just language. The emphasize the contribution of non-English speaking European cultures.
Posted by Tom at March 10, 2005 9:36 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/332
