Skip to content. Skip to navigation
Personal tools


Document Actions

Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology
October 4, 2002

Fr. Emmanuel Clapsis

Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk, in a recent article published in the Ecumenical Review, described the socioeconomic and cultural context in which the Christian churches find themselves. He stated:

The epoch of mono-ethnic and mono-confessional states is fading into the past ... The world has become open, diffusive and interpenetrating. How should Christians, and the communities which identify themselves as Christian, respond to this challenge of our time? 1

If the epoch of mono-ethnic, mono-confessional, and mono-cultural states is fading into the past, Christian churches - who refuse to succumb to privatization and aim to transform the life of the world - must find new ways to express their insights, and to contribute them to the formation of the common good that regulates the public life without misrecognizing or suppressing the multiple cultural, ethnic, and religious others who also desire to be recognized as they define themselves in public life and who also wish to contribute to the formation of the common good. 2

In this presentation, I will attempt to converse with social science in my quest to understand the "global world." Culture provides the system and the frameworks of meaning which serve both to interpret the world, and to provide guidance for living in the world. Culture embodies beliefs, values, attitudes and rules of behavior. It includes the rituals, the artifacts, and the symbolization that binds people to communities and enables them to collectively embody and express their histories and values. From this perspective religion is central expression of every human culture and it contributes to cultural vitality and growth. I am aware of the contested nature of any social analysis, and the difficulties of relating social analysis to theological reflection, but to continue to speak about the world with carelessness and ignorance is in my judgment a greater mistake. This paper is only a modest attempt to contribute hopefully to an ongoing dialogue for understanding the world as it is presently experienced.

My paper is grounded upon the theological position that no culture is without God's presence, and that all cultures are in need of redemption because of the pervasive presence of evil in them. The pervasiveness of evil in God's good creation is a warning that in every cultural turn, while the grace and providence of God is actively present, evil is also there working against God's cause and His love for the world. Furthermore, the eschatological nature of the Christian faith does not allow the churches to be completely identified with, to ignore, or to reject uncritically any cultures.

Globalization: the Social Structural Context of Late Modernity

Since the early 90's the notion of globalization has been used extensively to refer to and describe a multidimensional socio-economic and cultural process that has brought forth a new world order. In the process of trying to understand what globalization is J. Rosenau proclaims that the world has entered a 'historical breakpoint' in which "…present premises and understandings of history's dynamics must be treated as conceptual jails." 3

Globalization, because of its complexity as a process and its wide use as a concept has assumed multiple meanings. A helpful description of the dynamics of globalization is provided by Antony McGrew:

Globalization refers to the multiplicity-of linkages and interconnections that transcend the nation-state (and by implication the societies) which make up the modem world system. It defines a process through which events, decisions, and activities in one part of the world can come to have significant consequences for individual and communities in quite distant parts of the globe. Nowadays, good, capital, people, knowledge, images, communications, crime, culture, pollutants, drugs, fashions, and beliefs all readily flow across territorial boundaries. Transnational networks, social movements and relationships are extensive in virtually all areas of human activity from the academic to the sexual. Moreover, the existence of global systems of trade, finance and production binds together in very complicated ways the prosperity and fate of households, communities, and nations across the globe. 4

This complex multiplicity of linkages and interconnections of globalization creates new social structures and ways in which nations, states, religious, ethnic and racial communities, as well as particular people, interact and constitute society. 5 Globalization increases the inclusiveness and the unification of the human societies by relativizing the multiple communal and personal identities by which particular communities and people give meaning to their existence. This relativization results from the inevitable linkage and connectivity that -all social, political, racial-, religious and ethnic communities have with one another, and which all of them share with the greater unity of the human family. In some instances those cultural, ethnic, racial, and religious communities may feel that their own particularity is at risk, and become hostile against the multiple others with whom they inhabit the same social space. These violent responses are also legitimate expressions of the globalized world. Will the universal aspects of the church's faith contribute to the development of a just, peaceful, and relational world? Or will the apparent or imaginary threats that the multiple others pose to the churches cultural and religious particularity lead them to adopt hostile and violent attitudes against the multiple others?

Globalization describing current socio-economic and cultural processes must be recognized to be ambivalent in nature. It is both a kind of potential good for humanity and yet also a possible social disaster of staggering proportions. The process of globalization is contingent and dialectical in nature in the sense of embracing contradictory dynamics, unevenly experienced across time and space. Globalization simultaneously universalizes as well as it particularizes. It intensifies homogenization as well as differentiation. It integrates as well as fragments, it centralizes as well as decentralizes, it juxtaposes as well as syncretizes.

The churches seem to have difficulties accepting the ambivalence of globalization. They seem to have adopted the bifurcation of 'good or evil,' 'inside and outside,' 'friendly and adversaria.' In the world of choice, liberation and alienation, order and disorder, meaning and meaninglessness are inextricably connected. They are the reverse sides of the same coin. Contingency breeds multiple possibilities that cause anxiety, uncertainty, disorder. Yet from another perspective as Zygmunt Bauman states: "the unsteadiness, softness and pliability of things may also trigger ambition and resolve: one can make things better than they are, and need not settle for what there is since no verdict of nature is final, no resistance of reality is unbreakable." 6 Such an environinent favors the proliferation of multiple religious and secular communities. It creates a competitive religious market that obliges religious communities to communicate not only the objectivity of their teachings but also their meaningfulness in interpreting and structuring the lives of the people in the modem world.

One of the most crucial contribution of the churches to the social life of the world is the generation of "social capital." Social capital "refers to connections among individuals -social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them. "7 Of course, social capital is generated by many civic organizations, family ties, ethnic, racial and other friendly connections, but as Robert Putnam emphasizes: "faith communities in which people worship together are arguably the single most important repository of social capital. 8 The churches generate human solidarity not only through their beliefs but also through the social ties which they embody: "connectedness, not merely faith, is responsible for the beneficence of church people ... religious involvement is certainly associated with greater attention to the needs of our brothers and sisters" 9

Some forms of social capital are, by choice or necessity, inward looking and tend to reinforce exclusive identities and homogeneous groups. It offers emotional as well as material benefits to individuals who have chosen for their own advantage to be connected to the wider community. Other networks are outward looking and encompass people across diverse social cleavages. 'Bonding social capital' is good for under girding specific reciprocity and mobilizing solidarity. 'Bridging social capital' can generate broader identities and reciprocity, whereas bonding social capital bolsters our narrower selves. Bridging networks, by contrast, are better for linkage to external assets and for information diffusion. Christian spirituality needs to integrate bonding and bridging social capital by connecting spiritual enlightenment, personal peace, and illumination with social involvement, and solidarity with God's creation and the whole human family. The churches need to move beyond the spiritualized, privatized interpretations of faith which are so pervasive, and which do not readily lead to engagement with social, economic and political realities.


Another aspect of globalization that creates anxiety and becomes a challenge for the churches is the cultural implications of globalization and its consequences upon particular cultures. Will globalization homogenize all cultures and impose the hegemony of American consumerist culture and values as they are projected by Hollywood, news coverage and MTV?

At the Eighth Assembly of the World Council of Churches in Harare, the Christian churches together recognized globalization as an "inescapable fact of life" and acknowledged the need to study its dynamics.

Christian and churches should reflect on the challenge of globalization from a faith perspective and therefore resist the unilateral domination of economic and cultural globalization. The search for alternative options to the present economic system and the realization of effective political limitations and corrections to the process of globalization and its implications are urgently needed. 10

The Christian churches at Harare repudiated the kind of community that globalization creates and the anthropology that it advances: "The vision behind globalization is a competing vision of the oikoumene, the unity of humankind and of the whole inhabited earth." It is grounded in an anthropological reduction that views "human beings as individuals rather than persons in community, as essentially competitive rather than cooperative, as consumerist and materialist rather than spiritual." The Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has also expressed similar views. In a speech delivered at the Annual Davos meeting of the World Economic Forum in 1999 he stated that globalization as a means of making humanity homogeneous, of influencing the masses and bringing about a single, unified, and unique mode of thought, cannot be accepted. by the Orthodox churches. Archbishop Christodoulos of Athens of all Greece has argued that globalization leads to "a common vision and outlook based on the choices of the powerful" that removes people from "local traditions, religions, languages, forms of expression" and leads them towards the construction of a new age where none of these will be distinguishable anymore. Globalization is identified with syncretism, the merging of religions, cultures, and traditions that have existed in history. 11 The question that is raised from such remarks is whether globalization leads to homogenization, the collapse of all local cultures and particularities into a global, homogenized culture which advances the interests of economic capital embodied and communicated through the symbolic and material world of economically, politically and technologically powerful nations or empires.

Social scientists, while they recognize the homogenizing force of globalization, point out that simultaneous with the homogenizing forces we have the resurgence of particular cultures which use globalization's new means of communication to assert themselves and to resist the impact of homogenization in their context. For Roland Robertson this homogenization-versus-heterogenization dispute is the core feature of globalization, the process which universalizes the particular and particularizes the universal. In globalization we experience trends that simultaneously promote sameness and difference. This complex connectivity means that in the globalized world all local cultures are connected with one another and in a broad sense their complex connectivity can be described as a world culture. Globalization creates a network of cultures, and it does not lead to a single culture which embraces everyone on earth and replaces the diversity of cultural systems that have flourished up to now. 12

The process of globalization is not benign, or sensitive to the maintenance of cultural differences, nor is it free of domination. Globalization is an uneven process, far more complex than can be grasped in the single story of unilinear advance of the Western culture. We can superficially advance and embrace the thesis of homogenization only by ignoring the complexity, reflexivity and sheer recalcitrance of actual, particular cultural responses to modernity. Our belief that globalization will not lead to a unified global culture in any conventional sense does not mean that national cultures are likely to remain significant poles of cultural identification for the foreseeable future. The style of cultural experience and identification is bound to be affected by the complex and multiform interrelations, penetration and cultural mutations that characterize globalization. In this process, different and highly complex identities are developing, and different modes of cultural identification are arising. Particular, local cultures and communities are challenged by the new globalizing cultural realities to re-define their identities in light of the presence of the multiple others who stubbornly refuse to be like them, or to be in active opposition to those multiple others, although they demand their own recognition in the public space, and compete with one another in the public arena for acknowledgment of their real or imaginary contribution to the common good. All particular cultures and identities in a globalized world are involved in a highly complex and dialectical process of reconfiguring themselves in conversation with the multiple others, as ideas and cultural forms invade their living space. In that process a new cosmopolitan culture may emerge and at the same time a "class of civilizations" may burst out, since particular cultures may oppose, misrecognize, suppress, and colonize others less powerful and rich in economic, political, social, and technological capital

The Disjuncture of Culture and Locality

John Tomlinson, in his important book Globalization and Culture, suggests that globalization fundamentally transforins the relationship between the places we inhabit and our cultural practices, experiences, and identities. 13 Social relationships in the pre-modern world were primarily face-to-face interactions, but with the advances of modernity social relationships were freed from the constrictions of locality. The compression of space and time that modem communication technology has promoted does not mean that locality is not important for the creation and the sustenance of human culture, experience, and identity, but recognizes that distant social forces and processes affect all localities. We continue to live in familiar and comforting localities but the distant others have invaded our space and thus we live in an ambivalent cultural setting which generates not only comfort, security and familiarity but also uncertainty and powerlessness, and these erode the homeliness of the local community. 14 The impact of such distant forces may have direct effects on people's immediate material condition and environment. For example, European Union regulations may impact (positively or negatively) local people and communities. People experiencing the impact of such events - on their jobs, their mortgage payments or savings - are of course liable to feel generally more insecure in planning their lives and less confident in their national government's ability to control events. People cognizant of their multiple and complex connectivity in the modem world may, in their identity construction, take seriously the impact of the others in the meaningful interpretation of their own lives in and within the world. The way that distant events are 'delivered' to our homes by globalized media technologies contributes to a loss of cultural certainty. Being informed implies having available a range of perspectives on events beyond that of one's 'home culture'. This may contribute to the development of cosmopolitan cultural disposition, it also represents a loss of cultural certainty. It threatens the existential 'comfort' involved in having the world 'out there' presented to us from the point of unchallenged national or local perspectives.

The increasing traffic between cultures which is brought about by globalization suggests that the dissolution of the link between culture and place is accompanied by an intermingling of these disembedded cultural practices producing new hybrid forms of culture. Hybridity is the mingling of cultures from different territorial locations. The idea of hybridization captures the general phenomenon of cultural mixing which is unquestionably increasing with the advance of globalization, and which describes the sort of new cultural identifications that may be emerging in the transnational cultural space. The complex transmutations of cultural practices and forms as they pass rapidly and effortlessly across national boundaries through transnational cultural economy provide perhaps a model for what a future 'globalized popular culture' may turn out to be like: different, that is, in character from the integrating, 'essentializing' nature of national cultures, but looser textured, more protean, and relatively indifferent to the maintenance of sharp discriminations of cultural origin and belonging.

In what I have stated above, one may discern the problem of syncretism as an unavoidable social reality which affects the reconstruction of all identities, personal, communal, religious, and cultural in the globalized world. Syncretism for many Christians is identical with betrayal of the Christian faith. It signifies its harmonization with its environment at any cost. In the process of communicating the Gospel in new cultural settings, there are continuous disagreements and unclarity on what constitutes authentic and inauthentic inculturation of the Christian faith. In social science, syncretism refers to the formation of new identities out of cultural elements at hand, usually from more than one culture. It is important to remember that the church has evolved in history by embracing elements from other cultures and religions, but it has also resisted the incorporation or acceptance of certain elements from other cultures, religious faiths, and philosophies. Robert Schreiter suggests that syncretism can be a useful term to describe the formation of religious identity in the present world, but with the explicit understanding that, at times, the new identity under examination will be in accord with, and will even enrich, the religious tradition and at other times, it will not be in accord, and may threaten the religious tradition, and so it must be rejected. In the context of globalization, it is unavoidable that the identities of religious communities will evolve. It is important to move in our religious education beyond the traditional modes of communicating the gospel and explore in the present context of globalization how identities are constructed and what theological criteria we use to ascertain the quality of the constructed identities. As Robert Schrieter states:

The meaning of the term 'syncretism' will no doubt remain a contested issue, and for many will continue to bear a negative connotation. And it deserves to be contested, for it is about nothing less than the faithful transmittal of the Word that God has entrusted to us. At the same time, a better understanding of the complexity of intercultural communication, of the struggles for human and Christian cultural identity today, and an appreciation of the manifold, faithful ways in which Christianity has already manifested itself in history should ease our anxieties to some degree. They should make us more generous in listening to our brothers and sisters, more circumspect in how we speak, and always conscious of the treasures we bear in vessels of clay. 15

Economic Globalization and the Churches

Who partakes of globalized culture and who is excluded from it? The impact of distant events on locality is uneven and highly differentiated from locality to locality. What appears as globalization for some means localization for others; signaling a new freedom for some, while upon many others it descends as an uninvited and cruel fate. Thus the uses of time and space are sharply differentiated, as well as differentiating. Being local in a globalizing world is a sign of social deprivation and degradation. The discomfort of localized existence is compounded by the fact that, with public spaces removed beyond the reaches of localized life, localities are losing their meaning-generating and meaning-negotiating capacity, and are increasingly dependent on sense-giving and interpreting actions which they do not control. 16 As Baumann illustrates:

The mobility acquired by 'people who invest' means the new, indeed unprecedented, disconnection of power from obligations: duties towards employees, but also towards the younger and weaker, towards yet unborn generations, and towards the self-production of the living conditions of all. In, short, it indicates freedom from the duty to contribute to daily life and the perpetuation of the community. 17

He further reminds that in the global world, "Capital can always move away to more peaceful sites if the engagement with 'otherness' requires a costly application of force or tiresorne negotiations." 18

Most of the objections raised against globalization focus upon the economic aspects of globalization and the international institutions that have written the rules which mandate or push things like the liberalization of capital markets (the elimination of the rules and regulations in many developing countries which are designed to stabilize the flows of volatile money into and out of the country). The main thrust of economic globalization, according to Barry K. Gills, aims at the creation of a situation in which private capital and 'the market' alone determine the restructuring of economic, political and cultural life, making alternative values or institutions subordinate. 19 Rather than capital and the 'economy' being embedded in society and harnessed to serve social ends, the 'economy' becomes the master of society and of all within it, and society exists to serve the ends of capital and its need for self-expansion.

As states compete for the favours of transnationally mobile capital, the 'race to the bottom' threatens to increase the rate of exploitation of labor at a global scale. The deregulation of finance and decentering of production contribute to the destabilization of national societies and their political frameworks. As state capacity decreases, the structural power of capital increases, as do social and class conflicts. All states and societies seem under pressure to make ever greater concessions to capital, including greater capital mobility, flexibilization of labour, lower social burdens and higher (indirect) social subsidies for capital, the upshot of which is a redistribution of wealth ftom labour to capital. All states are potentially vulnerable to sudden capital movement, whether by productive or 'speculative' capital. 20

The free market ideology as it has been adopted by the IMF and the World Bank since the 1980s has produced ambivalent results. In some instances it has promoted economic growth and democratization, but in others it has created economic disruption, income inequality, and job insecurity which lead to decreased growth and more social conflict. 21 While it is difficulty for a theologian to make a judgment on matters of economics, it is important to insist upon the socially contested and historically open nature of all forms of political and economic ideologies, 'globalization' foremost among them. In addition disapproval and critique of the 'free market ideology' must be grounded not upon ideological prejudice against it, but upon how it has performed based on empirical evidence. While it is true that the average income of people has been growing, it is also true that the income gap between rich and poor countries (and between rich and poor within populations) has also been growing. A great divide between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots' has left increasing numbers in the Third World in dire poverty, living on less than one dollar per day. Despite repeated promises of poverty reduction made over the last decade of the twentieth century, the number of people of living in poverty has actually increased by almost 100 million. In 1990, 2.718 billion people were living on less than $2 per day; in 1998, the number of poor living on less than $2 per day was estimated at 2.801 billion. Almost half of these people live on less than one dollar per day. 22 Economic globalization is blamed for the increasing poverty around the world, and the heightened sense of vulnerability and insecurity which people experience in intensely mobile modem societies.

Joseph E. Stiglitz, the winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in Economics, in his remarkable book Globalization and Its Discontents, gives some explanation about the causes of inequality that economic globalization seems to have generated. He argues that capital market liberalization has been pushed despite the fact that there is no evidence showing it spurs economic growth. Quite the contrary, free market ideology has been followed by increased misery, high unemployment, insecurity, social unrest and chaos. In his view, what is wrong -in the current sate of globalization can be turned around. For Stiglitz, the root of the problem is that the complex process of globalization has created a system that might be called global governance without global government, one in which few institutions - the World Bank, the IMF, the WTO - a few players - the finance, commerce, and trade ministries, closely linked to certain financial and commercial interests - dominate the scene, but in which many of those affected by their decisions are left almost voiceless.

He believes that:

It's time to change some of the rules governing the international economic order, to think once again about how decisions get made at the international level - in whose interestsand to place less emphasis on ideology and to look more on what works ... There is an enormous cost to continuing global instability. Globalization can be reshaped, and when it is, when it is properly, fairly run, with all countries having a voice in policies affecting them, there is a possibility that it will help create a new global economy in which growth is not only more sustainable and less volatile but the fruits of this growth are more equitably shared. 23

The staggering statistics of increased poverty and social inequality that the World Bank has provided us elevates social inequality as one the central moral issues of our times. Christian churches, along with many other civil organizations, have expressed strong opinion against the performance of economic globalization and the ideology of the "free market." The World Council of Churches since Harare has focused its attention on the fallacies and the injustices that the "free market" ideology has generated. 24 The Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, at the 1999 Annual Davos meeting of the World Economic Forum, expressed the objections of the Orthodox church against the injustices of economic globalization:

Globalization tends to evolve as a means of expanding economic dominance of the financial giants over poor nations and people. It proves to be a new vision for some and a new threat for others; a vision, which promises much to a few and very little to many; a vision impressive to some extent in its conception and in its realization. Globalization, by giving preeminence to economic capital over service to humanity, sets before us a new situation of economic morality of a global magnitude. As soon as respect for the human person is abandoned as an inviolable presupposition of our ethos, and the principle of economy and power takes over there arises an insatiable cupidity that inevitably leads the "haves" to increase what they possess, whether it is wealth, or political or military power, or the power to shape ideas or generally the power to influence the whole world. 25

The Ecumenical Patriarch unequivocally stated that Economic progress is morally justifiable only when all the members of the global community participate in it. Pope John Paul H in his address to the members of the foundation for "Ethics and Economics" admitted that globalization may provide great possibilities for economic growth and production but "it does not in itself guarantee a fair distribution of goods among the citizens of different countries." 26 In another address to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, he stated that the church is concerned that globalization "has quickly become a cultural phenomenon. The market as an exchange mechanism has become the medium of a new culture." Pope John Paul II suggests that:

To give positive bearings to developing globalization, a deep commitment to building a "globalization of solidarity" is needed by means of a new culture, new norms and new institutions at national and international levels. In particular, it will be necessary to intensify the collaboration between politics and the economy, to launch specific projects to safeguard those who might become the victims of globalization process throughout the world.

Similar positions have been taken to a greater extent by the World Alliance of Reform Churches (WARC) and the Lutheran World Federation 27 who have undertaken specific study projects on globalization in their quest to develop the pastoral strategies of their churches on this complex but very important issue.

There is an emerging ecumenical consensus about the need to address the injustices and the suffering that economic globalization generates The churches, through the World Council of Churches and though the witness of their specific traditions, participate in the search - for alternative visions to economic globalization. The Justice, Peace and Creation Committee of the WCC in Potsdam, Germany in January 2001, adopted a policy on economic globalization. It stated that its work on this matter should be built upon the strength of existing initiatives by churches, ecumenical groups and social movements, support their cooperation, and encourage them to take action and form alliances with other partners in civil society working on issues pertinent to globalization. 28 The general as well as the unique contributions of the churches in the movement of resistance against the perils of economic globalization may be clear to some churches, but not to others. The churches do not endanger their particularity if they participate in "movements from below" that aspire to minimize violence, to maximize economic well being, to realize social and political justice, and to uphold envirom-nental quality. The tactics and the priorities of such movements of resistance, because of their global scope, combined with the unevenness of economic and political conditions, as Richard Falk indicates, will be diverse, adapted to the local, national and regional circumstances. 29 Such movements of resistance from an Orthodox perspective must not only provide opportunities for the structural transformation of the world in a fragmentary way but they should be grounded in, and motivated by, a new vision of what it means to be a human person in a globalized world.

1 Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrand, The Orthodox Church in the Face of World Integration, the Relation between Traditional and Liberal Values, Ecumenical Review 53/4 (2001) p. 479.

2 I have attempted to address this challenge in my Book Orthodoxy in Conversation: Orthodox Ecumenical Engagements (Geneva/Brookline: WCC Publications and Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2000), pp. 127-150.

3 J. Ronenau, Turbulence in World Politics (Brighton: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1990), p.5

4 Antony McGrew, A Global Society, in Modernity and Its Future, Stuart Hall, David Held, and Tony McGrew, eds (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1996), p. 66. The best introduction to the globalization discussion is Malcolm Waters, Globalization (London: Routledge, 1995). See also Mike Featherstone (ed.), Global Culture: Nationalism, Globalization, and Modernity (London: Sage, 1990); Roland Robertson, Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture (London: Sage, 1992); Jonathan Friedman, Cultural Identity and Global Process (London: Sage, 1994).

5 Malcolm Waters, Globalization (London: Routledge, 199 5).p. 15.

6 Zygmunt Bauman, Identity in the Globalizing World, in his book: The Individualized Society (Cambridge: Polity Press, 200 1), p. 14 1.

7 Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone, the Collapse and the Revival of American Community (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000), p. 19

8 Ibid. p. 66,

9 Ibid., p. 67.

10 Diane Kessler ed., Together on the Way: Official Report of the Eighth Assembly of the World Council of Churches (Geneva: WCC publications, 1999), p. 183

11 Christodoulos Archbishop of Athens and all Greece, Rooting of Joy and Hope: The Word and the Role of Orthodox in the European Union (Athens: Synodal Committee for Matters Pertaining to the Media, Information and Public Relations, 200 1), p. 14.

12 Ulf Hannerz, Cosmopolitans and Locals in World Culture, in Mike Featherstone, ed., Global Culture, Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity (London: Sage Publications, 1990), p.237

13 John Tomlinson, Globalization and Culture (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1999), p. 106.

15 Robert J. Scheiter, The New Catholicity - Theology Between the Global and the Local (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1997), p.83

16 Zygmunt Bauman, Globalization - The Human Consequences (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998), p.3

17 Ibid. p. 9

18 ibid. p. 11.

19 Barry K. Gills, Introduction: Globalization and the Politics of Resistance, in Barry K. Gills, ed., Globalization and the Politics of Resistance (New York: Palgrave, 2001), p. 7.

20 Ibid. Similar positions have been expressed by the Greek economist Kostas Vergopoulos in his book: Pagkosmiopoihsh h Megalh Cimaira(Athens: Nea Synora - A. A. Livanis, 1999)

21 Ethan B. Kapstein and Dimitri Landa, The Pluses and Minuses of Globalization, in Marc F. Plattner and Aleksander Smolar, eds., Globalization, Power, and Democracy (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000), p. 133. Similar positions have been expressed by Bruce R. Scott in his article: The Great Divide in the Global Village, Foreign Affairs vol. 80/1 (2001), p. 161.

22 World Bank, Global Economic Prospects and the Developing Countries 2000 (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2000), p. 29

23 Joseph E. Stiglitz, Globalization and Its Discontents (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2002), p.22. For fin-ther criticism of economic globalization see: Barry K. Gills, ed., Globalization and the Politics of Resistance (New York: Palgrave,2000); Andrew Hurrel, Ngaire Woods (edits.), Inequality, Globalization, and World Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999)

24 Diane Kessler edit, Together on the Way: Official Report of the Eighth Assembly of the World Council of Churches (Geneva: WCC publications, 1999), p.255

25 Address given by All Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch BARTHOLOMEW at the 1999 Annual Davos meeting of the World Economic Forum. Similar reservations against globalization were expressed by the Russian Orthodox Patriarchate in the recent pronouncement of the social teachings of the Russian Orthodox Church. The Russian Orthodox Church points out that many of the positive fruits of globalization are available only to nations comprising a small portion of humanity, but having similar economic and political systems, while other nations, comprising five-sixths of the world's population, have found, themselves on the margins of the world civilization. The Russian Orthodox Church advocates that "the challenge of globalization demands that contemporary society should give an appropriate response, based on concern for peaceful and dignified life for all people and combined with efforts for their spiritual perfection. It favors the development of a world order based on the principles ofjustice and the equality of people before God, and would exclude any suppression of their will by the centers of political, economic and informational influence. See: The Orthodox Church and Society: the Basis of the Social Concept or the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow: Christ the Savior Cathedral, 2000), p. 66.

26 Thursday, 17 May 2001

27 Lutheran World Federation/ The Church and Social Issues, Engaging Economic Globalization as a Communion, a Working Paper, (Geneva: Lutheran World Federation, 2001).

28 The Justice, Peace and Creation Team of the WCC, Economic Globalization: a Critical View and an Alternative Vision, Dossier 6 (Geneva, 2001), p.2.

29 Richard Falk, Predatory Globalization, A Critique (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000), p.135. I am particularly intrigued by his citation of the specific conditions that are in the process of shaping the political oppositional forms to what he calls 'globalization-from-above' (pp. 131-136).