Globalization, Neoliberalism, and the Spread of Economic Violence: The Framework of Civilizational Analysis

  • Algis MickunasEmail author
Part of the International Perspectives on Social Policy, Administration, and Practice book series (IPSPAP)


There have been various claims to universal civilization, but modern globalization is phrased in terms of a direction and purpose that benefits all humanity. At one level of modern Western globalization, there is a conjunction of two civilizations—the Mid-Eastern and the Western scientific enlightenment. Their conjunction and identity is premised on the metaphysics of the will, regardless of the interpretation that any articulation of this conjunction might assume. Yet, two major interpretations are relevant for the analysis of globalization: the first is the Mid-Eastern theocratic civilization, where the world and the human result from a creative edict by the will of a solitary paternal figure. Nothing can escape this will. As we will see later, this tradition also has variants that flow from Persian divine autocracy through Byzantine empire Russian autocracy renamed as Marxism–Leninism, and varieties of fascisms. These articulations of civilization are all imagined to “save the world” from a fallen state that is due to the cunning of evil persons who deviate from the laws and edicts of an absolute authority.


Neoliberalism Violence Civilizations Globalization Economism Technical expertise 

Suggested Readings

  1. “America’s new aristocracy,” in the Economist, January 24–30, 2015.Google Scholar
  2. “Business in Asia,” The Economist, May 31, 2014.Google Scholar
  3. Eugen, F. (1974). Traktat ueber die Gewalt des Menschen. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.Google Scholar
  4. Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison, (Sheridan A. tr.) New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  5. “Greece + election + euro = crisis” in The Economist, December 13–19, 2014.Google Scholar
  6. Honneth, A. (1985). Kritik der Macht. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  7. Juergen, H. (1970). Technik und Wissenshaft als “Ideologie. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  8. Levi, B-H. (1977). La Barbarie a Visage humain. Paris: Grasset.Google Scholar
  9. Lyotard J-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge, (Bennington G. and Massumi B. tr.) Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  10. Mickunas, A. (2012a). Social value and individual worth. Vilnius: Romeris University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Mickunas, A. (2012b). The divine complex and free thinking. Chesterhill: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  12. Mickunas, A. (2014). Modern West: Two life worlds. Vilnius: Mykolas Romeris University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Mickunas, A., & Murphy, J. (Eds.). (2012). Filling the credibility gap. New York: NOVA Press.Google Scholar
  14. Murphy-Mickunas-Pilotta. (1986). The underside of high-tech. Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  15. Peter, G. (1977). The enlightenment: An interpretation. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
  16. “Rober barons and silicon sultans,” in The Economist, January 3, 2015.Google Scholar
  17. “The Greatest Tax Story Ever Told,” in Bloomberg Business Week, December 22, 2014.Google Scholar
  18. “The World Economy: The Third Great Wave,” in The Economist, October 4, 2014.Google Scholar
  19. Thomas, P. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century, (Arthur Goldhammer, tr.). Cambridge Massachusetts: Belknap Press of Harvard University.Google Scholar
  20. “Technology Quarterly,” in The Economist, September 6, 2014.Google Scholar
  21. Tilo, S. (1978). Gewalt und Humanitaet. Muenchen: Verlag Alber.Google Scholar
  22. “What China Wants,” in The Economist, August 23, 2014.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyOhio UniversityAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations