Introduction

Modernity is an abstract term, and therefore interpreting it in terms of the transition from the non-modern world to the modern world is an enormous task. The Dictionary of Human Geography attempts to describe "modernity" as a "particular constellation of power, knowledge and social practices whose emergence is usually traced back to Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries." UBC Geography professor Derek Gregory argues that modernity is the "constant pursuit of the new" (Gregory: 2000). In my view, however, there are two dominant elements which distinguish the geography of the modern world from non-modern worlds, and thus serve an as a good starting point in the interpretation of "modernity." These three themes, politics, economics, and culture are interrelated and often overlap each other, and in my view, form the cornerstones of modernity. Consequently, states' borders are becoming irrelevant as political and economic systems are increasingly melding into one global economic system; moreover, cultures of different peoples, more conspicuous in the past, are now increasingly fading and intermixing with other cultures, and there is a gradual amalgamation of countries and cultures into one "small" world, carved into "blocs", where they replace the state. Modernity is closely tied into integration and "globalization" of this world of the 21^st Century, and it ultimately transcends fragmentation and regionalism of the past. However, since modernity is a continual process, it is not possible to pinpoint an exact date on its beginning and end; hence, this essay will accentuate case studies based on a broad time scale in order to show its gradual process.

Politics

I. Non-Modern World: Balances of Power and the State

Politics in the non-modern world was based on the realist's notion of nation-building through Imperialism. In contrast to the modern-day liberal view of diplomacy and international cooperation, in the non-modern world, the physical "state" and the monarch was centre of politics, and the majority of diplomacy between countries was through violence. Ancient political philosophers throughout all civilizations have stressed politics around the state where balances of power in the form of "political geometry" was the key to international relations between states (Haglund: 1990, 62). Niccolo Machiavelli, author of The Prince, contests that the security and survival of the state was preeminent to the monarch's duty as ruler. Thomas Hobbes' Leviathon took the argument further and charged that states exist in an anarchic environment, where war and conflict is inevitable (Sens²: 1998, 28). Consequently, in our world, called the "state of nature," international government is impossible and states must pursue their self interests in order to survive. (Sens²: 1998, 28). Canakya Kautilya, a Hindu statesman and philosopher who wrote a classic treatise on polity, Arthasastra, argues that neighbours are enemies, and enemies of enemies are natural allies; hence geographical state borders were vital to politics, for they were "fighting places" (Britannica: 2000). Kautilya further asserts that states must be heavily reliant upon geography in order for survival, since barriers and distance favour defence (Haglund, 62). Hence, the rise of European empires of the 17^th and 18^th centuries were characterized by imperialist territorial expansion. Under this colonial legacy, Britain, France, the Ottoman Empire, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Japan, and the United States scrambled to expand their states through gaining more land (Sens²: 1998, 42).

II. Modern Politics: Integration and IGOs

Politics, once traditionally linked to one country's domestic system and state politicians, are now increasingly eroded by intergovernmental actors and non-governmental actors. Consequently, state borders are becoming less relevant in the modern world. Not only are these organizations prominent, they are also proliferating, and increasing at a rapid pace. Not only are they surpassing states in terms of power, but also in terms of numbers. The ultimate consequence is a "power shift," and the erosion of "borders," and a gradual decline of the state (Sen¹ :2000).

Intergovernmental organizations (IGO) are one of the main foundations eroding the meaning of "statehood" and bringing together a closer, linked global system. They are created by treaties set by international law and their bureaucracies are composed of delegates supplied by countries. However, these members once admitted into the IGOs, also become citizens of the IGO (Sens¹: 2000). Organizations such as the United Nations, World Trade Organization, World Health Organization, European Union, League of Arab States, North Atlantic Treaty Organization are but a few of many prominent IGOs which are increasingly dominating both global and domestic political issues. They take part in the affairs of states on policies such as civil wars, gender relations, technology, literacy, pollution curtailment, decolonization, and human rights, all issues that were generally regarded solely as domestic state politics in the past (Sens²: 1998, 171). Countries belonging to the WTO must abide by the by the set of rules and regulations set by the union; hence, states' domestic laws are almost certainly overridden by IGO laws (Sens¹: 2000).

III. Non-governmental Organizations (NGO)

NGOs differ from IGOs in that they are private inter-societal organizations which promote agreements between states on issues of international public policy (Sens¹: 2000). NGOs are reflections of the "globalization" of the world (Sen¹: 2000). One major reason is that they impact the behaviour of the state, often altering domestic policies in order to abide by this global system. Moreover, they also function as states, meaning that they often have the same international "clout" as states. They intervene in domestic state affairs, much like IGOs, and aim at organizing the world and bring the states more closely integrated and often acts as pressure groups to change government policies (Sens²: 1998, 185). Politically, NGOs such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch play a significant part in monitoring and exposing violations of human rights by governments (Sens²: 1998, 186).

IV. Opponents of Globalization

Opponents to this globalization theory maintain that modern IGOs are not relevant and that states are still the primary player in world politics. IGOs are but facades of short-term national interests of the state, for it is the state that ultimately supplies IGOs with resources. Furthermore, they argue that "relevant" history, namely wars, are ultimately driven by states. Thus, nothing can be accomplished by NATO or the UN without the agreement of the states involved (Sens¹: 2000). Skeptics such as political scientist Peter Drucker also assert that IGOs are nothing but short-term "marriage of conveniences" based on the same interests of states on the same issue (Sens¹: 2000). However, this concept of state has changed in the modern world and one example that revokes this opposing argument is the WTO.

V. Case Study #2: A "modern" IGO, the World Trade Organization

The World Trade Organization is one example of the state being replaced by international institutions and thus serves as an ideal case study. It comprises of approximately 100 countries, was created on January 1, 1995, and was built on the foundations of an earlier designed IGO, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Sens¹: 2000). Both GATT and the WTO's intentions are to lower tariff barriers around the world to allow more goods to flow around global markets, and thus leading to increased wealth based on the economic theory of comparative advantage (Sens¹: 2000). However, the political, economic, and social implications of increased global trade transcend just money.

The WTO has the power to dictates nation-states' policies on issues such as goods, services, the environment, and intellectual property (Sens²: 1998, 402). In effect, it represents a "subordination" of national sovereignty to the WTO, which is "without accountability to the citizens of individual states" (Sens²: 1998, 404). Consequently, in order to globalize the world politically and economically, IGOs such as the WTO are slowly erasing the nation-states significance by undermining domestic policies.

One case which reveals the WTO's responsibility in the disintegration of state authority is the WTO ruling of the Canadian-US Magazine case in 1997. The WTO ruled that the Canadian government violated WTO rules for preventing the sale of magazines in Canada containing mostly U.S. content. Moreover, the WTO move also prohibited the Canada's attempt to protect its magazine industry through preferential postal rates, a tariff restriction, and an 80 percent tax on split-run magazines; in effect, the WTO's power had impeded Canada's endeavor in curbing further "Americanization" of Canadian culture (Sens²: 1998, 403).

IV. Case Study #3: Bloc Within A Bloc: EU and ASEAN

Economics

I. Modern World: From Regionalism to Globalization: MNCs and the Global Trading Economy

In terms of economics, multinational corporations and an increasingly interconnected global economic system erode the state, altering the functions of it in ways that make the modern "multilateral" world unrecognizable to the non-modern world. International political economist Susan Strange argues that modern nation-states are joined by MNCs as the authorities "exercising power over the course of national and global economic development" (Strange: 1997, 367). Instead of goods and services being produced by and for people living in the territory of a state, they are now being produced by people in several states, for a global market instead of for just a regional market (Strange: 1997, 365). Consequently, transnational market forces and MNCs gain power at the expense of state authority (Sens²: 1998, 117).

In the modern world, the global economy as a whole drives state policies. Strange asserts that military state defence against foreign invasion is no longer a necessity because states are not interested in command over territory; they realize that gaining world market shares has replaced territorial accumulation as the means to survival (Strange, 1997, 367). Further, the interconnected global economy has eroded the state's authority, for it no longer can maintain the value of its currency (Strange: 1997, 367). With the exception of one nation, the United States, no country is able to resist the foreign exchange markets. Consequently, in our modern world, the increasing mobility of capital demonstrates that flows of money in and out of currencies - not trade balances between countries - trigger market responses, which in

turn move exchange rates. The ultimate consequence is that state governments can no longer control interest rates and inflation rates; it is the global economy that sets the interest rate (Strange: 1997, 369).

II. Multinational Corporations and Globalization: The Anti-Globalization Argument

However, in the case of multinational corporations (MNC), there are two views as to its relationship with the state. One view is that they are mechanisms in the modern world which is slowly eroding the state's borders, for they are eclipsing the power of the nation-state in terms of economic and political power. MNCs are corporations which have operations in more than one country, but are often headquartered in one country while operating other subsidiaries in other countries (Sens²: 1998, 143). Opponents to the idea that MNCs are independent global actors argue that MNCs are still very much tied to the state and its geography. Anthony Giddens argues that it is ultimately the state allows the MNC to survive, for nation-states control the habitable territories of the globe; hence, since MNCs need to exist on land, it must either take power in a state or be a subject to one (Giddens:1990, 290). As a result, they have no power, for they do not have at their command the means of an army and thus cannot exert violence in the way that states can (Giddens: 1990, 290).

International Relations expert Peter Drucker asserts that MNCs are nothing new, and have been the instruments of the state since its inception (Drucker: 1997, 162). Corporations that run their businesses in more than one state have existed since the Fuggers' German banking business in Europe in the fifteenth century (Ray: 1987, 388). The British East India Company of the 17^th century was also an MNC, for it operated its businesses in more than one state in China, India, and Britain (Sens 2, 2000). It was created when the queen of England granted a charter for fifteen years to the merchants and governor of London and the company's main purpose was to expand its commercial and imperial empire into the East (Hsu: 1999, 96). However, this view of the MNC is inaccurate and outdated, for the modern MNC has changed dramatically and its relationship with the state is also severed in many ways.

MNCs: The Globalizing View

Today's MNC is vastly different from those in the past and the main distinction is that it is slowly transcending the state. Although traditional companies did do business in many countries, their main headquarters, production, and allegiance was to one country; but this is not true of modern MNCs (Ray: 1987, 390). Instead, many MNC's economic power have exceeded the nation-states'. The largest of the modern MNCs already have annual revenues greater than the majority of states, while at the same time maintaining direct relations with governments through the equivalents of ministries (Giddens: 290). In 1994, the largest 37 MNCs produced over US $3 trillion of goods and services; amazingly, this was over 10 percent of the world's economic output (Sens¹: 1998, 142). When MNCs' annual sales are compared to the annual gross national product (GNP), over one-third of the largest economic units are MNCs (Sens¹: 1998, 142). In 1984, during the midst of the Cold War when the Americans and Soviets dominated global politics and economics, twelve MNCs were already generating revenues in the top sixty largest economic units in the world, with Exxon ranked the highest at twenty-fourth with $91 billion. In the 2000, these figures have changed dramatically, for MNCs have moved even further up the rankings (Sens²: 2000).

III. Case Study #1: Economic Power Between States and MNCs

Largest Economic Units in the Global System in 1984

Country and MNC Billions of Dollars ($US)

1. U.S 3363

2. U.S.S.R 1843

3. Japan 1156

4. West Germany 655

5. France 518

6. Great Britain 460

7. Italy 352

8. Canada 352

24. Exxon 91

27. Dutch Shell 87

28. General Motors 84

39. Mobil Oil 56

41. Ford Motor 52

43. British Petroleum 51

46. Texaco 47

47. International Business Machines (IBM) 46

52. American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) 33

(Ray: 1987, 391).

As a result of this power, MNCs have become deeply intertwined in domestic state politics, sometimes even enmeshed in overthrowing governments which are not in their favour. Such an incident occurred on September 11, 1973 when the International Telephone and Telegraph (ITT) helped sponsor the overthrow of Chile's Allende government when the Allende regime attempted pursued independent policies that differed from ITT's (Sens: 1998, 143). ITT offered funds to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to carry out subversive activities in Chile in order to accomplish the coup d'etat (Ray: 1987, 406).

Moreover, MNCs especially affect Third World countries, which are much weaker economically and politically unstable. MNCs often alter domestic law those countries to continue to control a subsidiary in that state (Ray: 1987, 405). Such incidents are widespread in Nigeria, where MNCs resort to bribery in order to alter "inconvenient laws" not beneficial to the corporation (Ray: 1987, 405).

II. Non-Modern World: Regional Trade

In contrast, in the non-modern world before the concept of "trade" was entirely different from trade as we know it in the 21^st Century. Xenophobia, an intense fear dislike or fear of people from other countries, and high transportation costs were two major cornerstones in the hindrance of global trade; there were no such concepts of multinational corporations or an interdependent global economy. Peoples of the non-modern world lived self-sufficiently, often engaging only in local trade and relying on merchants for foreign imports. Hence the non-modern world was an exclusively regionalized, geographically fragmented landscape.

High transportation cost was one of the main reasons which impeded trade in the non-modern world. As a result, transportation mainly took place in the water, where coastal trade and shipping were the primary sources for exports and imports of goods. Movement over land was very slow, for roads in Europe were poor and simple (Harris: 2000). Only roads in China were deemed the best in the world prior to 1450, but even though they were capable for transportation, trade on foot was limited to a small geographical area, where trade was narrowed to areas within the Chinese empire (Harris: 2000).

IV. Case Study #2: 18^th Century China vs. 21^st Century China

Xenophobia and ethnocentrism limited trade in the isolated Manchu Dynasty of the 18^th Century. The result was a clash of civilizations between the Qing empire and the Europeans. Far from a global trading system, the Chinese strictly enforced regulations which purposely marginalized the Europeans to the country's border, fearing the cultural mixing between the two peoples. Consequently, the Chinese set up the "Canton System of Trade," limiting the Europeans to the outskirts of the city of Canton in province of Kwangtung. The Chinese attitude towards the foreigners was both fearful and pretentious. The Chinese emperor felt it was his imperial favour to allow the Europeans to trade with China while at the same time while refusing to accept diplomatic relations with them (Hsu: 2000, 139).

Hence, the Chinese set up a "Set of Five Regulations" in 1759 in which was to restrict Europeans and Chinese from intermingling. Among these restrictions, the most prohibitive were explicitly used to "geographically" and culturally isolate the foreigners within a quarantined zone of the "Canton Factories," a tiny sphere of neighbourhoods which only foreign traders were allowed to station (Hsu: 2000, 144). Among the constraints, the Chinese warned:

1. Foreigners may neither buy Chinese books, nor learn Chinese.

2. Foreigners may not communicate with Chinese officials except through the proper channel of the Chinese Co-hong merchants.

3. Foreigners living in the factories must not move in and out too frequently, although they may walk freely within a hundred yards of their factories.

4. Foreign traders must not remain in Canton after the trading season; even during the trading season when the ship is full, they would return home or go to Macao. (Hsu: 2000, 150).

Consequently, because of such restrictions, the trade between the Chinese and the Europeans were limited to a small area and modest quantities. Unlike the modern trading system of the 21^st Century, the time period of trade in traditional China had been short, seasonal cycles, limited to a small city of Canton in the corner of a vast geographical empire.

In contrast, the People's Republic of China of the 20^th century after decades of isolation has totally reversed this policy, for they not only embrace integration into the global economy, but are willing to detach themselves from its hardline Marxist ideology and domestic state policies in order to achieve this goal. Thus, the Chinese Communist Party has refuted isolationism and instead has transformed itself from a revolutionary organization to a party dedicated to global economic integration into the WTO (Hsu: 1999: 1016).

Consequence: Amalgamation of Cultures and Geography

International relations expert Samuel Huntington contests that because of this global amalgamation of economics and politics, the consequence is a cleavage of civilizations, and that future conflicts will be cultural rather than territorial. Wars of the past were based on "emperors, absolute monarchs and constitutional monarchs attempting to expand their bureaucracies, their armies, their mercantilist economic strength and most important, the territory they ruled" (Huntington: 1993, 23).

According to Huntington, there are eight cultural blocs that are gradually replacing nation-states; these civilizations are: Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-orthodox, Latin American, and African. Hence the fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future, modern world (Sens²: 1998, 372). Already current conflicts in the recent past have occurred along these fault lines, in places such as former Yugoslavia, India and China, Indian and Pakistan, and Russia and Chechnya (Sens²: 1998, 372).

Huntington takes this argument one step further, and asserts that because of globalization, this cleavage is further exacerbated into a clash of the "west against the rest" (Sens²: 1998, 373). Because of the spread of Western civilization, there has been a reaction from the non-Western world against the penetration of Western culture and values on traditional, civilizational belief systems (Sens²: 1998, 373). Hence anti-Westernism has resulted in areas of the world returning to their civilizational roots, where "Asianization" of Japan to the re-Islamization of the Middle East is gradually occurring. Moreover, those non-Western blocs which cannot join in the West's prosperity ultimately cooperate and ally with each other -just as past nation-states have done- in order to compete with the West (Huntington: 1993, 45). Huntington advances that the most prominent example has been the Confucian-Islamic connection, which has emerged to contest "Western interests, values and power" (Huntington: 1993, 45). Huntington further argues that the focus of this current tension has been largely on nuclear, chemical and biological weapons (Huntington: 1993, 45).

Conclusion

Of course, it would be incorrect to assume that because of "globalization" that the state has disappeared entirely. Rather, globalization has slowly altered the shape and meaning of the state. It has not entirely eradicated it, making us one "borderless" country, but because of the interconnecting nature of the modern-world politics and economics, the state's power have gradually faded, and with it its traditional geographical significance. Hence, the modern world is sharply different from the non-modern world in that the globe has indeed shrunk -not in terms of physical geography- but in terms of politics, economics, and culture.