Theological Origins of Modernity

286 chapter eight
ance for all kinds of diff erences, an end to oppression and the realization
of human rights, the spread of democratic government, and peaceful and
fruitful cultural interchange. Opponents of globalization, by contrast, saw
this process as motivated not by free choices of individual human beings
but by the logic of global capitalism, or the demands of world technology,
or the needs of American imperialism. 47 In this Manichean vision,
globalization— typically understood as the triumph of global capital—leads
not to peace, freedom, and prosperity but to war, enslavement, and immiseration.
Globalization institutionalizes inequality, promotes wage slavery,
props up authoritarian regimes, undermines traditional social structures,
crushes indigenous cultures, and despoils the environment. While these
two views of globalization are deeply at odds with one another, they share
a set of common values. Th eir disagreement refl ects the opposing views
that we have noted throughout our discussion, and it betrays in this way
the concealed metaphysical/theological commitments within which we
think and act.
As deeply at odds as these proponents and opponents of globalization
are, they generally remain within the horizon of Western civilization. For
example, they generally share a belief in the value of tolerance, peace, freedom,
equality, rights, self-government, and prosperity. Th ey disagree only
about whether globalization will bring these goods about and if so whether
they will be equitably divided.
Th e attacks of 9/11 drew varying responses from supporters and opponents
of globalization. For those who took a more liberal view of globalization,
these attacks were the acts of a few benighted religious fanatics
who were anxious to derail modernization and the spread of liberalism
in their traditional societies. Th e solution seemed equally clear to them—
eliminate or neutralize these fanatics so that the great mass of people in
the Islamic world could pursue their desire for a better life by participating
in the global economy and joining the march to modernity. Th ose who
opposed globalization, on the contrary, saw 9/11 as a legitimate or at least
understandable form of resistance to global injustice, the response of those
who had been exploited by the system of global capitalism and American
hegemony. From this perspective the solution to the problem of terrorism
was to end American imperialism and American support for authoritarian
governments in the developing world. Both sides in this debate, however,
found it diffi cult to sustain their explanations in the face of succeeding developments.
It has become clear that the preference for Islamic beliefs and
practices is much deeper and more broadly shared than the liberal defenders
of globalization initially believed. It has also become obvious that the