OK, this is cool. Jim Bennett now has a website to promote his new book The Anglosphere Challenge: Why the English-Speaking Nations Will Lead the Way in the Twenty-First Century. The website has a synopsis of the book. We’ll let the man speak for himself:
The Anglosphere Challenge is a new and different look at where globalization and information technology are taking the world, and specifically the USA and the other English-speaking nations. Unlike most of these observers, Bennett believes that these forces will not create a borderless world, nor will the process of globalization lead to a homogenized world culture. Instead, Bennett argues that what is emerging is a series of distinct but overlapping globe- spanning linguistic-cultural phenomena, which he terms “network civilizations”. (The Anglosphere, or English-speaking network civilization, is the first but by no means the last of such entities.) Within these network civilizations, cultures with strong civil societies can cross intra- civilizational boundaries with ease, widening the scope of easy interaction, particularly for smaller, entrepreneurial ventures. The task of the emerging era, then, is one of creating political forms of cooperation appropriate to these network civilizations. Bennett argues that such a form, which he terms the “Network Commonwealth”, is already emerging. Unlike national or imperial forms of organization, network commonwealths are characterized by extreme decentralization and lack of compulsory mechanisms. Network commonwealths will serve to replace the trade and defense functions once performed by large economic states. Bennett’s book contains a detailed discussion of the English-speaking world and why its strong civil society, and resultant entrepreneurial market capitalism and constitutional government will likely result in the Anglosphere’s retaining the lead role in the next stages of development, the multiple and simultaneous scientific-technological revolutions sometimes called the Singularity, and the emergence of the Network Commonwealth..
The site also has excerpts from the book, and the annotated bibliography. Check these out. They will make you want to get the book if you haven’t already.
I finished reading the book a while ago. I just need a chunk of time to write up a detailed review. Bear with me.
Does he or does he not include Canada in the Anglosphere? I’m increasingly coming to the opinion that it should no longer be considered a part of it, as it is increasingly dominated by its French elements.
Canada is part in, part out. The Anglosphere is not a precisely-defined construct like a nation-state, and many nations are at various degrees of distance from the center. Essentially, the English-speaking provinces are quite unremarkably Anglospheric in opinion, mostly blue-state or purple-state in culture and public opinion, with Alberta being very similar to an American red state. Quebec is in the Francosphere, largely, although it has a substantial English-speaking minority. For example, Jean Chretien’s son-in-law’s ties to the French oil industry are suspected of being influential in Chretien’s decision to oppose the Iraq war. Because of the way the Canadian political system works, Quebec has a partial-veto on many public questions, including foreign policy. Because the Liberal party acts as the center-left in the Anglosphone provinces, and as the right in Quebec, it has been able to straddle Canadian politics and enact a foreign policy that’s substantially to the left of the center of opinion in English-speaking Canada. It’s a bit similar to the old Democratic use of the Solid South to hold an electoral lock on American politics, which worked between 1932 and 1964. Whether events now underway in Canada (mostly the rise of the unified Conservatives, and the sociological trend Andrew Coyne call the “westernization of Ontario”) might change this, time will tell. If you’re intersted, you should look at Andrew Coyne’s blog (http://www.andrewcoyne.com). Meanwhile Canada seems to be what Mark Steyn calls a “semi-detached member of the Anglosphere.”
One country I haven’t heard mentioned as part of the Anglosphere is Israel, yet it seems to me that it has many of the right characteristics. English is very widely spoken (on my recent visit it seemed to be an almost universally-spoken second language, among Jews at least, and there are English-language newspapers); the legal system is that of the English common law; much of the world of business (especially the growing high-tech sector) and academia is closely connected with the English-speaking world (especially the US); the parliamentary system is close to the Westminster model (the main difference being the proportional representation party list system, which seems to be a legacy of the pre-State of Israel Zionist organisations). I should be careful not to over-emphasise this aspect of Israel, and many Israelis might not welcome such a label, but if India is considered part of the Anglosphere (a view that makes sense to me), so too is Israel.
Re. Israel. Like Afghanistan, Israelis working on a written Constitution went to the Federalist Papers Forward, March 2003.
Of course, some institutions (academic and religious, such as the Presbyterian church) clearly treat Israel as the “other”. This seems to me to be a sign, however, that these groups, not too happy with their own identity, want to isolate Israel because of its vulnerable, marginal status in such a grouping. A more positive perspective might be that they hold Israel to Anglosphere standards.
Charles, I generally agree with you and have made similar points in the past, though I don’t think I convinced Lex or Jim Bennett. Israeli culture is not primarily Anglospheric. However, it has strong Anglospheric characteristics, particularly the widespread use of English, close connections to U.S. business and cultural sectors, and an exceptionally high level of pro-American sentiment.
Jonathan, I think the qualified way you in which you put the issue is fair and accurate, as I agree that Israeli culture is not primarily Anglospheric (and did not mean to suggest otherwise). I think the analogy with India is a reasonable one – the British influence is strong, but the primary culture is different (unlike, say, Australia, my own country).
Ginny, it is interesting that Israelis have been inspired by the Federalist Papers. So too were the Australians who drew up our own Constitution in a series of conventions in the 1890s. The parliamentary system is Westminster-derived, but the federal structure closely resembles and was consciously modelled on that of the US (because, just like the US, Australia was formed from a union of separate, self-governing British colonies).
Also, I think your remark that certain Western groups “treat Israel as the ‘other'” because the are “not too happy with their own identity” is right on the mark. It is typical of the Left and its fellow-travellers to condemn a robust and forceful assertion of Western values, despite the fact that, ultimately, it is such assertion that protects them and allows them to put their views into practice.
If you expand and loosen the bounds of a category enough, do you really even have a category any more?
DS: Go to the book website. There are excerpts. Then buy the book. In the meantime, this excerpt may be illuminating:
It is not about either / or. It is about degrees of participation.