Bremmer - Us v. Them: The Failure of Globalism

Ian Bremmer introduces Us vs. Them: The Failure of Globalism by warning that the spread of an us vs. them perspective among citizens around the world, including protests and rock throwing, comes from fear - fear of strangers, terrorists, criminals, decline of economic opportunity - and that governments can't protect us from these threats. He then explained that those who were born and matured in the 20th century believed that the American dream was secured by globalism. Unfortunately, globalism also guaranteed the problems that worldwide citizens now face - that there are winners and losers of the race to globalization. Worse yet it is the fact that globalization and its impact are accelerating.

Bremmer's book and the video of his appearance at a Johns Hopkins forum after Trump's 1st election to the U.S. Presidency describe how globalization has created an interconnected world where the cross-border flow of ideas, goods, and services and the inequity that goes with that flow resulted in governments having very limited potential to protect their citizens. Some political leaders have attempted to recognize this complexity through negotiations and bridge building while others chose the cynical option of retrenchment, withdrawal, blaming others, and erecting conceptual or physical walls. Media complicates the matter because winners and losers of the globalization race can easily see the inequities - that is if they have open access that allows them to see the rest of the world through honest journalistic reporting. As Bremmer says, "It's the efforts of the losers not to get f'ed over, and the efforts of the winners to keep from losing power" (p. 10) that will create conflict with and across the borders of the world. He characterizes this dynamic as the seed that will destroy globalism, primarily because it creates insecurities that pit people against each other.

The facts of globalism are in some cases very different than the general public's perception. For instance, 88% of jobs lost in U.S. manufacturing from 2006-2013 were due to automation, not changes in global trade. Fearing the loss of culture is another example; where diversity is significant (such as Chicago) grater individuation and celebration of culture is more common rather than eroded.

The walls that have been going up around the world are generally more about protecting, rather than predicting the demise of, democracy. Isolating and pursuing separate national interests appears to protect jobs and cultures, with raising tariffs a primary example. The problem Bremmer identifies is that tariffs usually set off retaliation that locks countries into an escalating cycle or moves production to other countries all together. Cross-border flow of people and talent was an international issue in 2018 and has now risen to a much higher level in the anti-immigration movements leading up to 2024. It is the wealthiest countries that will be inclined to the strongest reactions to both the economic and human repercussions of globalism.

What are the factors that will help countries survive the growing fears about globalism? Helping citizens understand that survival is dependent on adaptation and that governments, if run honestly for the benefit of citizens, can change. Secondly, governments must address inequality and begin to lift all boats rather than the yachts of the few. Thirdly, education and retraining will be central, automatically challenging countries with large populations more than those that are smaller. Looking at these factors, "India, Indonesia, Russia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and South Africa are especially vulnerable" (p. 53). "Mexico, Brazil, and China have more capacity than the rest to respond" (p. 54). Bremmer predicted that the success of these 10 countries will determine the outcome for the world economy in the 21st century.

All countries may eventually need to be more responsive to the seemingly universal pursuit of happiness (as defined by the World Happiness Report) including "caring, freedom, generosity, honesty, health, income and good governance" (p. 135). In order to achieve these, the ability of governments to rebuild relations among their citizens and across national borders may be inevitable with income/wealth inequality one of the most important factors. Even Zuckerberg seems to understand this when he declared on Facebook in 2017 that progress "now requires humanity coming together not just as cities or nations, but also as a global community" (p. 155). Without a commitment to this greater good, cynicism about all governments will grow until conditions become so bad that even the current winners of the globalism race will open to a new social contract.

As a reflection back almost a decade ago, and before Ian Bremmer published Us. vs. Them (2018), I warned higher education leaders to avoid using the terms globalism or globalization in their discussion of higher education (Roberts, 2015). I based the warning on Jane Knight's scholarship over the years where she clearly distinguished that globalization was export of economic, knowledge, people and other resources in ways that disrupted or replaced local culture while internationalization was the mutual and respectful exchange of processes and resources across borders. Thus, I encouraged educators to talk about their work in terms of internationalization, especially in education hubs and partnerships across regions of the world.

Connecting for leadership

To say that the Leadership Educators Institute of 2024 was inspirational to me is a gross understatement. While the conversations with Vernon Wall and me ended up including most of the things that I had planned to say and previously posted, it was connecting with those who so warmly welcomed conversation with me throughout the Institute that I enjoyed most. There are many but new colleagues Courtney, Andy, Sam, Adelaide, Travell, Kass, and Laura engaged so openly and longer-standing colleagues Kristina, Kathy, Melissa, and of course Vernon and Tanya were steadfast sources of encouragement. Donovan and Luis - it goes without saying how fun it was to connect with you.

What I've found on reflection is how powerful it was to have been placed later in the itinerary, giving me a chance to figure out if I had anything relevant to say when my time came. The problem here is that in so many ways, speaking to a conference or even publishing books and articles may appear to be a prideful thing. The balance between humility and pride is something with which I always struggle and I strive never to cross the line into pride that assumes I have some special gift or insight. Instead, I try to engage in ways that are provisional and encourage shared discovery among those with whom I'm privileged to connect.

"Connecting in leadership" - what does it take? So many of us are seeking more effective and powerful ways to cultivate leadership among students, ourselves, and our communities. What participating in LEI reinforced is that the processes I described in Deeper Learning in Leadership in 2007 were actually guiding me through each successive encounter. I started with a conviction of wanting to listen deeply to what was troubling leadership educators that I met. Then three forces overtook me - presence, flow, and oscillation. I'm not trying to sell books here but the fact is that the urgency of what drove me to attend and speak at LEI called out the better part of me which was attentiveness and being present. Once the forces of presence were in effect I definitely found myself in the state of "flow," a feeling of intense focus that suspends time and place. The unfortunate proof of my state of suspension is that I frequently got lost in the hotel, forgot to eat, and found myself at 8 p.m. each night completely exhausted. Each of the two nights allowed me the renewal I needed to come back the next day - thus oscillating to offer renewal.

All of the leadership educators who attended LEI were seeking more effective ways to cultivate student leadership. Some were just struggling with how to get students to participate in programs and stick with them long enough for them to make a difference. As I observed one group exploring student participation challenges, I heard drivers such as belonging, purpose, success, healing, and expectation, all of which might need to be folded into how we invite students to come along with us.

I have no doubt that most of the LEI 2024 attendees took a great deal away from being in Philly for 3 days but the most important part is finding colleagues with whom to share the journey. Humbly sharing with each other and authentically meeting each other was certainly evident at the meeting and perhaps there is insight here in relation to reaching students. If we urgently engage in ways that demonstrate that we're not leadership educators just as a job but as a calling and that learning to be better leaders requires reflection, focus, and renewal, perhaps students would come along with us more enthusiastically.

Crystal ball - looking back and forward in leadership learning

The emergence of the focus on leadership learning goes back to the 1970s and probably even earlier. This movement has spawned an "industry" (Kellerman, 2018) that spans sectors, disciplines, and cultures. Student affairs educators have been part of this movement from the beginning and have made significant contributions along the way, including the advocacy for comprehensiveness, coherence, access and inclusion, and evidence-based practice.

However, some scholars have continued to challenge leadership educators for the lack of return on investment. I have enjoyed numerous interactions with Barbara Kellerman as she has pushed leadership scholars, educators, and consultants to get serious by committing to proving their worth. Where I find myself today is continuing to try to bridge organizational barriers, sectors, and international boundaries to advance leadership learning that makes a difference.

With the number of years I've been in the orbit of leadership studies and education, I've had several opportunities to be interviewed on my recollection of the last almost 50 years of advancing leadership learning. Being interviewed by Vernon Wall at the 2024 Leadership Educators Institute gave me another opportunity to gaze into the crystal ball. Following are the questions and the responses I offered.

Looking back on your 50+ year career, what were the moments and circumstances that were most formative in the way you viewed your work?

There were three very significant awakenings for me. The first was in my early career while working and pursuing my Ph.D. at the University of Maryland. When I first went to Maryland I worked in the Orientation Programs but I brought with me from my Colorado State days a very different view of students' roles. I saw the potential, and advocated, for greater responsibility of student leaders empowered by deeper training and development. Fostering deeper student leadership involvement in Orientation led to my being invited to start the leadership programs at Maryland, a task I pursued by engaging with ACPA in the creation of the comprehensive leadership program model that was published in 1981 (Student Leadership Programs in Higher Education). This involvement started me down a path of studying and conceptualizing leadership learning throughout my career.

The second instrumental moment was getting acquainted with one of the founders of student affairs work, Dr. Esther Lloyd-Jones. Her view of student affairs as a catalyst for institutional engagement and empowerment of deeper student learning changed forever how I viewed my work as a student affairs educator.

The third transformative moment relates to international exposure. I first worked and traveled internationally when I was selected as a Visiting Scholar for Miami University's Luxembourg campus in 2005. This experience then led to my accepting the invitation to create the student support, service, and development area for Education City in Doha, Qatar, as Assistant Vice President for Faculty & Student Services for Qatar Foundation. The initial experience in Europe and later work for 7 years in the Middle East transformed my view of higher education and how culture needed to be accommodated or embraced.

What do you see as the central principles of cultivating leadership learning over the years, what issues have been most central and consistent?

There are five central principles that have endured and that I believe leadership educators should continue to observe:

• The capacity to lead is present in everyone and is found in both positional and non-positional examples.
• Fostering deeper leadership requires a personal development progression (e.g. presence, flow, and oscillation that I proposed in Deeper Learning in Leadership, 2007).
• The importance of values in leadership with humility, curiosity, and respect for difference as central concerns. (The Social Change Model is the most notable in advancing values in leadership.)
• Inclusive leadership achieved through multiple purposes (training, education, and development), multiple processes (programs & pedagogies), and offered to multiple populations. These principles were advocated by the ACPA Commission IV Task Force beginning in 1976.
• Partnerships to advance the work along with comprehensive and coherent models. This commitment is demonstrated in the subsequent inter-association collaborations that included other student affairs groups, crossing to academics, and actualized in the multi-sector perspective of the International Leadership Association.

How has your view of cultivating leadership changed as a result of your international work and travel?

I want to first acknowledged what a privilege it has been to travel and work internationally. My first experience was at age 57 and I have had so many opportunities since then, most of which are covered throughout this blog. For those of us who have this privilege, I believe it is important to not flaunt it but to humbly acknowledge our privilege, consider how critical theory might inform it, and seek to learn from it.

There is a quirk in this emergence of international understanding and it is my personality, one informed by an artist's spirit and training in music. I recently discovered Emilie Wapnick's idea of the "multipotentialite" personality which was stunning in how well it described me. The multipotentialite has the following characteristics:

• Non-linear career path
• Make connections between seemingly unrelated concepts
• Get bored when things get too easy
• Excel at idea generation
• Abhor routine and predictability
• Not afraid to try new things

The multipotentialite lens in me leans into experimentalism, coupled with empiricist curiosity. I did not always understand this about myself but realizing and leaning into it made me more comfortable in my career and life choices and this has been immensely affirming. It also made international travel and work incredibly interesting. Living internationally and having the opportunity to travel started me down a path of preparing for cultural encounter, remaining curious, and approaching experience with appreciation. 

I gradually realized that the cultural lenses that we use in the U.S. are useful but incomplete. The primary reason I say this is that much of what I've seen in cultural learning is comparative/competitive rather than appreciative. When you think of the way difference is explored, it is often conceived in a superiority versus deficit paradigm. I've written about this in my more recent publications but I recently focused on the implications for leadership training in a chapter that came out in the New Directions in Student Leadership series, titled "Incorporating an international perspective in training" (Roberts & Nyunt, 2024). This article advocates for leadership educators to become internationalists in their world view, challenge the standard leadership theory canon, and check their pedagogical practices. These three areas are complemented by pointers that will enhance leadership learning for international and all students.

Looking to the future of cultivating leadership learning, where do you see the need for greater focus and attention?

Proving the value of leadership learning, welcoming conflict and dialogue, and internationalizing our content and processes will become increasingly important. Add to these the advice offered by Satterwhite & Botkin (in press) that "leadership scholarship and learning needs to incorporate the emergence of collective leadership paradigms, include indigenous and diverse cultural perspectives, incorporate diverse andragogy and settings for learning, commit to inclusion and belonging of all learners."

It's also important that leadership learning include a heuristic understanding that can be comprehended and put into action. A heuristic approach will allow for the conceptual framework to be central, coherent, and serve as a catalyst to pervasively cultivate leadership potential that fulfills both individual and shared aspirations.

What are your deepest concerns and/or predictions about leadership and higher education in the coming years?

My deepest concerns relate to confronting bad leadership, paying more attention to active followership, incorporating critical perspectives, and instilling hope.

There are issues that haven't changed since we started this work and there are some new issues that offer expanding opportunity for us. My hope is that we double-down on the constants and step up on the newer opportunities.

Things that haven't changed:

• Advocating for the cultivation of core values that enhance the potential for positive leadership - humility, curiosity, respect for difference...
• Cultivating habits of character that support purposeful and generative leadership
• Infusion of leadership learning through partnership with others on campus and in the community
• Cultivating leadership through coherent and comprehensive commitments

Things that are expanding our opportunities:

• Creating positive organization culture as a central responsibility of leadership
• Understanding leadership as a continuum of followership to leadership and the growing necessity to pay attention to responsible followership and bad leadership
• Incorporating an international perspective
• Increasing emphasis on standards/principles and proof of impact (i.e. CAS Standards, ILA General Principles, Carnegie Leadership for Public Purpose elective classification)
• Integrating broader perspectives informed by critical examination for colonialism, racialization, and culture
• Instilling critical hope in the face of cynicism and pessimism