Global Village: Progressive or Detrimental?

In a 1995 article "Do We Really Want a Global Village?" the author Talbott paints a very non-Utopian picture of the global village. The author feels as though the sharing of information and "cooperating in purely technical undertakings" too easily perpetuates the "village paradise" as a less visible communal dissociation. Talbott also feels as though the global village would slowly destroy the inner-world of people known as culture. One simple example of this would be sending the newest laptop technology to a third world country that doesn't even have electricity, which would create further confusion and disparity.

In my eyes, the global village is more of the way the people of the world connect. I don't see global village as something that we must force on people, but instead perpetuate to those who desire it or are interested in contributing. This poses a problem, as the intentions of some of the villagers may not always be morally sound or rooted in worldly progression, but instead individual power. I see the global village as a subtle blending and understanding of cultures, not the creation of one new and unified culture.

I found one idea expressed by Talbott as particularly interesting. Being a fan of the Star Trek Series, Talbott echoed in his writing the Prime Directive that all Federation members upheld. As worded by Talbott, "Technological change should be introduced only so far as it serves the natural, consciously chosen evolution of a people." The global village should still serve the greater good, but not interfere with the natural progression of a culture.

Within this context, the building of a global village could be a positive thing, but to try and conform the world to a central set of norms and ideas I feel would be a detriment to people and culture as a whole. Ideally, I'd like to see a melting pot that still has individual ingredients. This is similar to how I run my classroom. Even though I have a class full of students who need to be educated, I also have students with race, religion, culture, gender and many other individual baggage that needs to be recognized.

For the K-12 classroom, the idea of a global village will be a tough thing to realize. As the technological advances grow exponentially, the way teachers are trained, students learn, and education evolves will be vital to the extent of how far the global village manifests. Technology can make the Utopian idea of a global village a quicker process, but it also could make it progress in ways that maybe the world doesn't expect or even desire. Probably the best thing the K-12 classroom can do is discuss this idea of global village, discuss why or how it could progress, and create an open dialogue to prepare our students for the possibilities that exist within the global village context. Give them a more worldly view of things so they too can begin to see the forest for the trees. After that preparation we can only hope that they make wise choices to positively effect the future of society and culture.