Evelin Lindner's Concept of Globalization and Egalization: Globegalization!

English version
Deutsche Version
Norsk versjon
Version francais

 

Globalization and Egalization: Globegalization!

The terms "egalization" and "globegalization" (other spellings would be "globEgalization" or "glob-egalization") have been coined by Evelin Lindner in order to introduce more stringent differentiations into the globalization debate ("egalisation" and "globegalisation" in British English, "egalisering" og "globegalisering" in Norwegian, "egalisation" and "globegalisation" in French, and "Egalisierung" and "Globegalisierung" in German).

The introduction of the term "egalization" has the advantage of untangling positive and negative trends embedded into what is usually termed "globalization." The "coming together" aspect in globalization entails a host of elements that are beneficial for humankind (for example, a heightened awareness for humankind's joint responsibility for the maintenance of their home planet). This benefit ought not to be discredited.

Introducing the term "egalization" allows for "freeing" the positive aspects in globalization, by placing its problems into another social process that occurs at about the same time as globalization, namely the lack of egalization. It is the struggle (currently unsuccessful), by the human rights movement, to increase equal chances for everybody in this globalizing world and diminish humiliating living conditions.

If we imagine the world as a container with a height and a width, globalization addresses the horizontal dimension, the shrinking width. Egalization, on the other hand, concerns the vertical dimension. Egalization means that the container shrinks in height, with elites at the top and underlings at the bottom moving closer together. The ultimate goal of egalization is a flat container with everybody at about the same level of equal dignity, as defined in human rights ideals. Globalization and egalization, together, describe a shrinking of our "world," both horizontally and vertically, or "globegalization."

Globalization occurs "automatically," propelled by technology, but egalization requires deliberate and committed ideological decisions. Globalization can very well occur without egalization. This is precisely what appears to be happening at present when we consider that the gap between the wealthy at the top and the poor at the bottom is growing, both locally and globally. Globalization without egalization is a story of the container getting narrower and higher.

"Globalization-critics" do not oppose the coming together of humankind in a globalizing world. They oppose the lack of egalization. Globalization critics want our world not only to shrink in "width," but also to become "flatter."

Globalization entails a push toward egalization, albeit with a painful time lag and in a hurtfully uncoordinated way. In his last book, Thomas Friedman describes how the current round of globalization (he calls it Globalization 3.0) contributes to making the world "flatter."

In sum, the introduction of the terms egalization and globegalization allows for correctly differentiating the beneficial and destructive trends at the current historic juncture: globalization, understood as the coming together of humankind entails many beneficial aspects and needs to be honed carefully, not rejected in a wholesale-manner. It needs to be combined with egalization to globegalization, which means giving all citizens of the world equal changes for building dignified lives. The introduction of the terms egalization and globegalization is therefore crucial if we wish to forge more effective analysis and action.

The concepts of egalization and globegalization link up to current scholarship on dignity, decency, and humiliation. Avishai Margalit wrote The Decent Society, a book, in which he calls for institutions that do no longer humiliate citizens - just societies no longer suffice; the goal should be decent societies that transcend humiliation. Decency reigns when dignity for all is made possible. Decency calls for a joint effort to attain the goals of the United Nations Millennium Declaration of September 2000. In line with Margalit's work, Lindner calls for a Moratorium on Humiliation.

In her book Making Enemies: Humiliation and International Conflict (2006, Praeger/Greenwood), p. 52, Lindner writes:
"Globalization is powered by technology and our use of it, while what I call egalization is driven by our day-to-day moral sentiments and moral decisions. Egalization is about our relations with others and ourselves, whether we deem it right to look up or down on others and ourselves or believe we should treat all with equal respect. Egalization is about whether we use fear as the "glue" for coercive hierarchies or prefer to live in creative networks held together by mutual respect as defined by human rights ideals of equal dignity for all. I coined the word egalization to differentiate it from words such as equality, equity, or egalitarianism because the main point is equal dignity. The term egalization avoids claiming that there are no differences among people. Egality can coexist with functional hierarchy that regards all participants as possessing equal dignity; egality cannot coexist with hierarchy that defines some people as more valuable than others."

In her book Gender, Humiliation, and Global Security (2010, Praeger/CLIO), p. 153, Lindner coins the terms "globegalization" and "co-globegalization":
"If we define globalization as the coming together of the human family into One World, and egalization as the realization of equality in dignity for each member of this family, we can coin the word globegalization. Engaging in globegalization realizes liberté and égalité. If we also include fraternité—co means “together” in Latin—we arrive at co-globalization and co-egalization, together co-globegalization. Co-globegalization, albeit a rather unwieldy word, is the shortest name for humankind’s present assignment. It means building a protective roof under which cooperation and communal sharing can find safe space to flourish, from co-vorce and co-parenting locally (chapter 8), to shared custody for planet Earth globally."

Michio Kaku (2005), renowned physicist and leading expert in string theory, concludes his book on Parallel Worlds with the following paragraph:
The generation now alive is perhaps the most important generation of humans ever to walk the Earth. Unlike previous generations, we hold in our hands the future destiny of our species, whether we soar into fulfilling our promise as a type I civilization [meaning that humankind manages to build a sustainable planet, both ecologically and socially] or fall into the abyss of chaos, pollution, and war. Decisions made by us will reverberate throughout this century. How we resolve global wars, proliferating nuclear weapons, and sectarian and ethnic strife will either lay or destroy the foundations of a type I civilization. Perhaps the purpose and meaning of the current generation are to make sure that the transition to a type I civilization is a smooth one. The choice is ours. This is the legacy of the generation now alive. This is our destiny (Kaku, 2005, p. 361).

References:

Friedman , Thomas L. (2005). The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kaku, Michio (2005). Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos. New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, Auckland: Doubleday.

Lindner, Evelin G. (2006). Making Enemies: Humiliation and International Conflict. Westport, CT, London: Praeger Security International, Greenwood.

Lindner, Evelin G. (2010). Gender, Humiliation, and Global Security: Dignifying Relationships from Love, Sex, and Parenthood to World Affairs. Santa Barbara, CA : Praeger Security International, ABC-CLIO

Margalit, Avishai (1996). The Decent Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 

Globalisierung & Egalisierung: Globegalisierung!

Kürzlich sind die Begriffe "Egalisierung" und "Globegalisierung" (oder "GlobEgalisierung" oder "Glob-egalisierung") von Evelin Lindner geprägt worden, mit dem Ziel, strengere Differenzierungen in die Globalisierungsdebatte einzuführen ("egalization" und "globegalization" oder "egalisation" und "globegaliation" auf Englisch, "egalisering" und "globegalisering" auf Norwegisch, und "egalisation" und "globegalisation" auf Französisch).

Die Einführung des Begriffs "Egalisierung" hat den Vorteil, die positiven und negativen Tendenzen zu entwirren, die eingebettet sind in was gewöhnlich "Globalisierung" genannt wird. Globalisierung umfasst eine Vielzahl von Aspekten, die förderlich sind (zum Beispiel, ein gesteigertes Bewusstsein für die gemeinschaftliche Verantwortung der Menschheit für die Erhaltung ihres winzigen Heimplaneten). Dieses "Zusammenkommen" der Menschheit sollte nicht diskreditiert werden.

Die Einführung des Begriffs "Egalisiering" erlaubt es, die positiven Aspekte in Globalisierung freizusetzen, und zwar indem die Probleme in einem zweiten sozialen Prozess lokalisiert werden, der zur gleichen Zeit wie Globalisierung stattfindet, nämlich das Nachhinken von Egalisiering. Egalisierung bezeichnet den Kampf (momentan oft eher erfolglos) der Menschenrechtsbewegung, gleiche Chancen für jeden in dieser globalisierenden Welt zu vermehren, und demütigende Lebensbedingungen zu verringern.

Wenn wir uns die Welt als einen Behälter mit einer Höhe und einer Breite vorstellen, entspricht Globalisierung der horizontalen Dimension und Egalisiering der senkrechten Dimension. Globalisierung bedeutet, dass der Behälter in seinem Radius kleiner wird, Egalisiering bedeutet, dass er in seiner Höhe schrumpft. Das Ziel von Egalisiering ist ein flacher Behälter, in dem jeder Menschen sich auf gleicher Höhe befindet, mit gleicher Würde, so wie es in den Menschenrechten definiert wird. Globalisierung und Egalisiering zusammen beschreiben eine Schrumpfung unserer "Welt," sowohl horizontal als auch senkrecht, also "Globegalisierung."

Globalisierung findet "automatisch" statt, angetriebenen durch Technologie und ihre Entwicklung (zum Beispiel des Internets). Egalisiering dagegen erfordert zielgerichtete ideologische Entscheidungen. Globalisierung kann sehr gut ohne Egalisiering stattfinden. Dies ist genau was im Moment geschieht. Der Abstand zwischen reich und arm wächst, sowohl lokal wie auch global. Um im Bild des Behälter zu bleiben, bedeutet Globalisierung ohne Egalisiering, dass der Behälter enger und höher wird.

"Globalisierungskritiker" kritisieren nicht das Zusammenkommen der Menschheit in einer globalisierenden Welt. Sie kritisieren den Mangel von Egalisiering. Globalisierungskritiker wollen unsere Welt nicht nur horizontal schrumpfen, sondern auch vertikal.

Globalisierung fördert Egalisiering, obgleich mit einer schmerzhaften zeitlichen Verzögerung und in schmerzlich unkoordinierter Weise. Thomas Friedman beschreibt sehr gut in seinem letzten Buch wie die gegenwärtige "Runde" von Globalisierung (er nennt sie Globalisierung 3,0) die Welt "flacher" macht.

Um zusammenzufassen, die Einführung der Begriffe Egalisierung und Globegalisierung erlaubt es, richtig zu unterscheiden zwischen den förderlichen und zerstörerischen Tendenzen, die den gegenwärtigen historischen Zeitpunkt in dem wir leben kennzeichnen: Globalisierung als das Zusammenkommen der Menschheit enthält viele hilfreiche Aspekte und muss vorsichtig gefördert und nicht rundheraus abgelehnt werden. Globalisierung muss mit Egalisierung kombiniert werden, zu Globegalisierung, um allen Bürgern der Welt gleiche Chancen für ein würdiges Leben zu geben. Die Einführung der Begriffe Egalisierung und Globegalisierung ist daher sehr wichtig, und entscheidend, wenn wir wünschen, effektiver in unserer Analyse von Globalisierung zu werden und wirkungsvollere Interventionen zu entwickeln.

Die Begriffe Egalisierung und Globegalisierung sind aus der gegenwärtigen Forschung über Würde, Anstand, und Demütigung / Erniedrigung entstanden. In seinem Buch The Decent Society [Die Anständige Gesellschaft] verlangt Avishai Margalit Institutionen, die nicht länger ihre Bürger demütigen - es genügt nicht, eine gerechte Gesellschaft zu entwickeln; das Ziel muss eine anständige Gesellschaft ohne Erniedrigung sein. Anstand herrscht, wenn Würde für alle möglich gemacht wird. Anstand verlangt eine gemeinschaftliche Bemühung, die Ziele der Millennium Deklaration der Vereinten Nationen vom September 2000 zu erreichen. Im Geiste von Margalits Forderung, verlangt Lindner ein Moratorium für Erniedrigung.

In ihrem Buch Making Enemies: Humiliation and International Conflict (2006, Praeger/Greenwood), Seite 52, schreibt Lindner:
"Globalization is powered by technology and our use of it, while what I call egalization is driven by our day-to-day moral sentiments and moral decisions. Egalization is about our relations with others and ourselves, whether we deem it right to look up or down on others and ourselves or believe we should treat all with equal respect. Egalization is about whether we use fear as the "glue" for coercive hierarchies or prefer to live in creative networks held together by mutual respect as defined by human rights ideals of equal dignity for all. I coined the word egalization to differentiate it from words such as equality, equity, or egalitarianism because the main point is equal dignity. The term egalization avoids claiming that there are no differences among people. Egality can coexist with functional hierarchy that regards all participants as possessing equal dignity; egality cannot coexist with hierarchy that defines some people as more valuable than others."

In ihrem Buch Gender, Humiliation, and Global Security (2010, Praeger/CLIO), Seite 153, formt Lindner die Termini "Globegalisierung" und "Co-Globegalisierung":
"If we define globalization as the coming together of the human family into One World, and egalization as the realization of equality in dignity for each member of this family, we can coin the word globegalization. Engaging in globegalization realizes liberté and égalité. If we also include fraternité—co means “together” in Latin—we arrive at co-globalization and co-egalization, together co-globegalization. Co-globegalization, albeit a rather unwieldy word, is the shortest name for humankind’s present assignment. It means building a protective roof under which cooperation and communal sharing can find safe space to flourish, from co-vorce and co-parenting locally (chapter 8), to shared custody for planet Earth globally."

Michio Kaku (2005), berühmter Physiker und führender Experte in der string theory, schließt sein Buch über parallele Welten mit dem folgenden Zeilen ab:
The generation now alive is perhaps the most important generation of humans ever to walk the Earth. Unlike previous generations, we hold in our hands the future destiny of our species, whether we soar into fulfilling our promise as a type I civilization [meaning that humankind manages to build a sustainable planet, both ecologically and socially] or fall into the abyss of chaos, pollution, and war. Decisions made by us will reverberate throughout this century. How we resolve global wars, proliferating nuclear weapons, and sectarian and ethnic strife will either lay or destroy the foundations of a type I civilization. Perhaps the purpose and meaning of the current generation are to make sure that the transition to a type I civilization is a smooth one. The choice is ours. This is the legacy of the generation now alive. This is our destiny (Kaku, 2005, p. 361).

 

Globalisering & egalisering: globegalisering!

Begrepene "egalisering" og "globegalisering" (eller "globEgalisering" eller "glob-egalisering") har blitt skapt av Evelin Lindner ("egalization" og "globegalization" eller "egalisation" og "globegalisation" på engelsk, "egalisation" og "globegalisation" på fransk og "Egalisierung" og "Globegalisierung" på tysk). Egalisering betyr at likeverd, som menneskerettigheter definerer det, blir introdusert inn i "globaliseringen." Begrepet er viktig fordi det introduserer strengere differensieringer inn i globaliseringsdebatten.

Termen "egalisering" har fordelen av å differensiere de positive og negative trendene som begge er del i hva vanligvis er kalt "globalisering." For eksempel, aspekten av "å komme sammen" er fordelaktig (for eksempel, det er fordelaktig at forståelsen for menneskehetens felles ansvar for deres hjemplanet blir høynet). Denne aspekten i globaliseringen bør ikke diskrediteres.

Det å introdusere termen egalisering tillater å "frigjøre" de positive aspektene i globaliseringen ved å plassere dets problemer inn i en annen sosial prosess som utfolder seg på samme tid som globaliseringen, nemlig mangel på egalisering. Egalisering betegner kampen (for tiden often heller mislykket) av menneskerettighetsbevegelsen å skape like sjanser for alle i denne globaliserende verden og redusere ydmykende levekår.

Om vi forestiller oss verdenen som en beholder med en høyde og en bredde, så angår globalisering den horisontale dimensjonen, den krympende radiusen. Egalisering, på den andre siden, angår den vertikale dimensjonen. Egalisering betyr at beholderen krymper i høyden. Målet av egalisering er en flat beholder med alle på samme nivå av lik verdighet, som definert i menneskerettigheter. Globalisering og egalisering, sammen, beskriver en krymping av vår "verden," begge horisontalt og vertikalt, eller "globegalisering."

Globaliseringen forekommer "automatisk," drevet av teknologi (Internett, for eksempel), mens egaliseringen krever bevisste ideologiske avgjørelser. Globaliseringen kan meget godt forekomme uten egalisering. Dette er nøyaktig hva som skjer ved det nåværende tidspunkt når vi betrakter at gapet mellom rik og fattig vokser, begge lokalt og globalt. Globalisering uten egalisering betyr at beholderen bli smalere og høy.

"Globalization critics" kritiserer ikke det at menneskeheten kommer sammen i en globaliserende verden. De kritiserer mangel på egalisering. Globalization critics vil at vår verden ikke bare krymper i "bredde," men også blir "flatere."

Globaliseringen fremmer egalisering, men med en smertelig tidsforskjell og i en pinefullt ukoordinert måte. I hans siste bok beskriver Thomas Friedman hvordan den nåværende runden av globaliseringen (han kaller det Globalization 3.0) bidrar til å gjøre verdenen "flatere."

Kort, det å introdusere termene egalisering og globegalisering tillater oss å bedre differensiere de fordelaktige og destruktive trekkene ved det nåværende historiske tidspunktet: globaliseringen, eller det at menneskeheten kommer sammen, inneholder mange fordelaktige aspekter og må fremmes forsiktig, ikke forkastet i sin helhet. Globaliseringen må føres sammen med egalisering til globegalisering, som betyr å gi alle borgere i denne verdenen like muligheter til å bygge et verdig liv. Introduseringen av termene egalization og globegalisering er derfor avgjørende om vi ønsker å utvikle mer effektiv analyse og tiltak.

Begrepene egalisering og globegalisering bygger på fersk forskning på verdighet, anstendighet og ydmykelse. I sin bok The Decent Society [Det Anstendige Samfunn] krever Avishai Margalit institusjoner som ikke lenger ydmyker borgere - det er ikke nok med å bygge et rettferdig samfunn; målet må være et anstendig samfunn uten ydmykelse. Anstendighet hersker når verdighet for alle er mulig. Anstendighet krever en felles innsats for å oppnå målene av den Forente Nasjonenes Millennium Erklæringen av September 2000. I tråd med Margalits arbeid, krever Lindner en Moratorium for Ydmykelse.

Viktig for Norge: Egalisering betyr "realisering av likeverdsidelaet." Lindner arbeider for å styrke likeverd lokalt og globalt. Hun har valgt Norge som hovedbase fordi hun mener at Norge er i en unik historisk posisjon. Likeverdsidealet, som er kjernen i menneskerettighetsbudskapet, er dypt forankret i norsk kultur og en viktig del av den norske kulturarven, mens det er nytt for kulturområder med mer hierarkiske tradisjoner som står for sosial ulikhet. Forskning viser betydningen av likeverd for helse og stabilitet, både på individnivå og samfunnsnivå. Likeverd er viktig for en bærekraftig fremtid lokalt og globalt. Lindner mener Norge har et ansvar for å gjøre den norske kulturarven mer tilgjengelig globalt. Norge nyter ekstremt høy anseelse i verden, noe som gjør at likeverdsbudskapet, når det kommer fra Norge, har en større tyngde.

I hennes bok Making Enemies: Humiliation and International Conflict (2006, Praeger/Greenwood), side 52, forklarer Lindner begrepet egalisering som følgende:
"Globalization is powered by technology and our use of it, while what I call egalization is driven by our day-to-day moral sentiments and moral decisions. Egalization is about our relations with others and ourselves, whether we deem it right to look up or down on others and ourselves or believe we should treat all with equal respect. Egalization is about whether we use fear as the “glue” for coercive hierarchies or prefer to live in creative networks held together by mutual respect as defined by human rights ideals of equal dignity for all. I coined the word egalization to differentiate it from words such as equality, equity, or egalitarianism because the main point is equal dignity. The term egalization avoids claiming that there are no differences among people. Egality can coexist with functional hierarchy that regards all participants as possessing equal dignity; egality cannot coexist with hierarchy that defines some people as more valuable than others."

I hennes bok Gender, Humiliation, and Global Security (2010, Praeger/CLIO), p. 153, Lindner infører termene "globegalization" og "co-globegalization":
"If we define globalization as the coming together of the human family into One World, and egalization as the realization of equality in dignity for each member of this family, we can coin the word globegalization. Engaging in globegalization realizes liberté and égalité. If we also include fraternité—co means “together” in Latin—we arrive at co-globalization and co-egalization, together co-globegalization. Co-globegalization, albeit a rather unwieldy word, is the shortest name for humankind’s present assignment. It means building a protective roof under which cooperation and communal sharing can find safe space to flourish, from co-vorce and co-parenting locally (chapter 8), to shared custody for planet Earth globally."

Michio Kaku (2005), kjent fysiker og ledende ekspert på string theory, avslutter sin bok Parallel Worlds med følgende paragraf:
The generation now alive is perhaps the most important generation of humans ever to walk the Earth. Unlike previous generations, we hold in our hands the future destiny of our species, whether we soar into fulfilling our promise as a type I civilization [meaning that humankind manages to build a sustainable planet, both ecologically and socially] or fall into the abyss of chaos, pollution, and war. Decisions made by us will reverberate throughout this century. How we resolve global wars, proliferating nuclear weapons, and sectarian and ethnic strife will either lay or destroy the foundations of a type I civilization. Perhaps the purpose and meaning of the current generation are to make sure that the transition to a type I civilization is a smooth one. The choice is ours. This is the legacy of the generation now alive. This is our destiny (Kaku, 2005, p. 361).

 

Mondialisation & egalisation: Globegalisation!

Récemment, les termes « egalisation » et « globegalisation » (ou "globEgalisation" ou "glob-egalisation") sont été inventés par Evelin Lindner, afin d'introduire des différenciations les plus rigoureuses dans le débat de mondialisation (« egalization » et « globegalization » ou « egalisation » et « globegalisation » en anglais, « egalisering » et « globegalisering » en norvégien, et « Egalisierung » et « Globegalisierung » en allemand).

L'introduction de terme « egalisation » a l'avantage de dénouant des tendances positives et négatives mélangées dans ce que par d'habitude est nommée « la mondialisation ». Dans la mondialisation il y a un grand nombre d'aspects qui sont avantageux pour l'humanité (par exemple, une conscience relevée pour la responsabilité commune de l'humanité pour leur planète). Ces aspects positifs ne doivent pas être discrédités.

Introduire le terme egalisation « libère » les aspects positifs dans la mondialisation, en plaçant ses problèmes dans un autre procès social qui arrive au même temps comme la mondialisation, précisément la manque d'egalisation. C'est la lutte (actuellement souvent plutôt infructueux) par le mouvement de droits humain d'augmenter des chances égaux de vivre une vie digne pour tout le monde et diminuer les conditions humiliantes.

Si nous imaginons le monde comme un récipient avec une hauteur et une largeur, la mondialisation adresse la dimension horizontale, la largeur rétrécissant. Egalisation, d'autre part, concerne la dimension verticale. Egalisation signifie le récipient rétrécit dans la hauteur. Le but d'egalisation est un récipient plat avec tout le monde à la hauteur pareille de dignité égale, comme défini dans les droits humains. La mondialisation et egalisation, ensemble, décrire un rétrécir de notre « monde », les deux, horizontalement et verticalement, ou « globegalisation ».

La mondialisation arrive « automatiquement », propulsé par la technologie (par exemple, l'Internet), mais egalisation exige des décisions intentionnelles et dévouées idéologiques. La mondialisation peut bien arriver sans egalisation. Ceci est précisément ce qu'a l'air d'être la situation en ce moment quand nous considérons que l'écart entre les riche et les pauvres grandit, localement et globalement. La mondialisation sans egalisation est une histoire du récipient devenant plus étroit et plus haut.

Les « globalization critics » n'opposent pas que l'humanité vient ensemble dans un monde globalisant. Ils opposent le manque de egalisation. Les « globalization critics « veulent que notre monde non seulement rétrécisse dans la « largeur », mais aussi devient « plat ».

La mondialisation représente une force qui pousse vers l'egalisation, bien qu'avec un décalage pénible et dans une façon offensivement désordonnée. Dans son dernier livre, Thomas Friedman décrit comment le « rond » actuel de mondialisation (il l'appelle la Globalization 3,0) contribue à faire le monde « plat. »

En somme, l'introduction des termes egalisation et globegalisation tient compte de différenciant correctement les tendances avantageuses et destructrices à la jointure historique actuelle : la mondialisation, ou le fait que l'humanité vient ensemble, signifie beaucoup d'aspects avantageux et a besoin d'être soigneusement aiguisé, pas rejeté. La mondialisation a besoin d'être combiné avec l'egalisation à la gloegalisation, qui signifie donnant de chances égaux à tous citoyens du monde pour construire des vies dignes. L'introduction des termes egalisation et globegalisation est donc cruciale si nous souhaitons créer des analyses et des actions plus efficaces.

Les concepts d'egalisation et globegalisation sont connectés avec les études actuelles sur la dignité, la décence, et l'humiliation. Avishai Margalit a écrit The Decent Society [La Société Décente], un livre dans lequel il sollicite des institutions qui non plus humilie des citoyens - c'est ne suffit non plus d'avoir des sociétés juste; le but doit être des sociétés décents qui transcendent l'humiliation. La décence règne quand la dignité pour touts est fait possible. La décence demande un effort commun pour atteindre les buts de la Déclaration de Millénaire de Nations Unie du 2000 septembre. En ligne avec le travail de Margalit, Lindner sollicite un Moratoire pour l'Humiliation.

Dans son livre Making Enemies: Humiliation and International Conflict (2006, Praeger/Greenwood), p. 52, Lindner écrit :
"Globalization is powered by technology and our use of it, while what I call egalization is driven by our day-to-day moral sentiments and moral decisions. Egalization is about our relations with others and ourselves, whether we deem it right to look up or down on others and ourselves or believe we should treat all with equal respect. Egalization is about whether we use fear as the “glue” for coercive hierarchies or prefer to live in creative networks held together by mutual respect as defined by human rights ideals of equal dignity for all. I coined the word egalization to differentiate it from words such as equality, equity, or egalitarianism because the main point is equal dignity. The term egalization avoids claiming that there are no differences among people. Egality can coexist with functional hierarchy that regards all participants as possessing equal dignity; egality cannot coexist with hierarchy that defines some people as more valuable than others."

Dans son livre Gender, Humiliation, and Global Security (2010, Praeger/CLIO), p. 153, Lindner introduit les termes "globegalization" et "co-globegalization":
"If we define globalization as the coming together of the human family into One World, and egalization as the realization of equality in dignity for each member of this family, we can coin the word globegalization. Engaging in globegalization realizes liberté and égalité. If we also include fraternité—co means “together” in Latin—we arrive at co-globalization and co-egalization, together co-globegalization. Co-globegalization, albeit a rather unwieldy word, is the shortest name for humankind’s present assignment. It means building a protective roof under which cooperation and communal sharing can find safe space to flourish, from co-vorce and co-parenting locally (chapter 8), to shared custody for planet Earth globally."

Michio Kaku (2005), physicien renommé et principal expert dans la string theory, conclut son livre sur les mondes parallèles avec le paragraphe suivant :
The generation now alive is perhaps the most important generation of humans ever to walk the Earth. Unlike previous generations, we hold in our hands the future destiny of our species, whether we soar into fulfilling our promise as a type I civilization [meaning that humankind manages to build a sustainable planet, both ecologically and socially] or fall into the abyss of chaos, pollution, and war. Decisions made by us will reverberate throughout this century. How we resolve global wars, proliferating nuclear weapons, and sectarian and ethnic strife will either lay or destroy the foundations of a type I civilization. Perhaps the purpose and meaning of the current generation are to make sure that the transition to a type I civilization is a smooth one. The choice is ours. This is the legacy of the generation now alive. This is our destiny (Kaku, 2005, p. 361).