Jihad vs. McWorld

by Benjamin R. Barber

Designed for anyone who wants to understand the challenges facing us after the tragic events of September 11, 2001 and in light of the conflict in the Middle East in 2003, "Jihad Vs McWorld" examines the conflicts of the modern world. Political scientist Benjamin R. Barber offers a penetrating analysis of the central conflict of our times: consumerist capitalism versus religious and tribal fundamentalism. These diametrically opposed but intertwined forces are tearing apart - and bringing together - the world as we know it, undermining democracy and the nation-state on which it depends. On the one hand, capitalism on the global level is rapidly dissolving the social and economic barriers between nations, transforming the world's diverse populations into a blandly uniform market. On the other hand, ethnic, religious, and racial hatreds are fragmenting the political landscape into smaller and smaller tribal units. Jihad versus Mcworld is the term that Barber has coined to describe the powerful and paradoxical interdependence of these forces, and in this volume he explores the alarming repercussions of this potent dialectic, sketching a democratic response to terrorism.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, History, Sociology, Economics, Political Science, International Relations

389 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1995

About the author

American political theorist perhaps best known for his 1996 bestseller, Jihad vs. McWorld.

Reviews

[Carol Storm · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a must read, not only for the analysis of Islamic fundamentalism and global Jihad, but for the way it skewers the emptiness of American popular culture as well. I literally could not put it down!

[Ilana · Rating 3 out of 5]

A little too dramatic and pessimistic for my taste... and poor choice of of a high content word like jihad, to which the author explains in his book, and-- understandably so-- now days regrets his use of it.

[Mark Hammell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amazingly prescient book. Written in the late 1990s and it's incredible how much of what Barber describes has come to pass. He does a great job describing the fundamental forces driving so much of the conflict we see in the world today and, unlike most of the articles you'll read, actually attempts to describe how we can come to resolution.

[Patrick · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although Barber had interesting points in the book and causes one to think about how globalization and parochial and provincialism points of view threaten liberal democracy around the world, I found the book overly verbose and circuitous in its arguments. His basic thesis is globalization in reducing individuals into consumers in order its sole goal for profits undermines liberal democracy both at home and abroad
by selling people what is possible instead of actively engaging people in shaping their own society, (democratic civic virtue). As a result of the lack of a soul as well as extreme individualism that market fosters, an intense counter force that is ethnic pride, nationalism, and religiousness has taken route across America and in its extreme form the Islamic fundamentalism that created 9/11. I do not think it is a coincidence that the rise of Christian right as a strong political movement in the US during W years mirrors that Islamic fundamentalism in the middle east following the unfettered rule of secular globalization that characterized the Clinton years. This collective communal response to the forces of capitalism devoid of the soul and its corresponding humanity is dangerous to liberal democracy because it places an "us vs them" mentality that goes against civil liberty, rights of the minority, and the corresponding exchange of ideas at the heart of democracy. Whereas he states the potential dual forces of McWorld and Jihad as a threat to Democracy, he suggest away to rectify this is through engaged citizens that work through civic institutions that are concerned over the public welfare rather than special interest causes or narrow political elections

Introduction to 9/11: The author rightly points out that the only cure to Jihadism is democracy in these countries with a striving middle class and thus takes a more holistic approach as a solution to terrorism rather than a more surgical approach favored by the military. Because only by giving people a voice within their own countries as well as a means to live (ie: home, cloth, buying food) will they no longer want terrorist to speak out for them. Basically, by giving this people a democracy and a middle class existence will you give them a stake at living life. After reading the Hamid's Reluctant Fundamentalist, I can see how blind Capitalism can be compared to Fundamentalism because they both are global within their reach, devoid of human emotion thus consequences, and tend to have a singular goal.

He rightly that Capitalism is simply a tool. But whereas he sees globalized Capital as a force for bad, I see it as a force for good especially if it is coupled with diplomatic pressure from the US to democratize that countries economy.

Introduction: He uses the term jihad to mean sectarian violence and the MacWorld as free-flow global capitalism. Although externally antithetical both ideologies share in it a propensity for operating outside the nation-state democratic institutions and thus can be seen as anarchic. His challenges the fact that global capitalism and democracy go together or one leads to the other. As he states, communist China, Singapore, and Vietnam are all autocratic regimes that have a thriving capitalistic system. Because wheres capitalism needs security to thrive, it does not necessarily need democracy to thrive. What he fails to realize in my view is that a capitalist system provides an environment in which liberal democracy can thrive once a majority of people of that country have a vibrant middle class. Thus, a capitalist systems serves only as catalyst for democracy itself.

This theory will be tested out in Egypt. By all accounts Egypt seems t have a good enough middle class that is moderate in its views toward Islam. Now can they successfully transition from an autocratic capitalist rule to a more liberal democratic rule is the biggest question?

Chapter 1:

He states that current multi-national companies only see profits and hire globally without any loyalty one country. This is the way global capitalism should work that is it should flow toward countries with the greatest profitably for its companies. What is poignant about this fact is that company profitability sometimes goes against the US need for fostering national jobs for its citizens. This brings up an interesting point, if multi-national firms even ones that originate from the US have completely decoupled itself from national loyalty, then why is the US still subsidizing some of these companies as well as giving people who have capital, capital-gains tax breaks that may benefit the multi-national bottom-line but do not necessarily benefit the US economy while at the same time taking money from American coffers in a time of increasing deficits?

I think in the advent of irreversible globalization that has shifted manufacturing jobs oversees, the capita-gains tax break should be targeted towards investments that will actually help innovative new American companies grow and succeed as well as increasing tax breaks and subsidies to these companies. I think more and more American prowess in the economy will heavily rely on an innovative entrepreneurial spirit that can create new industries and thus new jobs. We have to face the fact that jobs that can be offshored will be offshored and nothing we can do will change that.


Chapter 2:

Barber complains that America is more and more dependent on other countries. This does not take a genius to come up with this statement because the global supply-chain makes sure that America is interdependent with other countries for its needs. But he highlights an interesting point, that most of the oil reserves are in countries that may become politically unstable due to either ethnic divisions in that country or autocratic nature of that country that are at odds with democratic aspirations of their people.

I think if anything this has become an imperative for America to seek alternative energy sources to energy. I think the whole alternative clean-energy movement is a great thing in America. Although I am not heavily pro-environment, I do see the need for clean-energy industry movement to grow because since America is the predominant consumer of energy and given all forms of energy is limited then it makes sense to have technology that will harness renewable energy and thus grow a new industry.

Republicans want to drill in the US for oil but I do not like this idea right now. I think we should tap oil reserves in the US if "all hell breaks lose" and we are in a global war that makes us decouple from the rest of the world. So I think all the remaining oil reserves in the US should be saved only for national security disaster in the scale of WWIII and should not be tapped before then just to depress oil prices for an American consumer addicted to oil.

As for the decoupling of the American consumer from oil and our relationship to oil companies. I do not think that oil companies will ever go out of business even without American government backing given the rise of the global middle class, they will always find customers willing to fuel their business. So, I think the oil companies can actually diversify their portfolio and invest in clean renewable energy in the US while selling their oil abroad to the growing global middle class. This way the US clean renewable energy industry will be the new energy source for the world and oil and other energy industrial sectors can survive by shifting their resources to the new renewable energy industry when this type of energy can become scalable.

Chapter 3&4: In these two chapters he tries to shock people into seeing how globalization is a bad thing. In chapter 3, he states that most countries manufactures for other countries instead of their own countries and he tries to shock us into thinking that is a bad thing because it makes us more dependent for other countries. I do not see this as a bad thing for example the fact that US products for exports means more jobs for the US and international imports that we receive are presumably cheaper than we can produce in the US thus is a good thing for US consumers.

In chapter 4, he tries to shock us by stating that corporations are increasingly becoming political in their branding of itself by showing consumers that they are global corporate responsible citizens. I actually think this is a good thing if global corporation advertise them as responsible global citizens then, they have to live up to that image or their brand suffers. He states its a bad thing that corporations take advantage of social issues in order to market itself. While its true corporations market itself in the sole goal in order to make money, using marketing to highlight social issues is also a good thing because it shows social issues that might have not been brought to an awareness of the consumer. For example for me, the only reason I have been increasingly more environmentally conscious is due to the advertising by companies that purport to be environmentally friendly. Other than through this venue, I would not have cared about the environment because that is not my inherent interest. Also if one wants to, one can block out advertisement with the new technology of DVR, one can ignore advertisements of one chooses. Also for me personally, an increase of multitude advertisements have created an environment in which advertisements have become white noise that I ignore.

The only issue in which advertising can be seen as a negative are in countries in which there is low penetration of advertising and thus are more visibl and in traditional countries in which advertising becomes a stand in for "western values" in which can be seen as antithetical to the traditional societies values. Given that these companies are mutli-national entities, how can we lessen the cultural friction that these companies present themselves and thus adversely effects us?

Chapter 5: Barber states that even though the US is losing the deficit war in terms of manufacturing jobs, and possibly soft ware jobs, we are winning the war in terms of new service jobs of the 21st century because like always we create an industry out of thin air and run with it. I think this is really how we ensure the US success in the future is to continuously innovate and have the environment in which entrepreneurship/risk-taking thrives because traditionally this is where we are at our best. Of course as industries mature, we will get foreign competition from abroad so the best course of action is to let economics play out and just create new global industries into which we dominate.

Chapter 6-9: The chapters deals with the dominance of media in international markets, thus making the American ideal, the global ideal. Although this is great in terms of American cultural hegemony. The culture that Hollywood showcases to the world tends to be American superficial culture of sex, violence, and materialism. Is this how we want to portray ourselves to the world? I do not know how to change this without regulation which I am adamantly against. I guess one can change this by making people in the US conscious of the fact that these are not values we want as a society. Once the images changes, then Hollywood films will change and thus American cultural images will change too. He cites the more we consume the infotertainment telecommunication culture the more we disengage from the real world. I guess the best way to combat this, is to make sure the internet becomes an adjunct to our lives instead of living life on the internet.

Although I myself tend to be an ardent proponent of free-market globalization, he does bring up interesting points in that the media industrial complex sole purpose is to grow and make profits to that end it does not look toward "good cultural values" that most Americans profess to. Also the most troubling aspect of these chapters is the fact that these media outlets have engaged in "synergy" which is basically monopoly of the media outlets which in the end decreases consumer choice. So by deregulating the barriers b/w these various industries in the name of increasing consumer choice, we have in effect limited consumer choice because an increasing amount of media are concentrated in the hands of a few.

Jihad:

He states that "nationalism" against the other is the chief mechanism of jihad in which once important in the creation of the nation-state is now dangerous b/c it fractures the nation-state from within. His use of nationalism is more akin to tribal, ethnic, and religious loyalties that makes up American "mulit-culturalism" rather than loyalty to a nation. Whereas mulit-cuturalism takes a benign form in America which means each individuals background is celebrated, in other parts of the world the provincialism (against cosmopolitanism )and parochialism (local government self-determination) can lead to ethnic cleansing wars a la Bosnia, Rwanda, and Iraqi sectarian violence. I actually like the idea of multi-culturalism in terms of preserving once background culture as long as a dominant nationalistic pride predominates. In the US, this means believing in the Constitution and the beliefs of the Founding Father's as well as English being spoken as the official language so there is some sort of commonality that binds Americans.

He also talks about the eroding state controls of autocratic regimes of the East because of enculturation of McWorld culture. In the book, he focuses on China as although they have been successful so far in placing a political clamp against democracy are exceedingly unable to block western culture from swamping China because they have become main players in globalization. Since the book was published two more autocratic regimes that started out with a hybrid government have fallen in favor of Democratic leadership, that is Indonesia and South Korea. Perhaps this is another good reason to compete with China's economy head to head because in the long-run without Democratic reform their economy will lose.

He rightly questions whether multi-culturalism can thrive in a democracy especially in former-Soviet Union where he states that in theory are both democratic and capitalistic but in actuality are neither. But, I think for a true democracy to happen it cannot happen overnight rather it takes time. America, the founder of modern day democracy, took 200 years to get it where it is today that is equal rights for both men and women, black and white event though in theory it was like this 200 years ago.

Finally, he gets to the heart of the issue of whether Islamic fundamentalism that so grips the middle east can coexist with capitalistic liberal democracy. As we understand it today, liberal democracy and Islamic fundamentalism cannot coexist because fundamentalism necessitate complete submission to God's tenets so it goes against anything modern. He also points that America's Christian fundamentalist, although using McWorld to further its purposes (via Evangelical Mega-churches), share this anti-modern sentiments with their Islamic counterparts. The only way to turn Muslim countries into stable liberal democracy is to actively favor moderate forms of Islam like Sufism while at the same time forcing autocratic rulers in the country to liberalize their economy to foster a growing middle class so when the wave democracy eventually takes route in those countries then they are less likely to decouple themselves from the global economy. Like the US, I see a role for these Fundamentalist in government as long as they do not take over the government. I think the Iraq and Egypt experiments in democracy will highly telling on how to proceed forward especially on the issue of can the Muslim Brotherhood thrive inside a democratic Egypt in which they have a stake but not a majority stake in government?

MacWorld vs Jihad:

While Barber rightly points out that todays problems are international by nature such as terrorism, the environment, ill-gotten capital, global epidemics, weapon proliferation, and illegal immigration, his prescription for a confederation of world democratic governments is interesting concept; but how is a Confederation of democracies different from the UN, NATO, or the EU? He also makes an argument that capitalism undermines the interest of democratic citizenship. While I can see this in 3rd world countries in which multi-nationals can dictate the terms into which they enter the market, I do not see this a problem in 1st world countries in which there are strong governmental mechanisms regulates government worst abuses. I think the way to solve international problems is through the international bodies UN while leveraging capitalistic mechanisms.

He does make a strong case against newly unfettered capitalist reform in a setting of weak democratic institutions which caused chaos in Russia and to some extent other former Soviet sphere of influence states such as East Germany. In Russia at least the early capitalist reform and the resultant increase in organized crime and unemployment caused a significant backlash that resulted in present government and economy that has facade of a democratic market-system but is actually a state-run oligarchy head by Putin, the strong man behind the power. Similarly, the opening up in East Germany to capitalistic forces and the resulting high unemployment rate led to a backlash neo-Nazi groups which are xenophobic and rise of communist party into local government.

Perhaps the best way to foster permanent liberal democracy is to have an autocratic regime friendly to the US and transition it to a market-economy first. While an autocratic regime can slow the "shock value" of immediate capitalist market, the reform of the market into capitalist structure gradually undermines the autocratic regime. This seems to have worked well in Chile, Indonesia, and South Korea all friendly to the US so they transformed their economies to a market-economy before making the step to a full fledge democracy while prodding by the State Department to liberalize their governments that eventually led to free elections. I hope this will happen in Egypt too.

I have no doubt that China will follow this path too if they really want to compete with the US in the global economy. The question is will the US be ready to compete with a liberal democratic China unfettered by governmental constraints currently placed on entrepreneurship of its people.

I like Barber conclusion of how to stop the forces of McWorld and Jihad from further destabilizing Democratic institution of a nation-state. His answer to this quandary is to go back to 19th century America in which civic institutions in which engaged citizens are empowered to do something for their communities instead of being passive spectators so common in today partisanship politics or otherwise disinterested consumers who are only interested in their individual wants. These engaged citizens do not act as special interest groups that are narrowly defined by their individual causes but rather in civic institutions that benefit the public as a whole.

In the international arena, he advocates the formation of Confederation of ethnicities at their heart having civic institution that has its heart engaged citizens in order to have a foundational basis for democratic institutions. In order to combat the profit-driven McWorld running over weak democratic governments and sectarian Jihad, he advocates using a global network of engaged citizens via the internet to monitor the worst abuses of McWorld and Jihad.

[Erik Graff · Rating 4 out of 5]

Barber's analysis of the current world situation seems sad but basically true. The engine for the contrapetalism tearing peoples apart, both as groups and as individuals, is global capitalism. The corporations substantially regulate the regulators, their resources allowing them to control politicians, "public" institutions and political processes, even in the "democracies" wherein media control promotes mind control. People resist, again, both as groups and as individuals, or, often out of fear, they are co-opted into the system. The resistance is often ugly, misinformed and desperate--and it will continue.

Barber's "solution" in this book focuses primarily on building civic institutions. His other books emphasize the importance of education for everyone (as if that won't be, as it is, increasingly turned to the interests of global corporatism) and promote a kind of Swiss federalism to politically affiliate societies. While nice ideas, they don't seem very promising. Barber is no radical, but then radical reform would require crises mobilizing coherent and enduring movements, something like the socialist movement of the last century and a half, and that itself is an uncertain proposition.

[noblethumos · Rating 5 out of 5]

Benjamin Barber’s Jihad vs. McWorld (1995) presents a compelling analysis of two seemingly opposing forces shaping the modern world: the tribalistic impulses of “Jihad” and the homogenizing pressures of “McWorld.” Barber argues that these forces, while appearing to be in conflict, are ultimately both threats to democratic governance. His work provides a critical framework for understanding globalization and its discontents, making it a significant contribution to political theory, international relations, and global studies.


Barber defines Jihad as a metaphor for the fragmentation of societies into smaller, often ethnically or religiously driven enclaves. This concept does not refer solely to Islamic fundamentalism but extends to a broader phenomenon of cultural and political separatism, including ethnic nationalism, religious extremism, and parochial movements. These movements resist globalization, seeking to reaffirm local identities, often through conflict and exclusionary politics.


In contrast, McWorld symbolizes the global spread of consumer capitalism, driven by multinational corporations, mass media, and technological advancements. This force promotes economic interdependence, eroding national sovereignty in favor of a borderless, market-driven world. McWorld values efficiency, profitability, and commodification over cultural specificity and civic engagement, leading to a homogenization of cultures that undermines traditional political structures.


Despite their apparent opposition, Barber contends that both forces undermine democratic institutions. Jihad fractures political unity, fostering sectarian violence and weakening democratic governance. McWorld, while promoting economic prosperity, reduces citizenship to consumerism, prioritizing market interests over participatory politics. In this context, democracy is squeezed between localized anarchy and global corporatization, with neither force fostering a robust democratic public sphere.


Barber’s analysis remains prescient in understanding contemporary global tensions. His critique of globalization’s impact on democracy resonates in discussions on neoliberalism, corporate influence, and cultural homogenization. Similarly, his characterization of Jihad as a response to globalization prefigures the rise of populist and nationalist movements in the 21st century.


However, Barber’s framework has limitations. His portrayal of McWorld as a monolithic force overlooks variations in how globalization manifests across different societies. While corporate influence is undeniable, local cultures often adapt and resist homogenization in complex ways. Furthermore, his broad use of “Jihad” risks oversimplification, as not all movements resisting globalization are inherently undemocratic or violent. Many grassroots movements, such as indigenous rights campaigns, challenge global capitalism while advocating democratic principles.


Another critique is Barber’s somewhat deterministic perspective. His argument implies an almost inevitable erosion of democracy under these forces, leaving little room for democratic resilience or reform. While he later advocates for “strong democracy” as a counterforce, his book does not provide a detailed roadmap for how democratic institutions might effectively navigate the pressures of Jihad and McWorld.


Jihad vs. McWorld remains a seminal text for understanding globalization’s paradoxes. Barber’s framework provides a valuable lens for analyzing modern conflicts, from the rise of nationalist movements to the increasing dominance of global capitalism. While some aspects of his analysis may oversimplify complex sociopolitical phenomena, his core argument—that both fragmentation and homogenization threaten democratic governance—remains highly relevant. For scholars of political science, international relations, and globalization, Barber’s work serves as a foundational text that continues to spark critical debate.

GPT

[Joseph Stieb · Rating 3 out of 5]

A low-ish score for this uneven, hyperbolic, and vague book that nevertheless has a very compelling central claim. Barber contends that the globalizing market forces of unrestrained McWorld have sparked a backlash in the form of jihad. By jihad (a regrettable term), he means the ethnic, nationalist, and religious backlash to what Barber sees as the homogenizing, hollow goods and images of McWorld. Many people find globalization to be a major threat to their traditions, homelands, and values, and they try to return to a golden age of tribal, national, or religious greatness to defend themselves. They become obsessed with their identity and group and often violent towards outsiders. Jihad and McWorld can co-exist (in fact, jihad might be impossible without the technology of McWorld) but the true victim of this struggle is democracy, to which both forces are opposed.

Barber's best point is that the unrestrained capitalism of neoliberal globalization has wrought havoc on the lives and values of many people, especially in the Third World, and that structures of control similar to those existing at the national level must be extended to the global level if globalization is to live up to its promise of more peace and prosperity. The US, for example, does not allow market forces to go unrestrained at home and often compensates and protects those who lose out to market interests and outcomes (Think Progressivism, New Deal, Great Society, etc). These safety nets, however, are often lacking at the international level, leading to "wild capitalism" that has seriously messed up certain countries (Russia, for instance). The rub, then, is to extend structures like those that exist at home to the international sphere. I can't say that Barber has a very clear idea of how to do this other than the creation of a global civil society.

One big flaw of this book is a basic lack of evidence. The author is a political theorist, so the book is heavy on abstraction and theorizing but low on data and case study. Barber uses national or local case studies as exemplars of global trends. His cases are drawn largely from inside the West. For example, he devotes about as much time to Quebecois and Basque separatism as all of Asia. Strangely enough, he doesn't factor in the legacy of imperialism at all to this backlash, treating episodes of jihad within Western societies as equivalent to the more civilizational backlash going on globally. Lastly, he doesn't reckon with the fact that the second age of globalization has seen more people lifted out of poverty, largely through the lifting of economic, informational, and technological barriers between and within nations, than any other point in human history. Moreover, this has also been an age of far less war, disease, and persecution than any other. Critics of globalization and neoliberalism like Barber focus on the dark side of globalization (and it's a big one) rather than weigh the problems against the gains. Moreover, Barber's real critique of globalization is that it is spiritually hollow and destructive of local cultures, values, and meanings. This is a very subjective take compared to the problem of poor third world people working in dangerous, low-wage factories or being driven out of agricultural or small scale production by cheap imports. Rather than griping like an old man about the vapidness of popular culture (most people just prefer football and Michael Jackson to theater and opera, sorry), he should have dealt more with the economic effects of globalization.

The biggest problem of the book, however, is the blurring of conceptual lines between McWorld and his vague argument for a global civil society. Barber argues that democracy on the global level is jeopardized by both McWorld and jihad. McWorld ostensibly just doesn't care about democracy, seeking to subvert it with cash donations, lobbying, and multinational avoidance of national claims to tax revenue and regulation. Jihad prefers tyranny of the majority (or secession of the minority) and the rule of the in-group to liberal democracy. Civil society, however, nurtures successful democracies by providing people with meaning, community, and a means to political and economic power that is inclusive and based on citizenship, not just group membership or consumerism. So how can global civil society be created when people are divided by geography, history, identity, etc? Barber offers no clear answer, but I think that McWorld offers the best opportunity for this. In McWorld, people engage in a popular, consumer culture that has them watching, eating, wearing, and idolizing many of the same things. It makes it possible for them to travel to, communicate with, and understand other cultures even if they are consuming them, in a sense. Americans, Europeans, Asians, Africans, etc are watching the same sport and pop stars, trying each other's foods, and seeing what life is like elsewhere. McWorld has created bridges between cultures in the interest of profit. Add to that social media's general shrinking of the world and expanding of our ability to socialize. Obviously, global consumers can become the global citizens of civil society when as they realize common interests and values and begin to act on those values. Barber is either too old or too reflexively negative to see this positive potential within McWorld.

This is a classic bigthink kind of book, and I know, as a history guy, I have to be skeptical of my tendency to pick apart big picture arguments. Still, there are serious problems with the details and general structure of this book, even if the central claims hold up reasonably well. It's yet another illustration of how being negative often passes for being critical, especially in academia. I think a much stronger version of this story (ethnic/religious/national backlash to globalization) is Amy Chua's World on Fire, which has a far wider and more in-depth range of case studies.

[Sean Packard · Rating 5 out of 5]

Highly recommend

For those searching for a soul - not a soul bestowed by God or the God that consumerism has become, find a voice in Benjamin Barber that very often materializes the nagging thoughts in your head and the tugging emotions you struggle to describe. Modern society advertises and sells you everything you need to be a complete human, but ask yourself - do you feel complete?

[Joe · Rating 4 out of 5]

On first impression the writing was a bit too flowery and the ideas too fluid but by the end I was impressed with how much I learned and how prescient Barber was.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

IS THERE A PATH BETWEEN RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM AND CONSUMERISM?

Author Benjamin R. Barber wrote in the 2001 Introduction to this book (originally published in 1995), “The collision between the forced of disintegral tribalism and reactionary fundamentalism I have called jihad (Islam is not the issue) and the forces of integrative modernization and aggressive economic and cultural globalization I have called McWorld (for which America is not solely responsible) has been brutally exacerbated by the dialectical interdependence of these two seemingly oppositional set of forces… I warn that democracy is caught between a clash of movements, each of which for its own reasons seems indifferent to freedom’s fate, and might suffer grievously. It is now apparent… that democracy rather than terrorism may become the principal victim of the battle currently being waged.” (Pg. xii)

He continues, “The struggle of Jihad against McWorld is not a clash of civilizations but a dialectical expression of tensions built into a single global civilization as it emerges against a backdrop of traditional ethnic and religious divisions, many of which are actually created by McWorld and its infotainment industries and technological innovations. Imagine bin laden without modern media: He would be an unknown desert rat. Imagine terrorism without its reliance on credit cards, global financial systems, modern technology, and the Internet. Terrorists would be reduced to throwing stones at local sheiks. It is the argument of this study that what we face is … a war within civilization, a struggle that expresses the ambivalence within each culture as it faces a global, networked, material future and wonders whether cultural and national autonomy can be retained, and the ambivalence within each individual juggling the obvious benefits of modernity with its equally obvious costs.” (Pg. xvi)

He summarizes, “This book depicts a war then between Jihad and McWorld that cannot be won. Only a struggle against democracy against not solely Jihad but also against McWorld can achieve a just victory for the planet. A just, diverse, democratic world will put commerce and consumerism back in their place and make space for civil society religion; it will combat the terrors of Jihad not only by making war on it but by creating a world in which the practice of religion is as secure as the practice of consumption and the defense of cultural values is not in tension with the defense of liberty but part of how liberty is defined… Terror feeds off the parasitic dialectics of Jihad and McWorld. In a democratic world order, there will be no need for militant Jihad because belief will have a significant place without the aid of self-serving warriors, and there will be no advantage to McWorld because cultural variety will confront it on every television station and at every mall the world over.” (Pg. xxx1-xxxii)

He defines McWorld as “a product of popular culture driven by expansionist commerce. Its template is American, its form style… McWorld’s videology remains Jihad’s most formidable rival, and in the long run it may attenuate the force of Jihad’s recidivist tribalisms.” (Pg. 17) He suggests, “in the long run, the forces of McWorld are the forces underlying the slow certain thrust of Western civilization and as such may be unstoppable. Jihad’s microwars will hold the headlines… But McWorld’s homogenization is likely to establish a macropeace that favors the triumph of commerce and its markets and to give to those who control information, communication, and entertainment ultimate (if inadvertent) control over human destiny. Unless we can offer an alternative to the struggle between Jihad and McWorld, the epoch on whose threshold we stand---postcommunist, postindustrial, postnational, yet sectarian, fearful, and bigot---is likely also to be terminally postdemocratic.” (Pg. 19-20)

He points out, “the global culture speaks English---or, better, American… American English has become the world’s primary transactional language in culture and the arts as well as in science, technology, commerce, transportation, and banking… McWorld’s culture speaks English first but it possesses an even more elementary Esperanto to which it can turn when English fails. Is there a local so remote in today’s world that a traveler will fail to be understood if he resorts to the brand name-trademark lexicon? Marlboro… Coca-Cola… Big Mac…” (Pg. 84)

He notes, “The infotainment telesector is the heart of McWorld and increasingly has the look of a wholly owned subsidiary of a small handful of powerful corporations that, by the month, grow fewer in number and more encompassing in ambition… The production companies turning out product, the phone and cable and satellite companies, and the companies manufacturing or controlling television sets and computers and multiplexes all, in McWorld’s ideal economy, belong in the hands of one global company… And in the domain of information, ‘monopoly’ is a polite word for uniformity, which is a polite word for virtual censorship---censorship not as a consequence of political choices but as a consequence of inelastic markets, imperfect competition, and economies of scale---the quest for a single product that can be owned by a single proprietor and sold to every living soul on the planet.” (Pg. 137-138)

He comments, “The trouble with this path to reconciliation is that fundamentalist Islam is not first of all opposed to democracy but to modernization, particularly as manifested in Westernization. Democracy… is not necessarily at odds either with fundamentalist Islam nor with fundamentalist Christianity… But unlike democracy… modernity is tantamount to secularism and is almost by definition corrupting to all religion… Nevertheless, democracy has always found a way to accommodate religion, and Jihad’s war has been less with democracy then with McWorld.” (Pg. 209-210)

He observes, “neither Jihad nor McWorld promises a remotely democratic future. On the contrary… the dialectical interaction between them suggest[s] new and startling forms of inadvertent tyranny that range from an invisibly constraining consumerism to an all too palpable barbarism… The ideology of choice seems to liberate the body (you can choose sixteen brands of toothpaste, eleven models of pickup truck, seven brands of running shoes) but fatally constricts the possibility of real freedom for the soul (you cannot choose NOT to choose, that is, you cannot choose to withdraw from the market or reject the demands of the body.” (Pg. 220)

He states, “Democracy is not a universal prescription for some singularly remarkable form of government, it is an admonition to people to live in a certain fashion: responsibly, autonomously yet on common ground, in self-determining communities somehow still open to others, with tolerance and mutual respect yet a firm sense of their own values… A global democracy capable of countering the antidemocratic tendencies of Jihad and McWorld cannot be borrowed from some particular nation’s warehouse or copied from an abstract constitutional template. Citizenship, whether global or local, comes first.” (Pg. 279)

He asserts, “If the democratic option sounds improbable as a response to Jihad (it is!), think of the ‘realist’ solutions currently being debated… foreign invasion… United Nations Trusteeship, military intervention, or simple dismembership. Will they contain the spreading global fires of Jihad? And if the democratic option sounds utopian as a response to the infotainment teleselector… think of the alternative: surrender to the markets and thus to the least noble aspirations of human civilization they so efficiently serve; and the shrinking of our vaunted liberty to Regis Debray’s wretched choice between ‘the local Ayatollah and Coca-Cola.’” (Pg. 291-292)

He concludes, “most of all, we need democratic institutions capable of preserving our liberty even in parochial communities; and capable of maintaining our equality and our precious differences even in capitalist markets. With … democracy once again the sovereign preserver of our plural worlds, Jihad can yield to healthy forms of cultural difference and group identity while McWorld can take its rightful and delimited place as the economic engine of a world in which economics is only a single crucial dimension. With McWorld’s excesses under control… we may rediscover the free spaces in which it is possible to live not only as consumers but as citizens.” (Pg. 300)

This challenging and provocative book will be of great interest to students of contemporary trends in society.

[Andrew · Rating 2 out of 5]

I really had high hopes for this one. Wow, did it disappoint. First of all, the new introduction to the paperback version, chock full of that immediate, post-9/11 guilt tripping/hand wringing, almost made me throw the book across the room and pass on the whole endeavor, but once the actual substance of the book started, it was a lot easier to take. Much of his take on globalism is acceptable, though he contradicts himself (especially in the crappy intro) by alternately pointing out its transnational nature and equating it with America.

I was not convinced at all by his central tactic, namely lumping all of the various forms of idiosyncratic government, ethnocentric culture, provincialism, traditionalism, and religious orientation (whether or not fundamentalist) under the rubric "Jihad". I can accept that there are some similarities between some of these cultural aspects, and their effect on the nation-state can be similar to that of "McWorld", but the author takes the point too far. This often goes to the extreme of refusing to differentiate radical Islam as a unique problem player on the world stage unto itself, and just portray it as a reaction to "McWorld"/America, rather than a movement with a history of its own, that started long before that of the USA.

I might also mention that this work apparently was adapted from a shorter piece, and it often shows. There is a lot of padding, which can lead to awkwardly written, sometimes mind-boggling sentences, like this one:
"Many modern nation-states have generated national industrial policies aimed at strategic coordination of economic policy and domination of international markets by their business corporations on the theory that the nation's citizens will somehow be benefited by supporting corporations even if corporations decline to return the favor." ...Whew!!

[Amanda · Rating 3 out of 5]

The ideas discussed within this book are extremely interesting, however at times they are terribly dated or geared at a very specific group of international theorists. Being a student who is just starting to study politics with a limited background on world issues and western geography, some of the examples mentioned within the book go completely over my head. In chapter 14 he incessantly talks about various countries and their past conflicts without introducing his readers to even the slightest bit of information to follow along. At other times, and this is purely because I am reading this in 2012, Barber talks about issues that are no longer relevant or those that have been solved over time (for better, or worse.)
What I did enjoy was that the majority of the book was solid and packed with inquisitions into where we are headed in terms of globalization and democracy. In this sense, a decade is a small fraction of time that is relatively unchanged and Barber's guesswork and somewhat socratic means of interpretation were very beneficial.

[Catherine · Rating 2 out of 5]

Surprisingly, given the title, this book is over ten years old although this British edition has a foreword post - but not much post - 9/11. The Jihad of which it speaks is more to do with the impulse towards fragmentation of states, petty nationalism and tribalism than specifically religious movements, while its McWorld is the forces of globalisation - almost entirely commercial. The key point seems to be that the relationship between the two is one of mutual dependence as much as, or probably more than, the commonly accepted mutual destruction. While there are some amusing nuggets - especially reading it during the News of the World phone hacking scandal - the tone is serious. I thought in aiming to present arguments for his thesis thoroughly Barber ended up coming across as over-earnest and the book too long. A decently edited edition might have more impact.

[Stephanie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Provocative, but not incendiary. Barber makes some very valid assertions yet fails to effectively argue for his thesis (which we are left to unearth ourselves as he doesn't detail it too clearly). Rather than inciting action through his writing, the author enumerates everything he dislikes about Western civilization (indeed, Earth as a whole) as an attempt at elucidating the dichotomy that is Jihad vs. McWorld. There is value in this book, but it is not necessarily found in the disappointingly shallow content.

[Gerald · Rating 5 out of 5]

At the time I read this book (soon after it was published in 1995) Barber's concepts were new to me, His main premise in the book is that the opposing forces of tribalism and consumerism are creating a tension in the world that leads to interesting and often volatile consequences. The last twenty years have seen this concept play out countless times and although I haven't read the book in this century, I feel that it will remain insightful for those looking to gain greater understanding of our complex and often baffling world.

[Justin Michael James Dell · Rating 4 out of 5]

I suppose you could think of this text as a neo-Rousseauian polemic against very free-market capitalism and runaway materialism. The author sees laissez-faire economics as responsible for a rise in tribalism within societies (what he unwisely terms "jihad") and excessive individualism and consumerism ("McWorld"). Both react against, but also mutually reinforce, one another. Barber laments the decline of the nation-state as the guardian of democracy, the only real embodiment of sovereignty, and the only check against the power of international capital. In reading this book, I could not help but think back to the eighteenth-century Whiggish (small "r") republicanism that called for virtuous societies as the safeguards of liberty and warned against excessive luxury as vitiating the spirit and integrity of free peoples.

Barber's text was written in the 1990s, and so many of its references will seem anachronistic or quaint to the modern reader (like his references to VCRs as the cutting edge of multimedia technology). Unfortunately, the book was published just a few years before 9/11 and the War on Terror, making its use of the then little-known word "jihad" very regrettable, as the contemporary understanding of that word is much more specific (or perhaps politicized) than the generalized meaning Barber attaches to it as denoting blood-and-soil tribalism. When Barber wrote this book, he identified nationalism as a greater threat to democracy than religious fundamentalism - a view that seems so shockingly out-of-touch today.

Interestingly, Barber's text would have definitely seemed "left-wing" when it first came out. Its screeds against "globalism," free trade, common currencies, elites, multinational corporations and so on had, and still have, a decidedly leftist flavour. Opposition to free-market fundamentalism was almost exclusively the work of unions, left-wing professors, socialist parties and the like. Interestingly, in the Trumpian world of today, "globalism" is now largely the target of the political right, especially in the United States. It is now the American right of Donald Trump that attacks free trade, common currencies, outsourcing and offshoring, open borders, the media, elites, and so on. The Left, while perhaps not quite championing these things, has certainly cozied up to them, perhaps because it now sees in these allies in its fight for greater diversity in the Western world - what would appear to be its preeminent concern these days.

I suppose what Barber and Trump have in common is disenchantment over the social costs of maximum economic efficiency. Whether Trump, like Barber, wants greater "democracy" to ameliorate these defects is debatable, though. Both men seem to feel that the massive social changes wrought by the economic shift to digitization is correctable through state policy. The underlying assumption with this opinion is that globalization is itself the work of policy - policy that just has to be undone - rather than change caused by the inexorable march of technology.

[Archie · Rating 4 out of 5]

More than a quarter of a century from its original publication, ‘Jihad vs. McWorld remains a remarkably relevant and prescient work of political and social theory.

Despite its slightly misleading title which might lead one to expect a focus on Islamic extremism, the central argument, pertaining to a global politics riven by ethnic factionalism and incumbent to demagogic populism, marks Barber as a Cassandra for the deleterious effects of neoliberal globalisation.
While the book, being nearly thirty years old, is unavoidably a product of its time; referring to world events now receding into history as moments in the immediate past, these sometimes outdated references or unrealised predictions pale in comparison to its strengths as a work remarking on the challenges to democracy from ethno-nationalist tribalism and the antecedent conditions of unrestrained globalised capitalism.
Though at times the book my feel repetitive and can be arduous read, in a world as destabilised and divided as ours at present, Barber’s calls for a renewed civic sphere to challenge both Jihad and McWorld ring with necessary urgency.

[Choong Chiat · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book argues that unrestrained economic globalisation/consumerism (i.e. McWorld) is in a struggle with tribalism/identity politics (i.e. Jihad) and that these two opposing forces and the struggle between them is undermining democracy. He proposes having an active (global) civil society as the first step in overcoming the effects of these two forces and the struggle between them.

Although first written more than two decades ago and meandering at times, this book does not feel outdated (not sure whether this is a good thing, given the book's grim description of the state of affairs back in the mid 1990s). It still manages to raise thought-provoking points relevant to our current times approaching the third decade of the 21st century; a few of the points (e.g. the dangers of leaving internet technology entirely in the hands of profit-driven corporations) in fact seem somewhat prescient.

[Rhys · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book within 24 hours. I thought it was very much going to be a critique of Islamic Jihad as a reaction to the Neoliberal order. Instead, 'Jihad' for Barber is more concerned with tribalistic, exclusivist, nationalistic identities that emerge as a reaction to an all-encompassing, soulless and faceless imperialist economic-system that destroys culture worldwide in order to create homogeneity for saleability; a world to be dominated by hedonistic consumerism driven by markets that is fundamentally incompatible with engaged, democratic citizenry. I think it was worth reading, but certainly the cover is not entirely representative of the content.

[Sukrit · Rating 3 out of 5]

The nice thing about reading old books like this is you can look at the predictions they made and compare to what actually happened.

In some cases, like the broad structures of capitalist homogenization/tribal fragmentation and the mutual reinforcement loop, the author was correct.

In other cases, like specific prediction regarding the fates of specific countries, especially the Asian ones, the author was often hilariously wrong.

Overall, the author did a reasonable job in their main thesis, with particular application to Europe and its descendants. But his racism colored his frankly superficial analysis of other countries, and the book is the weaker for it.

[Scott Johnston · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow! Amazing book and thesis and one of my favourite poli-sci reads. Some sections you could probably skip (ex. some of the McWorld stuff, but it's also 20-30 years past this world in 2022), but all of it's still really engaging. The title is definitely meant to dare attention as Jihad refers to Islam but also the group orientation of all of us to resist change and stick to what/who we know in the face of a changing world. Pretty fascinating and he predicts almost perfectly what the world is grappling with now with our return to in-group identities as a response to globalization

[Jacob Usrey · Rating 5 out of 5]

I learned so much about the world that I live in by reading this book, and I've got to say, this book gives me hope for the future and inspires me to become an even more responsible and competent citizen.

[Edith · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book pretty much predicted something like 9/11/2001 would happen to the US. Hmm, if only someone had been paying attention ...

[Daniel Schotman · Rating 3 out of 5]

One sentence summary :

Jihad - Parochial / McWorld - Globalists and both undermine democracy in their own way.

[Sid · Rating 5 out of 5]

Prescient.

[Thijn Vrugteveen · Rating 2 out of 5]

Moeilijk boek over een moeilijk onderwerp. Gelezen voor een studieopdracht

[Brett · Rating 5 out of 5]

Jihad Vs. McWorld is an astonishing and insightful book--the best non-fiction I have read all year. I only wish I had read it sooner. It was first published in 1995, though there is a new introduction from the author post-September 11. This is a thouroughly engaging exegesis of the conflict between ethnic tribal nationalism and globalization.

If we usually think of the major ideological forces of the 20th century as communism and fascism, then Barber may have found what the major forces shaping the 21st century are. By Jihad, he does not mean Islamic religious warfare, but more generally fundamentalist, parochial interests that are deeply distrustful toward Western modernity. By McWorld, he means a varient of the Marxist idea of hegemonic power, though it is not connected to an individual nation-state, but rather driven by multi-national corporate entities.

Barber's analysis both readable and sophisticated. He presents a convincing argument that these forces are powerful and in conflict with each other, and moreover, that both forces are profoundly anti-democratic in their effects. McWorld has largely changed the way individuals in the West think of themselves, exchanging being a citizen for being a consumer. The fundamentalists that support what he terms Jihad look backward a pretend golden age that would strip away the rights and openness that are associated with modern democratic government. Barber also exposes how these forces in conflict are also codependent, each needing certain aspects of the other.

If there's a weakness in the book, it is in Barber's solutions to these issues. He calls for a renewal of democratic sensibility; reinvigoration of our common spaces (his defense of the word "public" in the term "public option" for health insurance in a recent Huffington Post article is, I think, an example of what he might mean by this) and voluntary civic organizations, a la Putnam in Bowling Alone. It's well and good to suggest this, but something else altogether to suggest a method of accomplishing this. Although he doesn't outright say so, I think Barber also realizes the difficulty there, which would go some way toward explaining why the book is relatively pessimistic about the prospects for a functional democracy returning anytime soon.

In the years since the book's initial publication, I think it's become increasingly clear that McWorld's mindset has replaced a democractic mindset in the U.S. and McWorld increasingly seems to have Jihad backbeddling around the world, though September 11th was an awful reminder that fundamentalist forces still can lash out with great lethality. Nonetheless, even after the 2008 elections, which saw a significant increase in citizen engagement and activity in the electoral process, we seem to have a government that remains incapable to serving the basic needs of the polity. Perhaps that is too hyperbolic, but perhaps not, either. The fact that there could be legitimate debate on that point says a lot in itself.

[The Overflowing Inkwell · Rating 3 out of 5]

Really enjoyed Part I of the book, especially the detailed outlines of who owned what and where. The rest of it.....I didn't care for his insistence that "Jihad" could be made to mean literally any cultural expression at all. Preserving native languages or vanishing dialects became direct warfare against McWorld that was laughable and should be stopped, returning to old-fashioned methods/clothes/foods/anything a silly notion that wouldn't fix anything, without pausing to think that perhaps those returns weren't 100% just "I hate McWorld! This will fix it!" A good deal of it is recognizing that for a lot of these people groups - particularly native peoples, like the Cree Indians he mocks in his section on Canada - they were trod upon for centuries by domineering outsiders, and still managed to hold on to such amazing things as language and customs and they're finally grappling onto a breath of fresh air. It's not ridiculous or dumb that they now have to add new words into their vocabulary to describe modern inventions, or that they would still want to distance themselves from the modern, white, countries they were forced into the margins of. That's not Jihad against McWorld, that's a people who has received enormous abuse wanting some breathing space from their abusers.

As much as he rants against capitalism, his book with the provocative title, enhanced by the clearly Muslim woman on the cover, was all for the profits and money. He backs up in the Afterword, saying he just didn't understand that people would take such offense to his misuse of the word Jihad to mean people in European countries daring to demand you speak Catalan in the Catalan universities, and that he really does like Muslim people, honest. You just had to buy his book and read the whole thing to understand: he really just meant parochialism! Why he couldn't just have used that word, or a word similar to it, on the title? Because of the profits he thought he could achieve by shocking you.

I really did enjoy the parts dissecting McWorld and the insidious, unchecked advertising and information collection, made all the more dangerous by the modern laptop and cell phones we have perfected since 1994. I enjoyed the parts talking about the need for public, civic space; the parts on how and why things went sideways in ex-Communist countries. I don't know a whole lot on that latter subject, and it was interesting to read about. That middle section on Jihad though, just feels really poorly supported, and uninformed about some of the things he derides. Glad to be finished with it.

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

What a phenomenal book, takes on the unforeseen results of globalization that have brought about such significant change in the world for the past 20 years and while it was written in 1995, turns out to be spot on for the current foreign policy moves our country has made recently.

I wish that I had read this book when it came out and had 6 years to mull over it's arguments before the attacks of September 11th. I think that it grounds the reasons for the attack very clearly in the shifting attitudes of global finance, trade, imperialism, nationalism and religious fundamentalism framing the conversation in a cogent and well researched way as opposed to the way the main stream media decided to force feed us "facts" as the became apparent. Barber doesn't try to sugar-coat his statements or wrap them up in the flag. He merely presents evidence that globalization has a tendency to marginalize what he calls "the terminal world" while at the same time undermining democratization of exploited and underprivileged peoples across the world, fomenting the very causes linked to Jihad.

There is no morality argument here about which side is good and which side is bad, merely the presentation that both sides exist and that one comes as a reaction to the other. I think that I would have had a much better understanding of the motives behind many of the people that the United States continues to fight in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq (as well as through other parts of the world) if I had read this prior to September 11th. The battle lines for the fate of the world had been clearly drawn long before then and they weren't necessarily drawn there by world leaders and nation-states.

This book reads very much like Robert Reich's "Supercapitalism" only on a foreign and global scale, attempting to explain the schisms that were about to affect the American consciousness in a very big way. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in American foreign policy and the challenges we face moving forward, especially as our society moves more and more toward corporatism.

[Marc Bynum]

An enlightening view of how the world is moving toward Globalization and how this new paradigm needs to change. Civic life and personal relationships are to be held above all else. Not very objective, but still a good read.