inclusive integration and exclusive disintegration

dauthehoang

Senior Member
Vietnamese
Hi everybody,
I got an understanding problem with the bolded phrase below. Could someone help me out?

My intepretation: Global icons inpsired calls for violent politcal change. But Merkel's or Trump's Putin's language (rhetoric) should be avoided to mention. And the choice between deep integration and cliquish disintegration depends on us.

Context:

[for reference only] Merkel and Putin have emerged as political icons just as globalization has reached a crossroads. While Trump, channeling Putin, wants an alternative to globalization, Merkel wants to salvage it with strong leadership, competent management, and a commitment to universal values and human rights.

The 1920s’ global icons inspired calls for violent political change. Today, that kind of language is kept at arm’s length. But the choice between inclusive integration and exclusive disintegration remains with us.


Source: Leadership Icons of a Globalized World by Harold James - Project Syndicate

Thanks in advance.
 
  • dojibear

    Senior Member
    English - Northeast US
    "Inclusive integration" and "exclusive disintegration" are terms this author made up for this article. By "inclusive integration" he means "globalization": everyone in the whole world coming under a single government (eventually).He clearly favors this, since he uses a negative word ("disintegration") to describe the opposite.

    He creates a phony "only two options" concept, saying "the choice is between" the thing he favors (inclusive integration) and some made-up non-existent opposite ("exclusive disintegration"). I can't give you a meaning for that phrase, since it has no real-world meaning.

    Partly it is a play on words: the opposite of "inclusive" is "exclusive", and "disintegration" sounds like an opposite of "integration". But it isn't: disintegration means total destruction. The opposite of "integration" is "segregation". In this context, where "integration" means "joining all countries into one", the opposite word "segregation" means "countries remaining separate". Those are the two real alternatives in the debate about globalism.

    But his "the choice" sentence doesn't list the two real alternatives. It lists the one he favors and some terrible-sounding "disintegration".
     
    "Inclusive integration" and "exclusive disintegration" are terms this author made up for this article. By "inclusive integration" he means "globalization": everyone in the whole world coming under a single government (eventually).He clearly favors this, since he uses a negative word ("disintegration") to describe the opposite.

    He creates a phony "only two options" concept, saying "the choice is between" the thing he favors (inclusive integration) and some made-up non-existent opposite ("exclusive disintegration"). I can't give you a meaning for that phrase, since it has no real-world meaning.

    Partly it is a play on words: the opposite of "inclusive" is "exclusive", and "disintegration" sounds like an opposite of "integration". But it isn't: disintegration means total destruction. The opposite of "integration" is "segregation". In this context, where "integration" means "joining all countries into one", the opposite word "segregation" means "countries remaining separate". Those are the two real alternatives in the debate about globalism.

    But his "the choice" sentence doesn't list the two real alternatives. It lists the one he favors and some terrible-sounding "disintegration".
    Great analysis, DJ!:thumbsup:
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top