Features
Was Jesus a Peasant?
by Fr. Dr. Claude J. Perera, omi
Our common knowledge about Jesus belonging to the rural peasantry in Galilee has been challenged by recent archaeological discoveries done in an ancient town, Sepphoris by name. At the very outset, we got to clarify the term ‘Peasant.’ The Cambridge English Dictionary has two definitions to the word ‘Peasant.’
1. “a person who owns or rents a small piece of land and grows crops, keeps animals etc. on it, especially one who has a low income, very little education, and a low social position. This is usually used of someone who lived in the past or of someone in a poor country”:
2. “a person who is not well educated or is rude and does not behave well.”
Does any of these definitions correctly and adequately describe who Jesus was? In trying to answer this question, one first thing we need to examine is what St. Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus was by profession. Was he a peasant? There is no evidence to substantiate an argument to that effect.
Jewish historian Josephus (37/38 – 100 CE) presented Jesus of Nazareth as belonging to an artisan class, but his social class is said to be below peasants (contrary to the general understanding that artisans were above peasants) and was likely illiterate. Jesus’ foster-father Joseph’s occupation (tekt?n in Greek, in Mk 6:3) has been variously rendered as ‘carpenter’ (2 Kgs 22:6); ‘craftsman,’ ‘workman’ (Is 44:12); ‘smith’ (1 Sm 13:19); ‘woodworker’ and ‘stonemason’ (2 Sm 5:11); ‘worker in brass’ (1Kgs 7:2) and ‘unskilled day laborer.’ (Cf. LEH Greek- English Lexicon of the Septuagint). His knowledge and the use of vivid imagery related to rich landowners and masters who had slaves and servants seem to suggest that he was no mere rustic frog in a well. These suggest that he would have been aware of a mixed sociological surrounding. Whether or not artisans were above or below peasants may not be too relevant. Jesus’ occupation may not have much to do with his literacy. But what really matters for his literacy is the place where he lived. If he had lived in a backwater area, then probably he would have been illiterate because he did not come from a wealthy merchant or priestly family whose children alone had the patrimony of education at that time. Education being expensive and rare, it was beyond the reach of artisans and peasants. Such high society did not lived in rustic hamlets, but in cities
Scholars debate as to whether Jesus was literate. Chris Keith in “Jesus and Literacy,” in http://bibleodyssey.com/en/tools/ask-a-scholar/jesus-and-literacy (access 12.11.2020) rules out the possibility of Jesus being literate, whereas Craig A. Evans in Jesus and His World: The Archaeological Evidence (SPCK, 2013) pp. 63–88 advances arguments to the contrary. However, there is little evidence to say that Jesus had any formal education. His knowledge of Scripture is most likely resulting from listening regularly to sacred texts and commentaries at the synagogue. Interestingly, the question of Jesus’ education and mentorship was intriguing to Christians in the late second century. During his youth at Nazareth, Jesus would have been an artisan like his foster-father Joseph. But during his public life, Jesus was a teacher, a wise person. He was not an academic, but with the kind of the oral education of a God-fearing and good Jewish family as well as his Jewish home-upbringing in the Nazareth region.
He would have been trilingual, namely, Aramaic, Greek, and the liturgical language of Hebrew. Aramaic was an ancient Semitic language, now mostly extinct, was the language of the Aramaeans from about the late 11th century B.C.E. A version of it is still extant in some Chaldean Christian communities in Iraq and Syria. With trade and military expeditions, Aramaic language had spread in that region by the 7th century B.C.E., and it had become the lingua franca in much of the Middle Orient. In the first century CE, it would have been the most common language of ordinary Jewish people. Most religious scholars and historians agree that historical Jesus and his disciples spoke a Galilean dialect of Aramaic. Hebrew belongs to the same linguistic family as Aramaic. At the time of Jesus, Hebrew was also the language of religious scholars and of Holy Scriptures. The Hebrew Bible almost in its entirety was written in Hebrew, although it contained some small section in Aramaic. The Bible had been already translated into Greek already by the third century BCE.
Together with Aramaic and Hebrew, the colonial languages of Greek and Latin were also common in Jesus’ time. As Alexander the Great invaded Archaemenid Persian Empire and defeated the Persian Emperor Darius III at the battle of Issus in 333 BCE, Greek replaced other languages as the official language of the region by and large. With the Roman conquest of the Greek Empire in 146 BCE, in its Eastern region to which belonged Judea kept Greek as its lingua franca. The use of Latin (the official language of the Roman Empire) was reserved for legal and military matters. According to Jonathan Katz, a Classics lecturer at Oxford University, Jesus’ would have probably known some Greek, as it was a common language of the people with whom he spoke regularly, although most likely he may not have been too proficient. He further says that his knowledge of Latin probably would have been restricted to a few words. For sure, he would not have spoken Arabic since it began to be used in Palestine only after the first century CE. In conclusion, we can say that Jesus’ most common spoken language was Aramaic, but he was still familiar with three or four different tongues even if not fluent, or even proficient.
The apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas written ca 185 CE says that Jesus was not educated in the strict sense of the word, but he excelled much more than his teachers at the synagogue (Chapters 6 -8). However, certain linguistic and rhetorical heritage found in the synoptics as well as in the Fourth Gospel could be explained by the Redaction Critical Approach (Redaktionsgeschichte- ‘Redaction Criticism’) to the gospels, where such sophistications should be understood as the work of evangelists who reworked the oral forms that were circulating in the Apostolic Community (Formgeschichte – ‘Form Criticism’). The sacred authors left their imprints, (i.e. traces of the instrument (by the Instrumental Authors) on their final products (i.e. gospels) which are attributed the Principal Author, God although His Spirit inspired the sacred authors. The language and rhetorical abilities that come to the fore are not from Jesus, but from the evangelist. But the saving message they convey came from Jesus’ wisdom as the Son of God.
Recent discussions of Jesus’ social class locate him within the social structures of Mediterranean society generally, or particularly in the Galilean society of the first century. There seems to be a debate among many contemporary scholars about Jesus as to whether he was really a peasant or someone higher in the socio-economic strata. We know in general he was from the lower class, by the standards of the Roman imperial aristocracy or even of the ruling class of Palestine, the Herodian client kings. He may have been an artisan, but he does not seem to have been a peasant in the strict sense, someone who was working the land for a living. However, he was close to peasant society. The images used in his parables and aphorisms show that he was firmly rooted in peasant society (Mt 13:4-9, 18-32, 44-50; 18:31ff.; 24:32; 25:14ff; Lk 12:24-32; 15:4-7; 21:29-32). But they also call upon images of landowners and bailiffs (Lk 12:13-21; 20:1-16) and relationships between slaves, masters, (Lk 16:13; 19:11-27; Mt 10:24; Jn 8:33) and servants (Lk 16:1-8, 19-31; 18:18-23). So, Jesus knew the social stratification of the time well. He may well have stood in some relationship to it.
Prescinding from settling into the easy answer of resorting to Jesus’ divine omniscience as the source of his knowledge (while not contesting the same in any manner), were there other natural situations that would have made him more literate and having a higher social standing? Our common knowledge about Jesus belonging to the rural peasant in Galilee has been challenged by recent archaeological discoveries done in an ancient town, Sepphoris by name.
Jesus grew up in the bucolic village of Nazareth in the Lower Galilee which would have had a small population of about 100 -200 people. Was Jesus a backwater from a hinterland, totally cut of from the neighbouring urban life? Some fascinating recent archaeological discoveries prevent us from giving an affirmative answer. This archaeological site containing the ruins of the then active ancient city center of Sepphoris is less than four miles from Nazareth. Sepphoris is said to have been the capitol of the Galilee. The name Sepphoris is from Hebrew sipphoris meaning ‘bird.’ For It was called so because it lay on a mountain like a bird perched on it. It was the first capital of Herod Antipas (20 BCE to 39 CE) who was Herod’s son, who succeeded him as the tetrarch, or governor of Galilee and Perea. He changed the city’s new name to Autocratoris, rebuilt it mingling Jewish and Greco-Roman architecture, calling it ‘the jewel/ornament of the Galilee’ because of its beauty and wealth (Josephus, Ant. 18.27). It was the wealthy trade center for the area. Like the splendid City of Caesarea Maritima on the Mediterranean coast, it had all the attractions of Greco-Roman urban life and functioned as the center of political activity. That explains the excavations at Sepphoris revealing of humongous buildings, theaters, amphitheaters akin to any contemporary city centre. Sepphoris lay on the major land route between Caesarea on the Mediterranean and the Sea of Galilee. That was the secret of its being a cosmopolitan city. Its inhabitants would have spoken several languages like Aramaic, Greek, Latin, in addition to their liturgical language Hebrew. Market place weights registered in both Aramaic and Greek have been found at the site. Besides, it was possible that they would have managed to communicate with their gentile neighbours in Phoenician and Syrian as various people drew into the cosmopolitan centre for trade and other civic needs. Sepphoris could not have been merely a self-contained city with its administrative institutions, houses, waterworks etc., but it had also satellite settlements around. Nazareth and the cluster villages would have been satellite villages of municipality of Sepphoris, which provided agricultural and other raw materials needed for industries.
However, Jesus has never mentioned the name Sepphoris, although his early life was not far it. He nowhere describes the civic life or archaeological ornamentations of contemporary great cities, except his references to Jerusalem which for Jesus had always a theological significance (Mt 24:1-28; Mk 13:1-23; Lk 21:5-24). The biggest city he seems to have gone during his public life seems to be Jerusalem. According to Luke’s Gospel, his career culminated there, and that with very unfortunate consequences. However, Jesus who inherited a traditional Jewish culture could not have been a stranger to this lively intersection of Greek urban culture at Sepphoris without seeing its sophisticated urban culture. Whether he was influenced by it is a different question and the extent its influence on him is questionable. But surely, he would have been aware of its existence.
Between a peasant artisan and a peasant farmer, the former who has been deprived of his land is said to be lower in the social ladder in a world there was no middle class but only the two classes of ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots.’ Anthropologists say that being a peasant-artisan was no compliment. In the ancient world, city was in antithesis to village. In Sepphoris, there were aqueducts that brought in water from rural hills to it. The interaction between the city and village was not a happy one. A city had nothing much to give to poor villagers except imposition of taxes, violence, and oppression. Most of the needs of the simple villagers were met within the villages which were self-sufficient units containing their necessities of life.
Whoever Jesus was or to which social category he belonged, synoptic gospels were written to rural audiences. It could be that in the gospels Jesus appears as a rural man speaking to fellow-rural men. Jesus seems to spend his entire public career interacting with Jews in small townships or villages in the Galilee and Judah. Synoptic materials deal with ordinary, day to day, rural experiences and knowledge related to a rural populace. They presume no profound academic knowledge in the Greek sense of the word. The kind of knowledge Jesus had was true to the Hebrew concept of knowledge. For the Hebrews knowing was not something intellectual but an experiential event. Knowledge was intimacy. Knowledge meant being profoundly related. Jesus’ relationship to the Father was one such. It was never an intellectual contemplation of the Father in the Greek sense of the word.
In ancient times, the sharp contrast and social tension between town and country as we have it in our times, did not exist because the villages were often bordering towns. Yet, there was some sharp contrasts in some areas. For example, it was in the cities or the large towns where the big landowners, tax collectors, public officials and judges lived. It was there that the more ostentatious so called ‘Respectable People’ lived. Their ways of life had sharp contrasts between sophistication and simple rustic living. Jesus and his followers were not townsmen. They felt at ease only in a country surrounding.
During His public life, Jesus seems to have avoided Sepphoris and Tiberius, the two substantial settlements or cities in the Galilee. That was not where interests lay or where he felt welcome. He was more at home with villages and the small towns, where the peasants and artisans inhabited. Young Jesus of Nazareth would not have gone to Sepphoris for the purpose of entertainment and pleasure as their only day off was the Sabbath (Saturday) and the pious Jews spent the Sabbath in a very holy manner with prayers and works of piety pleasing to the Lord without breaking the third commandment (Ex 20:8-11). If at all Jesus ever went to Sepphoris, it may have been for the purpose of artisan work which his profession involved. This city was four kilometers away from Nazareth would have been the place where all teenagers would have flocked together for work. This must have been particularly so when Herod Antipas was building that city in 17 CE and later, for maintenance of the same when many technicians and artisans were needed. At that time, Jesus was a teenager and/or youth. Possibly, Jesus had his dealings related to work with this commercial hub, while being a resident in the hamlet of Nazareth. Her may have walked to work from home.
Another fact that supports Jesus’ literacy is speculations about his connection with Joseph of Arimathea. We have no verifiable details about Joseph except that he was quite wealthy. We may presume that he was an elderly man at the time of the crucifixion who had the courage to bury Jesus. Some claim that although Joseph of Arimathea was not one of the twelve, he had an important role. He was a member of the Sanhedrin. He is mentioned in all four gospels (Matthew 27:57-60; Mark 15:43-46; Luke 23:50-55; John 19:38-42). For in Luke and Mark, he was not a disciple of Jesus, but someone who was awaiting the Kingdom of God. As a member of the Sanhedrin, he was aware of the opposition Jesus had from the Jews and we surmise that he did not vote to surrender Jesus to Pilate in view of passing death sentence. For John he was a crypto-Christian. But for Matthew he was already a true disciple. Only Matthew mentions that it was Joseph’s own tomb hewn out of the rock himself. “Only in Matthew is Joseph wealthy (cf. Isa 53:9), which coheres with his owning an expensive tomb, but not with his hewing it out himself. ……… Joseph’s wealthy status also places him in solidarity with (some of) the members of the Matthean Church, themselves more wealthy than average.” (Cf. Eugene Boring, (1995) “The Gospel of Matthew,” Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press) 494). According to some extra-biblical and legendry claims, Joseph of Arimathea, (known in the later non-biblical tradition as Joseph of Glastonbury) was a paternal uncle of Mary, mother of Jesus as evidenced by the family tree of Jesus traced up to Adam kept in the Herald’s Office at the English College of Arms in London which is also confirmed by the Harley Manuscripts held in the British Museum. A claim is also made that Joseph of Arimathea was a merchant in metals and who eventually took young Jesus with him on his business travels. trips to England, India, and even to South America. Joseph of Arimathea has been called ‘Nobilis Decurio’ or Minister of Mines by the Roman Government. If that were the case, Joseph of Arimathea would be one of the wealthiest of all Judea. It could be that Joseph of Arimathea if he had been a relative of Mary, he would have cared for Mary’s family after St. Joseph’s demise. It may be this kinship that he had to Jesus that would have partially motivated him to bury Jesus.
What can we conclude from this Joseph of Arimathea episode? The idea that Jesus traveled about with him, a fact which may have contributed to his literacy and the knowledge of languages is of legendry origin. If Jesus had sojourned in Europe and in the Orient, with His maternal uncle Joseph of Arimathea, he would have picked up something of the European languages and would have made references to Europe and the Orient in his teachings. Through the trade routes, ideas spread to the Mid-Orient. Those things never entered to his theology and spirituality and so there is absolutely no evidence for a claim that Jesus’ alleged travels influenced him. Furthermore, even if Jesus had associated the upper-class business in Palestine as well abroad, and thereby had become an upper middle-class citizen, all because of Joseph of Arimathea, why did he not own his belonging to that middle class? On the contrary, he only referred to their empty ways of life and those of the rich and spoke of their attachment to wealth which he named ‘the mammon’ (Mt 6:19-21, 24; Lk 16:13). Mammon was a Syrian deity that enslaved people to wealth. Jesus had no allegiance to such wealth or wealthy. Jesus lived an extremely simple life (Mt 8:20-21). In the Lukan Infancy Narrative, the protagonists were all the riff raff of the society (Lk 2:7ff.). He was found fault by the high society of this day for associating the marginalized like the poor, sinners, tax collectors and prostitutes (Lk 4:18; 15:1-2; Mt 21:31-32). Mary’s Magnificat speaks of a reversal of the socio-political order (Lk 1:51-53). It is a non-violent revolution of the change of hearts. When Jesus did not want to count equality with God as something to be held on to but totally emptied himself, would he have ever held on to an upper class? No, not at all. The best way to describe Jesus is that he would have been an artisan of some sort of the lower middle class. But He stood above all such social distinctions. Jesus as the Son of God was classless. For His Kingdom was not of this world (Jn 18:36). His struggle was a spiritual transformation of the humanity to make them heaven-ward. But in that heaven-bound journey, basic earthly needs were not ignored. He accepted that people needed to eat and drink etc. (Mt 13:52). Where there were people deprived of life’s necessities, the covenant community was expected to share their resources and provide for the needy (Mt 25:31-46; Act 2:44-45).
Bibliography:
Frontline, “Jesus’ Social Class: Recent Archaeological Findings Challenge the Image of Jesus as a Peasant Preaching in a Pastoral Backwater,” See Harold Attridge, “Now what do you think we can know about Jesus’ social class based on recent evidence and discussions?” L. Michael White, “The Galilee and Sepphoris”; Holland Lee Hendrix, “Not a Humble Carpenter”; John Dominic Crossan, “A Peasant Boy in a Peasant Village”; Shaye I. D. Cohen, “Jesus Avoids Cities”; Paula Fredriksen, “Sepphoris Didn’t Make Much Difference,” and Eric Meyers, “Jesus Probably Trilingual,” Cf. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/socialclass.html (access 05.12.2020).
Aubin, Melissa M. (2000). The Challenging Landscape of Byzantine Sepphoris. ASOR Publications.
Barzilai, Omry; et al. (19 August 2013). “Nahal Zippori, the Eshkol Reservoir – Somekh Reservoir Pipeline,” Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel. (No. 125).
Chancey, Mark A. (2005). Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee Jesus. Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, S. J. D. (2002). Josephus and Rome: His Vita and Developments as a Historian. Brill: Leiden.
Evans, Craig A. Jesus and His World: The Archaeological Evidence. SPCK, 2013, 63–88
Keith, Chris. in “Jesus and Literacy.” in http://bibleodyssey.com/en/tools/ask-a-scholar/jesus-and-literacy (access 12.11.2020).
Miller, Stuart S. (1984). Studies in the History and Traditions of Sepphoris. Brill: Leiden
Rowan, Yorke M.; Baram U. (2004). Marketing Heritage: Archaeology and the Consumption of the Past Rowman Altamira.
Globalisation can be understood as relations between countries, and it fosters a greater relationship between countries that involve the movement of goods, services, information, technology, money, and human beings between countries. These relationships transcend economic, cultural, political, and social contexts.
Globalisation in the modern world today is a significant shift from the past. Globalisation in the modern world today is a state in which the world becomes interconnected and interdependent. This change occurs due to better technology, transport, communication, and foreign trade.
Trade routes have joined areas for centuries. The Silk Road and colonial sea trade routes are the best examples. But today, nobody can match the speed and scope of globalization.
Globalisation began to modernise after World War II. During this time, countries came to understand that they had to work together. They wanted to have economic cooperation and peace so that they would not fight any more. These significant institutions united countries for political and economic purposes and advantages. They allow free movement of products, services, and capital between countries. It encourages cooperation all over the world.
The second half of the 20th century saw fabulous technological advances. These advances sped up globalisation. The internet changed everything. It changed the way people communicate, share information, and do business. Traveling became faster and more efficient. Products and humans travel from one continent to another in record time. Companies can now do business globally. They outsource jobs, get access to global markets, and use global supply chains. This was the dawn of multinational firms and a global economy.
Flow of information is one of the characteristic features of the current age of globalisation. The internet allows news, ideas, and culture to be shared in real-time. Societies are experiencing unprecedented cultural interconnectedness. This has led to controversy over cultural sameness and dissimilation of local cultures. For example, the same is observed within countries too. In countries such as Sri Lanka the language differences between districts have become a non-issue, and the western province’s language has paved the way for others to emulate. Globalisation has allowed millions of individuals to lift themselves out of poverty, especially in Asia and Latin America. It does this by creating new employment opportunities and expanding markets. It has also increased economic inequalities, though. Wealth flows to those who possess technology and capital. Poor workers and communities are unable to compete regionally or internationally. Some countries have seen political backlash. In these countries, some people feel left behind by the benefits of globalisation.
Modern globalisation has a lot to do with environmental concerns. More production, transportation, and consumption have destroyed the planet. These are pollution, deforestation, and climate change. Global issues need global solutions. That is why international cooperation is essential in solving environmental problems. The Paris Climate Agreement is one such international effort to cooperate. There are constant debates regarding justice and responsibility between poor and rich countries.
Modern-day globalisation deeply influences our daily lives in many ways. It has opened up possibilities for economic growth, innovation, and cultural exchange. However, it also carries with it dire consequences like inequality, environmental destruction, and displacement of culture. The future of globalisation will be determined by the way we handle its impact. We have to see to it that its benefits are distributed evenly across all societies.
Tariffs are globalising-era import taxes. Governments levy them to protect domestic firms from foreign competition. But employed ruthlessly and as retaliation like today, and they can trigger trade wars. Such battles, especially between big economies such as the U.S. and China, can skew trade. They can destabilise markets and challenge the new era of globalisation. Tariff wars will slow or shift globalisation but won’t bury it.
Globalisation is not just a product of dismantling trade barriers. It is the product of enormous forces like technology, communications, and economic integration in markets across the globe. Tariffs can limit trade between countries or markets. They cannot undo the fact that most economies in the world today are interdependent. Firms, consumers, and governments depend on coordination across borders. They collaborate on energy, finance, manufacturing, and information technologies.
However, the effects of tariff wars should not be downplayed. Excessive tariffs among dominant nations compromise international supply chains. This also raises the cost for consumers and creates uncertainty for investors. The 2018 U.S.–China trade war created billions of dollars’ worth of tariffs. It also lowered the two countries’ trade. Industries such as agriculture, electronics, and automotive manufacturing lost money. These wars can harm international trade confidence. They also discourage higher economic integration.
There are some nations that are facing challenges. They are, therefore, diversifying trade blocs. Others are creating domestic industries. Some are also shifting to regional economic blocks. This may result in more fragmented globalisation. Global supply chains can become short and local. The COVID-19 pandemic and tariff tensions forced countries to re-examine the use of foreign suppliers. They began to stress self-sufficiency in vital sectors. These are medicine, technology, and food production.
Despite these trends, globalisation is not robust. The global economy can withstand crises. It does so due to innovation, new trade relations, and digitalisation. E-commerce, teleworking, and online communication link people and businesses across the globe. Sometimes these links are even stronger than before. Countries need to come together in order to combat challenges like climate change, pandemics, and cybersecurity. This is happening even as economic tensions rise.
Tariff wars can disrupt trade and create tensions.
However, they will not be likely to end globalisation, but instead, they reshape it. They might change its structure, create new partnerships, and help countries find a balance between openness and security. The globalization forces are strong and complex. They can be slowed down or reorganized, but not readily undone. The future of globalisation will depend on how countries strike their economic interests. They must also recognise their interdependence on each other in our globalised world. The world economy has a tendency to change during crises.
It does this through innovating, policy reform, building strong institutions, and changing economic behavior. But they also stimulate innovative and pragmatic responses by governments, companies, and citizens. The world economy has shown that it can heal, change, and change after crises like financial downturns, pandemics, and geo-political conflicts. One of the more notable examples of economic adjustment occurred in the 2008 global financial crisis. The crisis started when the housing market in the U.S. collapsed. The big banks collapsed, and then the effects spilled over to the world. This led to recessions, very high unemployment levels, and a drop in consumer confidence. In response, central banks like the U.S. Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank acted very quickly. They cut interest rates to near zero. They also started large-scale quantitative easing. Governments spent stimulus money in their economies. They assisted in bailing out banks and introduced tax-tight financial regulations. These actions stabilised markets and ultimately restored economic growth. The crisis also led to new financial watchdog mechanisms. One example is the Financial Stability Board, which has the objective of avoiding such collapses in the future. The COVID-19 pandemic created a unique crisis.
It reached health systems and economies globally. In 2020, the world suddenly stopped. Lockdowns and supply chain disruptions followed. This led to a sharp fall in GDP in almost all countries. Sri Lanka experienced it acutely. However, the world economy has adapted at a breathtaking speed. Remote work and online shopping flourished, driven by digital technology. Firms transitioned to new formats like contactless offerings, delivery platforms, and remote platforms. Governments rolled out massive stimulus packages to businesses and employees. Central banks infused liquidity to support financial systems. International cooperation on vaccine development and distribution also helped accelerate economic recovery. By 2021 and 2022, various economies were quicker to recover than expected, though unevenly by region. Another outstanding one is the manner in which economies adapted to geostrategic struggles:
The war of 2022 between Ukraine and Russia ravaged across world markets of food and energy, with special impact on Europe and the Global South.
European nations moved swiftly to abandon Russian natural gas. European nations also looked around for other sources of energy and increased usage of renewables. While shock caused inflation as well as supply shortages to a peak first, markets began to shift ultimately. And world grain markets looked elsewhere and established new channels of commerce. Such changes show the ways that economies can change under stress, even if ancient structures are upended. Climate change is demanding long-term change in the world economy.
The climate crisis isn’t a sudden crisis, like war or pandemic. But it’s pushing nations and businesses to make big changes. Green technologies are on the rise. Electric vehicles, solar and wind power, and carbon capture are the best examples. These technologies are indicative of how economies address environment crises. Financial institutions and banks are now embracing sustainable investing guidelines. Countries are uniting in a low-carbon future under the terms of the Paris Climate Accord. Technology is leading economic resilience.
The digital economy is going stratospheric—AI, cloud computing, and e-commerce are the jetpack! These technologies enable companies to be agile and resilient. Consider the pandemic and the financial crisis, for instance. Technology businesses did not just survive; they flew like eagles. They gave us remote work tools, digital payments, and virtual conversations, allowing us to stay connected when it was most important. These innovations have irreversibly shifted the terrain of worldwide business and work. The global economy’s history is marked by crises and its capacity to adapt and transform in response. The global economy proves strong during financial crises, pandemics, conflicts, and climate issues. Resilience shines through innovation, teamwork, and strategic adjustments. Though challenges linger and vulnerabilities remain, we’re not without hope.
Learning from crises helps us fortify and adapt our systems. This adaptability signals a promising evolution for the global economy amid future uncertainties.
The current trade war, especially between the United States and China, is reshaping globalization. It may lead to a new form of it. These tensions do not terminate globalization. Instead, they push it to evolve into a more complex and regional form. The new model includes economic factors. It also includes political, technological, and security factors. This leads to a world that remains interconnected but in more cautious, selective, and fragmented ways.
Trade wars tend to begin when countries want to protect their industries.
They might want to lower trade deficits. They also respond to unfairness, including intellectual property theft or state subsidies. The ongoing trade war between China and the U.S. has seen massive tariffs, export quotas, and increasing geopolitical tensions. This is a sharp departure from the post-Cold War era, which saw more free and open trade. Now, companies and governments prepare for everything. Safety and national interests are their concerns. This change is reflective of a trend that some experts call “de-risking” or “strategic decoupling.” One of the most obvious signs of this new course is the reorganization of global supply chains.
Many global companies want to diversify away from relying on one country. They especially want to decouple from China for manufacturing and raw materials. They diversify production by investing in different regions. It is called “China plus one.” It means relocating operations to locations like Vietnam, India, and Mexico. This relocation takes global supply chains from centralized to more regionalized and redundant networks. These networks prepare for future shocks. Moreover, technology and digital infrastructure have an increasing role in this new globalization.
Trade tensions are an indication of the strategic value of semiconductors, telecommunications, and artificial intelligence. Nations are realizing that technology is a national security issue. Therefore, they have invested in their local capabilities and restricted foreign technologies’ access. The U.S., for example, has put export restrictions on high-end microchips and blocked some Chinese technology companies from accessing its market. China and other nations have increased efforts in developing independent ecosystems for technologies. This has given rise to parallel technology realms. This could result in a “bifurcated” global economy with different standards and systems. The current trade war is also strengthening the advent of regional trading blocs.
Global trade agencies like the World Trade Organization are getting weakened. This is owing to the fact that the world’s major nations are competing with one another. Hence, the nations are currently opting for regional agreements to develop economic cooperation. Discuss the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) in Asia. And let’s not forget the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA). Collectively, these agreements represent a new era of globalization. It’s no longer a free-for-all; rather, it’s a strategic web spun with trusted partners and regional ambitions resulting in ‘islands’ or ‘regions’ of globalization. The new model of globalization creates greater independence and security for some but presents issues.
The countries that previously prospered from the exportation of goods and involvement in the global market may face greater challenges. As protectionism rises and competition becomes greater, customers may pay more. Economic inefficiencies are a likely reason. Additionally, the disintegration of international institutions may stop countries from agreeing on important issues. Problems like global warming, pandemics, and economic downturns can become harder to resolve. The current trade war will not end globalization, but it is reshaping it. We see a new type of globalization that is fragmented, regional, and strategic in character. Countries are still interdependent, but such economic dependency is underpinned by trust, security, and competition. Globalization is changing, so we must balance these changes with the imperatives of cooperation in our globalized world.
New types of globalization include regional trade blocs, reshaping supply chains, tech decoupling, and growing geopolitical tensions.
For Sri Lanka, the changes have far-reaching consequences.
Being a small nation strategically located, Sri Lanka relies on trade, tourism, and foreign investment. Globalization is, however, more fragmented and politicized and security-oriented. This offers opportunities and challenges for Sri Lanka. To survive, the country must reform its economic policies. It must diversify relationships and maneuver the rival interests of global powers with caution.
One of the most immediate effects of the new globalization is realigning global supply chains.
Multinationals want to wean themselves from China. They want to shift production elsewhere. Sri Lanka can be a new hub for light manufacturing, logistics, and services. Being located on key shipping routes in the Indian Ocean means that it is a vital node in global ocean trade. Sri Lanka can lure more foreign investment by improving its infrastructure, bolstering digital strength, and upgrading the regulations. This would help firms to open up business. This would create employment as well as improve export-led growth. But the shift towards regionalism in global trade also poses danger.
The rest of the countries outside these alignments might be left out as major economies create closed trading blocs. Examples include the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and bilateral agreements like the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework. Sri Lanka is not part of most of the world’s biggest trade blocs, limiting its access to large markets and preferential trade conditions. Exclusion could make exports less competitive. It could also reduce the nation’s appeal as an international production base. To fulfill this, Sri Lanka must pursue trade agreements with regional powers like India and ASEAN nations in order to keep up with shifting trade networks. One key feature of the new era of globalization is a focus on ‘technological sovereignty’.
This includes the rise of alternative digital ecosystems, especially between China and the US. Sri Lanka must manage the tech divide wisely. Countries are closing doors to other people’s technologies and creating their own networks. Cyber security, digital infrastructure, and data governance require investments. Sri Lanka also needs to balance embracing new technology while preserving its digital sovereignty. Dependence on technology from a single country could yield dangers, as digital tools will be the main movers in the realms of governance, finance, and communication. Geopolitical competition, especially in the Indo-Pacific, also affects Sri Lanka’s economic and strategic location.
The island’s location has drawn China and India and Western nations. China’s involvement in Sri Lankan infrastructure projects, such as the Hambantota Port and the Colombo Port City, has yielded economic advantage as well as concerns regarding debt dependence and strategic control. Meanwhile, India and its allies have expressed interest in balancing Chinese power in the region. This is a sensitive balance that Sri Lanka has to exercise strategic diplomacy to reap foreign investment without being entangled in great power rivalry or compromising sovereignty. In addition, economic resilience in the face of global shocks—such as the COVID-19 pandemic, energy shocks, and food crises—has emerged as a top priority in the new era of globalization.
The recent economic slump in Sri Lanka, marked by a sovereign default, foreign exchange crises, and inflation, underscored the country’s vulnerability to global shocks. These events underscore the need for greater economic diversification, sound fiscal management, and long-term development. Sri Lanka must build stronger domestic industries, shift to clean energies, and transform regional supply systems that are less vulnerable to shocks from the outside. Generally speaking, therefore, the new patterns of globalization present Sri Lanka with a risk-laden world of possibility too.
While transforming global patterns of trade and investments creates new doors to economic growth, it steers the country towards more aggressive competition, geopolitical tensions, and internal vulnerabilities. To thrive in this fast-evolving world, Sri Lanka must adopt an assertive strategy of regional integration, technological resilience, strategic diplomacy, and inclusive economic reform. On the way, it can transform foreign uncertainty into a platform for sustainable and sovereign development.
by Professor Amarasiri de Silva
by Dr B.J.C.Perera
MBBS(Cey), DCH(Cey),
DCH(Eng), MD(Paed), MRCP(UK), FRCP(Edin), FRCP(Lond), FRCPCH(UK),
FSLCPaed, FCCP, Hony. FRCPCH(UK), Hony. FCGP(SL)
Specialist Consultant Paediatrician and Honorary Senior Fellow, Postgraduate Institute of Medicine, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Joint Editor, Sri Lanka Journal of Child Health Section Editor, Ceylon Medical Journal
Fever is a common symptom of a variety of diseases in children. At the outset, it is very important to clearly understand that it is only a symptom and not a disease in its own right. When the body temperature is elevated above the normal level of around 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit (F) or 37 degrees Celsius (C), the condition is referred to as fever. It is a significant accompanying symptom of a plethora of childhood diseases. All children would get a fever at some time or another in their lives, and in the vast majority of cases, this is due to rather mild illnesses, and they are completely back to normal within a few days. Some may have a rather low-grade fever, while others may have quite a high fever. However, in certain situations, fever may be an important indication of an underlying serious problem. The significance depends entirely on the circumstances under which this occurrence is seen.
Irrespective of the actual underlying reason for the fever, the basic mechanism of causation of fever is the temporary resetting of the temperature-regulating thermostat of the brain to a higher level. The consequences are that the heat generated within the body is not effectively dissipated. It is merely a body response to a harmful agent and is a very important defence mechanism. Turning up the core temperature is the body’s way of fighting the germs that cause infections and making the body a less comfortable place for them. However, less commonly, it is also a manifestation of other inflammatory disorders in children. The significance of fever in such situations is a little bit different to that which is seen as a response to an infection.
The part of the human brain that controls body temperature is not fully developed in young children. This means that a child’s temperature may rise and fall very quickly and the child is also more sensitive to the temperature of his or her surroundings. Although parents often worry and get terribly scared with the child developing fever, it does not cause any harm by itself. It is a good thing in the sense that it is often the body’s way of fighting off infection.
It is quite important to note that the actual level of the temperature is not always a good guide to how ill the child is. A simple cold or other viral infection can sometimes cause a high fever in the region of 102 to 104 degrees Fahrenheit or 39 to 40 degrees Celsius. However, this does not always indicate a serious problem. It is also true to say that some more sinister infections could sometimes cause a much lower rise in the body temperature. Because fevers may rise and fall, a child with a fever might experience chills and shivering as the body tries to generate additional heat as the body temperature begins to rise. This may be followed by sweating as the body releases extra heat when the temperature starts to drop. Children with fever often breathe faster than usual and generally have a higher heart rate. However, fever accompanied by obvious difficulties in breathing, especially if the breathing problems persist even at times the temperature is normal is of significance and requires urgent medical evaluation of the situation. Generally, in the case of children, the way they act is far more important than the reading on the thermometer, and most of the time, the exact level of a child’s temperature is not particularly important, unless it is persistently very high.
Although many fevers need just simple remedies, under certain conditions the symptom of fever needs rather urgent medical attention. This is the case in babies younger than three months. Same is true even in a bigger child if the fever is accompanied by uncontrollable crying or pain in the neck with a severe headache. Marked coughing and or difficulty in breathing coupled with fever needs to be medically sorted out. Fever combined with pain and difficulty in passing urine, significant tummy pains or marked vomiting and diarrhoea too would need medical attention. Reddish rashes and bluish spots on the skin with fever also need to be seen by a doctor. The illness is probably not serious if a child with a history of fever is still interested in playing, is eating and drinking well, is alert and smiling, has a normal skin colour and looks well when his or her temperature comes down. However, even with rather low levels of fever, under certain conditions, medical attention should be sought. In situations such as when the child seems to be too ill to eat and drink, has persistent vomiting or diarrhoea, has signs of dehydration, has specific complaints like a sore throat or an earache or when fever is complicated by some other chronic illness, it is prudent for him or her to be seen by a qualified doctor.
One could take several steps to bring down a fever. It is very useful to remove most of the clothes and keep under a fan to facilitate heat loss from the body. If there is no fan available, one could try fanning with a newspaper. A very effective way of bringing down a temperature is to sponge the body with a towel soaked in water. The water must be at room temperature or a bit higher. One should not use ice or iced water on the body. Ice will lead to contraction of the blood vessels of the skin and the purpose would be lost as more heat will be conserved within the body. There is no evidence that ice on the head helps to bring down the fever or to prevent a convulsion. If a medicine is to be used, paracetamol is probably as good as any other drug, but the correct dosage according to the instructions on the container should be used for optimal benefit. The best way of calculating the appropriate dose is by using the body weight. It is very important to stress that aspirin and aspirin-containing medications should not be used in children, merely to bring down a fever.
A child with fever loses a considerable amount of fluid from the body, particularly due to sweating. It is beneficial to ensure that the child drinks plenty of fluids. A good index of the adequacy of fluid intake is the passing of normal amounts of urine. A reduced solid food intake would not matter that much just for a couple of days of fever, but in prolonged fevers adequate nutrition too becomes quite important. A child with a high temperature also needs rest and sleep. They do not have to be in bed all day if they feel like playing, but they must have the opportunity to lie down. Sick children are often tired and bad-tempered. They sleep a lot, and when they are awake, they want their parents around all the time. Perhaps it is quite useful to spoil them a little bit when they are ill and to read to them, play with them or just spend time with them. It is best to keep a child with a fever home and not send him or her to school or child care. Most doctors would agree that in simple fevers, it is quite satisfactory for the child to return to school or child care when the temperature has been normal for over 24 hours.
Trying to get the temperature down would make the child more comfortable. However, it is not essential to get it down to normal and to keep it there scrupulously. Parents often worry that either the fever simply refuses to abate or springs up again after a couple of hours. It must be realised that certain fevers have to run their course and will not come down to normal in a hurry, despite whatever measures that are undertaken. This is particularly true of viral fevers. Some parents are terribly worried at the slightest elevation of the temperature and go running to doctors looking for a “magic cure” for the fever. Many fevers do not need urgent medical attention and one could watch it for a few days and see how it progresses. Yet for all that, if there are some worrying signs then it is advisable to seek advice from a qualified doctor.
It is a familiar occurrence that many people believe that a high fever is quite dangerous. Fever by itself has no major long-lasting effects. If one appreciates that high fever is just a symptom and that it is only a reaction of the body to something untoward going on, then it is easy to consider it to be just like any other symptom of a disease. Some are also under the misconception that a high fever could cause a convulsion. This is not always the case, and a convulsion would occur only in those children who have the constitutional tendency to get them. Convulsions are not always related to high fever, and in those who are susceptible, even moderate and sometimes mild fever could trigger a convulsion. High fever does not lead to lasting brain damage in its own right either. Fever is sometimes an indication of a significant infection, but in those circumstances, the primary disease itself is the real problem. In situations where medical help is desirable, what is most important is the way a fever is sorted out and some kind of a diagnosis being made as to the real cause of the fever. The crucial component of the treatment of a fever caused by an underlying problem is the treatment of the root cause.
To quarrel with them is a loss of face
To have their friendship is a sad disgrace
Those lines by Bharavi were written after the fourth century A.D. when Sanskrit was already a purely literary language.
We have had the spectacle of a reporter in DC asking Donald Trump whether he regrets his lying all the time every day of his life. And, Trump responded “What did you say?” and one could see that such a possibility had never occurred to him: he was genuinely baffled.
The question here and now is whether such a thought has ever come to Anura Kumara Dissanayake and Harini Amarasuriya, both obedient servants of the US and India. For example, the prathigna given by Amarasuriya as she was sworn in by AKD as Prime Minister in a Cabinet of three. That their doings are in line with the desires of Ranil Wickremesinghe (and maybe the “aspirations” of their buddies) would translate also to the cover up of his bringing in Arjuna Mahendran, the son of a Chairman of the UNP, to trash the Central Bank and execute Ranil’s bond scam.
In the matters of managing our economy and respecting our age-old culture this lot have shown us glimpses of the lunatic self-applause that define Trump’s doings. As phrased by a commentator in the U K Guardian a few days ago Trump’s endeavours “weren’t about Making America Wealthy Again. This was much more primal. Sticking it to all the people who had laughed at him over the years. His bankruptcies. His hair. His orangeness. His stupidity. Sticking it to all those who had taken him to court and won. Now he was the most powerful person in the world. He had the whole world watching as he messed it up. He could do what he liked.”. It’s quite obvious that the last is how AKD, HA, Yapa and the top tier of those most culpable have read their horoscopes: they do not expect to be held accountable
“The U.S.’s new tariff policy reflects a broader shift away from globalisation and towards economic nationalism and national balance sheet economic model approach”. So wrote a self-styled Business Cycle Economist last week. That is the kind of delusion that ‘growth-friendly’ market theory such ‘economists’ are trained to shove down the throats of politicians possessed of just about the bit of wit required to enrich themselves in tandem with the IMF and those entrepreneurs it supports.
At this point we should note also that Trump’s new wave of tariffs was harshest on Cambodia, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam and Sri Lanka––all, coincidentally, in addition to their strategic importance for war-mongers, Buddhist countries.
How closely those who call the shots among the power-wielders here follow Trump is seen in their response or lack of one to the earthquake that has devastated Myanmar and Thailand a week ago. The USA has been salivating over the riches of Myanmar for a long time, confident that Aung Suu Kyi would deliver them on a platter. That no doubt was the object of the aragalaya here and seems within reach for India now.
For months now, from 2022 at least, there have been markers that showed who was running the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (so calling themselves) and what their agenda was with respect to our country and her people. An early eruption that showed their hand was that aragalaya‘. It was designed to ensure a regime change that would place, let us for convenience say, Adani in charge. It involved, as a first step, getting Gotabhaya out of the presidency. That it was so was also shown two years ago in the London Review of Books by Pankaj Misra in an essay titled “The BIG CON” on Modi’s India. In which Gotabhaya and Adani are mentioned and the above object specified.
Misra’s latest work has been on “The World After Gaza” – a reference not without its applications not only to Modi’s support for Adani in Haifa, but to the ridiculous and altogether culpable gestures of friendship towards the US-Israeli led coalition of criminals shown by Ranil Wickremasinghe and associated Colombians who succeeded him. Haifa is the largest port in that segment of occupied Palestine and the Trump group also has had a stake in it.
I shall pause here with the concluding lines of Bharavi’s quatrain.
One of sterling judgment realizes
What fools are worth and foolish ones despises.
by Gamini Seneviratne
-
Business6 days agoColombo Coffee wins coveted management awards
-
Features7 days agoStarlink in the Global South
-
Features2 days agoRobbers and Wreckers
-
Features4 days agoSri Lanka’s Foreign Policy amid Geopolitical Transformations: 1990-2024 – Part III
-
Features7 days agoModi’s Sri Lanka Sojourn
-
Midweek Review4 days agoInequality is killing the Middle Class
-
Features6 days agoSri Lanka’s Foreign Policy amid Geopolitical Transformations: 1990-2024 – Part I
-
Features5 days agoA brighter future …