How does Thomas Friedman view the disruption of globalization by "unflat" forces such as terrorism?

Sure, no problem. Thomas Friedman's book The World Is Flat is very famous, but many people might remember only its optimistic conclusion—that "the world is flat"—while overlooking his deep concerns about the "unflattening" forces.

Regarding terrorism, Friedman's perspective is profoundly insightful, and we can understand it through a simple analogy.

The "Unflat" World in Friedman’s Eyes: When Globalization Meets Terrorism

Imagine the "flat world" Friedman describes as a vast, unobstructed central square. In this square, anyone, regardless of origin, can freely communicate, conduct business, and collaborate on innovation. Sounds wonderful, right?

But here’s the problem: If this square has no gates or guards, couldn’t bad actors also easily slip in and exploit this open environment to wreak havoc?

This is the core of Friedman’s perspective on terrorism. He argues that terrorism is not the antithesis of globalization; it is globalization’s dark, twisted by-product.

Specifically, it can be understood through the following three aspects:

1. "The Super-empowered Angry Man"

This is a key concept Friedman introduced.

The "flat" upside: Globalization allows an engineer in Bangalore, India, to compete with top Silicon Valley companies via the internet. He is "empowered," his individual capabilities becoming unprecedentedly strong.
The "flat" downside: Similarly, a terrorist hiding in a remote cave can also leverage the internet, encrypted communications, the global financial system, and cheap travel networks to plan and carry out an attack with massive global impact (like 9/11). He too is "empowered."

You can think of it like this: Globalization is a "double-edged sword" that can be used to create wealth and knowledge, but can also be wielded by terrorists to cause destruction. Terrorists precisely exploit the conveniences brought by the "flat world" (rapid flow of information, capital, people) to attack this very "flat world."

2. Rebuilding "Walls" in a Flat World

Friedman argues that terrorism’s biggest impact is that it forces us to rebuild "walls" within the flat world.

9/11 is a prime example. What followed?

Physical walls: Airport security became unprecedentedly strict, border crossings required more information verification, and obtaining visas grew increasingly difficult. These are all "walls" hindering the free flow of people, goods, and information.
Psychological walls: Distrust intensified between nations and civilizations. People started viewing "outsiders" with suspicion, eroding the spirit of openness and tolerance.
Economic walls: The cost of global supply chains increased. Companies had to pay for heightened security, insurance, and more complex logistics, adding "friction" that made globalization less "smooth."

Thus, terrorism is like installing countless speed bumps, toll booths, and checkpoints on a flat highway, making the once-smooth process of globalization stumble and falter.

3. The Conflict of the "Lexus" and the "Olive Tree"

This is a classic analogy Friedman proposed in another book, but it equally applies to understanding his view on terrorism.

The Lexus: Represents the pursuit of modernity, prosperity, technology, and global integration. This is the driving force of the "flat world."
The Olive Tree: Represents people's attachment to identity, belonging, tradition, faith, and community. This constitutes our cultural roots, embedded in our local soil.

Friedman argues that the rapid expansion of globalization (the Lexus) makes some feel their culture and identity (their beloved olive tree) are threatened. They fear their traditions will be consumed by a homogenized global culture.

Extreme terrorism is the most violent, distorted expression of this "olive tree" sentiment. Their aim is not dialogue; it is to defend their perceived "pure" olive tree by destroying the Lexus—by demolishing symbols of a modern, interconnected world.

In Summary

Therefore, from Friedman's perspective:

Terrorism is not an external force opposing globalization. It is a "system bug" within the process of globalization itself. It exploits globalization's tools, amplifying hatred and destructive power, and in turn forces the globalizing process to "decelerate," causing the world to become uneven once again.

He is not blindly optimistic. He clearly recognizes that while we enjoy the benefits of a "flat world," we must also constantly remain vigilant and counter those "unflat" forces lurking within this open system. The future of globalization depends heavily on whether we can find a safer, more inclusive path forward amidst this tug-of-war between "flattening" and "wall-building."