What is Globalization?
I have to come up with definitions of "Globalization" from different disciplines (economics, cultural studies, law and so on), so I thought I'd ask my readers (an ever dwindling class, since I haven't been posting often) to provide their thoughts, since you all come from different educational and professional backgrounds. So please oblige. There are no right or wrong answers. I just need food for thought.
I'll be disappointed if I don't get many replies. I'm sure no one wants that.
5 comments:
Globalization: the process by which national, regional and cultural distinctiveness and independence is exchanged for the advantages of reduced barriers to material and cultural goods. It is a partial result of the technologies allowing faster communications and transportation over large distances. (as well as the recent historical abundance of cheap petroleum, allowing this transportation)
Globalization is subject to serious criticisms by class analysis as well as by those who value preserving cultural distinctiveness. This is because it seems that the propertied (and highly skilled) find their interests served by globalization, but the working class are subject to the same restrictions that they have always had.
There seem to be some value assumptions that underlie 'globalization' that are rarely explicitly identified. These include an anti-local bias (that which is close is less valuable than that which is exotic), a value of 'tolerance' toward different cultures, and a growth bias. I would suggest that, less obviously, a value of individualism over community interests is also there, and that sustainability is not a value naturally present in the globalization ideology. Democracy is not a primary value of globalization although standardization and predictability are.
I see Globalization as quite distinct from Internationalism. The former being minimally concerned with the functioning of States.
This definition seems familiar. I think I've read it somewhere before. Ah I got it. It's from that guy Jeff Vail's blog isn't it. He's linked from your blog.
This particular definition tries to encompass all of the economical, cultural and political aspects of globalization. In that sense it is both useful (by being comprehensive) and not much use at all, because it doesn't say much about any of the three aspects.
Well, thanks for that. I need to have a list ready by Friday, and I haven't started. Great.
globalization is a plan, put into motion generations ago, by a secret order within the freemasons considering themselves enlightened far beyond any other group on the planet. they have taken it upon themselves to protect the bloodline of the descendents of Christ so that once they unite the globe under one economic, political and spiritual ideal, they can install the Holy Grail as the leader/king of the New World Order. the requirements, in order for this plan to precipitate, will be to hijack the american government through various private firms such as the Council of Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Comission and the Federal Reserve before moving in on the rest of the world. also, masterminding coups, exaggerating the dangers of environment problems, promoting immoral acts as moral, and initiating world wars or conflicts in troubled regions to give them the necessary justification and open,welcoming arms from the public they require once they arrive with the global solution of a one-world government. but be fooled not! this 'descendant' of christ will in fact be the anti-christ, dajjal, but millions will believe this new one-world government to be a realistic, pragmatic, practical, moral and ethical solution to the world's problem. under this guise, the world's borders will collapse, trade will be free, and the rich will become super powerful and the poor will enslaved more than any previous generation. those who fight against this dajjal will have the worst torture ahead of them, but they will know the truth.
heh, I guess a my oppinion on globalization could be seen as pretty similar to Vail's but I imagine he would have a more Realpolitic analysis, and frankly would include politics more explicitly than I have above.
I suppose if you wanted to talk about each of economic, cultural and political aspects in more depth you would have to talk about the neoliberal trade ideology and the Mill market paradigm, you would have to talk about culture's transformation into a tradable commodity while recognizing the fact that cultures have always interacted with each other, you would have to mention the displacement of the state as the solitary type of global actor supplanted by individuals like Bin Laden and Bono, groups like medicienes sans frontiers and coca cola and greenpeace and McDonalds.
I wonder if both terror networks and the "war on terror" are 'globalized' phenomena. there seem to be reasons both for and against classifying them as such.
I must be mistaken then. I could swear I've read what you wrote somewhere before. But I'm not so sure now.
Well it turns out I haven't done any further research on this, so I'm no closer to the list of different answers I was looking for. We'll have to wait till next week (or beyond?)
On terrorism (and anti-terrorism), I would consider it more a globalized phenomenon than not, but I wonder what reasons there could be against classifying it as such.
666, you sound like the Da Vinci Code meets anti-globalization leftists meets some doomsday cult. Anyway, I don't think I'd be able to use your ideas in my research.
Speaking of the Da Vinci Code, I saw the movie yesterday, and it's not as bad as the reviews are putting it. I think the problem is with the way the book was written, not so much with putting it into a movie.
Post a Comment