Indeed, although not commonly thought of as one, the attacks by Al Qaeda were a protest against a phenomenon which has become the buzz word of the century. Prompting at first only debate, then rallies, then eventually violence and terrorism, globalisation is not only one of the most contentious, but one of the most relevant issues that we face today.
Yet, despite this, only a minority of people are aware of what it actually is.
Take the ancient parable of the blind Buddhist scholars for example:
Since the scholars did not know what an elephant looked like they each obtained a mental picture by touching it. Each scholar however only touched one part of the elephant, gaining only a partial picture and disagreeing about what the elephant actually looked like.
Attitudes towards globalisation can be classed along similar lines. Far too many people are only aware of one aspect of it; hence being partially correct by identifying one important dimension e.g. culture, however making the mistake of trying to reduce a complex phenomenon to simplicity.
Hence defining the term can prove to be difficult. Many will no doubt have a vague idea of its more general meaning, but a slightly more accurate definition could be as follows:
'An uneven and unequal set of social processes which are thought to transform our present situation into one of globality in terms of economics, politics, culture,and ideology.'
Each part of the 'elephant' can now be seen, and if we proceed to discuss each limb, then a broader picture begins to develop.
Complex it may seem, however it is perhaps easier to think of globalisation not as a new phenomenon, but as one which has existed for millennia at the very least, and since the existence of humans at the most. If we look through time we can see that today's status of partial globality is heavily dependent upon such events as the invention of the printing press, the production of paper, the development of writing, the invention of the wheel, the domestication of plants and animal and the outward migration our African ancestors, to name but a few. Hence globalisation is also a continuous set of processes, which develops at different rates at different times. Since the industrial revolution and throughout the twentieth century a usually gradual process has developed at a rapid rate with massive developments in technology such as the internet. Increased awareness of other cultures has made society realise the changes that have occurred, which has magnified the effect that globalisation has had in our minds. Hence although fundamental and historical, globalisation is often viewed as a modern 'creation'.
Indeed culture is the one aspect of globalisation with which people identify with the most. The new symbolism of our age, and what we view as its spread, has lead to numerous Anti-McDonalds, Coca-Cola and sweat shop movements. Pictures shown by the media of American Indians wearing Nike trainers and Palestinian youths proudly displaying their Chicago Bulls sweatshirts, has lead to a common belief that globalisation has made people more alike; a process sometimes known as McDonaldisation. It is this process which is often thought of as at the core of globalisation today and prompts the key question of whether or not a few 'western' popular cultures are dominating, even 'deleting', the many ancient and varied cultures of the world. It is this prospect which we fear the most; this fear being magnified by the publication of figures such as the number of languages in the world being reduced from 14,500 to 2,997 in just over four centuries. Indeed the facts can not be denied; 20% of the worlds population owns 80% of the worlds wealth; an average American child watches 20,000 TV commercials each year; and the US with only 6% of the world's population consumes 30-40% of its resources. All are examples of the globalisation of culture.
Yet despite all of this many continue to endorse globalisation; some see it as a natural process, that, as I have mentioned, has operated throughout human history; others justify this supposed degradation of culture by highlighting the practical gains that are made in some parts of the world; many see it as furthering the spread of western values and democracy.
Sociologist Roland Robertson speaks instead of 'glocalisation'; arguing that cultural globalisation instead of eliminating local culture often re-invigorates it, ultimately creating 'unique cultural constellations' where global and local cultures 'borrow' from each other.
Economically also similar arguments must be considered. Imagine that McDonalds is proposing to build a new store in a part of the world which largely preserves its own culture and where this is high, but not extreme, unemployment. Would the benefit of new employment, new products and entry into the global market economy outweigh the possible costs of environmental degradation, and a loss of culture? Or perhaps culture would not be lost, perhaps, as Roland Robertson argues, the McDonalds would bring the benefits of employment and new produce, enriching the area, whilst simultaneously the local culture having a positive effect on McDonalds? Idealistic or simply optimistic?Either way it is issues such as this which are at the centre of the globalisation debate, and ultimately it is not until we look at small scale examples of globalisation that we can decide whether it has positive or negative effects.
Indeed there is also much debate around the effects of economic gloalisation on the cultures of the developing world. Many politicians continue to assert that 'globalisation benefits all', yet the facts seem to disagree.
During the Cold War organisations such as the World Trade Organisation, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank were established to make and enforce the rules of the global economy, in turn promoting neoliberal principles, such as privatisation of public enterprises and free trade. In return for supplying much needed loans to developing countries, the organisations demanded 'structural adjustment programs, often referred to as the 'Washington Consensus'. Theoretically these reforms were meant to alter the internal economic mechanisms of the indebted countries so they would be more able to pay back the debts they had incurred. In reality however this resulted in a new form of colonialism where 'Northern' companies reaped the benefits, as enforced cuts in public spending meant no social development programs, and so the countries were prevented from natural economic growth. Hence Third World Debt developed from being a problem to a major phenomenon, which people, ironically from all over the world work together to campaign against. This not only shows how unequal economic globalisation really is, but demonstrated the complexity of the issue as a whole; does the positive use of globalisation 'cancel' the negative effects out? Only time will tell.
Free Trade too is a phrase that is often connected with unfair and unequal economic globalisation. By definition it means the removal of trade barriers, so that all companies in the world compete on an 'equal' global market. Ideologically it seems to be reasonable, however in reality all too often Northern countries impose protectionist measures, enforcing tariffs on those who wish to import e.g. their steel into America, then small companies in developing countries are forced to compete with large Transnational Corporations in selling their own products e.g. bananas in their own country. This increases the North South divide and does nothing to help eliminate Third World Debt.
Third World Debt and economic globalisation is also very much a political issue. The situation at the moment can not be blamed entirely upon global economics, but the irresponsible actions of third world dictators have also contributed to the problem. Indeed policies such as free trade are often seen as curtailing the power of nation states and encouraging global governance, again working to remove the problem of abuse of globalisation. Organisations such as the United Nations many believe represent the first step towards universal law and policies, greater co-operation and indeed the elimination of Third World Debt.
However the events of September 11th remind us of the remaining divisions in the world, and increased national feeling has appeared to have lead towards a trend in the opposite direction. With some countries refusing to co-operate with the United Nations, and the need for reform in the organisation itself, politics is the one area in which globalisation is least pronounced.
However that is not to say that globalisation is not a political issue. Unlike common belief globalisation can be controlled and stopped if there is enough will. The question remains for you to answer however: should it and does it need to be slowed or stopped?
« return.