This is a slightly different way of looking at the globe. It's actually a map that is usually called a polar projection with the northern hemisphere on the left and the southern on the right. (If most of the globe's land mass is in the north, won't the earth flip around one day?) These days you will often hear phrases such as "global economy," "world culture" or "multi-national corporations" thrown about in conversations or spoken of on the news, indicating some ongoing thing called "globalization." But what does that mean? Before I offer some scattered remarks about "globalization," let's first look at three definitions: Globalization or (globalisation) in its literal sense is the process of making, transformation of some things or phenomena into global ones. It can be described as a process by which the people of the world are unified into a single society and function together. This process is a combination of economic, technological, sociocultural and political forces. (formerly on wikipedia) the growing integration of economies and societies around the world (world bank) Covering a wide range of distinct political, economic, and cultural trends, the term “globalization” has quickly become one of the most fashionable buzzwords of contemporary political and academic debate. In popular discourse, globalization often functions as little more than a synonym for one or more of the following phenomena: the pursuit of classical liberal (or “free market”) policies in the world economy (“economic liberalization”), the growing dominance of western (or even American) forms of political, economic, and cultural life (“westernization” or “Americanization”), the proliferation of new information technologies (the “Internet Revolution”), as well as the notion that humanity stands at the threshold of realizing one single unified community in which major sources of social conflict have vanished (“global integration”). Fortunately, recent social theory has formulated a more precise concept of globalization than those typically offered by pundits. Although sharp differences continue to separate participants in the ongoing debate, most contemporary social theorists endorse the view that globalization refers to fundamental changes in the spatial and temporal contours of social existence, according to which the significance of space or territory undergoes shifts in the face of a no less dramatic acceleration in the temporal structure of crucial forms of human activity. Geographical distance is typically measured in time. As the time necessary to connect distinct geographical locations is reduced, distance or space undergoes compression or “annihilation.” The human experience of space is intimately connected to the temporal structure of those activities by means of which we experience space. Changes in the temporality of human activity inevitably generate altered experiences of space or territory. Theorists of globalization disagree about the precise sources of recent shifts in the spatial and temporal contours of human life. Nonetheless, they generally agree that alterations in humanity's experiences of space and time are working to undermine the importance of local and even national boundaries in many arenas of human endeavor. Since globalization contains far-reaching implications for virtually every facet of human life, it necessarily suggests the need to rethink key questions of normative political theory. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) I included the last definition, even though it is a long one, because there are some important points made, beginning with the comment that "globalization" often functions as little more than a buzz word for some ill-defined ideas. The other point that I find fascinating is the idea of the annihilation of space/time boundaries--that sounds like something out of Star Trek and the space-time continuum. You can see this "annihilation" any time that you are surfing on the computer or watching TV, but it is also evident as some virulent strain of avian flu makes its way across the Eurasian continent. |
|
In my
view, the world "globalization" process/revolution of the late twentieth
century mirrors, in many interesting respects, almost exactly the western modernization revolution of the late nineteenth
century. I have no answer to
the question that I'm about to ask, but I will pose it anyway: Are globalization and
modernization the same? Maybe someone would like to tackle that question in an extra
credit essay (two-pages; cite your sources)? |
|
Anyway, consider these comparison points between nineteenth-century modernization and twentieth-century globalization:
Let's continue the comparison with some negatives from both cases:
What of the politics of the global community? A global economy? What of a world or global culture? The spiritual world? Is life better in the world than it was thirty years ago? |
|
Isn't the label on this bottle of hot chili sauce evidence enough of a global society? I think that the global/modernization process of the last few decades has resulted in an ambiguous present and an unclear future. On one hand, millions of people around the word have opportunities that they did not have just a few decades ago. On the other hand, millions of people around the world do not have guarantees of basic human rights and still live in brutal conditions. Think diamond mines in Sierra Leone. In addition, what were once isolated problems, such as a civil war in a small African country or some chickens dying in a village in Thailand, have become global problems. I think that in itself is the essence of what globalization is, with both its pluses and minuses.
|
|
Web pages within the course relevant to globalization
Some suggestions for further research
|
This
page is copyright © 2010-22, C.T. Evans
For information contact cevans@nvcc.edu