the globalization debate
...balization is the term that encapsulates all of the processes/phenomena of which it has been applied to. Within the globalization debate, there are three main schools of thought/ competing theoretical perspectives. These are the globalists, skeptics and transformationists. The globalist stance is mostly positive and in favor of globalization. Those who are of a globalist perspective, see globalization as a new era in human history comprising of global markets (of both labour and commodity) and global politics e.g. the United Nations. The globalists see the decline of sovereignty and the nation state as a result of globalization, in favor of the global diffusion of social, financial and political power which is now easily transmitted using technological advances which in turn enable a global society. Perhaps an example of how globalist perspectives have been influential can be seen through the policies brought about in the 1970’s by the neo-liberals, who urged for the de-regulation of the state and governance, in favor of the capitalist market. This was proposed as a way of opening the opportunities for wealth to everyone, however, as I think is evident in all aspects of contemporary society, for example third would debt, urban poverty throughout more economically developed countries and the sheer levels of both gender, race and financial disadvantage, the reality of the policies has in fact led to greater levels of inequality. This I feel is a major criticism of the globalist perspective. At the other end of the theoretical spectrum are the skeptics, who as the name suggests, are far from agreeable of the globalist perspective. They see globalization as a myth, created and maintained, in favor of capitalism. The skeptical perspective shows the unity of social struggles in rejection of neo-liberal policies. “Globalization is a purely ideological representation or an expression of the despair and anxiety of those who are indeed the victims of new technologies, industrial concentration, financial gambles..."(Touraine, A (2001, p5). The skeptics view the term internationalization as more appropriate. Instead of globalization, they describe the emergence of a highly internationalized economy, which manifests itself in a triad (America, Western Europe and Asia) within which, unlike the position held by the globalists, they see the nation-state as one of the key actors in the social sphere who continue to remain powerful. To use the term globalization in favor of internationalization, for the skeptics, is misleading, as there are too many countries that are ignored/un-accounted for, to use the term global correctly. Instead, the skeptics push for the employment of the terms ‘Americanization’ and internationalization to be applied instead of globalization. Unlike the majority perspective of the globalists, the skeptics point out the negative effects of globalization on economy (the rich get richer as the poor get poorer) and on political views/policy and practice (the western way is not appropriate for the world as a whole). The globalists and skeptics sit at opposite ends of the theoretical spectrum. And, as with most competing theories, there are those who take the middle road somewhere in between the two extremes. The transformationalist perspective lies somewhere between that of the globalists and the skeptics. They see the world as becoming increasingly interconnected, but are uncertain about its trajectory of change. For the transformationists, globalization is an adaptation not a change, it is not a new era as proposed by the globalists, nor is it a myth as the skeptics suggest, it is instead an inevitable part of evolution, which is a result of the processes that the term itself sets out to describe. In the most part, I am of the same opinion of the skeptics, especially in that the phenomenon of globalization is a myth. I feel that the discourse of the globalists undermines the reality of globalization and its negative implications. I do however feel that as with all subjects of such a contested nature, all theoretical perspectives must be acknowledged, as one cannot uphold its evaluative properties without influences from the others i.e. the globalists and transformationalists. Globalization, goes beyond merely the economic parts of the social, it infiltrates every aspect of society. These three perspectives give both comparative and contrasting views towards globalization. Which will in turn influence what are seen as the key implications that it poses. As one would expect, there are many implications (of both a positive and a negative nature) imposed by globalization. These can be found within all aspects of contemporary society, for the purposes of this essay I will focus on the implications of globalization on the economy, politics, technology and cultural spheres. In the age of ‘globalization’ there are many examples of economic change. We have noticed a move from socialism to capitalism, the market has replaced the state as the main source of societies regulation, within which there are dominant actors (largely from the west) who are becoming increasingly more powerful and repressing those seen as inferior (the ‘non-west’). Trans-national corporations and their functional discourses take influences from early twentieth century ‘business men’ like Frederick Winslow Taylor (Taylorism’) and perhaps more commonly acknowledged, Henry Ford (‘Fordism’). Modes of Mass production lead to the capacity of mass consumerism via the advances and implementation of mass forms of communication. Trans-national corporations maintain power and economic stability via the implementation of practices of cheap labour obtained from countries in economic despair (a contemporary example of this can be seen in many major corporations moving their call centers to eastern countries such as India/ Pakistan, where labour can be found at a percentage of that of the United Kingdom and the United States). Cheap labour enables profit levels of an unprecedented increase; sales figures are way above that of single country economies. The skeptics would claim that the discourse of globalization enables a reinforcement of capitalism within a network of flows in the global market place. They would however uphold their critique of globalization in that it is incorrect in terms of scale; the economy is not becoming globalized. Poorer countries are on the whole at a great disadvantage from the introduction of trans-national corporations. The divide between the ‘west and the rest’ is becoming more significant as the dominant actors use capitalism to repress those who are not in an economical/financial position to refuse to co-operate. For globalization to live up to the nature of its definition, it needs to become a reality and not just a mask worn by the west to disguise the damage being done by capitalism. Globalists would praise this re-enforcement of capitalism as they see it as a positive move away from state control. There are many examples of products which are seen to be global e.g. Coca Cola and Mac Donald’s, but once again, can these been seen as truly global if there are people who will probably never experience theses products? (they do not benefit from a so-called ‘global economy’). The globalization of production results in more competition within and between countries, which in my opinion reinforces and interacts with the various other implications of globalization, which I will identify throughout the rest of this essay. I have just mentioned how there are people who do not benefit from a global economy, and therefore suffer inequality. This inequality, I feel is a major implication of globalization, which is evident throughout all spheres of the social. Advances in technology have both enabled the growth of trans and multi national corporations and communication. “Modern communications form the basis for an international civil society, people who share interests and associations across borders” (Hirst, P and Thompson, G (1996, p180) Global communication has enabled previous temporal and spatial boundaries to be broken; there has therefore been an increase in social space, which can be described as a shift from de-territorialisation to supra-teritorialisation. Barriers which once stood between countries can now be over come at the press of a button e.g. via e-mail. However, once again there are many countries and people across the world that do not have access to such technology and therefore are at a disadvantage to those who now take these things for granted. This therefore denies the discourse of globalization, as although technology enables greater trans-national communication and production, it does not extend to a truly global scale. Another key implication that I feel is imposed by Globalization, is on the future of the nation-state, both in terms of social and political change. In previous centuries, states were autonomous entities, in charge of their population, econom...