Welcome to POSC240-012!
This is where you will be posting 10 blogs throughout the semester; 4 blogs in September, 3 in October, & 3 in November. Your entries should tackle current events, reactions to lectures and readings, & comments & questions about the class.
Make sure you write substantial and thought-provoking entries & write your full name at the end of each post!
Start blogging!
Nick & Sara
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Globalization
Someone from class suggested that we add a topic on globalization and the movement towards (or away from) homogenization. Blog away... -ng-
44 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Well, I for one think that the issue of homogenization that was brought up today in class is a very strange issue to talk about. It’s pretty weird to think that, bit by bit, every region around the world is morphing into one generalized, more uniform, society. While it’s definitely not here yet, the concept of a homogenous world is a pretty mind-blowing thing to have. Instead of what we grew up with, where every place had different things about it that made it unique, we’re finding more and more that the opposite is happening. I think an interesting thing that Nick mentioned was the link between homogenization and terrorism, which I had never really thought about before. Now you have a culture that is so deeply imbedded in its roots and heritage that it will go to the extremes of killing and slaughter to try and stop this spread of uniformity. That’s one of the reasons I think it’s such a double-edged sword; one one hand, it’s a good thing for different parts of the world to feel the same advances and the spread of things like medicine, technology, whatever it may be, but on the other hand it’s making different parts of the world lose what sets them apart and makes them special. I would say it’s impossible to really get a good balance of some globalization with some individuality left in the world – I think that regardless, you’re going to find more and more that this spread of globalization will continue to happen as time goes on.
I agree that it is difficult to imagine a homogenized world, and I don't think it's ever going to happen, and I don't think we're even remotely on the way to trying to bring about homogeny in the sense of equality. Different parts of the world are not necessarily reaping any of the benefits of modern society. Technology and medicine that we are supposedly sharing with our brothers and sisters in Africa, Asia, and South and Central America do not have the same connotations nor effects as they do with us. The sense of homogeny that I believe we are headed towards is just to elevate the Western world (specifically the US) above all the others, and not make one common culture or society. Also, alot of the western ideas and technologies that have been supposedly used to improve places such as Africa or Asia have been misunderstood and adapted by the locals or they did not help at all. Some one in class had the audacity to say that "we" (as though any of us were actually involved) came over to Africa and introduced advanced agricultural processes, thus improving the African way of life. In fact, most of the agricultural practices the Europeans tried to implement in Africa completely failed because of the vastly different geographic conditions of the land. Also, Europeans colonized the entire Continent of Africa (less Liberia and Ethiopia) and practically enslaved the people. On a final note, if you have ever been to a nonwestern country, especially one with a developing or in-transition economy, you will see that most of them are nothing like the US, despite the McDonalds and Coke bottles.
Very interesting comments, Meg. Let's just be clear about what homogeneity is. When we use the word, we're referencing the phenomena of a greatly similar world being produced. It means that through the process of intense integration that comes along with globalization, various parts of the world are becoming more alike in terms of politics (the proliferation of democracy), culture (the McDonaldization of the world), technology (everyone has a Myspace account and listens to an ipod), business (laissez-faire capitalism regulates business world wide), ect.
I believe that the greatest problem that we have with globalization relates from the horrible indoctrination we receive from a young age about cultural relativism and political correctness. We are taught that all societies are equivalent to one another and that is arrogant and Eurocentric for us to assert that our way of life is superior. Our inability to admit to ourselves and to others for fear of offending them is slowing down necessary progress. (I confess to being an admirer of Mark Steyn’s work)
When we look at the world we see a very interesting pattern which is that people from poor nations seem to be migrating towards richer ones. England has a large and growing Pakistani population with millions from Pakistan eager to leave their country to move over to England. We should be celebrating this as a sign of the superiority of British values and institutions and should be encouraging the rest of the world to adapt similar ways. (As a note- I am of German descent and thus can claim no “pride” from the success of Western Europe) Notice, I said values and institutions rather than race- there’s no relevant difference in race between these peoples.
When companies such as Nike set up shop in countries like China we see that the natives flock to these factories in order to get work. I find the business practices to be questionable, but we must recognize that Industrialized countries (I know for a fact this applies to the US, UK, and Russia) went through similar events. No one is forcing these people to work for Nike but the fact that they are is great news as it is responsible for Chinas great economic development. This is also great because the wealthier other countries are, the wealthier we can be simply because they can buy our goods.
It is not because certain countries are superior (or have superior values or culture) that makes them richer and more succesful. If this is the case than how can the success of Japan, Taiwam, South Korea, etc. be explained. The reason is because of the globalized capitalist system we have established. The way this system is set up makes it very hard for poor countries to recover. When the Western nations colonized parts of the world, they exploited them to the greatest benefit of the mother country, with absolutely no regard for the colony. This ruined the economies of those nations and left the effects of dependence. The perfect example is India who, before the British came along, had an excellent economy established. However, the British were able to use all their resources for production and export finalized products to their colonies. Therefore, India remained dependant on British imports, despite the fact that they once produced many products more efficiently than Britain. The slave trade triangle also inllustrates this point well. By taking raw materials from the colonies in the New World, Europeans could cheaply produce finalized products in Europe, which they then sold for slaves in Africa to more cheaply extract raw materials in the New World. Thus, the world system that has been in place undoubtedly favors the Western nations and makes it difficult for poor nations to recover. Most former colonies are still dependent on importing products from their former colonizers. The West remains the "core" while the rest of the world is caught in the "periphery" minus the rare exception.
Globalization is another issue that has about the same number of advantages as it has disadvantages. Ok, let's break it down. If we push for globalization, what are some of the positive effects? Well, for one thing, many countries that are currently in poverty might be able to experience things we take for granted. Things such as medicine, technology, religion, and ways of life might make an impact on the ways they live theirs. However, if we did push for this sort of thing, you might offend those you are trying to help. Even though you may believe people may need help, they may think you are infringing on their way of life and acting somewhat like a parent. Many countries around the world hate the United States for this very reason. We believe that we can fix any problem, even if it doesn't concern us. So, to answer the question, should we push for globalization? In my opinion, I think the risk is to great when thinking of offending other cultures. If they want our help, they will ask for it.
Good thoughts Nathan. However, I don't believe globalization is something we can turn off like a switch. Technology makes it inevitable. Think about how transportation technology made the "first" globalization occur. Ships that could withstand ocean travel and a desire to trade (or get rich) was the first engine. That was multiplied with the invention of steam power (ships and trains) which intensified globalization to a degree in the 19th and early 20th century that hasn't been reached since. Do you think that in a world of high powered air travel or modern ocean shipping we can 'stop' globalization? I don't think so.
It seems to me that, although we can't really stop globalization, we should be able to create some mechanism to at least slow it down or restrict it. In light of the movie we saw today about the WTO, it seems like most of this globalization is an expansion of ideas (forced mainly by the world's superpowers), rather than a true exchange of ideas and commodities. It is a process that began somewhat accidentally, but I think that right now it is too quick-spreading and powerful (as it even conflicts with sovereignty) to not have input from all countries or regions. For example, the American cultural or technological companies (McDonald's, IBM) force their way into other countries through the WTO and free trade. In my opinion, when these agreements are drawn up, there should be an actual vote in the WTO to pass them, or let some countries reject it if it will hurt their economy. It might help improve international relationships if Africa, South America, and other poorer places could determine whether to accept new ideas and not be forced into damaging their countries and interfering in the lives of their citizens.
One point in particular that I pulled from the short film on the WTO today in class was the fact that the WTO has such strong support for big business such as McDonald's, Coca-Cola, etc.. This complimented with the fact that the WTO forces farmers to give up their land, small businesses to go bankrupt, and so many to lose their way of living in favor of free trade makes for a terrible combination. It undoubtedly explains why the rich get richer and the poor remain in long-term poverty. Those living in such poverty cannot even get access to clean water or many other necessities that are taken for granted by those that stimulate the free market global economy(big business). The WTO protects these people and industries because they are in the best interest for those countries which are in a sense hegemons(United States). The organization rules against laws regarding health and environmental issues with products. One can argue that this is a corrupt way of saving even more money for those big businesses that stand to lose profits as a result of the laws. Globalization and the WTO take away from territorial sovereignty as Nick stated in class as a result of forcing countries within their borders to abide by the rules set by the organization. So even if these rules are not beneficial and may even be harmful to the state, there is no choice but to submit to them. These rules favor the rich countries, and explain why the poor remain poor. I will no longer wonder how this phenomena continues to occur.
I found a really interesting (albeit long) article/lecture notes called "INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS & THE PRACTICE OF HEGEMONY"
Here is the site-- http://www.leeds.ac.uk/polis/englishschool/watson-hegemony02.doc"
I read the whole thing through and found it very helpful in distinguishing what is was that we were actually talking about...
One of the author's points in the very beginning of the article is a good summary of the globalization and hegemony practices that exists in the US.
Here is the line... "Now I realise how much the hegemony of the West and especially the U.S. also aims to modify the internal behaviour of other states and communities."
I think that hegemony is really a "useful concept" that distinguishes between what separate sovereign states think should occur between states and what actually happens internationally. Hegemony can be compared simply to international superiorty because it really is the idea that the technological, economic and strategic(whether military or conceptual) superiority of a single great power/group of powers, can also lead to less powerful and less influential states to "lose some of their external and internal independence."
I just began reading a book called The World Is Flat, by Thomas L. Friedman. The book opens with him arriving in India and seeing a plethora of American owned companies - Dell, AOL, etc. It is about globalization and the way that the economy is being completely changed by the outsourcing of huge corporations to places like India and China where they are paid extremely low wages. With the advancements of technology you can transfer information and products anywhere in the world, which is becoming increasingly smaller and more similar everywhere. There is an overview of what he thinks the main reasons for the new "flattening" of the world are on Wikipedia.
I think that his exploration of these ideas relates completely to our class and the fear that the true cultures and traditions of these countries are going to be overun by the superpowers of the world. I think that although there are still places without any outside influence from the West, it is only a matter of time until they too feel the effects of globalization.
That the world is undergoing vast homogenization is a fact not a question. I began reading "classics" this past year and became familiar with all of the attnetion to detail that the author's would include when describing a foreign country or even a foreign character. Then I went n a family trip to Spain, France and Italy...just a quick run through of some of the big cities. Once there, though, it was clear that all of these details that used to mark one country from another were either absent or recreated by the current inhabitants in order to try and spark some nostalgia from the way things were. Of course there were places that were historical and unique, but at the same time, I remember being very aware that the places and the people did not have any type of extraordinary feel to them as you may expect. Every place began to seem like the last with all the technology and chains around. I just thought it was interesting to see the change that we have undergone so fast, mostly within the last couple decades.
Katharine, someone recommended The World is Flat to me over the summer and I really enjoyed it and would recommend it to those who haven't read it.
As mentioned above globalization cannot be stopped but in response to Katie neither should we try to slow it down. The World is Flat makes a great argument to this and essentially says the world is flattening due to technology and globalization will move forward with or without us participating. It will be much more beneficial to the United States if we do participate instead of standing in the way of the inevitable.
Friedman in the book makes the point that one of the consequences of a flat world is that the playing field becomes more level. We see this with the growth of the Chinese economy and that of India's as well. The United States as a result must become more competitive in response instead of trying to slow down globalization.
Its unfortunate when American workers lose their jobs to outsourcing but technology enables this to occur and we cannot stop that. The upside is technology also creates new jobs. One of the ways we stay competitive is to have an educated workforce that is creating new technologies and in the process creating new jobs. Trying to slow down the impact of globalization keeps us from participating in a globalizing world while the rest of the world becomes more engaged and competitive in it.
A potential solution to to erosion of sovereignty also ties in with the recent discussion of the security dilemma question. Indeed, if the major nuclear powers were to turn over their strategic arms to the United Nations, then I believe a world government would become a possibility, as no nation would seek to develop nuclear arms if the United Nations were ready and willing to launch a decapitating nuclear assault on any nation that tried.
However, this would likely also result in an increase in local, conventional conflict. Without the spectre of nuclear holocaust dangling over the heads of the world's governments, limited regional conflicts would likely be pursued without as much fear as they are now. In any case, just a thought.
I think its a very interesting point that the world "flattens" as technology increases and this causes the playing field to even out. I've never thought about it that way. I have to agree that it is a shame that some of the jobs American's have been counting on are going to go elsewhere, but I think it could be a really good thing that we are able to provide jobs for those in less developed countries. I don't understand how it could hurt the economy of those countries. I know that we are paying them less than we would pay American workers, but they are still provided with jobs. Returning back to the topic, the globalization of the world is what allows the jobs to be sent overseas.
The concept of globalization is not only remarkable but also quickly developing. However, whether or not it is necessarily a good thing is certainly up for debate. For one, the developing of industries in many poorer countries does provide jobs and, as I imagine, it does stimulate these countries' economies. Nevertheless, the negative effects and reactions to globalization can be seen in everyday life, even in America. For one, as the video shown in class concerning the WTO illustrates, it is certainly not beneficial for all groups including farmers. Furthermore, it has contributed to the development and actions of terrorist groups. By some, this homogenization is seen as an imposition of the West upon Eastern countries. Perhaps as another method of domination. Concerning the past relations the West has had with many of these countries, the conclusion is understandable. Also, when dealing with globalization one faces the changes spawned in different cultures. When a McDonalds opens on a street corner in India, serving burgers, one has to wonder at the cultural results. Thus, I am not sure whether this homogenization is truly a desirable concept.
My dad grew up in Europe going to boarding school's in many different countries. He moved back the the U.S. after college and lived here, working in New York City, until he moved back to London in 2001. I thought it would be interesting to hear his position on what we discussed in class last week about whether or not the EU could ever become one country, since he has sort of witnessed Europe's evolution first hand most of his life.
He told me that he had heard this topic debated and discussed a lot, and that there are many people who would like for this to happen but he thinks it would be incredibly unlikely, at least in our lifetimes. He said that many countries are still trying to become part of the EU, and that the poorer countries of Eastern Europe are posing a threat to the richer, Western countries because of the drastic differences in their economies. Basically, when it comes down to it, there is way to much conflicting national interest within the EU for it to ever conform to one government. He also said that there are theories that the EU could expand so much and become so big that it could one day collapse under it's own weight.
I just thought it would be interesting to have a different point of view on the subject--
Globalization is an inevitable consequence of the world that we live in today. If you go into the largest cities all over the world, you will see that they are slowly loosing their unique cultural identity and are moving towards a sort of futuristic standard “metropolis”. Economically globalization is essential. People inside the united states that say we need to keep jobs in the country are only hurting the country as a whole. Buisnessees inside the US cannot compete, the price of labor here is too high. The problem that exists with globalization is that eventually the strong nations will run out of weak countries to exploit. Even Marx predicted this. The fule that keeps globalization running is the cheap labor coming from underdeveloped countries. China for example is starting to assert itself, buying expensive goods and stressing the world supply of gasoline.
Globalization is a good thing. A great example is Wallmart. While many people claim to hate wallmart, those same people clearly have not been inside Wallmart and have not benefited from the cheap prices it has to offer. Wallmart can offer these prices because of its efficiencey. It cuts down on the inneficiencies of doing buisness by employing a model that lets it know where every product it is selling is at every point on its way to the wallmart store. In this way, it can reduce prices by only ordering the exact number of products that it needs. Companies that cannot compete should not exist, this is the nature of capitalism.
Katherine, Thanks for getting your dad's perspective on this issue! It's certainly helpful to get the point of view of someone that is tied to the continent in a big way. My dad also grew up in Europe and he basically has said the same thing.
I believe that globalization is helping to create an economy that parallels the classic model of capitalism, in which rational individuals are trying to accomplish their own goals and interests with access to so much information, which is relatively free from government control and geographical boundaries.
It is also helping to foster a society that is closer to the original capitalist model, in which power lies more and more in the hands of the individual rather than in governments, where people are free to pursue the "good life" wherever they find it.
The main reason why the arguments against globalization can seem so persuasive is the fact that the opponents of it are much more visible. Opponents are limited to smaller, concentrated places in our world, where those that benefit from globalization are much more spread out and common.
Globalization is a thing that for the most part will always be linked to monetary values. Now is that to say that a country or government or group would not like to rule the world under one binding philosophy? No. The problem is that such a situation will never happen. There is too much difference between humans as a whole for them to all answer to one single entity. Now globalization in reality, is linked to menetary values. now what I mean by that is that most things that are globalized have an ultimate dollar sign bhind them. Trade - Is for monetary gain between two seperate states. Another way to look at it is franchising - corporations. Should you go to China McDonalds will be there, Starbucks will be there. Wal Mart, Home Depot, Target, Krispy Kreme, they're everywhere! Cell phone services, computers, T.V's, the same things are sold in all corners of the globe. Why are the same things sold everywhere? Money, more people to buy things, more money to be spent. Selling the same things everywhere globalizes us in that way. Monetary values; that's what globalizes.
I agree with chris that money is a big player in globalization, because, as we all know, people with the money make the rules. If you have none, you just have to go along with it as best you can until you get some to change things.. for the most part anyway.
What I have to wonder about globalization is, if the world's countries are so easily influenced by things such as popular culture, religion, language, etc., how long are they going to be able to stand up against the spread of politics and economic things too? I mean, it's already happened time and again to certain extents, but will it eventually become homogenized to the extent that it's a global economy? Yes, it's the question everyone asks anyway, and I agree that there are so many differences among peoples of the world that its hard for us to envision such a world society, BUT I'm sure people in the past believed even more so that global phenomena that are around now would "never happen."
Globalization is an everpresent, underlying force that no one can control, so i can't really see how anyone can rationally oppose it. Can the intangible flow of culture and ideas come to a complete halt? The WTO may have its problems but even if it didn't exist, trade would reach all the corners of the world. Credit card numbers can be exhanged for goods directly over the internet through fiber optics connecting potato farmers in Russia to tool manufacturers in California. Globalization isn't good or bad, it's just there. Sure goods from around the world are more accessible to every human, but there are also the factories in mexico paying a few pesos a day to eager employees of foreign companies. In every system, there is a balance of positive and negative. An example of the most basic of systems would be the atom, and they seem pretty stable. When an atom is manipulated and split, the consequences are devastating. So it's probably a better idea to just let globalization run its course.
I agree with some of the posts above about globalization. Although there are mcdonalds all over the globe, they will never be exactly the same. I was born in Hong Kong and they have McDonalds, KFC, and 711s all over the place. I went back last winter and I went to all of these stores. While they all have the same logo, the actual store is totally different than here in the US. Ideas are exchanged and adapted globally and I believe that there are way too many differences between cultures to ever have a homogenized world. The uniqueness of every nation prevents any attempt of globalized homogenization from happening.
When government systems were globalized, they never followed a certain guideline. They all adapted to their own nations, thus thwarting homogenization of government systems. Globalization of ideas and concepts have different results or effects on the different number of nations that take in the ideas.
I just read an interesting article by the NY Times about how French President Sarkozy urges the French people to accept globalization. He explains, "We will not obtain growth if we don't play the game of globalization collectively... Let's look at the world and ask ourselves the question: Should we be naïve to the point of being the only ones not to defend our interests when all the others are defending theirs?" Globalization, a prime component in the recent French elections, is forcing France to make some tough decisions. Over the years, globalization has made many French people fear their jobs and most importantly culture. I believe that if they are careful, it is in their best interest to acknowledge and accept globalization. Although the fear of losing culture and jobs will loom over the French, it comes down to deciding whether to perish or adapt.
Globalization literally means oneness and homogeneity in terms of nation, market and people. With regard to nation, globalization brought us a borderless world, thus culminating in being a global village. Traditional Ideologies such as communism, and socialism and others vanished and instead were integrated into new hybrid thought and idea, which is so-called a global democracy. In market, all multinational and global companies expand their products and services to the end of the earth so that everyone in global village became to enjoy the same brands, as we did. What happened to people or consumer, some people including myself and young adults wanted to share the global culture, while other adults adhered to their own local culture. This finally resulted in civilization clash and cultural failure. Globalization not only gave many nations and their people tremendous benefits and wealths, but also, exerted evil influence and mischiefs to other small and frail societies simultaneously. So, globalization is the standardization. We have to think globally but should act locally.
There is no doubt that globalization has its benefits. Specifically for societies that are shown an easier way of life. However, total globalization should not be the goal of the world. By doing this the world would be wiped clean of cultural traditions and beliefs. One might argue that a person can choose to accept it or live in a more primitive style but even this is becoming hard to do. These cultural traditions are the very same features that make our world unique. Personally when i take a vacation from work in thirty years I dont want to go to a place that looks like where I came from. Because globalization occurs on many different levels I realize that it cannot be entirely stopped. This is not my desire I merely wish to preserve the diversity of the world. Political globalization is something that can obviously improve the status of a country. Therefore any influence that caused a move from dictatorship to democracy would be an example of beneficial globalization.
I think that Globalization is occuring everyday but although we will never be able to stop it, I think we can atleast slow it down. I do think that it would be useful if the things most of us take for granted were accessible to others who don't know what it's like to receive proper health care or be able to take part in the technology we use everyday. I do not think our world will ever be one and completely agree on the same things for there are so many different viewpoints on religion, politics, ethnics and even simple things as getting on myspace and blogging that are very different. I do believe though, Globalization is something we should all be more familarized with because it will never go away and could effect us greatly in the future.
I do not believe that globalization could ever be so all-encompassing as to negate the idea of "sovereign states" or unique-ness in the world or culture. As is often discussed in my PoliSci 150 class, the more alike a group of people are, the easier it is for the government to do its job. If people did not have diverse wants and needs, and if there were not such a scarcity of resources, there would be no need for government because people would automatically do what would then be considered right and in the best interests of the country. The fact that this is not the case, that there is such a multiplicity of opinions, wants, and needs across national borders (and within them), implies that the opposite is actually the case. Government systems have so many issues and problems in international law-making and policy-making (etc.) that diversity (and different wants and needs of the people) and the need for sovereign states are as alive and necessary as ever.
I believe globalization has both good and bad impacts on the world today. Granted we are all thankful that we are able to drive Japanese cars, use technological advances that were created by other countries and so forth; however we fail to see that globalization is also taking a lot of culture away from many small countries. Globalization is taking away their authenticity by familiarizing them with the western culture. Once the entire world becomes westernize there will no longer be any uniqueness, the countries that rely on tourism will economically be destroyed, and most people will not take vacations because everyone and everything will be the same. Anthropologists will be very angry that they can’t do their job anymore. This world is going to fall apart if western globalization continues to destroy all these unique cultures with their selfish ideology.
Globalization to me is a good and a bad thing. I think that it has been helpful in the development of third world nations and will continue to help them, but i think that it hurts because with nations such as the U.S England and the rest of Western Europe i think it takes away from countries identity and turns them in to what ever it is the U.S or Western Europe wants. Another is that it helps trade among nations which is a very good thing. So i think it is more good than bad.
I believe the world is moving towards globalization, between the migration of different immigrants into different countries and the importing/exporting of products. But the world is not becoming more homogenized. When immigrants move into different countries, they keep alot of their views and beliefs that may differ from the original citizens of that country. Some one may move accross the world, but speak the same language. The people of the world may be blending, but I don't think it would ever lead to something as drastic as a universal lanquage or religion. The diversity in language and culture will keep the world from being completely homogeneous.
I have been wondering about this issue recently. Who is responsible for upholding safety regulations in a highly globalized world. The consumer or the producer. At first thought I think it is the consumers job to not to buy the item.Also, once the item is found to be unsafe it will most likely not be bought. So, the producer will either have to change or lose a very large amount of customers. Since the public is usally not able to research all the products they buy, either becuase of knowledge or lack or resources the government has usally been responsible for this. Examples are the FDA in the US. The IR part to this is can you make a country have the same safety regulations as you if they are to trade with you? Also, who is responsible for making this change? Or do you just let economics take their course and eventually fix the problem?
Globalization as it relates to hegemony is a very tricky topic. Because in one perspective the idea of the US acting in ways that suit it best is a good thing. It would mean better living and qualities of life inside the US. The creation of policies and systems by the US will always be towards a hegemony. No nation will willingly create or condon a policy that would hurt it or its peoples. This may seem like a cold hearted few but it is reality. To sacrifice liberties and rights for others is something that no nation should freely accept. So is the US a hegemony? I think it is and it should be. In the game of survival any nation that posesses the strength should act on it.
Globalization is beneficial to the U.S and to the rest of the world. I don't believe that the world will ever become homogenized because of globalization. Since a few centuries ago,as portrayed in "The Origins of the Modern World" the interaction between different countries has been increasing. Furthermore, I feel that countries have not lost their culture or uniqueness because of globalization. If anything, other parts of the world are more knowledgeable and receptive to different cultures. Eventhough globalization might cause some mingling of cultures and tradtions,countries are not going to loose their heritage and customs completely because of globalization.
Since the beginning of man, globalization has been an active issue into the actual advancement of man. Striving for globalization is a good thing, however, it will never be possible. As other countries try to equalize, they will undoubtedly advance in ways that they actually surpass the countries that they are trying to emulate. It will become a never ending cycle. Some countries will not ever be able to get to the levels of "super powers", but thats to be expected with "survival of the fittest", which pertains to countries as well. Sure there haven't been any current century countries that have been wiped off the map, but thats because they strive to survive and become like the other countries. So homogenization is a good thing, but will never become reality.
i feel as though the concept of globablization is almost as far-fetched a topic as world peace. even if globablization were an attainable feat, would we really want to put bring that onto the world stage? keep in mind past attempts of globalization have included the nazi party movement and the crusades, which are only viewed semi-positively because they were written by europeans touting it as an honorable attempt to recover jerusalem. the homogenization of world culture is one step up from the attainment of world peace because not only does it require recognition of all beliefs but it requires the incorporation of these beliefs into already ancient religious and ethnic structures. basically it comes down to whether or not you think that globalization is even possible before you ever consider whether it is a good idea or not. -mack shane
From a cultural standpoint, I think people are aware of Globalization and the people are informed about this phenomena, they just choose whether or not to accept it and welcome it to their culture or not. My heritage is filipino from the country of Philippines, everytime we go to the Philippines we would see a Mcdonalds in every mall, every city, etc. All my cousins and friends would always choose the Mcdonalds, when presented with choices of our ethnic food or Mcdonalds and so growing up I thought Mcdonalds was just as part of our culture as it was USA. I didn't find out till later on where it originated. I actually heard this from a friend who had a similar story when his friends were in town from the US, they wanted to taste good food around the place in Phils. and he said a new place opened up that is really popular with the people It turned out it was a TGI Fridays. While there are benefits to globalization, there are disadvantages such as closing down the small stores because of superchain walmarts. It also does not let the country grow creatively , people are not able to show and create new things because they cannot establish themselves and connot compete with the Mcdonalds of the world.
I don't believe that globalization is a concept, but a fact. At this point in the development of the human species, one can get mostly anywhere in the world in under a day's worth of travel thanks to airplanes. With the advent and explosion in popularity of the internet, news from the most obscure points of the globe are right at our fingertips. Granted, we are still at a point where there is a huge difference between the haves and have-nots, the closer we move towards a 'homogenization', the further I feel we get from a true sense of 'homogenization'. Its like we keep seeing diminishing returns the closer our global community becomes. At one point, I feel that people will want to retain enough of their individual culture that they will stop adopting others. I don't think that we will ever reach a point of uniformity with people around the world. There are too many different viewpoints that people have to ever reach a true homogeneity with all facets of society. However, reaching a somewhat close state of homogeneity may be good for the world because that could potentially lead to less conflicts and wars due to similar views. -Ian Dixon
As I was reading people's comments, I began thinking about the effect globalization has had on the world. What I thought, though, was that what would make more sense would be to think about the effects we have had on globalization. The world has been undergoing some type of globalization forever. But, in more recent decades, it has become increasingly apparent that all areas of the world are interrelated and becomign homogenized as well. How does this happen? The only thing that then comes to mind is technology. Technology has been the underlying force, since the beginning of time. It does not matter whether it was the steam engine bringing raw materials across the ocean faster, or the iPhone allowing you to e-mail your penpal in Japan while sitting in class. Technology has forever been the driving force behind globalization, and we as people have been the driving force behind technology. All of this leads me to think, where will we steer the world in the future? It truly is in th palm of our hands.
44 comments:
Well, I for one think that the issue of homogenization that was brought up today in class is a very strange issue to talk about. It’s pretty weird to think that, bit by bit, every region around the world is morphing into one generalized, more uniform, society. While it’s definitely not here yet, the concept of a homogenous world is a pretty mind-blowing thing to have. Instead of what we grew up with, where every place had different things about it that made it unique, we’re finding more and more that the opposite is happening. I think an interesting thing that Nick mentioned was the link between homogenization and terrorism, which I had never really thought about before. Now you have a culture that is so deeply imbedded in its roots and heritage that it will go to the extremes of killing and slaughter to try and stop this spread of uniformity. That’s one of the reasons I think it’s such a double-edged sword; one one hand, it’s a good thing for different parts of the world to feel the same advances and the spread of things like medicine, technology, whatever it may be, but on the other hand it’s making different parts of the world lose what sets them apart and makes them special. I would say it’s impossible to really get a good balance of some globalization with some individuality left in the world – I think that regardless, you’re going to find more and more that this spread of globalization will continue to happen as time goes on.
I agree that it is difficult to imagine a homogenized world, and I don't think it's ever going to happen, and I don't think we're even remotely on the way to trying to bring about homogeny in the sense of equality. Different parts of the world are not necessarily reaping any of the benefits of modern society. Technology and medicine that we are supposedly sharing with our brothers and sisters in Africa, Asia, and South and Central America do not have the same connotations nor effects as they do with us. The sense of homogeny that I believe we are headed towards is just to elevate the Western world (specifically the US) above all the others, and not make one common culture or society. Also, alot of the western ideas and technologies that have been supposedly used to improve places such as Africa or Asia have been misunderstood and adapted by the locals or they did not help at all. Some one in class had the audacity to say that "we" (as though any of us were actually involved) came over to Africa and introduced advanced agricultural processes, thus improving the African way of life. In fact, most of the agricultural practices the Europeans tried to implement in Africa completely failed because of the vastly different geographic conditions of the land. Also, Europeans colonized the entire Continent of Africa (less Liberia and Ethiopia) and practically enslaved the people. On a final note, if you have ever been to a nonwestern country, especially one with a developing or in-transition economy, you will see that most of them are nothing like the US, despite the McDonalds and Coke bottles.
Very interesting comments, Meg. Let's just be clear about what homogeneity is. When we use the word, we're referencing the phenomena of a greatly similar world being produced. It means that through the process of intense integration that comes along with globalization, various parts of the world are becoming more alike in terms of politics (the proliferation of democracy), culture (the McDonaldization of the world), technology (everyone has a Myspace account and listens to an ipod), business (laissez-faire capitalism regulates business world wide), ect.
Interesting thread this has become!
I believe that the greatest problem that we have with globalization relates from the horrible indoctrination we receive from a young age about cultural relativism and political correctness. We are taught that all societies are equivalent to one another and that is arrogant and Eurocentric for us to assert that our way of life is superior. Our inability to admit to ourselves and to others for fear of offending them is slowing down necessary progress. (I confess to being an admirer of Mark Steyn’s work)
When we look at the world we see a very interesting pattern which is that people from poor nations seem to be migrating towards richer ones. England has a large and growing Pakistani population with millions from Pakistan eager to leave their country to move over to England. We should be celebrating this as a sign of the superiority of British values and institutions and should be encouraging the rest of the world to adapt similar ways. (As a note- I am of German descent and thus can claim no “pride” from the success of Western Europe) Notice, I said values and institutions rather than race- there’s no relevant difference in race between these peoples.
When companies such as Nike set up shop in countries like China we see that the natives flock to these factories in order to get work. I find the business practices to be questionable, but we must recognize that Industrialized countries (I know for a fact this applies to the US, UK, and Russia) went through similar events. No one is forcing these people to work for Nike but the fact that they are is great news as it is responsible for Chinas great economic development. This is also great because the wealthier other countries are, the wealthier we can be simply because they can buy our goods.
--Daniel Greenbaum
It is not because certain countries are superior (or have superior values or culture) that makes them richer and more succesful. If this is the case than how can the success of Japan, Taiwam, South Korea, etc. be explained. The reason is because of the globalized capitalist system we have established. The way this system is set up makes it very hard for poor countries to recover. When the Western nations colonized parts of the world, they exploited them to the greatest benefit of the mother country, with absolutely no regard for the colony. This ruined the economies of those nations and left the effects of dependence. The perfect example is India who, before the British came along, had an excellent economy established. However, the British were able to use all their resources for production and export finalized products to their colonies. Therefore, India remained dependant on British imports, despite the fact that they once produced many products more efficiently than Britain. The slave trade triangle also inllustrates this point well. By taking raw materials from the colonies in the New World, Europeans could cheaply produce finalized products in Europe, which they then sold for slaves in Africa to more cheaply extract raw materials in the New World. Thus, the world system that has been in place undoubtedly favors the Western nations and makes it difficult for poor nations to recover. Most former colonies are still dependent on importing products from their former colonizers. The West remains the "core" while the rest of the world is caught in the "periphery" minus the rare exception.
Brian Del Guercio
Globalization is another issue that has about the same number of advantages as it has disadvantages. Ok, let's break it down. If we push for globalization, what are some of the positive effects? Well, for one thing, many countries that are currently in poverty might be able to experience things we take for granted. Things such as medicine, technology, religion, and ways of life might make an impact on the ways they live theirs. However, if we did push for this sort of thing, you might offend those you are trying to help. Even though you may believe people may need help, they may think you are infringing on their way of life and acting somewhat like a parent. Many countries around the world hate the United States for this very reason. We believe that we can fix any problem, even if it doesn't concern us. So, to answer the question, should we push for globalization? In my opinion, I think the risk is to great when thinking of offending other cultures. If they want our help, they will ask for it.
- John Nathan Colicchio
Good thoughts Nathan. However, I don't believe globalization is something we can turn off like a switch. Technology makes it inevitable. Think about how transportation technology made the "first" globalization occur. Ships that could withstand ocean travel and a desire to trade (or get rich) was the first engine. That was multiplied with the invention of steam power (ships and trains) which intensified globalization to a degree in the 19th and early 20th century that hasn't been reached since. Do you think that in a world of high powered air travel or modern ocean shipping we can 'stop' globalization? I don't think so.
It seems to me that, although we can't really stop globalization, we should be able to create some mechanism to at least slow it down or restrict it. In light of the movie we saw today about the WTO, it seems like most of this globalization is an expansion of ideas (forced mainly by the world's superpowers), rather than a true exchange of ideas and commodities. It is a process that began somewhat accidentally, but I think that right now it is too quick-spreading and powerful (as it even conflicts with sovereignty) to not have input from all countries or regions. For example, the American cultural or technological companies (McDonald's, IBM) force their way into other countries through the WTO and free trade. In my opinion, when these agreements are drawn up, there should be an actual vote in the WTO to pass them, or let some countries reject it if it will hurt their economy. It might help improve international relationships if Africa, South America, and other poorer places could determine whether to accept new ideas and not be forced into damaging their countries and interfering in the lives of their citizens.
-Katie Head
One point in particular that I pulled from the short film on the WTO today in class was the fact that the WTO has such strong support for big business such as McDonald's, Coca-Cola, etc.. This complimented with the fact that the WTO forces farmers to give up their land, small businesses to go bankrupt, and so many to lose their way of living in favor of free trade makes for a terrible combination. It undoubtedly explains why the rich get richer and the poor remain in long-term poverty. Those living in such poverty cannot even get access to clean water or many other necessities that are taken for granted by those that stimulate the free market global economy(big business). The WTO protects these people and industries because they are in the best interest for those countries which are in a sense hegemons(United States). The organization rules against laws regarding health and environmental issues with products. One can argue that this is a corrupt way of saving even more money for those big businesses that stand to lose profits as a result of the laws. Globalization and the WTO take away from territorial sovereignty as Nick stated in class as a result of forcing countries within their borders to abide by the rules set by the organization. So even if these rules are not beneficial and may even be harmful to the state, there is no choice but to submit to them. These rules favor the rich countries, and explain why the poor remain poor. I will no longer wonder how this phenomena continues to occur.
Jordan Naftzinger
I found a really interesting (albeit long) article/lecture notes called "INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS & THE PRACTICE OF HEGEMONY"
Here is the site--
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/polis/englishschool/watson-hegemony02.doc"
I read the whole thing through and found it very helpful in distinguishing what is was that we were actually talking about...
One of the author's points in the very beginning of the article is a good summary of the globalization and hegemony practices that exists in the US.
Here is the line...
"Now I realise how much the hegemony of the West and especially the U.S. also aims to modify the internal behaviour of other states and communities."
I think that hegemony is really a "useful concept" that distinguishes between what separate sovereign states think should occur between states and what actually happens internationally. Hegemony can be compared simply to international superiorty because it really is the idea that the technological, economic and strategic(whether military or conceptual) superiority of a single great power/group of powers, can also lead to less powerful and less influential states to "lose some of their external and internal independence."
-- Megan Pettingill
I just began reading a book called The World Is Flat, by Thomas L. Friedman. The book opens with him arriving in India and seeing a plethora of American owned companies - Dell, AOL, etc. It is about globalization and the way that the economy is being completely changed by the outsourcing of huge corporations to places like India and China where they are paid extremely low wages. With the advancements of technology you can transfer information and products anywhere in the world, which is becoming increasingly smaller and more similar everywhere. There is an overview of what he thinks the main reasons for the new "flattening" of the world are on Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_is_Flat#Book_jacket
I think that his exploration of these ideas relates completely to our class and the fear that the true cultures and traditions of these countries are going to be overun by the superpowers of the world. I think that although there are still places without any outside influence from the West, it is only a matter of time until they too feel the effects of globalization.
-- Katharine Gray
That the world is undergoing vast homogenization is a fact not a question. I began reading "classics" this past year and became familiar with all of the attnetion to detail that the author's would include when describing a foreign country or even a foreign character. Then I went n a family trip to Spain, France and Italy...just a quick run through of some of the big cities. Once there, though, it was clear that all of these details that used to mark one country from another were either absent or recreated by the current inhabitants in order to try and spark some nostalgia from the way things were. Of course there were places that were historical and unique, but at the same time, I remember being very aware that the places and the people did not have any type of extraordinary feel to them as you may expect. Every place began to seem like the last with all the technology and chains around. I just thought it was interesting to see the change that we have undergone so fast, mostly within the last couple decades.
-Anna Post
Katharine, someone recommended The World is Flat to me over the summer and I really enjoyed it and would recommend it to those who haven't read it.
As mentioned above globalization cannot be stopped but in response to Katie neither should we try to slow it down. The World is Flat makes a great argument to this and essentially says the world is flattening due to technology and globalization will move forward with or without us participating. It will be much more beneficial to the United States if we do participate instead of standing in the way of the inevitable.
Friedman in the book makes the point that one of the consequences of a flat world is that the playing field becomes more level. We see this with the growth of the Chinese economy and that of India's as well. The United States as a result must become more competitive in response instead of trying to slow down globalization.
Its unfortunate when American workers lose their jobs to outsourcing but technology enables this to occur and we cannot stop that. The upside is technology also creates new jobs. One of the ways we stay competitive is to have an educated workforce that is creating new technologies and in the process creating new jobs. Trying to slow down the impact of globalization keeps us from participating in a globalizing world while the rest of the world becomes more engaged and competitive in it.
Charles (C.J.) Augustine
A potential solution to to erosion of sovereignty also ties in with the recent discussion of the security dilemma question. Indeed, if the major nuclear powers were to turn over their strategic arms to the United Nations, then I believe a world government would become a possibility, as no nation would seek to develop nuclear arms if the United Nations were ready and willing to launch a decapitating nuclear assault on any nation that tried.
However, this would likely also result in an increase in local, conventional conflict. Without the spectre of nuclear holocaust dangling over the heads of the world's governments, limited regional conflicts would likely be pursued without as much fear as they are now. In any case, just a thought.
-Luke Kaczmarek
I think its a very interesting point that the world "flattens" as technology increases and this causes the playing field to even out. I've never thought about it that way. I have to agree that it is a shame that some of the jobs American's have been counting on are going to go elsewhere, but I think it could be a really good thing that we are able to provide jobs for those in less developed countries. I don't understand how it could hurt the economy of those countries. I know that we are paying them less than we would pay American workers, but they are still provided with jobs. Returning back to the topic, the globalization of the world is what allows the jobs to be sent overseas.
ooops...i didn't sign my name to that.
-- bethany kravitz
The concept of globalization is not only remarkable but also quickly developing. However, whether or not it is necessarily a good thing is certainly up for debate. For one, the developing of industries in many poorer countries does provide jobs and, as I imagine, it does stimulate these countries' economies. Nevertheless, the negative effects and reactions to globalization can be seen in everyday life, even in America. For one, as the video shown in class concerning the WTO illustrates, it is certainly not beneficial for all groups including farmers. Furthermore, it has contributed to the development and actions of terrorist groups. By some, this homogenization is seen as an imposition of the West upon Eastern countries. Perhaps as another method of domination. Concerning the past relations the West has had with many of these countries, the conclusion is understandable. Also, when dealing with globalization one faces the changes spawned in different cultures. When a McDonalds opens on a street corner in India, serving burgers, one has to wonder at the cultural results. Thus, I am not sure whether this homogenization is truly a desirable concept.
-- Ashley Mortimer
My dad grew up in Europe going to boarding school's in many different countries. He moved back the the U.S. after college and lived here, working in New York City, until he moved back to London in 2001. I thought it would be interesting to hear his position on what we discussed in class last week about whether or not the EU could ever become one country, since he has sort of witnessed Europe's evolution first hand most of his life.
He told me that he had heard this topic debated and discussed a lot, and that there are many people who would like for this to happen but he thinks it would be incredibly unlikely, at least in our lifetimes. He said that many countries are still trying to become part of the EU, and that the poorer countries of Eastern Europe are posing a threat to the richer, Western countries because of the drastic differences in their economies. Basically, when it comes down to it, there is way to much conflicting national interest within the EU for it to ever conform to one government. He also said that there are theories that the EU could expand so much and become so big that it could one day collapse under it's own weight.
I just thought it would be interesting to have a different point of view on the subject--
-- Katharine Gray
Globalization is an inevitable consequence of the world that we live in today. If you go into the largest cities all over the world, you will see that they are slowly loosing their unique cultural identity and are moving towards a sort of futuristic standard “metropolis”. Economically globalization is essential. People inside the united states that say we need to keep jobs in the country are only hurting the country as a whole. Buisnessees inside the US cannot compete, the price of labor here is too high. The problem that exists with globalization is that eventually the strong nations will run out of weak countries to exploit. Even Marx predicted this. The fule that keeps globalization running is the cheap labor coming from underdeveloped countries. China for example is starting to assert itself, buying expensive goods and stressing the world supply of gasoline.
Globalization is a good thing. A great example is Wallmart. While many people claim to hate wallmart, those same people clearly have not been inside Wallmart and have not benefited from the cheap prices it has to offer. Wallmart can offer these prices because of its efficiencey. It cuts down on the inneficiencies of doing buisness by employing a model that lets it know where every product it is selling is at every point on its way to the wallmart store. In this way, it can reduce prices by only ordering the exact number of products that it needs. Companies that cannot compete should not exist, this is the nature of capitalism.
-Ryan Davenport
Katherine,
Thanks for getting your dad's perspective on this issue! It's certainly helpful to get the point of view of someone that is tied to the continent in a big way. My dad also grew up in Europe and he basically has said the same thing.
Cheers,
-ng-
I believe that globalization is helping to create an economy that parallels the classic model of capitalism, in which rational individuals are trying to accomplish their own goals and interests with access to so much information, which is relatively free from government control and geographical boundaries.
It is also helping to foster a society that is closer to the original capitalist model, in which power lies more and more in the hands of the individual rather than in governments, where people are free to pursue the "good life" wherever they find it.
The main reason why the arguments against globalization can seem so persuasive is the fact that the opponents of it are much more visible. Opponents are limited to smaller, concentrated places in our world, where those that benefit from globalization are much more spread out and common.
-Tanner Herpst
Globalization is a thing that for the most part will always be linked to monetary values. Now is that to say that a country or government or group would not like to rule the world under one binding philosophy? No. The problem is that such a situation will never happen. There is too much difference between humans as a whole for them to all answer to one single entity. Now globalization in reality, is linked to menetary values. now what I mean by that is that most things that are globalized have an ultimate dollar sign bhind them. Trade - Is for monetary gain between two seperate states. Another way to look at it is franchising - corporations. Should you go to China McDonalds will be there, Starbucks will be there. Wal Mart, Home Depot, Target, Krispy Kreme, they're everywhere! Cell phone services, computers, T.V's, the same things are sold in all corners of the globe. Why are the same things sold everywhere? Money, more people to buy things, more money to be spent. Selling the same things everywhere globalizes us in that way. Monetary values; that's what globalizes.
Christopher Fromme
I agree with chris that money is a big player in globalization, because, as we all know, people with the money make the rules. If you have none, you just have to go along with it as best you can until you get some to change things.. for the most part anyway.
What I have to wonder about globalization is, if the world's countries are so easily influenced by things such as popular culture, religion, language, etc., how long are they going to be able to stand up against the spread of politics and economic things too? I mean, it's already happened time and again to certain extents, but will it eventually become homogenized to the extent that it's a global economy? Yes, it's the question everyone asks anyway, and I agree that there are so many differences among peoples of the world that its hard for us to envision such a world society, BUT I'm sure people in the past believed even more so that global phenomena that are around now would "never happen."
Globalization is an everpresent, underlying force that no one can control, so i can't really see how anyone can rationally oppose it. Can the intangible flow of culture and ideas come to a complete halt? The WTO may have its problems but even if it didn't exist, trade would reach all the corners of the world. Credit card numbers can be exhanged for goods directly over the internet through fiber optics connecting potato farmers in Russia to tool manufacturers in California. Globalization isn't good or bad, it's just there. Sure goods from around the world are more accessible to every human, but there are also the factories in mexico paying a few pesos a day to eager employees of foreign companies. In every system, there is a balance of positive and negative. An example of the most basic of systems would be the atom, and they seem pretty stable. When an atom is manipulated and split, the consequences are devastating. So it's probably a better idea to just let globalization run its course.
John Dalo
I agree with some of the posts above about globalization. Although there are mcdonalds all over the globe, they will never be exactly the same. I was born in Hong Kong and they have McDonalds, KFC, and 711s all over the place. I went back last winter and I went to all of these stores. While they all have the same logo, the actual store is totally different than here in the US. Ideas are exchanged and adapted globally and I believe that there are way too many differences between cultures to ever have a homogenized world. The uniqueness of every nation prevents any attempt of globalized homogenization from happening.
When government systems were globalized, they never followed a certain guideline. They all adapted to their own nations, thus thwarting homogenization of government systems. Globalization of ideas and concepts have different results or effects on the different number of nations that take in the ideas.
-Chun (Ben) Choi
I just read an interesting article by the NY Times about how French President Sarkozy urges the French people to accept globalization. He explains, "We will not obtain growth if we don't play the game of globalization collectively... Let's look at the world and ask ourselves the question: Should we be naïve to the point of being the only ones not to defend our interests when all the others are defending theirs?" Globalization, a prime component in the recent French elections, is forcing France to make some tough decisions. Over the years, globalization has made many French people fear their jobs and most importantly culture. I believe that if they are careful, it is in their best interest to acknowledge and accept globalization. Although the fear of losing culture and jobs will loom over the French, it comes down to deciding whether to perish or adapt.
-Heather Starner
Globalization literally means oneness and homogeneity in terms of nation, market and people. With regard to nation, globalization brought us a borderless world, thus culminating in being a global village. Traditional Ideologies such as communism, and socialism and others vanished and instead were integrated into new hybrid thought and idea, which is so-called a global democracy. In market, all multinational and global companies expand their products and services to the end of the earth so that everyone in global village became to enjoy the same brands, as we did. What happened to people or consumer, some people including myself and young adults wanted to share the global culture, while other adults adhered to their own local culture. This finally resulted in civilization clash and cultural failure. Globalization not only gave many nations and their people tremendous benefits and wealths, but also, exerted evil influence and mischiefs to other small and frail societies simultaneously. So, globalization is the standardization. We have to think globally but should act locally.
-Kim, Hyo Suk
There is no doubt that globalization has its benefits. Specifically for societies that are shown an easier way of life. However, total globalization should not be the goal of the world. By doing this the world would be wiped clean of cultural traditions and beliefs. One might argue that a person can choose to accept it or live in a more primitive style but even this is becoming hard to do. These cultural traditions are the very same features that make our world unique. Personally when i take a vacation from work in thirty years I dont want to go to a place that looks like where I came from. Because globalization occurs on many different levels I realize that it cannot be entirely stopped. This is not my desire I merely wish to preserve the diversity of the world. Political globalization is something that can obviously improve the status of a country. Therefore any influence that caused a move from dictatorship to democracy would be an example of beneficial globalization.
---Ryan Shaw
I think that Globalization is occuring everyday but although we will never be able to stop it, I think we can atleast slow it down. I do think that it would be useful if the things most of us take for granted were accessible to others who don't know what it's like to receive proper health care or be able to take part in the technology we use everyday. I do not think our world will ever be one and completely agree on the same things for there are so many different viewpoints on religion, politics, ethnics and even simple things as getting on myspace and blogging that are very different. I do believe though, Globalization is something we should all be more familarized with because it will never go away and could effect us greatly in the future.
-Kelley Thompson
I do not believe that globalization could ever be so all-encompassing as to negate the idea of "sovereign states" or unique-ness in the world or culture. As is often discussed in my PoliSci 150 class, the more alike a group of people are, the easier it is for the government to do its job. If people did not have diverse wants and needs, and if there were not such a scarcity of resources, there would be no need for government because people would automatically do what would then be considered right and in the best interests of the country. The fact that this is not the case, that there is such a multiplicity of opinions, wants, and needs across national borders (and within them), implies that the opposite is actually the case. Government systems have so many issues and problems in international law-making and policy-making (etc.) that diversity (and different wants and needs of the people) and the need for sovereign states are as alive and necessary as ever.
C. Faith Woodworth
I believe globalization has both good and bad impacts on the world today. Granted we are all thankful that we are able to drive Japanese cars, use technological advances that were created by other countries and so forth; however we fail to see that globalization is also taking a lot of culture away from many small countries. Globalization is taking away their authenticity by familiarizing them with the western culture. Once the entire world becomes westernize there will no longer be any uniqueness, the countries that rely on tourism will economically be destroyed, and most people will not take vacations because everyone and everything will be the same. Anthropologists will be very angry that they can’t do their job anymore. This world is going to fall apart if western globalization continues to destroy all these unique cultures with their selfish ideology.
ddepina@udel.edu
Globalization to me is a good and a bad thing. I think that it has been helpful in the development of third world nations and will continue to help them, but i think that it hurts because with nations such as the U.S England and the rest of Western Europe i think it takes away from countries identity and turns them in to what ever it is the U.S or Western Europe wants. Another is that it helps trade among nations which is a very good thing. So i think it is more good than bad.
Andrew Unthank
I believe the world is moving towards globalization, between the migration of different immigrants into different countries and the importing/exporting of products. But the world is not becoming more homogenized. When immigrants move into different countries, they keep alot of their views and beliefs that may differ from the original citizens of that country. Some one may move accross the world, but speak the same language. The people of the world may be blending, but I don't think it would ever lead to something as drastic as a universal lanquage or religion. The diversity in language and culture will keep the world from being completely homogeneous.
-Eric Boruta
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20254745/
I have been wondering about this issue recently. Who is responsible for upholding safety regulations in a highly globalized world. The consumer or the producer. At first thought I think it is the consumers job to not to buy the item.Also, once the item is found to be unsafe it will most likely not be bought. So, the producer will either have to change or lose a very large amount of customers. Since the public is usally not able to research all the products they buy, either becuase of knowledge or lack or resources the government has usally been responsible for this. Examples are the FDA in the US. The IR part to this is can you make a country have the same safety regulations as you if they are to trade with you? Also, who is responsible for making this change? Or do you just let economics take their course and eventually fix the problem?
-Ryan Wallace
Globalization as it relates to hegemony is a very tricky topic. Because in one perspective the idea of the US acting in ways that suit it best is a good thing. It would mean better living and qualities of life inside the US. The creation of policies and systems by the US will always be towards a hegemony. No nation will willingly create or condon a policy that would hurt it or its peoples. This may seem like a cold hearted few but it is reality. To sacrifice liberties and rights for others is something that no nation should freely accept. So is the US a hegemony? I think it is and it should be. In the game of survival any nation that posesses the strength should act on it.
~Kevin Wright
Globalization is beneficial to the U.S and to the rest of the world. I don't believe that the world will ever become homogenized because of globalization. Since a few centuries ago,as portrayed in "The Origins of the Modern World" the interaction between different countries has been increasing. Furthermore, I feel that countries have not lost their culture or uniqueness because of globalization. If anything, other parts of the world are more knowledgeable and receptive to different cultures. Eventhough globalization might cause some mingling of cultures and tradtions,countries are not going to loose their heritage and customs completely because of globalization.
Roopa Sabesan
Since the beginning of man, globalization has been an active issue into the actual advancement of man. Striving for globalization is a good thing, however, it will never be possible. As other countries try to equalize, they will undoubtedly advance in ways that they actually surpass the countries that they are trying to emulate. It will become a never ending cycle. Some countries will not ever be able to get to the levels of "super powers", but thats to be expected with "survival of the fittest", which pertains to countries as well. Sure there haven't been any current century countries that have been wiped off the map, but thats because they strive to survive and become like the other countries. So homogenization is a good thing, but will never become reality.
-Kristian Quiroz-
i feel as though the concept of globablization is almost as far-fetched a topic as world peace. even if globablization were an attainable feat, would we really want to put bring that onto the world stage? keep in mind past attempts of globalization have included the nazi party movement and the crusades, which are only viewed semi-positively because they were written by europeans touting it as an honorable attempt to recover jerusalem. the homogenization of world culture is one step up from the attainment of world peace because not only does it require recognition of all beliefs but it requires the incorporation of these beliefs into already ancient religious and ethnic structures. basically it comes down to whether or not you think that globalization is even possible before you ever consider whether it is a good idea or not.
-mack shane
From a cultural standpoint, I think people are aware of Globalization and the people are informed about this phenomena, they just choose whether or not to accept it and welcome it to their culture or not. My heritage is filipino from the country of Philippines, everytime we go to the Philippines we would see a Mcdonalds in every mall, every city, etc. All my cousins and friends would always choose the Mcdonalds, when presented with choices of our ethnic food or Mcdonalds and so growing up I thought Mcdonalds was just as part of our culture as it was USA. I didn't find out till later on where it originated.
I actually heard this from a friend who had a similar story when his friends were in town from the US, they wanted to taste good food around the place in Phils. and he said a new place opened up that is really popular with the people It turned out it was a TGI Fridays.
While there are benefits to globalization, there are disadvantages such as closing down the small stores because of superchain walmarts. It also does not let the country grow creatively , people are not able to show and create new things because they cannot establish themselves and connot compete with the Mcdonalds of the world.
~Michelle Rana
I don't believe that globalization is a concept, but a fact. At this point in the development of the human species, one can get mostly anywhere in the world in under a day's worth of travel thanks to airplanes. With the advent and explosion in popularity of the internet, news from the most obscure points of the globe are right at our fingertips. Granted, we are still at a point where there is a huge difference between the haves and have-nots, the closer we move towards a 'homogenization', the further I feel we get from a true sense of 'homogenization'. Its like we keep seeing diminishing returns the closer our global community becomes. At one point, I feel that people will want to retain enough of their individual culture that they will stop adopting others. I don't think that we will ever reach a point of uniformity with people around the world. There are too many different viewpoints that people have to ever reach a true homogeneity with all facets of society. However, reaching a somewhat close state of homogeneity may be good for the world because that could potentially lead to less conflicts and wars due to similar views.
-Ian Dixon
As I was reading people's comments, I began thinking about the effect globalization has had on the world. What I thought, though, was that what would make more sense would be to think about the effects we have had on globalization. The world has been undergoing some type of globalization forever. But, in more recent decades, it has become increasingly apparent that all areas of the world are interrelated and becomign homogenized as well. How does this happen? The only thing that then comes to mind is technology. Technology has been the underlying force, since the beginning of time. It does not matter whether it was the steam engine bringing raw materials across the ocean faster, or the iPhone allowing you to e-mail your penpal in Japan while sitting in class. Technology has forever been the driving force behind globalization, and we as people have been the driving force behind technology. All of this leads me to think, where will we steer the world in the future? It truly is in th palm of our hands.
-Anna Post
Post a Comment