The Challenges
and Perspectives of Globalization: Global Vision, Democracy and Local
Resistance
Dr. Eshete
Gemeda
University of
Southern Denmark
The Theory of Compressing
and Singularizing Natural Diversity
Globalization,
expansion and transnational alliance are not something we heard today. These
terms, which are historically associated with power arrangement and a search
for economic space, had emerged in the late 15th century.
The expansion of European institutions across national boundaries goes back to
the early voyages of the great navigators at the end of the 15th
century through to the mass migration of Europeans across the Atlantic in the
late 19th
and early 20th
centuries. In the 100 years following 1430, the world was explored by the
leading European maritime nations, like French, British, Spanish and
Portuguese. These countries expanded the search for more space in the world and
developed outward surveys, while other powerful countries continued doing
research inwardly to know more about overseas as a hostile threat. Both the
domestic and overseas survey projects were attended by expansion, espionage and military experts of the period. Today’s
arguments of many opposing forces of globalization are rooted in this history
of European Empires and the disruptive consequences of the movements of empire
builders. “This is clearly a major precursor of globalization as we know it
today” (Dunkerley, 2000: 7).
By the end of the 18th
century, the powerful global forces of capitalists and imperial theoreticians
emerged and this empowered European institutions to take root across the world
throughout the 19th
century and up to the mid-20th century. From these
historic moments onwards, the influence of the West intensified under the
impact of Christianity, civilizing missions and industrialization. The imitation of
European high culture, traditions, norms and values was the order of the day.
In general, the Westernization of the globe became the reality of colonial and
postcolonial times. Massive European migration to the New World (the United
States of America) and later to Australia and New Zealand had taken place.
“Meanwhile, missionaries and European travellers began to extol the otherness of exotic cultures, especially
in the period 1850-1880” (Beynon 2000). From the early voyage and colonial expansion to the present globalization,
every attempt of reshaping or re-modernizing the world to meet the ideology of global melting pot,
proved itself to be both constructive and destructive. The struggle for
redefining and interpreting globalization is to avoid costly mistakes of
postmodernism and postcolonial era. It is the struggle for global democracy in
which every nation becomes the master of its home and its establishments.
The fixed or natural boundaries and borders (e.g.
Western Europe) and the unnatural
boundaries (e.g. Africa) that have been created by blood and iron in the
European nineteenth-century process of nation-building and ethnic separation,
still contain the foundation of myths that one underpinned them. But everyday
political narratives of the modernists tell us another story in which abstract constructs of post-globalism
become real and concrete. As indicated earlier, the emergence of the idea of
global modernity occurred in the early 16th century,
and with the rise of modern capitalism, the term globalization has come to
being and used as the expression of a ‘New
Phase of Technological Revolution’ and the transition from one capitalist
stage to the next complex stage of development marked by military presence.
Many scholars, writers and activists believe that the age of globalization has
not only brought about cultural and social compression, but also generated new
challenges. It may be argued that modern civilization has different phases of
development (from lowest to highest) and these phases of modernity or what I
call the turning-points in modern history and monumental changes, are marked by
the advancement of capitalism, the search for lucrative markets, political
complex and socio-cultural transformation. “Globalization in our time is
qualitatively different from previous manifestations in that modernization has
accelerated globalization which has now permeated contemporary consciousness”
(Robertson 1992). The term globalization, which represents historical shift and
rearrangement of economic power, emerged to show the way global modernity in
its highest stage transformed the world into deterritoriality and transnational
alliance characterized by a highly centralized
system, cultural compression and new
militarism. Robertson traces the origin of globalization back to earlier
times in which he identifies five historical phases of globalization in Europe
(see Dunkerley 2000). The First Phase
(1400-1750) shows the initial stage of global exploration, along with the
spread of the Roman Catholic Church; the wide-spread adoption of Gregorian
calendar, the advent of mapping modern geography, the growth of national
communities and of the state system. The rise of Phoenicians (1500) as colonial
powers is also included in this period. The First
Phase before 1500 was known as Pre-modern
Era in which a sense of globalization was inter-regional within Eurasia (Euro-Asian) and the Americas based
on political and military empires. It was the time when massive movement of
people into the uncultivated areas took place. 1500-1850 is known as The Early Modern Globalization. The
stage of development was marked by the rise of the West and the Movement of
Europeans into the Americas and the Oceania. “It was in this period that
world religions spread and exerted their most significant cultural influence,
especially Christianity and Judaism, both of which attained a global
distribution” (Dunkerley, p. 10). The Second
Phase (1750-1875) is the emergence of the internationalism in the form of
global relations and exhibitions as non-European countries began to be admitted
to the European dominated International
Society. It was the period during which global colonial rivalry and
expansion intensified. In general, the First and the Second Phases cover the
history of the Atlantic Slave Trade
of 1440-1850. The Third Phase
(1875-1925) was the take-off stage of
universalism characterized by globalizing tendencies such as expanding
communication strategies and increasing economic and political relations, as
well as cultural and sport links (e.g. Olympic movement). The First World War (1914-1918) is included
in this process of globalism. The phase of Modern
Globalization ranges from 1850-1925. This is an era of the acceleration of
global networks and communication, cultural flows dominated by the European
powers, notably the British; and the great migration of the Europeans to the
New World (now The United States and Australia). The Fourth phase (1939-1969) was the period during which fierce
economic rivalry between the rising capitalists and the struggle for dominance
increased in a new form. The First World War and the Inter-War Period
(1914-1939) were characterized by new colonial strategies, the re-division of
the colonies and the creation of artificial or unnatural Boundaries (e.g.
Africa). The Second World War
(1939-1945), independence from colonialism (1945-1960) and the founding of ‘The
United Nations’ occurred during this stage of global modernity. The Fifth Phase (1969-1989) was the era of Cold War during which the political
tension between the two super powers-The United States and the former Soviet
Union, threatened the world. This historical moment is characterized by the
moon-landing and planetary exploration, the emergence of global institutions,
global mass media and the world-wide debates concerning race, ethnicity,
gender, sex, and the protection of human rights.
In the preceding
section, I have attempted to explain in brevity, the colonial impact of
globalization. In terms of global imperial expansion, globalization is
associated with the emerging of economic imperialism and new militarism.
Imperialism refers to a policy of one country or many countries or peoples, usually developed, to extend its political and
economic control over other territories or peoples of the developing nations.
Imperialistic movements are of different kinds: political, financial or
economic, military, linguistic and cultural. Imperialistic views and policies
often emerge under different pretexts and restrict individual and national
freedom by expanding ruthless exploitation of natural resources. Economic
imperialism is characterized by the prevailing of deep crisis, mal-distribution
of resources and income, together with monopolistic behaviour to grow powerful
at the misfortune of others. In other words, the open up new markets and new
investment opportunities in the developing world actually means domination and
the impoverishment of the native populations. In the event of colonial globalization
of 1440-1944, the map of the colonized world, especially Africa, undergone
complete change, with most of the boundary lines have been drawn in a sort of game of give-and-take played in the foreign offices of the
transnational alliances of the leading European colonial powers, like Great
Britain, France, Spain and Portugal. By 1900, Africa was almost entirely
divided into separate territories controlled by the powerful European colonial
powers. The only exceptions were
Liberia, generally regarded as under the special protection of the United
States, and Ethiopia which was under the protection of Great Britain.
Between May 1884 and February 1885, Germany made its first major bid for
membership in the Club of Colonial Powers
and announced its claims to territory in South-west Africa- Togoland and
Cameroon and part of the East African Coast opposite Zanzibar. Two smaller
regions- Belgium and Italy also entered the ranks. Portugal and Spain once
again became active in bidding for African territories. In general, in the
process of colonial modernity and globalization, the increasing number of
participants in itself sped up the race for conquest and destabilization. With
the rapid growth of imperial economic and political rivalry followed militarism
and wilderness. The struggle of European colonial powers to control the
Mediterranean Sea and the rise of Ottoman Empire complicated colonial
globalism. This together with the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 increased
the importance of the domination of the Mediterranean and North Africa-
Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Egypt and Libya. The division of modern Africa,
ethnic polarities and conflicts are the result of colonial modernity and
arbitrary rule of imperialism. Whenever we discuss globalization, the timing,
the space and conditions of the scramble for the developing world are
historically noteworthy. The past historical development of colonial
globalization enables us to be alert of the historical mission of the current
movement for global convergence and power arrangements.
I suggest the Sixth Phase is also necessary because
this phase, which may be referred to as today’s globalization, has its own
peculiar characteristics and dramatic developments. Thus, the Sixth Phase (1989 to the present) is an
age of the highest form of modernity in which complex information technology
and business advancement compressed the world as one place. The end of Cold War and the disintegration of the Berlin Wall took place in this new stage
of globalism. As already discussed, in the event of this highest form of
civilization of the 21st
century, we entered another era of uncertainty, economic competitions, natural
and man-made disasters, environmental hazards, climate changes, new deadly
diseases, like AIDS, Wars, the rapid increase of organized crimes, the revival
of ancient ethnic hatred, sectarian violence, the re-emergence of old racism in
new forms and the rise of global extremism. Ethnicity, the immense influence of
global media and the increasing demand for multicultural democracy are also
observable in today’s globalization. I have repeatedly emphasized that the
contradictory nature of contemporary globalization makes its future more
complex and uncertain.
But what makes contemporary globalization unique is that the world
has moved from being in itself towards being for itself, in that, increasingly, nations now engage more in
a wide range of economic, military and cultural contacts and people everywhere
have increasingly come to comprehend the world as one place and to think, feel
and act globally” (Beynon and Dunkerley, 2000: 9).
In order for the
world community to think, feel and act globally, globalization need to address
powerfully the problematic issues confronting pluralistic democracy: the failed
governance, the building of military machine, one-sided view of the world
(extreme worldviews), global inequalities, the
ideology of making violence and the criminalization of societies. Global
inequalities and seeking militaristic solution to human conflicts reinforce
cultural dichotomies, religious frictions and social fragmentations. As
indicated by Schulz (p. 52), the dominant paradigm in communication research
and theory has been a theoretical enclave within this larger
theoretical-ideological formation, a part of its imperializing thrust. It has
lived off the theoretical and institutional global power and dominance of that
particular mode of thought. The dominant mode of thought has expanded and persisted
in different form across the globe, inscribing other intellectual
institutions,
other intellectuals and their traditions. It
has inscribed everyone else into a subordinate placewithin its theoretical and
ideological universe. Historically, globalization as a contradictory transformational theory has embraced and continued to foster the use of force, global system of
exploitation, the metaphor of subordination and imperialistic intellectualism
within its theme of deterritoriality and universalism. In general, the failure
to rethink the problematic issue of compressing
the globe has fuelled global tensions and re-energized nationalisms of
different kinds.
Schulz’s research of
2010 shows that after the great global expansion of communication studies under
American sponsorship in the 1950s, it was almost the order of the day to say, “I am a communicator scholar,” and
everyone knew exactly where you were, and what direction you were thinking in.
Schulz sees that type of fancy expression as a form of intellectual
imperialism. Progressively, however, as that ideological formation has come
into contestation with other social forces in the world, as that conception of
intellectual work has increasingly been challenged by alternative models and theories, its crisis has been precipitated
and crisis of communication studies coincided with it. It is the crisis of that
general theory, indeed, of that social formation, which is the real problem for
global interconnection and communication studies of today.
The Metaphor of
Interdependence: The Consequence of Universalizing and Centralizing the Culture of Regional Powers
Different scholars
define globalization in different ways depending on their worldviews, that is,
on the basis of their theoretical and ideological backgrounds. According to
Tomlinson (1999), globalization refers to the rapidly developing and ever-increasing
network of interconnections and interdependences that characterize modern
social life. Tomlinson sees globalization as an empirical condition- the
complex connectivity everywhere in the world today. McGrew (1992) speaks of
globalization as the intensification of global interconnectedness and
emphasizes the multiplicity of linkages it implies; namely goods, capital,
people, knowledge, image, crime, pollutants, drugs, fashions and beliefs all
readily to flow across territorial boundaries. In this definition, we see that
transnational networks, social movements, political and economic relationships
are extensive in all working places. The notion of complex connectedness and
interdependence, which sometimes, marked by contradictions, is found in one
form or another, in most contemporary narratives of globalization. The key
point here is that the connections and relations suggested exist in very many
manifestations ranging from the socio-cultural and institutional relationships
that are rapidly increasing between individuals and groups worldwide, to the idea of
the flow of knowledge, commodities and information technology across national
borders. In a contemporary dynamics, globalization may be understood as the age
of Information Revolution, technological
advancement and business transformation marked by deterritoriality, expansion,
military presence, convergence, interconnectedness, interdependence, the flow
of knowledge, global integration and complex political scenarios. In this
sense, globalization must be viewed in the historical context of current
realities and developments in communication, media, culture and education.
The open-ended term interdependence does mean many things.
It could be forging genuine global intimacy or friendship in which equal
economic power and mutuality of feelings occur. Contrastingly, it can be seen
as a call for superficial oneness wherein the interconnectivity results in
espionage, military control, exploitation, regional destabilization and
polarization. For instance, the economic interdependence between the developed
nations and most of the developing ones is always based on the
dominant-dominated role relationships. The former controls both economic and
political power, whereas the latter is totally or partially disempowered. In
this type of interconnectivity, power
distance damages the relations. In a situation where global inequality
exists, interdependence and connectivity always operate on the basis of power
polarities. “Modernity, one should not forget, produces difference [good or
bad] exclusion, and marginalization. Holding out the possibility of
emancipation, modern institutions at the same time create mechanisms of
suppression rather than actualization” (Giddens, 2003: 6). From the early development of the modern era
to the present, modern institutions continued to be dynamic because they
embraced and fostered the idea of human freedom, though trickery and
traditional dogma have been far from over. According to Giddens, emancipation,
which is the sign of progressive enlightenment, reveals itself in various
guises. I think this holds true because in a world which is polarized by
unmatched economic and political powers, oppression of one group by the other
is inevitable. In such a situation, the significance of resistance politics
does not decline. In brevity, it is
unpractical to form perfect global unity within the growing power polarities.
The underlying point is that interconnectivity
theory, which is the core of globalization metaphor, does not necessarily
indicate intimacy, sincerity and forging equality of power.
From the traditional
past to the highest form of modernity, politics of human freedom works within a
hierarchical notion of power, that is, power is often understood as the
capability of an individual or group to exert its will directly or indirectly over
others. At every level of human development, several key concepts and orienting
aims tend to be especially characteristic of this vision of politics. Any
liberal political system is more or less concerned with either reducing or
abolishing exploitation, inequalities and marginalization. Globalization in
terms of the liberation of societies needs to give primacy to the imperativity
of social justice, peace, equitability and popular participation in decision-making. By participation I am referring to the involvement of a
truly represented body of people who have the ability to make things right. In a truly democratic process, every citizen
must play an active role in making his/her voice to be heard. If however,
globalization, instead of focusing on the decisive power of the grass-roots and
genuine representation, opts for promoting the political will of handful
politicians or representatives whose democracy is limited to procedural
election, then it is almost unlikely to speak of global power equality.
The concept of
globalization must transcend global
capitalist market or the shared global
environmental threat, like politics of global warming and climate change.
As Tomlinson (1999) has stated, intimacy or proximity takes us beyond the
empirical condition of connectivity. From the suspended animation of flight,
then, we have to confront the cultural adjustment of arrival. Our experienced
journey through time than space has not prepared us for the new reality of this
place. We have not experienced the sense of traversing of the real distance:
the gradual changes of scene, the gradations in climate, the series of social
interactions…the interruptions and pauses, the symbolical movements of border crossings
and the sheer physicality which travel in the real time….This compression of distance has left us temporarily dislocated and we
need to adjust to a reality which is immediate and challenging in its otherness,
precisely because it is so accessible. One measure of the accomplishment of
globalization, then, is how far the overcoming of physical distance is matched
by that of cultural distance (Tomlinson, 1999: 5-6)
Tomlinson compares a
journey by plane and the problems connected to that journey with globalization
and the difficulties confronting global politics in the process of business
journey across boundaries. The example is so striking in that it illustrates
the irony of the journey in which people focus on “time” than the reality on
the ground. The flight is symbolically set to elaborate uncertainties, cultural
and physical distance, compression and dislocation, in short, great challenges
surrounding the journey to the unknown territories and cultures. These are
again associated with global movements and the relative simplicity of border
crossing with its own risk and burden. Giddens’s (2003) controversial view about globalism is not far from this. Modernity
reduces the overall riskiness of certain areas and modes of life, and yet at
the same time introduces new risk parameters largely or completely unknown to
previous eras. These parameters include high-consequence risks: risks deriving
from the globalized character of the social, economic, cultural and political
systems of modernity (p. 4). As we move from one development to the next, we
inevitably experience new risks that can affect us adversely if we fail to find
out the way. Tomlinson has stressed that globalization needs to address the
issue of cultural distance and the importance of adjusting to that distance
than trying to compress it. The journey to host environments or localities is a
journey to the challenging realities of cultural and political differences,
posing the question of how far interconnectivity establishes intimacy beyond the
technological modality of increasing access to the lucrative world market. The
way globalization introduces a new way of thinking is appreciable in many
aspects, but this modern oriented movement needs to transcend the level of
information accomplishment. In this view, interconnectivity implies
transforming localities or regions in the interest of the native population,
not just picking selected individuals that can serve as mouthpieces. “Tracing
the phenomenology of this modality of connectivity pushes us towards a
high-profile understanding of globalization which is seductive but restricted
in its application” (Giddens p. 8).
Some critics, like
Ohmae argue that economic globalization is a myth. The way he understands
globalization with reference to cultural issues is deeply marked by one
dimensional approach. As I have repeatedly underlined, globalization should not
be viewed in black-and-white. If we do so, we lose our concrete perception of
realities. As any development in human history, globalization has negative and
positive aspects and these dimensions must be broadly analysed and presented to
the public for judgement. Scholars, writers, journalists and commentators as
living witnesses of the changing scenes need to document appropriately what is
historically acceptable and accurate and what is inaccurate, unacceptable or
invalid. If this living truth is undermined for whatever reason, the future
looks bleak for the Road-Map to
globalization. Both the broad utopian
vision and the extreme views
about globalization hardly appeal to rational thinkers. The reductionist
approach to realities and the hyperbolic portrayal of what is untrue have
always their own pitfalls.
For if globalization is understood in terms of economy, politics,
culture, technology and so forth, we can see that it involves all sorts of
contradictions, resistances and countervailing forces. Indeed, the
understanding of globalization as involving dialectic of opposed principles and tendencies- the local and global, universalism and
particularity-is now common, particularly in accounts which foreground cultural
issues (Axford and Featherstone, 1995)
It is
evident that economic globalization
has promoted a cross-border civilization and information technology, but this
positive development is contradicted by powerful military presence everywhere
and the ideology of global melting pot,
which declares universalism and uniformity. In cultural terms, we see
that a call for convergence outweighs
divergence. In fact, this tendency of
creating cultural singularity is
unwelcomed by those who adhere to pluralistic democracy. Recognizing the
significance of intercultural management matters for global movement because it
is the core of interconnectivity, social solidarity and marks out a symbolic
terrain of collective meaning construction. In economic terms, globalization
may be seen as a strategic shift of restructuring postmodern capitalism and
global advancement of capitalist hegemonic power characterized by centralizing theory. This characteristic
of globalization has not only raised ideological objections, but also posed
threats to local economies, cultures, religions, values, identities and
political traditions. In my meaning, a local sense of culture or localizing the
meaning of culture should not be challenged or suppressed by global sense of
cultural construction. Global thinking and building modern institutions are
necessary for coping with the constantly changing situations and outlooks, but
we must at the same time remain cautious not to dislocate or replace the
established social structures and values which characterize national existence.
When we talk of modernity, it is also essential to explore the complexity
surrounding it.
There is now a world culture, but we had better make sure we
understand what this means….No total homogenization of systems of meaning and
expression have occurred, nor does it appear likely that there will be one for
sometime soon. But the world has become one network of social relationships,
and between its different regions, there is a flow of meaning, as well as a
flow of people and goods (Hannerz, 1990: 237).
From Hannerz’s argument, we understand that globalization has created
complex networking and connectivity (positive development), but a vision of
forming global culture as a single
homogenized system of meaning is far from being realistic. The notion of
cultural universalism or globalizing culture implies that a single hegemonic
culture replaces and dominates the established cultural systems and values. I
think the idea of homogenizing
heterogeneity is not merely to impoverish or corrupt national and local
cultures, but to root them out as well. As Friedman (1994: 195) has argued, the discourse of cultural imperialism from around the late 1960s
tended to set the scene for the initial critical reception of globalization in
the cultural sphere, casting the process as an aspect of the hierarchical
nature of imperialism, that is, the increasing hegemony of particular central
cultures. If globalizing culture is to squeeze natural diversity into
impoverished and bankrupt homogeneity, then, global culture is more of a
nightmare than a promise.
For in discussing the emergence of global culture in this more robust
sense, we enter an essentially speculative discourse. The questions we are
dealing with are ones of possibility, likelihood and the reading of trends and
indications. But they are also questions that have been driven by on the other
hand, hopes and aspirations for a better world in which all human experience
may be united, improved and pacified; or on the other, fears of dystopia in which global cultural
diversity will be squeezed into one dominant, impoverished and homogenized version.
The discourse of an emergent global culture has thus, historically, been
largely one articulated around threat and promise, dream and nightmare
(Tomlinson, 1999: 72).
Any
form of modernity is threatening if it tends to emasculate, and destabilize
local people along ethnic, racial and political lines; undermines their
culture, replaces or corrupt their traditions, values and identities.
Contrastingly, modern civilization becomes successful if the new move or
development reshapes, modifies, cultivates or even alters the previously built
structures, without shaking the foundation upon which the national existence is
based.
A classical nation-state centric approach
to the pluralistic world does damage democratic principles and encourage
cultural imperialism, superficial unity and dystopian
vision of homogenization in which
national and regional identities vanish. “We do not live in a global
village where a mythic, all-encompassing, technology-based super society
replaces an outmoded and unwanted local social systems and cultures. Despite
technology’s awesome reach, we have not and will not, become one people”
(Dunkerley, 2000: 41) Dunkerley believes that potent homogenizing forces, including
military weaponary, advertising techniques, dominant languages, media formats
and fashion trends undeniably affect consciousness and culture in virtually
every corner of the world. Such spheres of influence introduce and reinforce
certain standardizing values and practices. But they do not enter cultural
uniformity contexts. They always interact with diverse local conditions. On a
global scale, homogenizing global forces encounter a wide range of traditions
and ideologies produced by heterogeneity.
As John Beynon (p. 2)
has highlighted, riding on the back of ever-more effective communication
technologies with global reach, contemporary globalization has undoubtedly
changed the relationship between time and space. In the process, it rendered
the world a more compressed place. As to the consequence of globalization,
people’s opinions are sharply divided on the basis of their ideological
backgrounds, especially in respect of cultural
deterritoriality and economic
convergence. This division can be seen in three ways: first, globalization
is understood by some as a perfect
progressive and liberating phenomenon which opened up the potential for
greater human connectedness and the world-wide spread of democracy, human
rights and intercultural understanding. The second view is that globalization
is nothing more than subversive
militaristic movement against national and local self-definition. According
to this view, globalization as a strategic tool for global exploitation is
characteristically a destabilizing force.
Beynon and Dunkerley (p. 11) have made similar statements in their definition
of globalism and globalization. Globalism
is the view that the world market is now powerful enough to supplant local and national political
actions. Globalization is the blanket
theory to describe the process
through which sovereign national states
are criss-crossed and undermined
by transnational actors with varying
prospects of power, orientations, identities and networks. The third group
believes that globalization has its own merit and demerit. In this case, it has
both negative and positive aspects. I think this is the right way of looking at
the politics of globalization. It is impossible to capture the true picture of
globalization in extreme terms. If we tend to reward extreme views, we situate
ourselves in a difficult condition and consequently lose a concrete perception
of historical realities. When we say human condition is global-oriented perspective, we are referring to a growing
awareness, openness and social solidarity conceived in people’s minds
throughout the world. This, however, does not mean humanity in its unified
whole or reducing diversity to a single totality.
Modernism and postmodern events have
had their own great hopes, promises, a wave of fear and predicaments, and so
has globalization, which is a combination of rewards and risking experiences. As portrayed in the
preceding sections, it is a rewarding experience because it has uplifted the
spirit of millions of people around the world, who lost their birthrights,
dignity and voices. The unrewarding experience of globalization is that it
insists on and overemphasizes one way of thinking about global culture and
unbalanced interdependence. It is within this complex often contradictory hegemonic-centric cultural and political projection that the vision of global convergence must be
analysed. Many opposing forces argue that global uniformity is an abstract
theory which is antithetical to global diversity. Some of the objections and
suspicions raised by several scholars and political activists are due to the
fact that globalization focuses on occidental bias, that is, its tendency to
stress a particular experience of democratic West by undermining, ignoring,
obscuring or superficially recognizing the rich diversity. The exploration of
speculative discourses of complex globalism and interconnectivity is thus to
facilitate the path for genuine global democracy and voluntary co-operation. I
used the term voluntary co-operation just
to make a distinction between utopian
visions of globalism of the late 19th century
(colonial era) and its corrupting influence, and globalization of the free
market world of the 21st
century.
In hegemonic terms,
one consumer culture (global culture) actually means to encourage the entire
lifestyle of people- that is, the style of eating habits, dressing,
architectural and music form, the pattern of cultural experience, presented by
the media, a set of philosophical ideas, values, attitudes, political
processes, religious views, scientific and technological rationality to be
dominated by the transnational actors.
The ideology of arbitrary universalism could be understood as the global spread
of social, cultural and economic totality.
Historically, globalization as part of Western civilization is a way of
expressing powerfully the economic, cultural, political and military presence
of the West everywhere (see different phases of globalism). This presence,
which is the powerful image of power and dominance, has been opened to
wide-spread criticism and sometimes violent confrontation (e.g. global activist
movements and resistance). Global modernity and the developmental theory of a
new world order in relation to seeking more space for economic and political
empowerment, imply the way people lose their specific direction in any cultural
and geographic location and have become the reproducers of cultural practices
that are contradictory to local traditions, values, customs and norms. This
type of cultural deterritoriality principle is not embraced by many modern
thinkers because it is disruptive than being constructive. Economic
globalization can generate deep anxiety and fear if a call for democracy is
mixed with espionage, patronizing attitudes, forcing circumstances and the
image of war.
In his book “The Westernization of the World” (1996),
the French political economist, Serge Latouche, presented a particularly
indictment of global modernity as the drive towards planetary uniformity and a world-wide standardization of lifestyle.
The contemporary global cultural critique is typical of this. In relation to
the theory of globalization, Latouche has identified two central tenets of the Western world: (1) deterritoriality
modality or global cultural control,
and (2) territoriality modality or local cultural control. He portrayed the former negatively and the
latter positively. According to his finding, the West is stratified into two
groups with regard to looking at cultural principles; namely the West in Itself and the West for Itself (see John Tomlinson
1999). The former refers to the West as an abstract
cultural principle, while the latter is to mean the West as a specific geo-cultural entity. This
means, the West for Itself is
basically characterized by a set of particular cultural practices identifiable
with a territorial base in which
local cultural control is stronger (e.g. Denmark, Switzerland, Spain, Canada,
Norway, Sweden, etc), whereas the West in
Itself characterized by deterritoriality
base (e.g. the United States). The deterritorialized
cultural modality or global-centred
cultural principle tends to focus on universalism, that is, without much sense
of local cultural control. On the other hand, territorialized cultural
modality adheres to the significance of geo-cultural
entity (local-centred cultural principle). Cultural nationalism and
identity feelings are stronger in the latter than the former. In the
deterritorialized base principle, what matters most is patriotism than
local-based cultural self-definition. In the event of the contraction of
European Empire and the decolonization process of 1945-1960, cultural
territorial retreat occurred, though the European cultural hegemony persisted.
Expansion,
de-territoriality and political complexity are the centre of controversy in
globalization. I say controversy because globalization, like modernism and
postmodernism, is unable to abolish or surmount the crimes of wars and the
politics of playing race cards. This leads us to the conclusion that
connectivity and interdependence in terms of unmatched relations are conditions
which need redefinition, elaboration and interpretation. The debates
surrounding cultural globalization and transnational alliance focus on the
perceived threat of cultural domination posed by the economically powerful
Western countries through political influence and the transmission of cultural
goods within the global and capitalist market. “In this perspective, what is
generally termed global culture is held to be an ideological tool in the
service of the revitalized, accelerated phase of global capitalism” (Beynon and
Dunkerley, 2000: 28). The control of world economy and technology is the
bedrock upon which cultural and political hegemony is built and sustained.
As argued by
Robertson (1992), if globalization is to mean the process whereby the world
increasingly becomes one place and
the ways in which we are made conscious of this process, then, the cultural and
social changes thematically set in postmodernism seem to point in the reverse direction by directing us to consider local or regional. This may be
taken as misunderstanding or misinterpreting the nature of the process of
globalization. Current globalization is understood by many to imply that there
is, or will be a unified world society and culture. In a global village world order, such an outcome could be thought of as
the ambition of certain dominant states at a turning-point in the history, and
the possibility of renewing or reshaping the world institutions and states in
their own images. Dunkerley and Beynon (p. 122) have realized that the growing
intensity of connectivity and communication between nation-states and
heterogeneous states may produce conflicting cultures if that
interconnectedness fails to draw a clear boundary between self and others. From
this perspective, the changing circumstances, that are the result of the current
phase of intensified globalization, can be understood as provoking reactions
that seek to rediscover particularity,
localism and difference, which
generate a sense of the limits of the culturally unifying projects associated
with Western modernity. In one sense, it can be argued that globalization in
some cases produces the theory of postmodernism. The manipulability of mass
audiences by the theory of monolithic
system and global assimilation
strategies may also result in the negative cultural effects of postcolonial
and postmodern times.
The first phase of globalization was plainly governed, primarily, by
the expansion of the West, and institutions which originated in the West. No
other civilization made anything like as pervasive an impact on the world, or
shaped it so much in its own image….Although still dominated by Western power,
globalization today can no longer be spoken of only as one-way of imperialism…
increasingly there is no obvious direction to globalization at all, and its
ramifications, then, should not be confused with the preceding one, whose
structures it acts increasingly subvert (Giddens, 1994b: 96).
Giddens argument shows that global modernity goes back to colonial
and postcolonial period, during which the colonial powers directly controlled
the territories and economies of the colonized world under the guise of civilizing missions. This period was
marked by intolerance, slavery and slave trade, cultural denial and the
expansion of colonial institutions that warped the mental universe of the
colonized nations. According to Giddens, today’s globalization differs from
global colonial modernity in that the West in some ways lost socio-cultural
grip (p. 52). His satirical explanation reveals that the declining grip of the
West over the developing world makes today’s globalization less blatant and
less subversive.
“Now we could read
Giddens here as simply proposing an ironical winner-loses situation: the very
success of the West resulting in the loss of its socio-cultural advantage”
(Tomlinson, p. 92). This claim may be viewed in two ways: first, that the rapid
advancement of the developing world (e.g. China, South Korea, Japan, India,
Singapore, Brazil and South Africa) has challenged the conventional method of
economic globalization and the metaphor of uniformity. Second, that militarism,
political dominance and controlling tendencies are antithetical to the
democratic model of global socio-cultural integration. Altogether global
modernity in a democratic context is associated with the integration of the globalized cultural experiences and bringing global brainpower together and work for collective growth
and prosperity. It is not a win-win strategy
which in fact is running risks. “Globalization is uneven process, not just in
that it involves winners and losers or that it reproduces many familiar
configurations of domination and subordination, but also in the sense that the
cultural experience it distributes is highly complex and varied” (Giddens, p.
131).
The deep economic
recession in the Pacific region in the 1990s and later in the Western world in
2008, seems to have created one of the major anxieties of the millennium in
which an attempt to return to the status-quo of assuring Western economic upper
hand has adversely affected the fundamental democratic values of the West. The
worst case scenario and the image of horror in Iraq may be taken as a case in
point. I think globalization has to redefine the economic, cultural and
political relations between the developed and the developing world. In order
for globalism roadmap to make sense, it is imperative to make a broad research
that can help harmonize the notion of global convergence with local values and political
culture.
REFERENCE
Alder, P. S. (1998). Beyond Cultural Identity:
Reflection on Multiculturalism. In BeyondM. J.
Bennett
(ed.), Basic Concepts of Intercultural
Communication (pp. 225-245).
Allen, B. (2004). Difference
Matters: Communicating Social Identity. Long Grove, IL: Waveland
Press.
Anthias, F. (1992). Ethnicity, Class, Gender and Migration. Aldershot: Avebury.
Anthias F. and Yuval-Davis N. (1993). Racialized Boundaries: Race, Nation, Gender,
Colour,
Casses and the Anti-Racist Struggle.
London: Routledge.
Axford, B. (1995). The Global System: Economies, Politics and Culture. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Castells, M. (1997). The Information of Age, vol. 2: The Power of Identity. Oxford: Blackwell
Publisher.
Castles, Stephen and Mark Miller. (2003). The Age of Migration: International
Population
Movements in the Modern World.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Crowley, J. (1999). The Politics of Belonging: Some
Theoretical Considerations, in A. Fawell and
A. Geddes
(eds.), The Politics of Belonging:
Migrants and Minorities in Contemporary Europe. Aldershot: Ashgate,
pp15-41.
Delanty, Gerard, Ruth Wodak and Paul Jones. (2008). Identity, Belonging and Migration.
Cambridge:
Liverpool University Press.
Dunkerley, David and John Beynon. (2000). Globalization: The Reader. London:
Athlone Press.
Elena, Marushiakova. (2008). Dynamics of National
Identity and Transnational Identities in the
Process
of European Integration. New Castle: Cambridge Scholars Publishers.
___________.(1993). Global and Local Cultures. In J. Bird et al (ed.), Mappping the Futures: Local
Cultures; Global Change. London: Routledge, 169-187.
___________. (1971). Research Outline for Comparative Studies of Language Planning; in
J. Das
Gupta, B.
Jernudd and Joan Rubin (eds.).
Fong, Mary. (2004). Communicating Ethnic and Cultural Communication. New York, Oxford:
Rowman
and Littlefield Publisher, Inc.
Fong, Mary and Rueyling Chuang. (2004). Communicating Cultural Identity. New
York, Oxford:
Roman and
Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Friedman, Jonathan. (1994). Cultural Identity and Global Process. London: Sage.
___________.1995). Global System, Globalization and
the Parameter of Modernity. In Featherstone
et al (ed.), Global
Modernity, 69-90.
Fulcher, James and John Scott. (2007). Sociology (3rd
Edition). Oxford. Oxford University Press.
Gannon, Martin J. (1994). Understanding Global Cultures: Metaphorical Journeys Through 17
Countries. London,
New Delhi: Sage Publications Ltd.
Giddens, Anthony. (2009). Sociology (6th Edition). Cambridge: Polity Press.
____________. (2004). Sociology (4th Edition). Cambridge: Polity Press.
____________. (2003). Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age.
Cambridge:
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Gilroy, Paul. (1997). Diaspora and the Detours of
Identity. In K. Woodward (ed.), Identity
andDifference
(pp.
299-343). London: Sage.
Gudykunst, William B. (2004). Bridging Differences: Effective Intergroup Communication.
California:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Hall, S. (1990). Cultural and Diaspora. In J.
Rutherford (ed.), Identity: Community,
Culture,
Difference (pp.
222-237). London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Hecht, M. L, M. J. Collier and S. A. Ribeau. (1993). African American Communication: Ethnic
Identity and Cultural Interpretation.
Newbury Park, Calif: Sage.
Hedetoft, U. (2002). Discourse and Images of Belonging:
Migrants between New Racism, Liberal
Nationalism
and Globalization. AMID Working Paper
Series 5.
Hemelink, C. J. The
Politics of World Communication. London: Sage.
Hirst, P. and G. Thompson. (1996). Globalization in Question. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Holden, Nigel J. (2002). Cross-Cultural Management Perspective. Edinburgh: Pearson Education
Limited.
Lentin, A. (2004a). Race and Anti-Racism in Europe. London:
Pluto Press.
__________. (2004b). Racial States,
Anti-Racist Responses: Picking Holes in Culture and Human
Rights, European Journal of Social Theory 7 (4):
427-443.
Lie, Rico. (2003). Spaces
of Intercultural Communication: An Interdisciplinary Introduction to
Communication, Culture and Globalizing/Localizing
Identities. New Jersey: Hampton
Press,
Inc.
Marshall, Thomas Humphrey. (1973). Class, Citizenship and Social Development.
Westport, CN:
Greenwood.
Martin, J. N. and Butler R. L. W. (2001). Toward an
Ethic of Intercultural Communication
Research.
In V. H. Milhouse, M. K. Asante and P. O. Nwosu (eds.), Transcultural
Realities:Interdisciplinary Perspectives on
Cross-Cultural Relations (pp. 283-298).
Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Marushiakova, Elena (ed.). (2008). Dynamics of National Identity and
Transnational Identities in
the Process of European Integration.
Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Massey, D and Jess P. (1995). A Place in the World? Cultures and Globalization. Oxford: Oxford
University
Press.
Mason, D. (2000). Race
and Ethnicity in Modern Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McAuley, R. (2006). Out of Sight: Crime Youth and Exclusion in Modern Britain. Cullopton: Willan.
McGrew, A. (1992). A Global Society? In S. Hall, D.
Held and A. McGrew (eds.), Modernity and
Its Futures. Cambridge:
Polity Press, 61-102.
McGrew, A and P. Lewis (eds.). (1992). Global Politics. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a Psychology of Being. Princeton, N. J: Van Nostrand.
Mitten, R. (1992). The
Politics of Anti-Semitic Prejudice: The Waldheim Phenomenonin Austria.
Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.
Modhood, T. (2007). Multiculturalism: A Civic Idea. Cambridge: Polity.
___________et al. (1997). Ethnic Minority in Britain: Diversity and Disadvantage. London:
Polity
Studies
Institute.
Nederveen Pieterse, J. (1995). Globalization as
Hybridization. In Featherstone et al (eds.), Global
Modernities, 45-68.
Nic Shuibhne, Niamh. (2001). The European Union and Minority Language Rights. MOST Journal
of
Multilingual Studies 3 (2).
O’Reilly, Camille C (ed.). (2001). Ethnicity and State (vol. 2): Minority
Languages in Eastern
Europe.
Bastingstoke, England: Palgrave.
Palmer, G. and Kenway P.
(2007). Poverty Among Ethnic Groups: How
and Why Does It Differ?
York: Joseph
Rowntree.
Palmer, G., MacInnes T.
and Kenway P. (2006). Monitoring Poverty
and Social Exclusion. York:
Joseph
Rowntree.
Parekh, B. (2000). Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural
Diversity and Political Theory.
Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Park, Robert Ezra. (1974). Perspectives in Social Inquiry: Race and
Culture. New York: Arno
Press, Inc.
Reisigl, M; and R. Wodak. (2001). Dicourse and Discrimination. London:
Routledge.
Robertson, Roland. (1990). Mapping the Global
Condition. Globalization as the Central Concept. In Featherstone
M. (ed.), Global Culture: Nationalism,
Globalization and Modernity.
London:
Sage. Rydgren, J. (2003). Mesolevel Causes
of Racism and Xenophobia. European Journal of Social Theory 6.
___________(ed). (2005). Movements of Exclusion. New York: Nova.
Sassen, S. (1998). Globalization
and Its Discontents: Essays on Mobility of People and Money.
Sen, A. (2007). Identity
and Violence: The Illusion of Diversity. London: Penguin Books.
___________. (1999). Development as Freedom. New York: Random House.
Sicakkan, H. G and Y. Lithman. (2005). Theorizing
Citizenship, Identity Politics and Belonging
Modes,
in H. G. Sicakkan and Y. Lithman (eds.), Changing
the Basis of Citizenship in the Modern State: Political Theory and Politics of Diversity.
New York: Edwin Mellen Press.
Ting-Toomey,
S. (1989). Identity and Interpersonal Bonding. In M. K. Asante and W. B.
Ting-Toomey,
S, K. K. Yee-Yung, R. B. Shapiro, W. Garcia, T. J. Wright and J. G. Oetzel.
(2000).
Ethnic/Cultural
Identity Salience and Conflict Styles in Four US Ethnic Groups.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations
24: 47-81.
Tomlinson,
John. (1999). Globalization and Culture.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
