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 15^th century. The expansion of European institutions across national boundaries goes back to the early voyages of the great navigators at the end of the 15^th century through to the mass migration of Europeans across the Atlantic in the late 19^th and early 20^th 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 18^th century, the powerful global forces of capitalists and imperial theoreticians emerged and this empowered European institutions to take root across the world throughout the 19^th century and up to the mid-20^th 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 16^th 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 21^st 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 19^th century (colonial era) and its corrupting influence, and globalization of the free market world of the 21^st 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.