Globalization and Postmodernity - Essay Example

 Globalization and Postmodernity Introduction This question posed to anyone would obviously elicit a candid and frank answer. Most of these answers, however, will not establish the boundaries between the two terms – globalization and postmodernity – as this paper seeks to establish. Moreover, the answers will not pay much attention to what is “fashionable” in this century. Most of these answers will be short and negative to say the least. They will not consider the global processes, schools of thought, or historical periods attending to the terms. In addition, the answers will not dwell so much on the “nothing more” aspect of the question (Gladwell, 2010, p. 1). This paper seeks to avoid such a situation by ensuring every aspect of the question is dealt with accordingly. The terminologies will be discussed at length to challenge past proposals while ensuring the final resolution is substantive. Globalization is a term that almost everyone knows because it is a buzzword. Academics, journalists, business executives, politicians, economists, and other people frequently use the term (Ritzer, 2003, p. 193). In all instances, the common meaning of the term denotes that something great is happening, including a new world economy, a new political and cultural dispensation, and a changing world overall (Robertson, 2001, p. 458). The use of the term in numerous contexts make it lose meaning because it is difficult to know what exactly the term means, what function it serves, and how it affects contemporary politics and theory. Social theorists have lodged arguments to the effect that the contemporary world is shaped by globalization (Anangst, 2006, p. 510). Essentially, globalization is strengthening the capitalist economic system, and this supplants the sovereignty of nation states. Corporations and organizations are slowly taking over state power. Local cultures and traditions are also eroding slowly as the global culture sweeps across nations (Robertson, 2001, p. 458). Weberians, Marxists, functionalists, and other theorists have admitted that globalization is an unmatched trend in today’s world. Advocates of postmodernism have also not been left behind as they argue that changes in transnational capitalism have led to a new historical configuration of the world – postmodernism (Brandzel, 2010, p. 1). Social theories of today, therefore, consider globalization as an indispensable feature of the modern world. Nevertheless, globalization has been conceptualized differently. The term is applied in various contexts differently. Moreover, the evaluations of these applications produce varied outcomes. Some people believe that globalization is a mechanism of westernizing the world (Ritzer, 2003, p. 193). For others, globalization is capitalism in disguised form. On the other hand, some people believe that globalization is the bridge to capitalism. As some people consider globalization a unifying factor, others blame it for dividing the world through increased hybridization. Businesses consider globalization a strategy through which profits are maximized (Robertson, 2001, p. 459). Governments view globalization as a means to increase state power. Non-governmental organizations view globalization as a means of producing positive social goods such as democratization, environmental action, or humanization. The majority of theorists hold that globalization and modernity are the same. On the contrary, other theorists emphasize that the global age comes before the modern age (Ritzer, 2003, p. 200). Essentially, some theorists define the current age as a global age defined solely by globalization. Still, other theorists have argued that the globalization claims are exaggerated. The very roots of globalization suggest that it is a mechanism for reconfiguring and rethinking contemporary social theory and politics of today, which have been the subject of debates and conflicts (Ritzer, 2003, p. 195). The past decades have seen massive technological innovations and advancements, which have restructured the world in a number of aspects. The “great transformation” involves the restructuring and reorganization of world politics, economics, and culture (Robertson, 2001, p. 461). In all these, globalization is at the center. Globalization is interwoven in debates over post-Fordism, postmodernism, and several other “posts,” which allude to serious disintegration with the past. Therefore, globalization is crucial to the definition of changes and characteristics of the present era (Savage, 2009, p. 218). This paper sorts out the major uses of globalization as a contemporary terminology. A proposal will be made for a critical theory that gets rid of the biases in most conceptions developed so far. This paper takes the position that globalization can be articulated using both modern and postmodern theories because the world is at an interregnum period whereby the modern era is dying as the postmodern era emerges (Wilterdink, 2002, p. 190). At the transition stage, globalization entails traces of the past, modernity, modernization, present novelties, and a future that has started taking root. Globalization should also be seen as multidimensional phenomenon involving complex issues at different levels to warrant the use of a trans-disciplinary social theory in defining its scope, dynamics, problems, and future (Tsing, 2000, p. 330). Theorizing Globalization Globalization is closely linked to postmodernist anthropology because it looks at the world as a global space where nations are mere components demarcated by political lines. Globalization is centered on a multidimensional global space. This space is made up of sporadic and interpenetrating small spaces that blend harmoniously with today’s social analysis that slowly shifts attention from nations to individual communities. Nevertheless, globalization as an international depository of technology, trade, economies, migration, and other components has a clear tone of dominance that draws it closer to modernism than postmodernism (Ritzer, 2003, p. 201). If globalization were viewed as favoring international social relationships, it would be necessary to consider the fact that most relationships are distorted in many ways through conflicts that separate winners and losers. Globalization, from the corporate perspective, involves global networks under the control of winners (Tsing, 2000, p. 333). Postmodernism, on the other hand, is premised on the notion that truths and rules are relative and equal in most cases. The market has taken a global image today. Major players in today’s market are global producers and global consumers. This new dispensation can only work if a touch of postmodernism is incorporated (Wilterdink, 2002, p. 190). Certain areas are more powerful in terms of global influence. From these areas, items and ideas can disperse to every corner of the world in a matter of minutes. Sections of the world renowned for having facilitated global networks in the past today wield greater power, which separates modern globalization from the realities and rules of postmodernist theory. The utilization of postmodern ideas at the expense of economic truths has availed opportunities to wealthy people who now make more money in the shortest time (Wilterdink, 2002, p. 194). The latest versions of technology have achieved widespread use, which facilitates participation in the global market and moves huge sums of money from different points of the world in a flash. The world is changing daily. People face new challenges each day as social life adjusts to the global cultural, political, and economic dispensation. Postmodernism has lost the authority of formulating meaning to globalized states (Wilterdink, 2002, p. 198). Globalization is not much better as a theoretical term. Neither does it attempt to widen the scope of postmodernism nor the consequences thereof. Globalization is unique on its own. It offers a definition of the modern world, which is held together by commerce, migration, finance, communication technology, tourism, and other elements. Globalization is quite distinct from postmodernism because it is not concerned with social constructs but allows the market to define the world (Tsing, 2000, p. 330). Anthropology as a subject has changed in scope due to the widening of a globalized network (Savage, 2009, p. 217). Perceptions of the “local” have changed tremendously. Cities the world over have turned into great metropolises due to decades of large-scale rural and international migration (Mitchell, 1969, p. 1). A century ago, only the West understood the term “local” (Kearny, 1995, p. 547). However, increased communication technology, transport networks, and global economic flow have established urban areas across nation states. Cities are now sites for reworking the shadows of centers and peripheries as anthropologists previously held. Urban spaces were previously viewed as enclosures distinct from pastoral lands. Disciplines are changing at a faster pace, and there is the need to adapt to a globalized and interconnected world. Therefore, anthropology should be prepared to accommodate ideas from other disciplines. Postmodernism can no longer describe isolated communities with internet connectivity, and rich in resources (Fischer, 1999, p. 456). Globalization has overtaken anthropology. Today, scholars find it necessary to consider the impact of their work to people in a digitized and multi-lingual world and how these ideas can be accessed. Although postmodern analysis set the pace for anthropology as a measure of globalization, the underlying theories are insufficient and much detached from the global wealth of resources that define today’s society (Wilterdink, 2002, p. 193). The changing society has given anthropologists a tough time in designing contemporary ethnographic work. Multisided, multiaudience, and multivocal ethnographies have become very important in mapping and defining the complexities of today’s world (Burowoy, 2000, p. 1). Globalization has expanded the concepts of postmodernism to such an extent that the two are not related anymore (Tsing, 2000, p. 334). Those who attended postmodern anthropology classes cannot connect the educational process to globalization. To remedy the situation, it would be prudent to get outside the confines of anthropology if globalization is to get a deeper meaning. Anthropology is still a crucial field of study, and it is awkward to be taken over by globalization (Ritzer, 2003, p. 194). To devise a more collaborative idea of globalization, anthropology students should be taught about engaging with their world, as they question the changes taking place. Anthropologists have always offered a regional perspective of the world. However, this depends on the circumstances under which they work in the pre-constructed scene. The globalized world, which is changing rapidly, does not have much pre-constructed existence to talk about (Robertson, 2001, p. 460). Fieldwork conditions have changed a great deal since modern ethnography came to being. Information and communication technologies should be considered especially when preparing representations for audiences, which representations draw from specific practices. Global cultural action often hides under enticing practices and localities, which give globalization a thick description. Today’s modern ethnography does not take globalization as a fashionable name to describe postmodernity, but it takes it as a conditional feature that has a wide influence (Burowoy, 2000, p. 1). Resisting Globalization Globalization has the potential to disempower thereby causing cynicism and hopelessness. Globalization holds that the state cannot regulate and control market forces. In addition, people cannot direct and shape the economy thereby undermining democracy (Appadurai, 2002, p. 30). Understanding globalization from a critical theory, however, reveals that globalization, its powers, and effects are real. The critical theory also seeks resistive forces to counter global forces, most of which use globalization to pursue democratic goals. The conflict that exists under globalization is between the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few and the advocacy for open and plural concentration of wealth and power (Ritzer, 2003, p. 194). It is incumbent upon people and groups to establish a field of struggle and contestation. The collapse of Soviet Union that pushed for an alternative to capitalism led to the emergence of market forces that states cannot oppose in anyway whatsoever (Gupta, 2002, p. 1000). These markets include the ones formed to counter colonial domination and others that succeeded in resisting the flow of capital globally. The world market economy is felt in all corners of the planet. The happiness accruing therefrom is passed to the gods and services consumed throughout the world. The global financial market disseminates capital through all international channels thereby binding the world together. Capital circulates within the globe as new products and fashions emerge. On the other hand, cultures, identities, and national economies are slowly fading (Ritzer, 2003, p. 202). Changes in the global economy do affect locals in a big way (Brandzel, 2010, p. 1). Regions have been devastated following closures of industries as these industries shift to places with less restrictive government regulations and low wages. Deindustrialization has caused huge rust belts in places that were previously deemed industrial. Remarkable closures such as General Motors have left the world in shock. Computers, automation, and innovations have done away with labor as corporate reorganization crashes management thereby creating unemployment on a large scale. Larger firms such as Nike have set up bases in many countries as they seek for lower wages (Shao, 2006, p. 535). In addition, a single calamity such as a hurricane in Japan has rippling effects on the world economy. Globalization, therefore, establishes new connections between states and integrates world economies and cultures thereby overcoming previous divisions (Tsing, 2000, p. 337). Widespread divisions characterized the period during the Second World War and the cold war. Two camps emerged – the capitalist and the socialist. These camps led to alliances and new conflicts that adversely affected many countries, including Nicaragua and Vietnam. Countries aligned themselves with either the capitalist or socialist development model (Ritzer, 2003, p. 199). In addition, countries that soon became known as the Third World devised their model distinct from the two. Third World nations were the product of colonization and were considered underdeveloped compared to other countries thereby could not take part in global affairs. Moreover, the conflict between the world superpowers and the advocates of the cold war model fueled the political and economic intervention in the Third World. The world, therefore, was divided into two (Ritzer, 2003, p. 199). As the communist system collapsed, the division ended thereby giving dominance to the capitalist model. Capitalism reigned all over the world without contest. It gave birth to economic globalization, which has been praised for furthering democracy (Robertson, 2001, 549). Capitalism established institutions and a system of checks and balances. It also established elections, political parties, and human rights. However, some people have interpreted democracy as an ingredient of capitalism (that is, capitalism cannot function without democracy). The critical theory also maintains that there are conflicts and tensions between capitalism and democracy. The decline of state power has led to a new geopolitical matrix whereby transnational corporations, organizations, and other forces challenge the local and national centers of power and influence. National borders have shifted following the establishment of political unions and trade agreements and the development of global transnational capitalism. Transnational institutions have gained more power than nation states. Increased world trade, investments, financial speculations, and cultural forces that exceed state boundaries have accompanied these changes (Savage, 2009, p. 224). In an equal measure, new conflicts have emerged, which are characterized by nationalism and a clash of cultures. It surprises why Marxism, classical liberalism, and modernization theory surpassed the role of culture and social associations while taking into account technology, politics, and modern economy in discussing the theories (Postone, 1998, p. 57). Had the role of culture and social associations at the local level been considered, a world global culture would have been established thereby averting cultural clashes. Capitalism and communism were supposed to get rid of cultural differences, traditionalism, nationalism, and regional particularities. Marxism and classical liberalism, therefore, predicted and promoted globalization to take over the world (Postone, 1998, p. 49). Capitalist ideologies predicted that the world would produce a global culture whereas Marxism predicted that the proletariat would eliminate nationalism and establish a communist international without any war or exploitation. Capitalism and Marxism both predicted the elimination of national borders and the crash of the nation state (Postone, 1998, p. 60). Marxist and liberal models do not include the explanation of the intersection between ethnicity, race, and national sentiment with class to create local political struggles (Dunk, 2004, p. 899). The period between 1980s and today has witnessed the resurgence of traditionalism, nationalism, and religious fundamentalism, which operate alongside increased globalization. The regional, cultural, and religious divisions that were witnessed in Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union in addition to the tribal wars in Africa suggest that homogenization and globalization had not taken root as proponents argue (Ritzer, 2003, p. 205). Therefore, culture has become a source of conflict pitting the global against the local. Cultures have sparked conflicts between Muslims, Serbs, and Croats, Azerbaijanis and Armenians, Quebecois and Mohawk First Nation, the African National Congress, and the Umkatha tribe of South Africa (Ritzer, 2003, p. 205). Therefore, culture and nationalism endured more than expected. The conflicts between the local and the global continue in what is deemed a globalized world. Globalization is less visible in the cultural domain (Tsing, 2000, p. 331). Information systems, the global media, and a capitalist consumer culture have facilitated the circulation of products and ideas worldwide. Numerous events, including the Gulf War, Madonna, and Hollywood films are disseminated through cultural distribution networks collectively known as the global popular. The global culture is fueled by the increase in the range of products and services available to target consumers. Media and consumer industries have increasingly been differentiated thereby categorizing consumers even more (Diof, 2000, p. 682). In most cases, this categorization is about fashion and style. However, it also involves a differentiated culture characterized by a variety of cultural artifacts. Subcultures have also emerged that resist homogenization and globalization by advocating a specific society and culture. Peasant movements such as those in Mexico, labor unions in France, guerilla movement sin Peru, environmentalists across the world, and students associations in the United States and Britain have resisted globalization and violation of previous rights and benefits (Ritzer, 2003, p. 203). The policies of the World Trade Organization have faced a challenge from a number of people’s organizations across the world. Globalization is seriously being challenged from all corners of the world. Proponents of trade agreements such as the GATT and NAFTA have since taken a back seat after realizing thee agreements are damaging the world order instead of bringing positive change (Savage, 2009, p. 225). New youth subcultures have advanced the resistance to globalization throughout the world. In addition, a number of other minor subcultures have emerged, including gays, lesbians, women, blacks, and ethnic minorities. All these have resisted the hegemonic mainstream culture. Cultural studies have widely explored mainstream and oppositional cultures. These studies have emphasized on race, class, sexual preference, gender, region, ethnicity, and the nation in extracting cultural phenomena and configurations (Diof, 2000, p. 680). In addition, recent cultural studies have taken a global perspective, which examine how transnational forces play out in certain situations and the influence of cultural mediations on global configurations. Most theorists have argued that increased shifts towards local practices and discourses best define the contemporary scene. In addition, they have argued that theory and politics should move from the globalization level to local and micro levels that characterize daily experience (Ritzer, 2003, p. 200). Several theories such as feminism, multiculturalism, postmodernism, and post-structuralism are more concerned with a difference, marginality, otherness, the concrete, the particular, and the personal than global conditions. Dichotomies such as the local and the global manifest tensions and contradictions between constitutive forces of today. Therefore, it is a mistake to ignore one side and favor the other. The challenge lies in thinking through the relationships between global and local. Essentially, the influence of global forces on the local situations is quite striking. It is also important to consider how local forces mediate the global to diverse ends and conditions thereby producing unique configurations of the contemporary world. The Meeting Point – Globalization and Postmodernity Survival in today’s world requires in-depth understanding of the mix of global and local forces alongside the forces of resistance and domination. One should also understand the condition of a rapid change in addition to the great transformation, which was sparked by the multidimensional effects of technology and capital restructuring (Savage, 2009, p. 220). It is safe to argue that nobody has control over the future, which is up for grabs. The present moment already shows a lack of state control over people’s affairs. Understanding the concepts of the present dilemma is quite important. Suggestions have been made in this paper that the current period of life is suspended between the modern and the postmodern. It is easier to describe the tensions between the modern and postmodern, local and global, and the new and old, as processes of postmodernization (Kearny, 1995, p. 550). The same could also be describes as features of increasing fragmentation, complexity, uncertainty, and indeterminacy. This paper maintains that despite the visible postmodern turn, modern continuities cannot be neglected, and neither can the postmodern rupture be exaggerated. Globalization exactly follows the above position. The process commenced some centuries back and is interlinked with capitalist modernity and the growth of the capitalist system. Globalization is also related to the systems of advanced production that have taken toll of today’s world. Nevertheless, striking novelties also characterize today’s world. The rapid nature of globalization, the quick modes of communication, the quick means of transacting, and the integrated global market is a novelty (Zizek, 2003, p. 12). Technology is changing lives every day with new forms of leisure emerging such as hyper-reality of cyberspace, new modes of entertainment, and new virtual realities. Everything from work, politics to education has dramatically changed and continues to do so (Savage, 2009, p. 220). The digitization of the world can better be understood through the lens of globalization than disciplines that lean towards postmodernism. Although sociological analysis pays more attention to the role of objects and symbolic systems, the scientific and techno-scientific world has been understudied. A possible reason for this is the power structures of a globalized world that do not appeal to academic analysts. Globalization, therefore, is not a fashionable name for postmodernity because postmodern thought is averse to ideas of power influence that flow from a direct point. Ideas of global economy and inevitable globalization are the landscapes upon which capitalist interests are created. Therefore, these ideas do not make any sense to postmodern academics interested in projects countering hegemony (Fischer, 1999, p. 460). All spheres of life today have some room for social theory. These include law, economics, music, sport, engineering, and computer-mediated communication among other practical aspects of life (Zizek, 2003, p. 50). Taken together with postmodernism, globalization offers a local, cross-class, and cross-disciplinary understanding of the world as it is today. Postmodern theories have decoded and explained issues of decolonization, global processes, and demographic shifts. However, the third industrial revolution has altered the nature of cultural forms. Technological growth over the last two decades has sparked the increase in transnational processes (Zizek, 2003, p. 2). This has led to a scenario requiring in-depth understanding of complexities characterizing globalization. Postmodern theory only gives an objective understanding of social relations (Wilterdink, 2002, p. 191). A conscious acceptance of the intricacies of a globalized world is necessary to understand the power regimes that were never conceivable 100 years back. The world today is digitized and mediated by computers of massive idea strength. These can only be understood by using two levels of knowledge at the same time. The first level of knowledge is concerned with the rational world of cultural mapping and social relations. This level of knowledge is closely similar to the objective world of postmodernism where everything is relative. The second level of knowledge is concerned with the indirect structural precision of sciences with experiential supplements. This level of knowledge relates closely to the digitized globalized world. Essentially, this level of knowledge focuses on experience, which differentiates it from the more academic postmodernism. The two terms – globalization and postmodernism – are quite distinct that none can be argued to be a fashionable variation of the other. For one term to be considered a fashionable variation of the other, their meanings should be so close that they can be used interchangeably in all instances. This cannot be the case with postmodernity and globalization. As already mentioned in the preceding pages, some scholars have considered the terms to have the same meaning. However, most scholars have affirmed that the terms have different meanings. Postmodernity is purely theoretical and multidisciplinary though succinct with thoughtful notions, including academia. On the contrary, globalization is more social in meaning and application. In addition, globalization fast mutates and is never constant. Globalization has gained wide understanding, and its consequences are far-reaching. The plain meanings of the terms reveal the stark differences such that none can be said to be a fashionable variation of the other. Power structures characteristic of global networks blatantly disregards postmodernity as the latter concentrates on the objectivity of reality. For instance, commercialized tourism is an industry with western domination. It promotes and controls the perception of a nation and inhabitants by boosting the consumption of experiences and sensations bound together. Globalization and theories related thereto help form international networks and processes through a hierarchical global order. Absolutism and power structures inherent in the global system today closely relate to a modernist theory than postmodernism (Robertson, 2001, p. 463). Globalization and Postmodernism have certain similarities, which might lead to the conclusion that the terms are interchangeable and, therefore, are fashionable variations of one another. However, globalization can never be anything more than this. The differences between the terms are so many that the dividing line is quite visible to warrant mutual distinction. Conclusion Globalization and Postmodernity have caused confusion among scholars over the relationship between the two. Some scholars have argued that the two concepts are related hence they mean the same thing. On the other hand, some scholars have drawn a thick line between the two terms. In establishing the true position to help answer the question as to whether globalization is nothing more than a fashionable name for postmodernity, this paper looks at the two terms at length, especially globalization that is relatively new. Suggestions have been made in this paper that the current period of life is suspended between the modern and the postmodern. The term postmodernism has been shown to be more academic and studious while globalization has been shown to be dynamic and complex in light of the matters it encompasses. Postmodernity, therefore, cannot deal with the complexities of the world today. The two terms have been shown to be quite distinct from each other that none can be argued to be a fashionable variation of the other. Bibliography Anagnost, A.S., 2006. “Strange Circulations: the blood economy in rural China” in Economy and Society, 35(4):509-529. Appadurai, A., 2002. “Deep Democracy: Urban Governmentality and the Horizon of Politics” in Public Culture, 14(1):21-47. Brandzel, B., 2010. “What Malcolm Gladwell Missed about Online Organizing and Creating Big Change” in The Nation, 15 November 2010: http://www.thenation.com/article/156447/aiminghydrant-what-malcolm-gladwell- missed-about-online-organizing-and-creating-big-?rel=emailNation Burawoy, M., 2000. “Introduction: Reaching for the Global”, in Burawoy, Michael et al., Global Ethnography: Forces, Connections and Imaginations in a Postmodern World. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London; University of California Press. Diouf, M., 2000. “The Senegalese Murid Trade Diaspora and the Making of a Vernacular Cosmopolitanism” in Public Culture, 12(3):679-702. Dunk, T., 2004. “Remaking the Working Class: Experience, Class Consciousness, and the Industrial Adjustment Process” in American Ethnologist, 29(4):878-900. Fischer, M., 1999. “Emergent Forms of Life: Anthropologies of Late or Postmodernities” in Annual Review of Anthropology, 28:455-478. Gladwell, M., 2010. “Small Change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted” in The New Yorker, Annals of Innovation, 4 October 2010,: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/ 2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell Gupta, A. and Ferguson, J., 2002. “Spatializing States: Toward and Ethnography of Neoliberal Governmentality” in American Ethnologist, 29(4):981-1002. Kearny, M., 1995. “The Local and the Global: The Anthropology of Globalization and Transnationalism” in Annual Review of Anthropology, 24:547-565. Mitchell, J.C., (Ed) 1969. Social Networks in Urban Situations: analyses of personal relationships in Central African towns. Manchester, Manchester University Press for the Institute of Social Research, University of Zambia. Postone, M. (1998). “Rethinking Marx (in a post-Marxist World). Pp. 45–80 in Charles Camic (Ed.) Reclaiming the Sociological Classics. Malden: Blackwell. Ritzer, G. (2003). “Rethinking Globalization: Glocalization/Grobalization and Something/Nothing.” Sociological Theory 21:193–209. Robertson, R. (2001). “Globalization Theory 2000+: Major Problematics.” Pp. 458–471 in Handbook of Social Theory., edited by G. Ritzer and B. Smart. London: Sage. Savage, M. (2009). “Against Epochalism: An Analysis of the Conceptions of Change in British Sociology.” Cultural Sociology 3: 217–238. Shao J., 2006 “Fluid Labor and Blood Money: The Economy of HIV/AIDS in Rural Central China” in Cultural Anthropology, 21(4):535-569. Tsing, A., 2000 “The Global Situation” in Cultural Anthropology, 15(3):327-360. Wilterdink, N. (2002). “The Sociogenesis of Postmodernism.” European Journal of Sociology 43: 190–216. Zizek, S. (2003). Organs without Bodies: On Deleuze and Consequences. New York: Routledge. Read More