Globalization and Social Change - Assignment Example

Globalization and Social Change Section It is quite easy to agree with the ments made by Barber and since the words were first written in 1995, more than a decade later, their validity and their importance is only heightened. In fact, given the present situation on Wall Street, not only can the giant companies of the world have greater influence than many government, they can also influence the strongest country in the world. American tax payers and American money is being used to foot the bill for the follies of bankers and speculative investors who essentially lost nothing out of their own pockets in the current economic crisis. However, the point made by Barber comes across quite clearly when we consider how technology today has permeated essentially every facet of our lives. From the music we enjoy to our tastes in clothes, fashion even political ideals are deeply connected with the emerging global culture. Coke and McDonald’s have become middle class staples today as much as primary goods such as grain and meat used to be for the Roman Empire (Li, 2002). The well to do and the rich in the developing nations of the world may be as familiar with iPods and Nike trainers as the well to do in developed countries. However, there is certainly a counter argument which can be presented to Barber in which culture in many regions of the world may not be based on getting on with the latest trends. In places such as Sudan, Pakistan, Afghanistan and even parts of India, mere survival on a day to day basis may be a real concern to the people living there (Stiglitz, 2002). In this respect at least, the power of the government and even the military strength that is required to function as peacekeeping forces could be more important than giving everyone designer clothes, a digital music player and a digital camera. When the people of a country are living on less than one dollar a day, spending $5 on a single meal is nothing less than an unaffordable luxury (Held, 2005). Certainly, even those who consider themselves America’s enemies would continue to consume American products simply because of the brand image associated with them. It can be said that America won the cold war when a McDonald’s opened in the Red Square but the cultural domination of America certainly raises quite a few questions. For example, if the strength of American companies and the respect commanded by them is so high, why is it that the country to which these companies belong to is one of the most hated nations in the world? Why does a global power have to go thousands of miles into foreign regions to defend against an enemy who is unseen and ruthless enough to murder in cold blood on camera for the world to see? Undoubtedly, Jihad is a strong power indeed and it would be perhaps naive of us to consider that the culture promoted by conventional American policy makers could one day overcome the battle against Jihad (Robinson, 2005). Section 2 While McWorld offers a lot to the people, the reason why the side of Jihad remains strong is that Jihad also offers a lot to those who have nothing to gain or cannot be a part of the McWorld. While the McWorld signifies a loss of identity in both national and individual terms, Jihad creates a sense of identity which is often mixed with being virtuous. In essence, the Jihad gives individuals not only solidarity with a collective but also spiritual peace in many different situations where they may be told that by engaging in Jihad they are following out the dictates of their religions. In fact, the spread of the ideas contained in Jihad can be likened to a virus as much as the ideas contained within McWorld could be. It begins with an infection, creates support, converts neutrals towards itself, and eventually gains control over the body. For a person who agrees with the ideas presented in Jihad, Jihad gives a connection to the local community, solidarity with family members and a sense of nation which may be entirely absent in McWorld. However, while McWorld is essentially nonviolent, Jihad is based on the idea that solidarity with countrymen or the community can only come through war against others. It can therefore be seen as an extreme form of nationalism at best and paranoia leading to deadly violence at its worst. Undoubtedly, those who follow the ideas of Jihad may consider themselves to be extremely patriotic yet McWorld fails to give any sense of global patriotism with an essentially consumerist message. The consumerist message is completely absent in Jihad since the only message contained within it is blind obedience. Obedience to laws, spiritual and social, that may be centuries old and to their interpretation as made by leaders who may have very little knowledge but great ambitions. Jihad also leads to intolerance towards others who are outsiders as well as any enemies who may be lurking within the ranks. Where there is blind obedience to a cause or even an individual, it becomes impossible to cultivate democratic ideas and even democratic ideals that are given by McWorld. These democratic ideals are often coupled with financial liberalization which can certainly help a country and the businesses in the country to give them capital they need for making the right investments, and to create social services which are needed by the people (Craig, 2000). Economic improvements to any country will certainly need investments and large sums of money but financial liberalization alone may become a disaster where it creates income disparity, a widening gap between the rich and the poor as well as rapidly rising inflation level which can seriously weaken an economy. This certainly became the case for many European and third world nations which could not handle the onslaught of free trade (Rodrik, 2001). Instead of creating flourishing democracies, McWorld could also be blamed for creating failed states where consumerism and Jihad battle each other on grounds of ideology and even the killing fields of the country itself. Even when democracy was presented as the perfect solution for these countries, in some cases it resulted in nothing more than the creation of elected kings who rule with an iron fist while the people as well as the minorities suffer repression and persecution. In such situations, Jihad is bound to find fertile ground for growth. Section 3 The two views are different indeed since one looks at the positive side of globalization which brings unity and commonality of purpose. The other view looks at the disadvantage of globalization which examines how local cultures and the diversity of a region may come under threat when globalization comes with its full force to a country. However, it seems that both viewpoints are two sides of the same coin and may form a part of the list of advantages and disadvantages of globalization. As suggested by Barber, the conflict between those who support globalization and those who oppose it may result in creating the situation of McWorld vs. Jihad. Duffey (2000) suggests that a lack of cultural and social understand is the root cause of such a conflict and that the conflict is often created when new values seem to be imposed on those who follow traditional cultures. Thus globalization itself may create people who are not happy with it and some who are unhappy enough to take up arms against it (Stiglitz, 2002). This means that for globalization to succeed, or for the ideas presented by globalization to flourish, a level of cultural understanding has to be maintained. This cultural understanding of how globalization impacts the lives and the ideology of a group of people may help globalization win more friends and create fewer enemies. At the same time, globalization is a force which often carries its own weight and may not be that easy to control or even slow down with small doses when it starts flowing into a region. Therefore, in certain situations, it can be argued that a unified global culture might lead to less violence and less differences amongst the people. Duffey (2000) and Stiglitz (2002) both emphasise the need for greater cultural understanding but it seems that the corporations and conglomerates which are the central forces of capitalism are more interested in creating a global culture which gives them ever more profits than creating cultural understanding and a dialog between civilisations. They cannot be blamed however, since they have stakeholders and shareholders who need to see profits and who need to see that the money they have invested is giving them positive returns. However, it seems that such an approach is a short-term approach indeed since globalisation which alienates people brings a clash between McWorld and Jihad. If the supporters of globalisation were to take a long-term approach to their business interests, they might find that cultural understanding and local support will perhaps help them get better established as a part of the local scenery rather than outsiders who create little more than conflict and strife. Works Cited Barber, B. 1992, ‘Jihad vs. McWorld’, [Online] Available at: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199203/barber Craig, B. 2000, ‘Aid, Policies and Growth’, American Economic Review, vol. 90, no.9, p847-68. Duffey, T. 2000, ‘Cultural Issues in Contemporary Peacekeeping’, International Peacekeeping, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 142-169. Held, D. 2005, ‘Washington gets it wrong’, Global Agenda, no. 3, p100-101. Li, X. 2002, ‘Dichotomies and Paradoxes: The West and Islam’, Journal of Interdisciplinary International Relations, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 401-418. Robinson, W. 2005, ‘Global Capitalism: The New Transnationalism and the Folly of Conventional Thinking.’ Science & Society, vol. 69 no. 3, pp316-328. Rodrik, D. 2001, The Global Governance of Trade as if Development Really Mattered, UNDP: New York. Stiglitz, J. 2002, Globalization and Its Discontents, Norton, New York. Read More