Globalization As a Source and an Antidote for Conflict - Research Paper Example

Globalization Introduction No other phenomenon in the contemporary world has influenced the life of modern man as comprehensively as globalization, which has already left its imprint on the economic, cultural, and political spheres of human life. Significantly, the most distinguishing feature of globalization has been that it helped integrate the regional economies, societies, and cultures of the world into a global network of political ideas. In order to comprehend the real meaning of globalization, it is fundamental to realize the intricacies of international trade relations, economic institutions, the socio-cultural realms of international relations, the political ideologies and strategies affecting the economic relationship of the different nations, etc. The political activists and scholars dealing with the term ‘globalization’ explain it as an amalgam of the economic, political, cultural, ideological, and environmental practices in the different parts of the world. Manfred Steger (2010) describes globalization as a multifaceted system encompassing global, regional, and local aspects of social life. “The term globalization applies to a set of social processes that appear to transform our present social condition of weakening nationality into one of globality. At its core, then, globalization is about shifting forms of human contact… Indeed … the term globalization suggests a sort of dynamism bet captured by the notion of ‘development’…” (Steger, 2010, p. 10). It is fundamental, in addition to comprehending the term’s various dimensions and meanings, to make a scrupulous investigation of whether globalization is “good” or “bad”,  a question hotly debated all over the world. This paper makes a brief synopsis of the debates surrounding globalization as a source and an antidote for conflict, and it undertakes a reflective exploration of the economic, cultural, and political aspects of globalization in order to make out the strengths and weaknesses of this genuine global heritage. The Debates Surrounding Globalization Whereas there is difference of opinion about what exactly the term ‘globalization’ means, it is an undisputed fact that there are hot debates surrounding globalization, and a study of globalization is normally expected to be disputatious. In other words, globalization is one of the most contested topics in the current social sciences, and there have been different types of theories of globalization, explaining the outcomes and advantages of this global phenomenon differently. In one of the noteworthy articles related to the topic, Mauro F Guillen examines the five key debates concerning globalization. According to him, “Observers and theorists of globalization have variously argued that the rapid increase in cross-border economic, social, technological and cultural exchange is civilizing, destructive, and feeble… As in the civilizing view, the destructive interpretation regards globalization as leading to convergence, albeit predicting harmful rather than beneficial consequences.” (Guillen, 2010, p. 4). Therefore, it becomes obvious that the basic debate concerning globalization is whether it is civilizing, destructive, or feeble. There are also disagreements over the definition of globalization, when and where it started, etc. However, the key five debates concerning globalization, as Guillen points out, are whether: a) globalization is really happening, b) globalization produces convergence, c) globalization undermines the authority of the nation-state, d) globality is different from modernity, and e) global culture is in the making. (Guillen, 2010, p. 4). Whereas everyone agrees upon these types of debates happening across the globe on the topic of globalization, it should be remembered that these debates do not promise any easy answers to the heated topic. One of the most relevant studies on the debates concerning globalization has been the article “How to Judge Globalism” by Nobel prize-winner Amartya Sen, in which he argues that viewing contemporary globalization from a broader historical and geographic perspective is fundamental to an understanding of the reality behind various debates of the day. To the revelation of the proponents and opponents of globalization, who have a substantial agreement on the argument that globalization is about global Westernization, Sen maintains that “neither new nor necessarily Western” (Sen, 2002, p. 29). Sen goes on to establish that globalization should be understood as an authentically global heritage and it has a long history of evolution. Accordingly, a reflective understanding of the basic elements of globalization, such as science and technology, confirms that globalization has been the result of the several pertinent contributions made by different peoples, regions, and cultures. Therefore, it is erroneous to agree with the stylized history of globalization, in which it is regarded as the extension of the great developments in the West including the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. Significantly, “the active agents of globalization have often been located far from the West.” (Sen, 2002, p. 29). In other words, Sen argues that the productive global interrelations, which have been in existence for long, have contributed to the advancement of different countries across the globe and globalization should be realized as the latest example of these global interrelations, rather than that of the increased Western influence. More than merely making a loud opinion on the debate on when and where the process of globalization started, Amartya Sen takes on the essential question whether or not globalization is good or bad. Significantly, his not in two minds to establish and recognize the contributions made by globalization to the progress of human society in general. In fact, Sen’s arguments regarding the complex origins of globalization are not only to correct the historical record about its origin, but also to enable the scholars to assess the strengths and weaknesses of globalization. Essentially, Sen makes his argument loud and clear when he purports that globalization is “neither new nor necessarily Western; and it is not a curse. Over thousands of years, globalization has contributed to the progress of the world through travel, trade, migration, spread of cultural influences, and dissemination of knowledge and understanding (including that of science and technology).” (Sen, 2002, p. 29). Sen, therefore, makes the essential argument that the global interrelations in the form of globalization have been especially helpful in the advancement of different countries of the world. In fact, the globalization has played a considerable role in the growth and progress of the world in the past as well as in the present. It is fundamental to recognize the fact that globalization has made its contribution in the cultural and intellectual spheres of human life, in the form of globalization of ideas and practices, although it is the economic aspect which is often emphasized. Sen maintains that globalization is a historical process which has been affecting every sphere of human existence, contributing considerably to the progress of the society. However, the major defect of globalization as a historical process is concerning the question of fairness in sharing and the challenge relating to inequality, international and intra-national. “Globalization is a historical process that has offered an abundance of opportunities and rewards in the past and continues to do so today. The very existence of potentially large benefits makes the question of fairness in sharing the benefits of globalization so critically important.” (Sen, 2002, p. 36). One of the most contentious aspects of globalization has been whether it has made advancements that affect all sections of the society. In other words, the equality in sharing of global opportunities has been questioned by the scholars dealing with globalization as a global heritage. For them, the central issue of contention is the inequity in the overall balance of institutional arrangements, due to which every section of the society may not have access to the good effects of globalization. Significantly, the contention is not about whether the lowest sections of the society get some benefit from globalization, it is about whether they get a fair share and a fair opportunity in the global arena. As Sen maintains, “The question is not just whether the poor, too, gain something from globalization, but whether they get a fair share and a fair opportunity. There is an urgent need for reforming institutional arrangements… Globalization deserves a reasoned defense, but it also needs reform.” (Sen, 2002, p. 36). Therefore, it is essential to comprehend that the principal challenge concerning globalization is inequalities and disparities associated with the political, social, and economic opportunities and power. Due to these troubling inequalities in the sharing of the potential gains from globalization, the benefits of globalization do not reach the poor, and only a wide-ranging institutional reform can be effective. Whereas globalization should be comprehended as a need of the poor as well as the rich, extensive institutional reform is fundamental to the overall recognition of the advantages of globalization. “It is not sufficient to understand that the poor of the world need globalization as much as the rich do; it is also important to make sure that they actually get what they need. This may require extensive institutional reform, even as globalization is defended.” (Sen, 2002, p. 32). Another major aspect of the debates surrounding globalization in relation to the economic, cultural, political facets of the phenomenon has been the arguments that criticize the growing global obsession with globalization. According to this view, the increasingly fashionable trend of giving undue importance globalization is mainly the creation of capitalism. In one of the major arguments against the growing tendencies to present globalization as a crucial phenomenon in the political, cultural, social, and economic progress of humanity, “The Global Fetish” by Martha E. Gimenez makes a loud criticism against its usage as a vital process that affect human life. According to her, “‘globalization’ is simply the reified, fetishized way of talking about the effects of capitalist development without having to talk about capitalism itself and without having to acknowledge, therefore, the capitalist material basis of the phenomena lumped under the label.” (Gimenez, 2002, p. 85-6). Therefore, the socialist perspective of globalization considers it as a mere capitalist fetish with money, power, and superiority over the poor nations of the world. Consequently, the opponents of this global phenomenon tend to analyze the historically specific roots of globalization which is deep-seated in the capitalist mode of production. Whereas the capitalist viewpoints establish and approve of the globalization’s intellectual, political, and economic achievements, accomplishments, and qualitative transformations in the society, the socialist point of view regards it as a fetish rooted in the capitalist mode of production. “Once it is acknowledged that the so-called new era of globalization is simply the unfolding of capitalism's potentials, it becomes possible to develop a more sober assessment of its nature, its positive and negative aspects, and the conditions for effective political resistance to its social, economic, cultural, political, and environmental effects.” (Gimenez, 2002, p. 87). In a profound investigation of the related ideas of globalization such as capitalism, socialism, orientalism, colonialism, and post-colonialism, it becomes lucid that the major debates surrounding globalization are based on some of these ideologies. Whereas the capitalist viewpoints have a high regard for the achievements and accomplishments to bring about economic, cultural, political progress in the society, the socialist standpoint is that globalization merely another tool in the capitalist mode of production. It is vital to realize that the capitalist, socialist, oriental, colonialist, and post-colonialist viewpoints are rooted in their specific ideologies concerning economic and political dimensions and implications of globalization. Adding to the differences in the viewpoints and arguments is the fact that globalization “is far from a uniform, irreversible, and inexorable trend. Rather, globalization is a fragmented, incomplete, discontinuous, contingent, and in many ways contradictory and puzzling process.” (Guillen, 2010, p. 5). In fact, globalization can be realized as an ideology with multiple meanings and lineages which make the scholars and theoreticians explain it differently. There is merely a single agreement by different theoreticians of globalization, rooted in different theoretical perspectives of the question: that there is widespread debates surrounding globalization based on the economic, cultural, political aspects of the question. Therefore, it is fundamental to maintain that there is extensive difference of opinion regarding the effectiveness of globalization, its civilizing, destructive, and feeble characteristics, its intellectual, political, and economic achievements, accomplishments, and qualitative transformations in the society, etc. Conclusion Globalization is the most important global phenomenon in the contemporary world which has affected various aspects of human life in the modern society. However, a profound analysis of the economic, cultural, political aspects of globalization confirms that there is widespread difference of opinion regarding the effectiveness of globalization to bring about crucial changes in the society. It is fundamental to reinstate here that there is widespread debates surrounding globalization based on the economic, cultural, political aspects of the question. Whereas the proponents of this global phenomenon are not cynical about the necessity of globalization as a way of making ground-breaking changes in the economic, cultural, political spheres of society, even they agree with the fact that there is large-scale inequity in the sharing of global opportunities which hinders the lowest sections of the society from getting the equal benefits of globalization. As Amartya Sen maintains, an effective system of globalization requires extensive institutional reform in order to control the troubling inequalities in the sharing of the potential gains from globalization. References Guillen, Mauro F. (2010). In Globalization Civilizing, Destructive or Feeble? A Critique of Five Key Debates in the Social Science Literature.” Readings in Globalization: Key Concepts and Major Debates. George Ritzer and Zeynep Atalay. New York: John Wiley and Sons. p. 4. Gimenez, Martha E. (2002). “The Global Fetish.” Globalization and Globalism in Latin America and the Caribbean. Latin American Perspectives. 29 (6). Sage Publications, Inc. pp. 85-87. Retrieved 04 March, 2011, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3185000 Sen, Amartya. (2002). “How to Judge Globalism.” The American Prospect. 13 (1). p. 29. Retrieved 04 March, 2011, from https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/fesnic/fspub/Sen_2007.pdf Steger, Manfred. (2010). Globalization. New York: Sterling Publishing Company, Inc. p. 10. Read More