Different Aspects of Globalisation with Reference to the European Economic Crisis - Report Example

Section/# An Analysis of the Sociological, Psychological, and Philosophical Aspects of Globalisation with Referenceto the European Economic Crisis The preponderance of evidence clearly points to the fact that globalisation has a major affect on how societies, individuals, and governments interact with the “other”. This fundamental shift has occurred for the most part over the past 60-65 years. However, the economic and political trends that have given rise to such a paradigm have been in motion for a much longer period of time than a few scant decades. As globalisation has had such an all-encompassing effect on the way that the world functions and the way that individuals, societies, and governments partake in interactions with one another, the common theme that has been so seemingly ever-present in the analysis of business and economics is the extent to which this globalisation defines the current world model. As such, rather than approaching globalisation from the tired perspective of economic and business interdependencies, this brief analysis will seek to shed a level of understanding on the ways that globalisation has had, and continues to have, a profound impact on the way that sociological, psychological, and philosophical understandings of the current situation are made. By seeking to understand each of these three component pieces of the same question, the reader/researcher can begin to understand the root level of cohesion that helps to instill cross-cultural understandings of identity which serve to help hold the Euro zone together by means of a shared sense of belonging and purpose; all of which are fundamentally affected by the understanding of globalism’s net good for the respective societies. Expressing the means by which sociological globalisation has impacted the individuals living within the Euro zone requires one to analyze the extent to which Euro citizenship has been accepted. Prior to 1999, the idea of European “oneness” was an abstract concept that was not necessarily aided by the acceptance of a broad based singular monetary policy, visa-free travel, or the existence of a European Central Bank. This concentration and identification of “Europeanness” had never before existed prior to the advent of the European Union (Antoniades 2008, p. 331). This idea which has been reinforced and assimilated into the collective countries that comprise the Euro zone has been the very foundation of what the sociological impacts of the European economic crisis portend to the affected societies. Similarly, the way in which the respective member-states and their societies engaged with this idea over the past 13 years has been a large determinant upon the way that sociology has been effected by globalisation within the nations in question(Ianitskii 2010, p. 14). This is of course not to imply that globalisation did not occur prior to the formation of the European Union; rather, the formation of this abstract concept that has bound together otherwise disparate nations and cultures has meant that the formation of identity has been especially strong. One cannot simply dismiss the concept of identity formation without seeking to understand the means by which this new identity affects individuals on both the systemic (sociological) and individual (psychological) mechanisms. With respect to the sociological understandings that have been discussed above, it has been noted that the societies of Europe have become cognizant and aware of their place within the governmental structure and economies of the Euro Zone. As such, this cognizance has led to a shareholder belief and understanding that the nations themselves have a type of shared burden in upholding the structure that is the EU (Schatz 2007, p. 330). Whereas but a few years before, it is doubtful if any such structure could have existed or more importantly could have compelled individuals to give of their resources, time, energy, and support of such an abstract idea, the sociological means whereby the EU has been accepted has meant that the European economic crisis has been accepted on the whole by nearly every society within the EU as something distinctly affecting each and every nation; not just a problem that is peculiar and unique to but a few. The idea of shared responsibilities and the psychological ramifications that this portends is naturally something that cannot be fully appreciated without delving into the actual thought process that brings such a psychological impression or point of view about. As such, the proceeding section analyzes the way in which philosophical understandings of globalisation and EU membership pervade the formulation of the most basic psychological or sociological points of view that have thus far been presented to the reader. Finally with regards to the philosophical understanding of globalisation within the issue of the European economic crisis, the understanding of how individuals, societies, and by extension governments choose to engage with such an issue lies at the very heart of the psychological and sociological understands that have thus far been mentioned and/or discussed. In effect, the root of the matter is to what degree a broad based understanding and philosophical appreciation for integration and globalisation is key. In other words, without the philosophical belief and understanding that globalisation is beneficial (or at the very least unavoidable), the means whereby sociological perspective and psychological understanding would take place are minimal (Hudson 2006, p. 47). Although it is oftentimes convenient to consider globalisation as a type of faceless, unstoppable, cancer that threatens to engulf and assimilate opposing forces, the fact of the matter is that the basic understanding and philosophical approach that has been evidenced over the past few years is that the philosophical framework whereby both individuals and governments have approached the issue of globalisation, and by extension national membership within the Euro zone, has been one that has overwhelmingly been something viewed as a net positive. In this way, the philosophical approach to the European economic crisis has come to be one that is formed as a collective action based upon the belief that federation, as an extension of globalisation, has a higher degree of benefit to the component parts than does the alternative free-for all which defined the European experience for hundreds of years previously and accounted for more than a few devastating wars. In this way, individual shareholders are performing a type of tacit value judgment whereby the risk/rewards (or cost benefits) of Euro zone inclusion are weighed against the perceived historical costs. As has been noted within the analysis, the three factors which have been discussed all interlink and are interdependent upon one another as a means of providing the member components with a sense of shared purpose, identity, and belonging. Furthermore, the issue of globalisation has morphed into an issue of domestic regionalism as the term has come to be at nominally confused with belonging and membership win the Euro zone and what this portends for the individual, society, and governmental structure at large. Whereas one cannot seek to draw too large a level of inference upon these factors as a function of understanding the level to which the European economic crisis is appreciated or understood, the simple fact that identify formation lies at the very core of each of these three terms which have been defined and elaborated upon helps to shed light on the extent to which globalisation, and by extension Europeanness is understood. Finally, whereas globalisation in and of itself may not have sold well within the Euro zone or compelled many to seek to salvage the current world model once crisis struck, the construct of a pan-European identity most certainly has. Evidence of such can be seen not only in the brief analysis which has been performed but in the way in which Europe’s shareholders use any and all means at their disposal to keep the federation intact. Similarly, if there was not a groundswell of support among the democratically elected governments of the individuals they represent, such an approach would be summarily impossible. References Antoniades, A 2008, Social Europe and/or global Europe? Globalization and flexicurity as debates on the future of Europe, Cambridge Review Of International Affairs, 21, 3, pp. 327-346, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 18 December 2012. Hudson, J 2006, Institutional Trust and Subjective Well-Being across the EU, Kyklos, 59, 1, pp. 43-62, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 18 December 2012. Ianitskii, ON 2010, Sociology and the Crisis, Sociological Research, 49, 3, pp. 3-24, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 18 December 2012. Schatz, R, & Lavine, H 2007, Waving the Flag: National Symbolism, Social Identity, and Political Engagement, Political Psychology, 28, 3, pp. 329-355, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 18 December 2012. Read More