Relationship Between Globalization And National Identities - Essay Example

Relationship between globalization and national identities Globalization is characterized by the increased interconnectedness and interdependence of nations due to the progressive blurredness of national frontiers that has resulted to cross-border flows of goods, services, information, people as well as cultures (Naz, Khan, Hossain & Daraz 2011, p.2). The world is certainly becoming smaller and borderless in today’s era of globalization, due to the numerous innovations and the rapid advancements in technological communications that often enforce the illusion of living in a global community (Vinsensio 1999, p.52). In the present times, overwhelming concerns have been expressed over the potential impacts of the increasing globalization as predicted with the emergence of Supra-national organizations such as the European Union, and the increasing cultural diversity of our societies. A significant body of research supposes that globalization coupled with the advancement in information and communication technologies has contributed to the perceived fragmentation of national identities (Ariely 2012, p.461). Integration of the European nations and the push towards the formation of a common European identity have been linked to the perceived disappearance of prevailing national states particularly in the UK. For some observers, globalization has reduced the relevance and importance of national identity to people’s sense of self; they argue that globalization does undermine the significance of nationalism as national identities are progressively becoming indistinct. In that respect, people are increasingly identifying themselves as part of the world culture as their identities go beyond their individual nation states, thus, creating the so-called “supra-nationalism” (Vinsensio 1999, p.52). While the argument for the negative impact of globalization on national identity is persuasive, other observers have argued that globalization has in fact strengthened people’s sense of nationalism. For them, globalization only influences the types of nationalism as predicated by the strengthened identification of self and small groups; the continuous increase in the number of centrifugal forces by small groups including religious and ethno-linguistic groups indicates the rise of ethno-nationalism. This paper critically evaluates the extent to which globalization contributes to the perceived reduction of relevance and importance of national identity to individuals’ sense of self. Nations are collective identities that are defined by a specific set of symbols, memories as well as values (Rahn 2005, p.3); national identities vary significantly across nations because every territory has its own defined unique symbols, past memories and values. Globalization is perceived to be undermining national identities because of the prevalence of cross-border exchanges that make it difficult for any particular national identity to retain its unique importance while distinguishing itself from other national identities. In the era of globalization, the whole world has been reduced to a small global village with the implication that it is no longer possible for nations to produce and preserve a single national identity due to global influences. Individuals in the so-called global village are consuming goods and information from all corners of the world and governments no longer have exclusive control over their citizens or the territories over which they govern (Gwyn 2014). Empirical studies have been conducted before to assess the relationship between the level of globalization, in terms of increased connectedness or cross-border exchange of information and data, and national identities. Results of these studies have been sharply contradicting, thereby signalling the complex relationship between globalization and national identity. On one end, these results have indicated that higher levels of globalization are negatively correlated with individuals’ levels of patriotism and inclination to fight for their nations, as well as their ethnic national identity. Generally, in countries where is free flow of ideas, information, as well as goods and capital, individuals are less willing to fight in defence of their nations and to stick to their national identities while endorsing cultural standards for national belonging. From this analysis, it would suffice to conclude that indeed globalization does contribute to the continued decline of national identities; nevertheless, the same empirical studies have also found that higher levels of national identification do not necessarily correlate with the level of globalization within countries. The implication of this analysis is that globalization does not necessarily reduce people’s national identification or pride in their countries (Kaul 2014, p.14). For a long time now, nationalism has erroneously been equated to acts of extremism such as separatism, conflicting interests, extreme right wing politics as well as closed-mindedness and prejudiced perceptions of others (Sindic 2008, p.3). Contrariwise, a country’s nationalism lies at the core of the many institutions and practices that continuously shape and define everyday experiences of individuals in that particular country; national institutions and practices do inculcate and reinforce the idea that the global society is ordered in terms of nation states. Individuals have progressively been socialized through these national practices and institutions to the extent that they have become part of everyday living experiences; it is not unusual for people to fail to notice the nationalistic dimension of most of these practices because they have become accustomed to them. Technological advancements have in fact created more avenues for the propagation of practices that encourage the formation of a strong sense of national identity. For instance, the increased interconnectedness of people in the era of globalization through advancement of information communication technologies increase the ability of people to imagine and relate as members of a common national identity. Nevertheless, these new technologies also have the capacity to alter both the sense and meanings of national identities The perceived decline of nationalism and national identities in the era of globalization has been attributed to the continuous increase in the ease of access to information and consumer products from all over the world (Blum 2007, p.48). It is an acknowledged reality of globalization, that people are able to travel far and wide, thereby exchanging ideas and interacting with foreign cultures; observers have argued that this phenomenon inevitably contributes to increased blurredness of cultural differences between nations and the continuous fragmentation of cultural homogeneity within nations. The implication of this trend appears to be that nationalism and national identities are increasingly becoming less significant for individuals, not just as systems of identification, but also as locus of attachment. Simply put, it is alleged that people’s everyday life is increasingly being framed in terms of global rather than nationalistic practices with the implication that nationalism and national identities are no longer at the core of individuals’ daily experiences. However, it is not true that the so-called “global practices” are transcending and even undermining the nationality-based systems of categorization because such practices often retain their nationhood; for instance foods from China and Italy are still categorized as Chinese and Italian respectively. Furthermore, the increased ease with which people connect and exchange information and products due to advancements in information communication technologies does not necessarily mean that people will choose to adopt identities other than their own. Culture shock and cultural differences Culture shock is defined as the feelings of distress and apprehension that arise when an individual is suddenly introduced to a foreign culture for the first time, and the entire process an individual goes through adjusting to the foreign cultural elements (Oberg 2006, p.142). Culture shock is undoubtedly a common somatic and psychosomatic reaction to the strangeness of unfamiliar environments; culture shock is essential for individuals’ successful adaptation and adjustment to foreign cultures. Cultural differences between nations in particular are essential in maintaining a sense of nationhood and national identity, which are crucial both for categorization of individuals and attachment, especially in today’s era of globalization. Kolb’s 1984 learning style inventory progresses from the premise that learning entails the attainment of abstract concepts that can be put to use easily in a vast range of situations; Kolb supposes that new experiences themselves often push people to develop new concepts. In Kolb’s experiential learning model, learning takes place when concrete experience is transformed through reflective observation, abstract conceptualization and eventually through active experimentation. After encountering new experiences or new reinterpretations of existing experiences, individuals often reflect on it thereby discovering new ideas or new insights regarding existing abstract concepts which the test by applying to real world contexts. Hofstede argues that national culture is not only implicit, but also core, systematically causal, varied across territories and shared among people of a particular group (McSweeney 2002, p.91); culture being implicit means that it is subjective and it being core means that it is a common component. Hofstede attributes national cultures to absolute causality and argues that culture is territorially unique; this implies that even though a state like the Great Britain is divided into three distinct nations namely England, Scotland and Wales, it is a single unit with a uniform national culture. The Hofstede model positions countries relative to each other based on six main dimensions namely indulgence versus restraint, power distance, long term versus short term orientation, masculinity versus femininity as well as uncertainty avoidance and individualism versus collectivism (Hofstede 2011, p.7). Power distance is related with the level of acceptance of dissimilarity among members of society while uncertainty deterrence has to do with the extent to which members of different societies are open to ambiguous situations. Individualism versus collectivism of a society determines the extent to which its members are unified and their membership of groups while masculinity versus femininity specifies the sharing of values as well as roles between members of different genders (Soares, Farhangmehr & Shoham 2006, p.280). In Martin Gannon’s perspective, the dimensional perspective of culture must be supplemented with a comprehensive treatment of what he calls cultural metaphors, which are the practices, phenomenon or institutions that members of a particular culture identify with (Gannon 2001, p.269). Cultural metaphors, according to Gannon, are a representation of what the particular culture holds dear, that is, the most fundamental values that form the basis for everyday interaction and experiences within a group of people respectively. Edward Hall pioneering work in the field of intercultural communication has led to insightful insights regarding key cultural factors, particularly the high and low context cultural factors. There are many contextual components in the high context culture, which make it easier for people to get along since they understand the rules (“Hall’s cultural factors” 2009). Nonetheless, a lot is taken for granted in high-context cultures and foreigners who may not be conversant with the many “unwritten” rules of that culture are more likely to be confused and distressed. Contrariwise, low-context cultures have very few contextual elements and nothing in this culture is taken for granted; the implication is that more explanation is offered in low-context cultures, thereby considerably diminishing chances of miscommunication and misunderstandings when dealing with foreigners. Fonns Trompenaars and Hampden Turner interrogate country stereotypes and the need to understand individuals in today’s culturally diverse societies based on the dimension of cultural factors (“Trompenaars and Hampden-Turners” n.d.). The cultural factors identified by Trompenaars and Turner include universalism versus particularism, evaluating versus assimilating, and individuality versus communitarianism as well as inner versus outer directed. The other two cultural factors that should be considered when dealing with or interacting with foreigners or people from other cultures are time as categorization versus time as harmonization, accomplished status versus attributed status as well as fairness versus hierarchy. Ultimately, having examined the impact of globalization on national identity, it would suffice to conclude that the relationship between the two variables is complex; however, what is clear enough is that national identities are still crucial features in today’s era of globalization and will remain unchanged through the coming decades. The perceived negative impact of globalization and advancements in communication technologies on national identities is insignificant because national identities in the so-called global village are not fragmented as it has been previously suggested. Even integration of the European continent and the likelihood of the realization of a common European identity do not necessarily imply that the existing national identities will disappear because national identities are and will remain to be the basis upon which attitudes towards, and a sense of belongingness to the union will be formed. Despite the presence of strong sub-state national identities, devolution as well as separatist movements in the UK, an imminent disintegration of Britain is quite unlikely and the increasing cultural diversity of the society does not necessarily complement or threaten national identities. Countries are defined by their unique national practices that are framed in unique national symbols; national practices within countries contribute immensely to people’s everyday experiences. In that respect, national identities are inseparable from national practices and as long as these practices endure, national identities are here to stay and cannot decline even in the face of the increasing threat of globalization and advancement in information communication technologies. The meanings of national identities are progressively being shaped by nationalistic practices and even though it is possible to anticipate that daily experiences are changing and are inclined to do so through the future due to globalization forces, it is quite unlikely that this would result to significant changes to national identities. References Ariely, G. (2012). Globalisation and the decline of national identity? An exploration across sixty-three countries. Nations and Nationalism 18 (3), 2012, 461–482. Vinsensio, M.A.1999. Defining Nationalism in the Era of Globalization. Politic 12(2): pp. 51-57. Naz, A., Khan, W., Hossain, M., Daraz, U. 2011. The Crises of Identity: Globalization and its impacts on Socio-Cultural and Psychological Identity among Pakhtuns of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pakistan. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 1(1): pp.1-11. Kaul, V. 2014. Globalisation and crisis of cultural identity. Journal of Sociology and Anthropology 2(1): pp.013-021. Oberg, K. 2006. Cultural Shock: Adjustment to New Cultural Environments. Curare, 29 (2/3): pp. 142-146. Gannon, M.J. 2001. Understanding Global Cultures: Metaphorical Journeys through 23 Nations, 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. McSweeney, B. 2002. Hofstedes model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith - a failure of analysis. Human Relations 55: 89-118. Blum, D.W. 2007. National Identity and Globalization: Youth, State, and Society in Post-Soviet Eurasia. Cambridge: CUP. Sindic, D. 2008. National identities: are they declining? Beyond current horizons [online] Available from: http://www.beyondcurrenthorizons.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/final_sindic_nationalidentities_20081201.pdf Hofstede, G. 2011. Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1): 1-26. Rahn, W.M. 2005. Globalization, the Decline of Civic Commitments, and the Future of Democracy. [online] Available from https://www.princeton.edu/csdp/events/Rahn030206/Rahn030206.pdf Soares, A.M., Farhangmehr, M., & Shoham, A. 2006. Hofstedes dimensions of culture in international marketing studies. Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 277–284. “Trompenaars and Hampden-Turners cultural factors”. n.d. Changing Minds. [online] Available from: http://changingminds.org/explanations/culture/trompenaars_culture.htm “Hall’s cultural factors.” ”. n.d. Changing Minds. [online] Available from: http://changingminds.org/explanations/culture/hall_culture.htm Gwyn, R. (2014). Canada in the age of national-identity crises: Gwyn. The star [online] Available from: http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2014/04/01/canada_in_the_age_of_nationalidentity_crises_gwyn.html Read More