Perspectives in the Age of Globalization - Essay Example

"It has been said that arguing against globalization is like arguing against the laws of gravity." - Kofi Annan Ghanian Diplomat, 7th Secretary General, UN Enormous. Unchallengeable. The dictum. Or was it something else that the former UN Secretary General wanted to say Well, the concept of one 'global tribe' and Marshall Mc Luhan's coinage of 'global village' wouldn't have looked better in another context. Boundaries have disappeared, borders have merged and channels are open. Global has given way to the trendier glocal. It's the era of revolutions and transformations- technological, communication cultural and even beyond. Industrialization initiated the trend and technical evolution catalyzed it. The World Wide Web was the icing on the cake. But if the actual origin of this concept is explored, it can be attributed to the discovery of the earth being a circle rather than a square. In fact, the spherical connotation wards of all the edges! The satellite pictures of the earth also show it as a unified area with patches of green and blue lending a symphony to its being. Even geology justifies the concept of 'global village'! But ponder before you get euphoric over this expression of rationality. The concept of globalization operates on near ideal conditions. These conditions rest on one major condition, subsequently. And the condition is that the whole world needs to have an access to this technology. And there lies the catch! Sitting in your Los Angeles office, you cannot even imagine the gravity of starvation and epidemic in so many Afro-Asian countries. When even basic needs are not met, who cares about Internet or satellite revolution Or in a more jargonistic way, who cares for or for that matter, even understands globalization. Globalization is an umbrella term that refers to increased interdependence in the economic, social, technological, cultural, political and ecological spheres. Theodore Levitt is credited with the first use of this term in the economic context. It is very important to understand globalization in the economic context and attribute its origin to the West and see its ramifications as embraced by other societies. Ours is an age of democracy. Democracy as a form of government, characterized by elections and the installation of a representative government, has been becoming a global phenomenon. The fall of the socialist world and domestic and global changes in Latin America, Africa and Middle East have brought democracy to places and shores where it was undreamt a few years ago, giving people a taste of freedom. But the globalization of democracy as a form of more of more legitimate representative government has not been accompanied by genuine efforts to tackle the problems of democracy (such as tension between equality and liberty, the dictatorship of majority, the actual as well as manufactured disinterest of the so-called electorate process resulting in as much as 50 per cent of them not fulfilling their constitutional obligation to vote) and to widen the universe of democracy in accordance with the historical changes taking place in social systems as well as in the light of desired agenda of transformation. The first wave of globalization was initiated by the British Empire during 1870-1914, when the whole world was virtually inducted into the extensive international trading relationships. This era collapsed after the First World War. It is pertinent to note that finance was not an important segment of that era's economy. Globalization therefore remained restricted to the domain of trade and direct (physical) investment. In fact, it was only after 1980s that this term got introduced in America. It became internationally popular in the 90s after the fall of Berlin Wall. Capitalism was declared to have been the winner of the Cold War over communism with which it was believed by many to have been in competition for three-quarters of a century. Now it was sold by the great powers to the world as the superior economic system, by sheer virtue of having outlived its rival. And by the same token, the whole world was asked to adopt it. Quite a prejudiced beginning Or just a matter of perspective This is what the essay aims at. It does not look at drawing conclusions, but bring a perspective to the plethora of observations on globalization and the tall and 'not-so-tall' claims it has been making. Before exploring the gamut of opportunities and threats that globalization compasses, it is important to understand the emergence and operation of this concept. Since the early 80s there has been a dramatic restructuring of industries along with the emergence of a genuinely global commercial market. The flip side however is the centralization of control and the intensification of commercialization. Consequently, the more powerful players tend to dominate and overshadow the less powerful. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the 'globalization wave' does not hit or serve all countries in the same way. There are clear disparities and various evidences to support this perspective. The emergence of Trans-national Corporations (TNCs) is a direct evidence to support the aforementioned situation. There are a few prominent TNCs at the international level, but their presence as giants in their respective domains have made them influential forces. Subsequently, a few but very strong perpetuators of certain effects control the mechanism and operations of the very vulnerable market. There is another latent fact. Many prominent firms that claim to be global in form and extent, infact work in restricted but prominent geographic clusters, vis--vis the European Union, Japan and North America. Giant American retailer Wal-Mart often cited as accompany with a global approach, has only 9.6% of its store outside America. However, the brand name has managed to muster a major share in the primary market that has attributed to its international popularity. The company might not be a true global giant, but is looked upon as an international brand with global acceptance. Therefore, what might seem like an extension of globalization might actually be a farce or a myth. The interesting thing is the creation of this myth and the huge belief in the myth that is either manipulated or manufactured. The intellectual community has always been amazed at how money gets shoved around the globe in a fraction of a second. They diligently depict what "globalization" supposedly consists in - some discover "the emergence of worldwide markets for products, capital, and services." There's a second type of globalization literature appearing, one that takes into account all the responses to this striking phenomenon, forecasts and problematizes the inescapable consequences for "society" and pleads for adjustments, adaptation, rethinking and stuff like that. Sociologists and social philosophers expect businessmen to get their companies fit for "globalized markets". They are more interested in the changes "society" must go through, "society" by definition being for them nothing but a more or less stable social life of people who behave and relate to each other in accordance with norms and values that they have internalized. That means readjustment for the world, many a value lost, new behavior demanded, and relationships governed by modern means of communication. Deep reflection is called for: what shall we do about the strange, global values descending upon us, possibly contrary to the local or regional traditions that we feel at home in and that convey a feeling of familiarity A veritable upheaval has unfolded before our very eyes: the void left behind by "imperialism," which made its exit long ago, has been filled by globalization - and what's the outcome The leading authorities of "democracy & market economy" are now experiencing the phenomenon of globalization, which they themselves had laboriously developed, as a regime of tyranny; the brave new world categorically forces them to stand up to international comparison. And in order to prevail despite the dependency they find themselves in, they must do almost exactly the same as they were intent on doing for their success long before the alleged turning point in the world economy at the end of the twentieth century. That hurts, but it can't be avoided - not to mention for the many walk-on extras of the world economy who, for their part, are dependent on their nations' and economies' success. The guardians of their homelands and their employers carry the responsibility for them - as the means, as the victims, as the appendages, so to speak, of every competitive endeavor. Before we delve deeper, let us examine another active area that is experiencing the 'globalization wave' in a big way. The technological revolution has completely transformed the media world. From its very modest beginnings with books and printing, the pendulum of media has oscillated to television boom and now the new media. There is nothing being left to imagination. No area is being left unexplored. The progress is enormous and so is its effort to manage that 'global reach'. However if facts were analyzed, it would be clear that the recent phase of communication revolution has been marked by a new phenomenon of media concentration, leading to the world media industry being increasingly dominated by a small number of very large media firms. This trend on its outset is full of apprehensions. The foremost and most important concern is the threat to fair expression of diverse and balanced opinion. This would also mean the dominance of certain points of view only because the perpetrators of opinion would be quite limited, but omni-present. Joint ventures, alliances, mergers and acquisitions - the pillars of globalization- strengthen the aforementioned apprehensions. Another outcome that seems quite disturbing is the impact of globalization wave altering the social and political structure of civilizations. With only a minority being the true representative of this culture, there is an established threat of 'real issues' being hidden in the garb of this newfound phenomenon. While international expansions might indicate a balanced exposure of modern facilities the world over, certain harsh realities get ignored. On one side is this 'mall-nourished' society in resonance with the rapid spread of globalization; while the other side is still that 'malnourished' society which does not get the head and tail of this hyped concept and is struggling to exist and survive. The irony of the situation is that both sides seem oblivious to each other, when there are so many opportunities available to use globalization as a social medium to unify some basic systems at the global level. Only when this distance is bridged, can there be some hope of true globalization happening. The globalization of recent decades was never a democratic choice by the people of the world--the process has been business driven, by business strategies and tactics, for business ends. Governments have helped, by incremental policy actions, and by larger actions that were often taken in secret, without national debate and discussion of where the entire process was taking the community. In the case of some major actions advancing the globalization process, like passing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or joining the European Monetary Union (EMU), publics have been subjected to massive propaganda campaigns by the interested business-media elites. In the United States, public opinion polls showed the general public against NAFTA even after incessant propaganda, but the mass media supported it, and it was passed. In Europe as well, polls have shown persistent majorities opposed to the introduction of the Euro, but a powerful elite supports it, so that it moves forward. This undemocratic process, carried out within a democratic facade, is consistent with the distribution of benefits and costs of globalization, and the fact that globalization has been a tool serving elite interests. Globalization has also steadily weakened democracy, partly as a result of unplanned effects, but also because the containment of labor costs and scaling down of the welfare state has required the business minority to establish firm control of the state and remove its capacity to respond to the demands of the majority. The mix of deliberate and unplanned elements in globalization's antidemocratic thrust can be seen in each aspect of the attack process. In the short-term, as we have seen in the past few years, volatile short-term capital flows can threaten macroeconomic stability. Thus in a world of integrated financial markets, countries will find it increasingly risky to follow policies that do not promote financial stability. This discipline also applies to the private sector, which will find it more difficult to implement wage increases and price markups that would make the country concerned become uncompetitive. But there is another kind of risk. Sometimes investors-particularly short-term investors-take too sanguine a view of a country's prospects and capital inflows may continue even when economic policies have become too relaxed. This exposes the country to the risk that when perceptions change, there may be a sudden brutal withdrawal of capital from the country. The second aspect of globalisation on which critics focus is the impact of global forces on the sovereignty of the state. The sovereignty of the state is claimed to be threatened by two developments associated with globalisation. The first is the emergence of global crime. The second refers to the changing character of international law and instruments such as treaties and the increasing importance of non-government and multi-state organizations in scrutinizing the domestic policies of national governments. Concerns have been raised that criminal networks stretching across the globe are involved in the illicit transportation of people, goods, money and information. These networks are becoming increasingly more sophisticated following advances in global communication and transportation networks. The problem of border security is also raised in relation to the transportation of goods. In addition to the organized smuggling of goods, it can be argued that national authorities are faced with a less deliberate threat to the integrity of their borders through the increase in the accessibility of international travel to greater numbers of people. The second set of concerns about globalization's threat to sovereignty refers to the increasing pressure on national governments to implement legislation that satisfies the international community. National governments are represented as being increasingly subject to attempts to impose standards set out in multilateral treaties, for example the failed Multilateral Agreement on Investment and various international declarations on human rights and environmental standards. They are also subject to increased scrutiny and criticism by international organizations such as the World Trade Organization, the United Nations Human Rights Committee and Amnesty International. This is an essay about perspectives. And perspectives change with time, with knowledge and of course, with changes in the socio-political set-up. If the goal of globalization is to make the entire world as a global society or global system, there is a need to understand the dynamics of its formative process. Therefore there is an imperative need to restructure the way the rhetoric of globalization is discursively structured. It has to be looked at in three different aspects. First there is a cluster of regional or civilizational structures that affect it, and they are from all over. Second, there is a cluster of disciplines including economics, cultural studies, communication and media studies, political science, anthropology, sociology and yet others. Third, there are ideological dimensions of globalization. Only when all these parameters are weighed simultaneously, would the rhetoric start seeming substantial. It is a journey of perspectives. But there definitely seems a concrete way ahead. References Worthington, Glenn.,26 June 2001, Globalisation: Perceptions and Threats to National Government in Australia, GegenStandpunkt: Politische Vierteljahreszeitschrift 4-99, Gegenstandpunkt Verlag, Munich, The myth of "Globalization": The World Market as an Objective Constraint Giddens, A., 1990, The Consequences of Modernity, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press Robertson, R., 1992, Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture, London: Sage Read More