Globalization Viewed from the Theory Perspectives - Research Paper Example

20 June Globalization: Viewed from the Symbolic Interactionist, Functionalist and Conflict Theory Perspectives The growing ties between different cultural groups and economic units that are typical of the present epoch had great consequences for the development of global society as a whole. Globalization leads to drastic changes in social conditions of millions of world’s residents, expressing itself both in constant shifts in global production and the disruption of ‘usual’ cultural conventions. That is why it is necessary to analyze the problem of globalization, so that the overcoming of its drawbacks may be possible. It would be useful to try and analyze the problem of globalization from the viewpoint of different scientific currents that may enable us to better understand the thing. In this essay, three theoretical approaches will be used and compared: Symbolic Interaction theory, functionalism, and conflict theory. The preference should be given to the one of them which may allow better grasp of the problems of globalization. A Symbolic Interaction theory is a sociological approach based on the principle of the primacy of semiotic interactions between individuals and their groups in an analysis of social relations. Symbolic interactionists usually claim that it is semiotics (i.e. the ability to form symbolic images of surrounding reality) that really distinguishes human beings from other animals, and that it is the specific ways of creating such symbolic meanings that define both human conscience and social order at large (Plummer 195). That said, symbolic interactionists aim to use as much empirical data for their scholarly arguments as possible, because the supporters of this approach believe that an analysis of social life should be grounded in strong empirical foundations (Blumer 47). With respect to globalization, the symbolic interactionist approach to this phenomenon rests on the assumption that globalization is the direct result of growing rates of social interaction across cultures. The globalized world is held together by the natural tendency of humans to communicate and share information with each other, so that the results of these interactions gradually come to shape their participants’ cultural conventions themselves (Dolgon and Baker 376). Thus globalization is a final result of the millennia-old process of growth in inter-community ties that led firstly to the emergence of different nations, and then to the gradual blurring of most important distinctions among them. The symbolic interactionist perspective allows for deeper understanding of socio-psychological aspects of globalization and their consequences. If one takes into account the impact globalization had on collective action networks and symbolic structures in general, one may observe that a globalizing world enabled the emergence of vastly different networks of meaning and action – from the development of a type of a ‘globalized’ consumer as a new point of reference to the steady growth of movements and attitudes that proceed from typically ‘global’ point of view. It does not matter whether such movements are pro- or anti-globalization and which symbolic structures they use to refer to themselves – all of them operate within the structure of meanings that was formed in the course of globalization processes. A functionalist approach to globalization is fundamentally political, in a sense that its supporters pay the closest attention to the functional aspects of interactions between different political actors that comprise an international political scene. The core idea beyond functionalist framework is that a growth in complexity of various functions executed by the state gradually gives rise to a need to cooperate with the other similar states, so that the execution of these functions may be more effective. The spheres of cooperation need not be ‘political’ in the narrow sense of the term; they might include purely technical or cultural interaction. Whatever it may be, the growing ‘material interdependence’ (Mitrany 101) leads to further cooperation between different political actors in the field of political cooperation as such, and, finally, to their political integration. Subsequently, the growth in integration may cause the previously hostile states to identify more with the new common interest rather than with the old, strictly national ones, thus decreasing the prospects for international conflicts. The neo-functionalists (e.g. Ernst B. Haas and Leon N. Lindberg) generally followed in the footsteps of the founder of functionalism, David Mitrany. Their main sphere of interest was the European integration, which they used as an empirical evidence for their theories. According to Haas, the process of integration was fundamentally political, being driven by the development of common political loyalties. The political integration, therefore, depended on the success of the process of shifting such loyalties, which was, in the end, a matter of pure persuasion. The erosion of national sovereignty that this process led to was viewed by neo-functionalists as ultimately beneficial, as this allowed avoiding the political conflicts that gripped Europe in pre-1945 period. The economic and political globalization is thus viewed as an extension of the deepening cooperation between regional blocs of the nation-states (such as the E.U.), seamlessly flowing from the social conditions that gave rise to them (Haas 429-458). Therefore globalization is analyzed as the ‘natural’ result of the convergence of various states’ interests within the larger global framework. The functionalist approach found its culmination in the development of the transnationalist school that became the most influential section of the neo-liberal current of international relations studies in the 1990s. According to transnationalists (e.g. Joseph S. Nye and Robert O. Keohane), the present international system is characterized by steady transition of the power from traditional nation-states to the new ‘transnational’ actors that are personified, in particular, by such entities as transnational corporations (TNC). The growth in global production rates and the resulting outflows of goods and services secured the role of the TNC as the principal economic agents, decreasing the potential of nation-states to regulate their actions. Therefore, according to transnationalists, rapid economic development and the growing rate of international investments are the main factors determining the progress of globalization as such. Finally, the conflict theory approach to globalization rests on the idea of unequal interdependence as the basis of modern globalization. The conflict theorists point to an unequal distribution of power and resources within the global system, thus drawing a conclusion that globalization is more a result of conflict than of any mutual and beneficial cooperation. Various schools of the conflict theory of globalization draw their inspiration from the early 20th century Marxist theories of imperialism, such as the ones laid down by Bukharin, Rosa Luxemburg or Lenin. In particular, Lenin and Bukharin assumed that the accumulation of capital led to the scramble for new points of profitable investment, while economic protectionism of major capitalist nations made impossible the solution of this problem by purely economic means, thus leading to major international conflicts. While these orthodox Marxists believed that a global anti-capitalist revolution was the only possible way of solving the problem, it is now clear that the destruction of the old protectionist empires in the wake of de-colonisation both opened greater opportunities for further capital accumulation and showed that the political independence in itself did not guarantee an independent economic development. This led to the growth of further conflict theory approaches that both followed and made redundant the theories of imperialism. Such approaches as world-system theory (Arrighi; Wallerstein), Neo-Gramscianism (Cox; Gill) or dependency theories (Cardoso and Faletto; Amin) represent the most developed forms of the conflict theory of globalization. That is why it is necessary to briefly dwell on them. According to world-system theorists, the structure of global politics and economics is obviously hierarchical and is assumed to be divided into three distinct zones. These are core countries, semi-periphery countries, and periphery countries. Core countries are the centers of capital-intensive, highly technological production, and play the dominant role in global political and cultural processes. Their interests define the main direction of development of the international system. The periphery countries are those specialized in primary sector (i.e. agricultural production and raw materials extraction) that lack any autonomous role and are dependent on core countries for the inflow of technologies, capital goods, etc. They play a subordinate role within international system. The semi-periphery countries possess some economic autonomy, but still do not have sufficient potential to challenge the dominance of core countries (such as the USA). Therefore the world-system is characterized by clear hierarchy, with core countries taking openly hegemonic position. Nevertheless, the struggle among these countries for the uppermost position in the global hierarchy allows for periodic changes in balance of power within the world-system. In the past, this process took the form of cyclical changes of hegemon of international system, with this role being passed between the Netherlands, Great Britain and finally the United States of America. The world-systems theorists such as Wallerstein do not view the present stage of globalization as something unique and groundbreaking; on the contrary, they regard it as just the new expression of the cycle of world-systems development that was opened as early as 1500, with the beginning of the European expansion to the Americas and beyond. At the same time, some of them (e.g. Arrighi) presume that the shifting balance of economic influence may lead to the end of the Western cycle of hegemony, with the rise of East Asia, referring to modern China as the best candidate for the role of a new hegemon so far. The Neo-Gramscian school of international relations studies was born out of application of the ideas of the Italian Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci to the realities of international system and globalization. Its main proponents, Robert W. Cox and Stephen Gill, view the development of international system as the result of changes in global political economy, which exists as the unity of economic, political and cultural structures and agents that participate in their reproduction. According to Cox, the internationalisation of global production and capital flow increase led to deep transformation of world order, with nation-states being gradually transformed into instruments of transnational social forces. In particular, the end of the 1970s saw the rise of a new international regime characterised by hegemony of transnational social forces that are no longer bound by national limitations. Their most evident representatives are the TNC, with their leadership comprising a new “transnational managerial class” (Cox 147) that has become the highest level of global class structure. Within the framework proposed by Neo-Gramscians, nation-states are assumed to no longer pursue the sole interests of local social forces, whatever they may be; they are obviously connected with the global structures of transnational hegemony. International institutions such as WTO or IMF thus assume a role more independent from traditional pressures from below, following the collective will of dominant transnational social forces. Finally, the dependency theories aim to analyze the unequal development dimension of globalization that causes the existence of wide imbalances in development between the so-called ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ nations. The main aspect of economic globalization that is frequently targeted in dependency theorists’ writing is that of structural capital dependency that is typical for the developing countries. The developing countries cannot finance their development by themselves in the world of a sharp market competition, and thus are forced to rely on direct foreign investments and financial institutions’ loans that often come at a great price. The growth in general indebtedness and painful structural adjustment/austerity reforms that have recently struck many developing, and even some developed, nations are often cited as an example of negative impact of financial globalisation by these authors. Having outlined the main approaches to the globalisation, it is necessary to compare and contrast their relative strengths and weaknesses. First of all, it is clear that all of them try to fully represent the reality of globalisation, while it is not always possible due to the criteria chosen by them. For instance, while structural interactionist approach allows paying more attention to the problems of cultural interaction and cultural aspects of globalization in general, it tends to ignore the less subjective political and socio-economic factors that play a great role in the development of globalization as a phenomenon. The structural interactionist reading of globalisation is fundamentally the one of cultural interaction, while it is clear that economic and overtly political factors have had a great impact on this process. Similarly, the functionalist approach, in all its different froms, pay the greatest attention to the functional causes of globalization, viewing it as a natural result of converging economic and political interests. The functionalists tend to ignore the negative features of globalization, viewing it as a generally positive process of growing material and political interdependence between generally equal international actors. This extremely positive and objectivist assessment cannot make one believe that the functionalist paradigm is best suited to explain globalization and the problems caused by the latter. That is why it is various conflict theory approaches that seem to most accurately capture the reality of globalization. Their emphasis on problems of structural inequality generated by globalization and the resulting formation of the unaccountable transnational structures that are prone to causing problems in the course of their growth and development appears to be rather justified. Indeed, the destabilising capital flows that are emphasized in, for instance, Neo-Gramscian paradigm, are directly responsible for some of the most serious current economic problems that threaten to cause the beginning of the new global depression right now. Nonetheless, it would be unjustifiable to ignore the contributions of structural interactionist and functionalist theories to the debate on globalisation. The functionalist perspective enables us to understand how the growing interests of various nation-states in more stable regulation of the problems of mutual interest brought about the beginning of globalisation and integration processes, continuing to sustain it even nowadays. The functionalists’ (particularly, transnationalists’) emphasis on the TNC role in economic globalisation likewise helps to better locate the driving forces behind it. However, it is the conflict theory perspective that may help in finding ways for overcoming structural inequalities between various ethnic and social groups that give rise to some of the serious problems of socio-economic development, which globalisation happened to cause. It is important that their contributions should be integrated in daily practical policies. Works Cited Blumer, Herbert. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. 2nd ed. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1986. Print. Cox, Robert W. Production, Power and World Order: Social Forces in Making of History. New York: Colombia University Press, 1987. Print. Dolgon, Corey, and Baker, Chris. Social Problems: A Service Learning Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press, 2011. Print. Haas, Ernst B. Beyond the Nation-State: Functionalism and International Organization. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 1964. Print. Mitrany, David. The Progress of the International Government. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1933. Print. Plummer, Ken. “A World in the Making: Symbolic Interactionism in the Twentieth Century.” The Blackwell Companion to Social Theory. Ed. Bryan S. Turner. 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2000. Print. 193-222. Read More