Discussion Pertaining to Kaplan and Wright's Beliefs - Assignment Example

?A Discussion Pertaining to Kaplan and Wright's Beliefs When we think about the issue of globalization in modern times, we tend to think of the methods through which people and nations have become interdependent upon each other. This interdependence has gained so much foot hold in our international business dealings that the collapse of one business entity in Europe could spell the demise of its counterpart in Asia. It is a ripple effect that has redefined the way that business is conducted globally and has redefined globalization as we have learned in theory from both Kaplan and Wright. Both Kaplan and Wright use modern history to explain their various beliefs in terms of Globalization. However, their points of view starkly contrast each other. Kaplan chooses to explain globalization as a part of the ability of a nation to find areas within their own economic systems that will allow their natural resources and geographic location to dictate the speed and method by which the country shall modernize its infrastructure and business models. These business models however, are based mostly on the basis of the religion or ethnicity of the region in order to play up on the strengths of the people inhabiting particular locations. Although Kaplan's belief makes sense, since it allows a section of the population to advance socially and economically, it has its own drawbacks and failures as well. The main problem with Kaplan's point of view is that it dooms the divisions within a country, its states, to an interdependence that does not allow room for improvement should other states in the country fail to reach its full potential based upon the ethnic and religious climate in that region. In effect, Kaplan wants us to believe that if a particular portion / sector of economics in a society functions poorly or ceases to function in totality, then the whole state and its adjoining areas should be seen as failures as well. All states that are located within the same vicinity can be assumed to be failing simply because one portion of the economic sector in that area failed to live up to is full potential. As we all know, such a theory cannot be based upon the reality of any modern situation as all businesses, though interdependent, allows for other entities within their sectors to evolve in order to deal with the impending failure of other sectors. Just because one sector fails does not mean that all the members of that particular business chain shall fail as well. Rather, the failure of one area allows for the growth and evolution of the others within the chain. This is a point of view that, although explained in a highly convoluted way by Wright, his theory pertaining to Globalization seems to support to a certain degree. In Wright's opinion, Globalization is a business movement that can only be spread far and wide provided that a “natural leader of a moral revolution” can be found. In his personal opinion, that natural leader can be found in only one country, the United States of America. Basing his beliefs upon the historical fact that America has been leading the world in more ways than one since World War I, he advocates the theory that America must spread globalization but it can only be accurately done so provided America takes on the role of conqueror on a global scale. This is something that he believes in even though he admits to himself and to his readers that globalization actually began far longer that we all thought. It actually dates back to prehistorical times, when technology was in its infancy and the invention of the wheel, the cart, and the use of animals to help move trade from town to turn was actually thought to have began to modernization of business. The failure of Wirght's belief in America as the de-facto leader in Globalization lies in the fact that he did not take into account the potential for the American economy itself to find itself in a death spiral, thus allowing for other countries, such as China, Korea, and other emerging Asian markets, to finally take their places on the world stage as business leaders in their own right. He neglected to allow room for the possibility that other nations may emerge as leaders who shall not give too much weight to the economic beliefs of America as it applies to their own country or region. After all, business and economics make for strange bedfellows. It sometimes seems like one is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. However for some countries, that square peg will actually fit into the round hole. In other words, The American economic model may have worked for the world for over a century, but the balance of power and the emergence of other economies using methods different from that of the Americans has made it possible for other nations to simply ignore America as an adviser and business leader as they have come to realize on their own, that globalization does not mean the annexing of their business and economy by one nation, but rather, taking the good and bad economic strategies of various nations throughout their own region and then allowing those policies to define exactly how “global” and “regional” their economy and business structures will be in the future. Both Kaplan and Wright also have their own personal point of views pertaining to morality. However, both men decided to relate their moral beliefs to their views on Globalization. This polluting of their moral beliefs has allowed them to develop a sense of religion that best serves their socioeconomic beliefs as it applies to modern business theories on Globalization. Wright for example, views morality in terms of a “global” god whose existence is created by people in order to serve their own selfish needs. It is his belief that people create gods to believe in that can be tolerant and global in order to further promote tolerance and interdependence in our modern society. His moral belief in God is based solely upon his belief in Globalization that requires religion to evolve alongside the conquerors. Hence the “tolerant” and “global” nature of his God. Kaplan on the other hand has a more arrogant point of view when it comes to morality. His belief that America is some sort of modern day God and all nations must bow its wisdom is somewhat troubling. Specially since the United States has done some morally questionable things in relation to their quest to “keep the peace” in various regions across the world. Morally, he believes that nobody should question the American way and rather, all must simply follow its lead. Something that we all know cannot happen in these days and times. Having said the aforementioned in relation to Kaplan and Wright's point of view on morality, it is therefore quite clear that both men, though strong in their moral convictions and beliefs, are coming from opposite sides on the matter. They definitely do not have a single leg to stand on in terms of agreeing on any moral cause. Wright has this belief that America is sworn to a gender mission that is partnered with a deep and subtle moral challenge. This is based upon his belief that America is the global leader that all other counties must look up to for guidance. America has always been known as a “male” nation, hence the term referring to “Uncle Sam” as the father of the states. The image of Uncle Sam is that of a grandfatherly figure who, although aging in stance, carries the seriousness of his mission and the weight of the world on his shoulders. The mission of the country therefore, is it ensure that its way of thinking and way of life is spread far and wide across the globe. Using the gentle hand of a leader whenever necessary, but also knowing that their leadership style has to adjust in order to remain relevant to the times. The moral challenge for America as a world leader then becomes a question of adjusting to the modern times. The moral challenge for the great nation of America now boils down to a question of learning how to respect the socioeconomic beliefs of other nations that vary from their own. The nation must now, as a world leader, learn to lead morally while respecting others rather than forcing their own beliefs down the throat of the others. It is not a simple task to accomplish but America has been trying its best to achieve that “gender mission” in relation to its “moral challenges”. It is actually the belief of Robert Wright when it comes to Liberalism and other aspects of Globalization that one might be constrained to say that Kipling leaned more towards his particular beliefs and advocacy in terms of human nature. This is because Kim is the story of an empire (in this case the British) that is on a mission of globalization. An an Imperialist, he believed that the British colonizers in India had a right to “own” the country based upon its weakness to govern itself. Therefore, to Kipling, who was born in India under the British rule, it would seem normal for the stronger country to take over the leadership and day to day socioeconomic activities of the weaker nation. After all, without the stronger nation to protect them, the weaker nation would fail miserably. Only by conquering the nation can they be part of the bigger world picture. This is an idea that Wright strongly advocates in his writings and beliefs. Just like Wright, Kipling tends to view the world and globalization in a larger, world interdependency scale. The two men tend to share the same rash and biased generalizations about India (for Kipling) and the world (for Wright). This is a point of view that can clearly be read in the story of Kim which, most readers believe, reflected the personal point of view of Kipling rather than the point of view of the title character. This perhaps why I believe that Kipling's story leans more towards the beliefs of Wright rather than Kaplan. If one were to seriously read and understand the context of the story, one will see that Kim was actually on a mission of Globalization alongside his friend the Tibetan Lama. He began the story as a disciple to the aging Lama and ended as its leader. With the boy slowly evolving into a young man whose global adventures influenced his way of life and point of view but also helped him hone his leadership skills in such a manner that he could easily adjust to any situation that he found himself in. This is one very clear belief of Wright who has advocated that the morality of leadership lies in the ability of its leaders to change with the times and use the current trends and beliefs to his own leadership advantage. The story of Kim and his adventures shows us the importance of the influence of Globalization among people of various regions. It proves that man is capable of adapting to leadership changes and will always look up to those whom they truly view of leaders in their own right. Therefore, the study of Wright and Kaplan's beliefs in globalization will further fuel our growth as a global nation in the sense that eventually, these two markedly different beliefs will find a way to merge and exist is a radical socioeconomic point of view in the future. That, is something that I believe is not long from happening at this point in our global, interdependent lives. Read More