The Concept of Globalization: Governance and Organization - Essay Example

Many sociologists and theorists usually refer globalization as a non-negotiable extraneous economic constraint, which must simply be obliged with. It is often presented as a process without subject. Accordingly, it is a process whose content, nature and consequences are not conformable—either in practice or in principle—to political deliberation. Reinstating agents to the process of globalization and assessing the extent to which their behavior is informed by constructions of globalization is, however essential to the fuller task of clarifying globalization and of disputing its perceived logic of no alternative. This paper aims at relating the discussion on structure and agency with that of globalization, in order to comprehend this complex process in a more logical way. Greater emphasis is placed on the contribution of ideas in the dynamic relationship between agents and the environment in which they exist. This paper shall first establish what structure and agency are and then move on to analyze their effect on the process of globalization. The Agency-Structure Question Sociologists have spent two centuries on the issue of structure and agency. Yet they have gone no further than Marx's true statement “men make history, but not in circumstances of their own choosing”. One of the main issues in sociology has always centered around the debate of the effect of individualism and holism on human thought and endeavors. Agency refers to the capability of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices. Structure refers to those factors such as social class, religion, gender, ethnicity, customs, etc. which seem to confine or regulate the possibilities that individuals have. The debate over whether social structures determine individual behavior or do individuals themselves play a role in defining their own destiny has lead to much befuddlement. A strategic-relational approach as developed by Hay (2001) will be adopted in this paper to answer some of the questions raised by the relationship between structure and agency in opposition to much of the existing literature on this subject matter. This approach suggests that the distinction between structure and agency is strictly analytical. Over time it has been argued by many noted sociologists that structures exist before agents; however the view developed in this paper is that structures can only be said to exist by merit of their intermediation of human conduct — structures comprise both the medium and condition of human agency. In essence neither agents nor structures are real, since neither has an existence in isolation from the other — their existence is relational and truly based on sound reasoning. Structure and agency are the flip sides of the same coin. Structure and agency, although analytically dissociable, are essentially entirely intertwined. Agents are conceived as witting, reflexive and strategic. They act purposefully in an effort to realize their aims and preferences. However, they may also act intuitively or out of habit. Even so, when acting habitually they are assumed to be able to deliver their aims and their motivations explicitly. They are presumed to make all their decisions based on the immediate and long-term consequences of their actions, whether intuitively or more intentionally. Though actors are conceptualized as intentional and strategic, their preferences are not assumed to be fixated nor are their preferences solely based on the circumstances in which they find themselves. Different actors in similar physical settings and circumstances will opt for different interests and preferences, just as the same actors will review, revise and reform their perceived interests and preferences over time as the circumstances and situation changes. This may lead one to think that the context or circumstances in which the actors find themselves is irrelevant. However this is far from truth. The key to the tie-up between structure and agency within the strategic-relational approach is the construct of strategy. Actors, as noted above, have strategic intents. They are capable of formulating and modifying their ways and efforts to actualize their intentions. In essence a dynamic relationship exists between the agent and the context in which he/ she finds himself/ herself. Acting strategically implies forecasting the likely consequences of different courses of action and, in turn, to judge the conformations of these actions to the context in which they are executed. Having developed a conceptual model of structure-agency dilemma the next section will now analyze the effect of structure-agency on the process of Globalization. Effect of Structure-Agency on Globalization The term globalization as used in most popular and academic debate is an complex and befuddling. It tends to call forth a sense changelessness, which is never fully realized yet always in the process of being realized. Having said this globalization is very much real and not just a figment of imagination. The challenge undertaken in this paper is to relate globalization with structure and agency and demystify its complex processes. To accomplish this daunting task it is imperative to ask not what globalization can explain, but how to justify and elucidate the phenomena widely identified as evidence of globalization. There is no single explanation that can define the process of globalization. The term has been used by different people with different interests and for different purposes. Sociologists, political scientists, business leaders and scholars, economists, organization theorists, and other scholars, including public administrators have different views on the topic. Therefore, two points require attention at this point. Firstly, as a phenomenon globalization has been around for many decades and there is nothing novel about the concept of globalization. Similar phenomenon has occurred in colonized countries of the world. The only thing different this time around is that even developed countries, including United States are facing the challenges posed by globalization and its negative effects. Secondly, different people view globalization differently. It is considered to be an advance towards a fully integrated global market by economists; while political scientists consider it a step away from traditionally formed concept of the state with territorial sovereignty, and the creation of a boundary-less world. All discussions of globalization deal with the question of borders, territoriality, and legal and economic constraints and possibilities that relate to governance and organization. Globalization is called forth as a process without an agent. This, it need hardly be noted, is highly suited to the comfort of politicians, who wish to legalize otherwise unpleasant social and economic reforms. Restoring active subjects to this hypothesized process of globalization, mollifies its logic of inevitability and indefinity. There are a series of agents (with a capacity to act) involved in the process of globalization; yet there is still no direct ascription of causative agency to identifiable agents. In effect there is no need to make reifying presumptions about the issues, aftermaths, or even the very existence, of globalization. To the extent that globalization can be identified, it is understood as a disposition — the conditional outcome of a concourse of specific works that are themselves likely to be confined in space and time. Worldwide outcomes and effects might then be the product of very different, indeed entirely autonomous mechanisms and processes of causation. It is therefore important to understand globalization as a phenomenon that is independent of the actions, motivations and intentions of real agents. Even if we accept the potential causal role that ideas about globalization might play in the structuration of political and economic results, it may lead to narrowing down the process. The ideas policy makers use to legalize or rationalize their behavior should not simply be seen as more or less accurate reflections of the context they comprehend. Nor should discourses be understood as necessarily and exclusively ‘strategic’ (i.e. as relating to situations in which an agent’s usage of an argument relates directly to particular intentions and preferences). The degree of accuracy and completeness of information is not entirely reflected in the behavior of actors; it is also reflected in the actors’ normative preference for certain alternatives. Thus the constraints and/or possibilities which globalization is held to imply might be understood (or misunderstood) in very similar ways in different contexts. Yet such understanding is likely to provoke different reactions from different political agents because all have different preferences and exist in diverse contexts. Simply put actors may have a similar understanding of globalization but each will pursue a different course of action in response to the perceived challenges and threats of globalization their actions will also be based on how each actor regards the future globalization promises in a positive or negative light. Therefore in order to understand or clarify the concept of globalization it is important to identify the actors involved and also give proper attention to the 'structuralism' of globalizing dispositions while disapproving functionalist “systems” operating over the heads or independently of social subjects. In other words considering globalization as an independent process that involves actors operating in an environment but do not determine the process of globalization itself is the only way to comprehend this complex process. It is only by devoting deliberate attention to the problem of structure and agency in this way, brushing aside accounts which privilege either structure or (far less oftentimes in analyses of globalization) agency in the determination of results, that the concept of globalization might be used to open up and not merely confuse or obscure the analysis of social, political and economic change. Hence it can be safely assumed that structure and agency do not effect globalization, but globalization in itself has a profound impact on the notion of structure-agency. Bibliography Hay, C & Watson, M 2003, The Discourse of Globalization and the Logic of No Alternative: Rendering the Contingent Necessary in the Political Economy of New Labor, Policy and Politics, vol. 30, no. 1. Schmidt, V 1999, ‘Convergent Pressures, Divergent Responses: France, Great Britain and Germany between Globalization and European Integration’, in D. A. Smith, D. J. Solinger and S. C. Topik (eds), States and Sovereignty in the Global Economy, Routledge, London. Hirst, P & Thompson, G 1999, Globalization in Question, 2nd edn, Cambridge, Polity, pp 102. Taylor, J 2000, ‘-Izations of the World: Globalization, Modernization, Americanization’, in C Hay and D Marsh (eds), Demystifying Globalization, Basingstoke, Macmillan, pp. 120-135. Giddens, A 1976, The New Rules of Sociological Method, Hutchinson, London, p. 121. Hay, C 2002, Globalization as a Problem of Political Analysis: Restoring Agents to a ‘Process without a Subject’ and Politics to a Logic of Economic Compulsion, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Volume 15, no. 3. Sewell, W 1992, A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation, The American Journal of Sociology, Volume 98, no. 1, pp. 1-29. Read More