The Globalizing World: What Are the Social Impacts of Globalization - Term Paper Example

The Globalizing World: What are the social impacts of globalization? [Institute] Globalization has been the of much debate, particularly because of the diverse and widespread effects that it has on the international arena. The economic advantages of globalization have been promoted and communicated to the masses extensively. John J. Sweeney, the president of AFL-CIO, proclaims that multinationals have been promulgating the progress and development brought by globalization widely in the print media; however in all practicality, the same principles are being undermined in their working environment. Where globalization has made the concept of “distance” less of a problem for businesses, there has been a change in the social milieu as well which can be attributed to the transnational nature of the process. The social impact of globalization remains largely overshadowed by its economic benefits. Thereby this paper will discuss the social impact of globalization. It has been difficult to formulate a comprehensive definition for globalization primarily because it compromises of an assorted set of principles. Largely, globalization allows the integration of markets across the globe and has paved the way for the easy transfer of information, capital, products and services beyond the national border. However this has been followed by the flow of cultural trends, lifestyles and values to recipient countries as well. Changes have been brought to the lives of people living thousands of miles away through technology and products; however the beneficiaries of globalization have subtly come to witness changes in their vision, ideas and lifestyles as well. The economic changes, along with the cultural and social changes, have reformed the cultural environment of the affected countries. In this respect, globalization can be viewed as a social process whereby the cultural values, thoughts and lifestyles of people flow from one country to the other. According to the International Labor Organization, the social aspect of globalization encompasses the effects that it has on employment and the lives of people, families and the community as a whole (ILO, 2004). The effects of globalization on the work, income and workplace environment of people especially in developing countries have been the subject of major concern. However, excluding this aspect, the social dimension of globalization has a profound impact on the way people have come to regard each other. With globalization, people of different cultures and races are able to interact and know more about each other as the “distance” between them melts away. This can be viewed as one of the positive effects that globalization has on transnational connections. Gazleh (2001) asserts that globalization has increased the likelihood of people with different religions and cultures to interact with each other. This is pertinent because it allows the channel for communication to be established which can itself go a long way in finding common grounds. In a globe which is stricken by grievances brought about by religious and cultural differences, globalization promotes a medium for common values to be explored and promoted. Moreover, people are able to empathize with each other if a calamity befalls them. For instance, the tsunami that struck Japan in 2011 was one of its kinds in eliciting an immediate empathetic and proactive response from the international community. As soon as news of the tsunami was broadcasted on the media, countries started responding to the massive calamity. Within three days, 91 countries and 9 international organizations had come forward with humanitarian aid and relief efforts to help Japan deal with the tragedy. This would not have been possible without the decreased communication barriers provided by globalization. It has been argued that globalization promotes homogeneity of culture. However, Pagel (2012) is of the point of view that even if globalization does tend to erode and fade out the diversity of cultures, it helps to set the stage for a shared culture. This promotes a sense of togetherness helping to bridge gaps and giving people means to share in their wider humanitarian experience. Another position that is taken in favor of the cultural homogeneity brought by globalization is that with unification of trends as exemplified by world cinema and world cuisine, a new branch of world citizens also comes to light where people regard the world as a single community. This enables them to develop a sense of responsibility, belonging and accountability to the world as a whole (Ferrante, 2012). Another positive impact of globalization on the society can be demonstrated from the Japanese society as well. Women in Japan have been amongst those social groups who have derived benefits from the transnational flow of values and ideas. A few decades ago, women were denied many of the employment benefits which men enjoyed. There role in the workplace included performing common tasks which required minimal training, if not none. Acquiring a high managerial position by a woman was unheard of. Moreover, working after marriage or childbirth was not very common and it was expected that women would leave employment once they are married and had children to raise. However with globalization women in Japan had the opportunity to pursue higher education and undergo training. They were able to secure better jobs and there was a change in the attitude of the society, which started to accept working mothers (Webster, 2001). Thus by highlighting the rights of women and providing equality of labor, globalization has been able to promote universal human values like humanity, justice and morality (Gazleh, 2001). Nevertheless, the social dimension of globalization has limited advantages to offer (UNHSP, 2003). Set against the shared culture and togetherness promoted by global culture is the alarming array of disadvantages which are being decried not only by NGOs and humanitarian organizations but also by academicians. The foremost concern raised in this regard is the “westernization” occurring in countries as a result of flow of culture and values. This is a difference in opinion whether globalization can be attributed to westernization or not. Pramanick and Ganguly (2011) are of the perspective that westernization is not the same as globalization. They assert that despite the influx of western products and cultural trends in recipient countries, it is not possible for them to retain the meaning and value that they had in their indigenous culture; this is further explained below. Nowadays, two of the major chains of US, Starbucks and McDonald’s, have thousands of outlets spread in different countries all over the world. Taking the example of Starbucks, hundreds of people purchase Starbucks coffee every hour; coffee that is served in identical cups and has similar taste. However, Pramanick and Ganguly (2011) argue that albeit the presence of western products in countries, it does not equal to the westernization of local products or culture. This is because when western products or trends are introduced in other countries they tend to adopt a different meaning which is more aligned to local customs and trends. Pramanick and Ganguly (2011) cite the example of the Indian film director, Satyajit Ray. Ray was amongst the renowned and progressive filmmakers of his time in India. He was much impressed by Hollywood filmmaking but instead of directing films that were based on the western style of filmmaking, he infused certain western styles in his films. Therefore his films were mostly modern yet they retained the traditional art of filmmaking that was indigenous to the region i.e. India. Lachapelle and Paquin (2005) also argue against the equalization of westernization with globalization. One of the arguments presented in this favor is that the flow of cultural trends and values has not been confined from the west to other countries. Cultural phenomenon like Buddhist globalization and Islamic globalization are an attestation to the fact that globalization can be non-western as well (Lachapelle and Paquin, 2005). However, opponents of this theory argue that westernization has been taking place since a very long time and has been coupled by globalization. Cao, Xueping and Liao (2010) claim that when capitalist countries started to trade across borders they influenced the social setup of other countries. The international market was tapped as part of the modernization process, where developed countries were willing to sell their products and to use the cheap raw materials available in less developed countries. Cao, Xueping and Liao (2010) observe that with the trade of products, developed countries also exported their culture. This put less developed countries under pressure who were already importing foreign products; consequently it became hard for them to resist the impact of globalization. As Karl Marx opines that globalization forced less developed nations to “adopt the bourgeois mode of production” and to inculcate the “civilization” being handed to them by the West (Cao, Xueping and Liao, 2010). This represents the theory of cultural imperialism whereby culture is imported along with other foreign products. Furthering this point of view, it is argued that technologies imported through globalization deliver attractive and appealing images, through television of other forms of mass media, of what constitutes a successful life. This, as a result, generates desires that are more global in nature. People start yearning for a modernist way of living, adopting lifestyles that conform to the good life projected by globalization. Such an attitude is also responsible for a feeling of deprivation. Suárez-Orozco and Qin-Hilliard (2004) posit that young adults in countries such as China and Argentina are heavily influenced by the globalized culture, such that they travel long distances to watch films, wear clothes and surf the Net according to what global trends dictate. Such changes can also spark intercultural conflicts where people in recipient countries resist the cultural influence of globalization. In this regard, the words of Samuel P. Huntington (1993) ring true; the prime conflict in the modern era would not be ideological or economical but cultural. One prominent example in this regard is the conflict between Western and Islamic civilizations. Huntington was of the view that the concept of cultural integration and homogeneity was not possible and the changes in the social culture brought about by globalization were not in conformity with prevailing values. People are grouped into different cultures and religions and for many, introduction of foreign values into the local cultural setup was no less than a blasphemy. This was particularly true for Islam. Looking into the values of an Islamic community, one comes to appreciate that Muslims are not driven by nationalistic motives; rather their allegiance is to their religion. Most of the Western values are in conflict with the preaching of Islam and hence the flow of western values like individualism and pluralism is a major source of conflict for Muslims. Tensions between the West and Muslims have been going on since a very long time. One of the reasons why globalization and/or westernization are met by apprehension by Muslims is that it contains elements of Americanization which are eroding away the culture and identity of Islamic communities. According to Dr Jassim Asfour, General Secretary of the Cultural Council, Egypt, globalization is synonymous to capitalism and imperialism. Moreover, the current era of globalization has culminated in two different pathways, i.e. Jihad and McWorld. McWorld is representative of the increasing westernization of lifestyles and culture. It is the combination of ongoing and fast economic, political and technological forces whereby people are kept in a trance by fast food, Internet and fast–paced music. Programs like MTV and fastfood outlets like McDonald’s have made the world into a homogenous global hangout place. In this context, the purpose of McWorld is also to remove the obstacles to the development of a unified market and to promote consumerism (Mishra, 2008). On the other hand, Benjamin R. Barber describes a world of “Jihad” where people revolt against the double standards and eroded values brought by McWorld. There is an outcry against the technological advancements brought about by globalization which have ultimately evolved into modernism. Nevertheless, jihad or McWorld, the fact of the matter remains that no country has the right to exert its culture onto recipient countries. Every culture is authentic in its own respect and reducing this cultural authenticity by a homogenous cultural movement is not in the best interests if recipient cultures. Consequently, many Muslims have started to adopt a hybrid culture, where they retain part of their original culture; nevertheless hybrid cultures are also contested widely by Islamic elements who believe in the sovereignty of their true culture. In fact, the power debate between hybridity and authenticity is a cause of great concern for the Muslim world. (Mishra, 2008). In the West, values are derived from social relationships and interactions whereas Islam encourages more complete and perpetual values based on divine laws. Islamic culture is based on the concept of the Oneness of God. However, when confronted by the influx of cultural imperialism which tries to dominate through its own values, tensions between Islam and the West surface. This could be illustrated by an example. As mentioned before, McWorld promotes a culture of excess consumption which is in contradiction to Islamic teachings. Islam discourages luxurious and generous consumption when neighbors or poor people in various other parts of the world do not have even a morsel of bread to eat. In such a situation, Islam urges people to be more compassionate to the plight of fellow beings and to provide food for the destitute. The problem arises when such values are replaced by consumerist attitudes, corrupting the social fabric. This is all the more important when globalized culture is adopted and implemented blindly, as is the case now. Cultural imperialism has been culminating in a secular society which undermines the basic tenets of Islam and causes the obliteration of Islamic concepts and ideologies (Nurullah, 2008). In conclusion, globalization is not inherently a good or a bad force. It offers advantages such as integration of activities and promotion of a shared culture. It allows countries to communicate and respond immediately when struck with a calamity. Globalization paves the way for people to learn more about each other. However, the advantages conferred by the development of a homogenous global culture are quite limited and thus overwhelmed by the drawbacks such phenomenon contains. Much of the argument presented above highlights how globalization has eroded the values and culture of recipient countries, taking away their authenticity. Although concepts like hybridization of culture have emerged, it is still unacceptable for the West to dictate social values and to reform cultures according to its version of the bourgeois mode of production and civilization. Every culture is authentic in its own respect, and imposing what constitutes a successful lifestyle through the television and other forms of media, thus generating a feeling of relative deprivation, is representative of cultural imperialism. Moreover, globalization and its accompanying Americanization are in complete conflict with the values promoted by Islam. The solution to this remains simple, i.e. not imposing a single culture and its values. There is also a need to communicate and discuss points of contention between Muslims and the West (Anheier and Isar, 2007). The West needs to make its stance clear and to refrain from promoting the flow of cultural trends into Muslim countries. It is also important for the Muslim world to clarify what their stance is regarding trade with the West and to come up with mutually acceptable terms for utilizing international raw materials and markets. References Anheier, H. and Isar, Y. R., 2007. Cultures and Globalization: Conflicts and Tensions. London: SAGE. Cao, T., Xueping, Z. and Liao, K., 2010. Culture and social transformations in reform era China. Massachusetts: BRILL. Ferrante, J., 2012. Sociology: A Global Perspective. 8th ed. California: Cengage Learning. Huntington, S. P., 1993. The Clash of Civilizations? [online] Available at: < http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/48950/samuel-p-huntington/the-clash-of-civilizations> [Accessed 14 April 2013]. ILO, 2004. The Social Dimension of Globalization. [online] Available at: [Accessed 14 April 2013]. Mishra, P., 2008. Globalization and Culture. [online] Available at: [Accessed 14 April 2013]. Nurullah, A. S., 2008. Globalisation as a Challenge to Islamic Cultural Identity. The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 3(6), pp.45-52. Pagel, M., 2012. Does globalization mean we will become one culture? [online] Available at: [Accessed 14 April 2013]. Pramanick, S.K. and Ganguly, R. eds., 2011. Globalization in India: New Frontiers and Emerging Challenges. New Delhi: PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd. Suárez-Orozco, M. M. and Qin-Hilliard, D. B., 2004. Globalization: culture and education in the new millennium. California: University of California Press. UNHSP, 2003. The Challenge of Slums: Global Report on Human Settlements 2003. London: UN-HABITAT. Webster, F., 2001. Globalization does its work on Japan. [online] Available at: [Accessed 14 April 2013]. Read More