Anthropology of Globalization - Essay Example

THE ANTHROPOLOGY OF GLOBALIZATION AND ITS EFFECTS ON THE "FIRST WORLD" 2005 Covering a wide range of political, social, economic and anthropological trends the concept of "globalization" has recently become one of the frequently used terms in English language. Due to rapid globalization contemporary world is furthermore believed to be a "global village". The idea of "global village" refers particularly to the "First World" - world's most developed nations that are in the vanguard of globalization processes. This project is dedicated to the analysis of globalization effects on anthropology of the First World states and, particularly to assessment of development and global spread of radical ecology movements in 1970s-2000s. THE ANTHROPOLOGY OF GLOBALIZATION AND ITS EFFECTS ON THE "FIRST WORLD" "World events in the past two years press the novel with astonishing speed into its next phase, and in some way the place it has been tending toward for a hundred years." Carole Maso Introduction Globalization is obviously one of the major problems of modern humanity. On the one hand it is a locomotive of nations' development though on the other hand globalization results in collision of cultures, mentalities and traditions that serve the anthropological fundament of humanity. Also globalization implicates all people, nations and the world as a whole its effects are most profound in the countries that constitute the so-called "First World". The people of the First World live in the most susceptible to global changes world characterized by transnational flows of money, information, ideas and people. As a result, the nations of the First World seem to be most opened to global changes. Also this common definition has been historically applied to addresses the non-communist nations, now the concept serves division of the nations according to the state of their development and influence on society as a whole. Traditionally, the First World concept includes North American and Western Europe states, Japan, Australia and New Zealand and South African Republic. Nowadays the issue of First World as well seems to incorporate Hong Kong, South Korea and Singapore (Glossary of Terms, 2005). Profound effect of globalizations on the First World may be explained by growing liberalization of people, including liberalization of thinking, as well as by growing concern with current problems and future of humanity. This deep concern may be illustrated with the idea of radical ecology movements that will be in focus of further analysis. Observing Di Leo (2001), no single account has adequately addressed the topic of globalization in all of its complexity, and no one discipline can serve its home. The concept of globalization is often analyzed from multiple angles among which economic, social, political and military seem to dominate. However, as globalization is before all an entire social phenomenon it should be analyzed from anthropological perspective. Globalization processes embodying in convergence of cultures and mentalities through rapid spread of ideas, phenomena and processes have profound anthropological meaning. By this I mean alignment of nations' cultures and mentalities, traditions and customs, habits and ways of behavior, fashions and styles, languages and patterns of thinking, yet, ideologies and outlooks (Rosaldo and Inda, 2002). The alignment of these matters in a global scale has been dramatically catalyzed by globalization. These effects of globalization have become especially visible in the First World. The nations of the First World lead in economy, technologies and in influence on the other states. In the other words, these nations determine both globalization and its direction. Respectively, its effect on the First World is most profound. There are multiple examples to prove this thesis, i.e.: Alignment of cultures: though the cultures of the First World states excluding Japan and SAR have been always rather related, they are increasingly unified under the influence of globalization Unification of traditions: though Halloween has always been an American holiday now it is not less spread in Europe and Asia Convergence of language: the English words and phrases (OK, thanks, pardon, etc.) are now spoken by people elsewhere Alignment of fashion and style: penetration of American style in clothing (snickers and jeans), cuisine and fast food (pizza and McDonalds), Growing concern of environmental problems (global spread of radical ecology movements), etc (Inda and Rosaldo, 2002) In this project I will evaluate globalizations' effect on social anthropology through the analysis of development and spread of radical ecology movements in the First World. Research hypothesis: Influence on human society, culture, mentality and behavior are the most profound effects of globalization. Influence on social anthropology (effect on citizen's mentalities, and unification of their values and attitudes towards the same issues and problems) is one of the major mechanisms by which globalization functions. First causing anthropological changes, the global processes and phenomena then engrain in nations. Thesis statement Radical ecology movements that emerged in the First World in 1970s were the results of growing changes in societies and (i) increasing concern of people in environmental problems as well as (ii) unification of their attitudes to ecological issues. Anthropological changes that occurred in a result of globalization in First World further provided the fundament for spread of radical environmentalism in the First World countries. Research argument The First World has obviously never been as homogeneous in social meaning as it is now. Just contrary to the legendary tower of Babel that prompted rapid divergence of nations, globalization convergences societies of the First World as rapidly as never before. Many events that have started as local are now echoed in brand other parts of the globe. The spread of globalization seems to resemble the chain reaction amplified by joining of each new country (Rosaldo and Inda, 2002). This effect of globalization embodying in alignment of human culture and society is grounded on the anthropology of globalization, particularly convergence of societal mentality, alliance of common values, standards and attitudes shared by the members of the First World (Bowles and Gintis, 1987). Development and spread of radical movements, particularly radical ecology in the First World may serve the perfect examples to the effect of globalization on anthropology. Research objectives: The project has three major research objectives: To address the phenomenon of globalization and its effects on the First World To identify the anthropological effects of globalization and, particularly address anthropological changes in respect to global ecology problems. To explore the development and spread of radical ecology movements and discuss corresponding anthropological effects of this globalization's dimension. Identification and argumentation of research topic The effects of globalization on social anthropology can hardly be overestimated. Globalization influences almost every aspect of modern living changing society dramatically (Kay, 1997). There are, however, few issues where the effect of globalization seems to be most apparent nowadays. I mean the spread of radical movements that have recently overflown First World. There are multiple conventionally known instances of radical movements in the countries of the First World, i.e.: strikes, protests actions, terrorists' attacks, etc (Drengson and Yuichi, 1995). One of the most illustrative examples of globalization's effect on radical movements is the recent riot of ethnic minorities in France. In the present project I would like to address the radical protests' actions associated with environmental care. These protests are usually defined as radical ecology movements and are mainly spread in the First World, particularly in the US and Canada as well as in Western Europe. Dislike many other effects of globalization that implicate either humanity as a whole (e.g.: McDonaldization or Disneyization) or the Third World (e.g.: spread of terrorists' movements in Muslim states - the so-called "McJihad" -) radical ecology movements are pertaining exclusively to the First World nations (Buell, 2001). Only few countries of the Third World like Brazil, Argentina and India have the same domestic movements but they are rather exceptions from the general rule. Radical ecology movements (REM) or "radical greens'", "radical environmentalist" and "deep ecologists" are distinct characteristics of modern ecological movement in general. Their major difference, as it goes, is their battailous and extremist tactic used against the authorities and corporate bodies (Bookchin, 1980; 1997; Purchase, 1994; Drengson, 1995). REM are usually associated with protest actions, riots, fights, blockades of roads and railroads, hold of ships and other radical methods effective in arresting public attention to ecological problems. The emergence of REM in the late 1980s - early 1990s and their heyday in 2000s are closely interrelated with the processes of globalization and its effect on social anthropology. Implications of globalization in the development and spread of radical ecological movements in the countries of the First World During recent decades a variety of social and environmental movements have devoted a great deal of efforts and energy to focus both people and authorities' attention to aggravations in global environment (Eckersley, 1990; Bowles and Gintis, 1987; Bookchin, 1980; 1997). The history of radical ecology dates back to the emergence of Earth First! in 1970 and Greenpeace in 1971, when the groups of former pacifists protested against the gas leak near Santa Barbara's shore and the ground nuclear tests on Alaska's islands respectively (Sessions, 1995). Philosophy and experience of Earth First! and Greenpeace soon prompted emergence of similar movements. It is important that originally local movements were soon joined by thousands of followers from the First World states. Apparently, the spread and growing popularity of radical ecology since 1970s onwards is the apparent result of globalization. Ironically, radical environmentalists who owe their emergence to globalization tend now to protest against the processes that brought them to life. Most radical ecologists are now involved into the wider anti-globalization movements (Kahn, 2003). While first radical ecologists were concerned with private property and civil rights, their successors did not hesitate to use more radical actions including fights, blasting, sinking the ships and jumping the tracks. (Drengson and Yuichi, 1995). The tactics of Earth First! incorporated destruction of bulldozers and excavating machines, blasting of electric power lines, fights with sailors and security of nuclear stations, etc. To propagate their deeds Earth First! also used to picket bodies of authorities and initiate public demonstrations and protests (Drengson and Yuichi, 1995). In the early 1980s Earth First! developed the manual for the actions of ecological sabotage titled "Ecodefense". This manual soon became the table-top book of the REM in a global extent. Mainly due to propaganda of radical ecology and increasing agendum for environment protection dozens of Earth First! followers appeared in the US and Canada in 1980s. The most known of them were "Union of Left Greens", "Young Greens", "Green Panthers", "The Ship of Fools", "Sea Shepherd", "Songs of the Earth" and many others (Bari, 2001). Spread of REM in North America was expedited by the development of the Institute for Social Ecology founded by Murray Bookchin in 1974. The major task of the Institute was to deliver the ideas of fight for ecology to the wider community of the First World. The Institute provided free of charge bimonthly workshops for environmental activists from different countries. This measure helped spreading the idea of radical ecologic movements globally, but first of all in the First World the members of which appeared most susceptive to environmental care agendum (Bookchin, 1997). The radical ecologists from the US and Canada actively participated in propaganda of their ideas and methods in the other countries of the First World. Their help and efforts brought to life hundreds radical ecology movements in Europe and Australia (Eckersley, 1989). Under the influence of radical ecology in the US and Canada European greens' also radicalized their attitudes to authorities and corporations engaged in environment pollutions. For example, in 1980s-1990s there were already sixty radical ecology organizations in the UK; dozens of them appeared in Germany, France and Italy. The spread of the REM in the First World states was as well accelerated by growing public discontent with nuclear energy on the eve of 1970s-1980s. The protests and riots in Germany, France, Italy and Spain were held simultaneously and gave birth to a number of radical organizations a la Earth First! (Eckersley, 1989) The activity of REM in the US and Western Europe caused waves of protests in Australia. Local Green's headed by John Seed employed the ideas of radical ecology to protect wild nature of Tasmania (Eckersley, 1989). Thus, almost during a decade radical ecology movements that started as regional protests in the US and later in Canada appeared to be global processes. These radical movements implicated obviously all countries of the First World. However, regardless the visible sameness of these processes they had some differences depending on states' peculiarities, national mentalities and specificities of ecological problems in the regions. In the other words, specificity of global REM in a certain region depended on specific local issues and concerns. In the next section I will evaluate the effects of globalization on social anthropology in the First World, define common trends in their development and assess regional specificities of radical environmentalism. The effects of globalization on the emergence of radical ecological movements in the countries of the First World To underline the deep linkages between the spread of REM and globalization I need to quote a recognized expert in radical ecology Richard Kahn. Kahn (2003) believes that "the process of worldwide economic integration, called globalization, continues to disrupt the social and economic security of billions of people while global warming, acid rain, destruction of the ozone layer and other effects of industrial civilization undermine the integrity of natural systems across the planet". On the one hand globalization sacrificed environment at the altar of Nations' industrial development and prosperity; on the other hand, however, globalization helped shaping public opinion against exploitation of nature and prompted the struggle against endless attacks on the nature. Thus, globalization made the environmental problems recognized by common people, at least in the First World. Paradoxically, radical environmental movements are the objective results of (1) growing industrialization that was especially fast in the First World states and (2) growing concern of people with the limited reserves of biosphere (Bookchin, 1980). Radical environmentalism, as believed, is a result of social protests that took place in the US and Western Europe in 1960s. The youth riots in the Western Europe and pacifists' movements in the US in late 1960s were the first indicators of early globalization. Though these indicators remained underestimated at that time, they are rather important as they served a certain fundament for further radical ecology movements (Bookchin, 1980). It was more than occasional and spontaneous protest of people occurring simultaneously in different countries. Instead, it was the effect of the early globalization on social anthropology. For the first time people in different countries and continents appeared to be preoccupied with the same problems, shared the same values and attitudes, yet, became concerned with the same problems, particularly environmental aggravations. Also radical environmentalists opposed somehow different matters in the US (oil and gas pollution, wild weather destroy) and Europe (nuclear energy and chemical plants) there are same anthropological phenomena that underlain these movements in a global scale (Taylor, 2000). Another issue of social anthropology implicated is the global liberalization of society. Liberalization of the First World in 1950s-1960s was obviously among the very first global process to take place in the newest history. Within a decade after the World War II the issues of liberty, freedom and supremacy of people over the state became citizen's major concerns in Europe and America. Growing ecological concern was the other "side-effect" of liberalization that in its turn was caused by globalization (Taylor, 2000). Radical ecology movements are obviously the good illustration to the influences of globalization on social anthropology itself. Inspired by ideologists of pacifism in the US in the early 1960s, radical ecology was theorized by German scholars, and specialized by Norwegian philosopher and ecologist Arne Naess who developed the concept of "deep ecology". The ideas of Naess serve the philosophy of global radical ecology. Naess seems to explain the anthropological mechanism of radical ecology movements' spread in the countries of the First World. As due to globalization, observing Naess, self-destructive industrial growth overwhelms society and nature, this threat unites people of different nations around the same idea of nature protection (Bookchin, 1980; 1997). Thus, globalization had a double effect on origin and spread of REM. On the one hand it resulted in dramatic aggravation in environmental conditions in the industrial western states. On the other hand, however, it prompted "unification" of citizen's attitudes and concerns with ecological problems. Another anthropological effect of globalization that contributed to the spread of radical ecology lied in changes of meanings of "good" and "bad" in society. These changes were especially visible on the example of social attitudes to property. Prior to 1970s governments and corporations tended to turn everything into private property, as in industry, fishery, forestry and other areas. Rapid changes in social attitudes and outlooks in the countries of the First World have shifted this property-centered model to the Earth-centered and People-centered ones. The previous concept of Earth-exploitation was as well discredited by new mentality of the First World citizens that was born in a result of globalization (Taylor, 2000). Another effect of globalization on emergence and spread of radical ecology in the First World was global aggravation of environment during rapid industrialization of 1950s-1970s. Industrialization of states, development of nuclear energy plants, growing chemical industry and increasing pollutions caused waves of public protests in the US, Canada, Germany, France and Italy in 1970s - 1980s. Though this effect is explicitly not anthropological in nature, it prompted anthropological changes later on. Globalization's effect here is more implicit as it affects anthropology-related aspects (and particularly societal mentality of the nations) through industrialization and threat to environment. Regardless liberalization of the First World and threat to the environment due to industrialization which were the direct reasons of radical ecology movements', it was the global network and spread of information that prompted increasing share of the ideas between nations and continents (Rosaldo and Inda, 2002). Globalization helped creating the positive image of radical environmentalism and united people from different countries around the idea of radical ecology. Global network also prompted share of experience and coordination between REM globally. Also radical ecologies still generally function as separate movements in different countries, they increasingly tend to alignment. Their strategy and tactics are furthermore coordinated from the global centers; their actions are dedicated to the same events and take place at the same time at different places (Sessions, 1995). Increased coordination of radical environmentalism indeed proves that these movements should be analyzed as the global processes. This idea may be exemplified with recent transportation of radwastes from France to Germany. Ecologists from both countries coordinated to track the route of the train and lock it in multiple places. The activists from two states were also joined by their counterparts from other European countries. Moreover, this raise of REM simultaneously provoked preventive actions of their associates in the US and Canada (Delays to German, 2005). It is as well illustrative that promotion of REM idea in 1980s-1990s was the primary concern of celebrities: artists, actors and rock-musicians. For example, U2, Eurhythmics, REM, INXS, SHADE and Bryan Ferry made the tour to support radical ecology in 1989 and visited the US, Canada, Western Europe and former USSR. Identification of globalization's role in development and spread of radical ecology would be incomplete without analysis of material side of the issue. Though radical ecologists are unprofitable movements, they do require significant resources to oppose authorities and global corporations. Globalization of capitals and alignment of economic systems in the First World provided the perfect ground for REM fundraising in 1980s-2000s. Nowadays there is no single source of radical ecologists' funds. Instead, they are supported by non-government organizations locating in the US, Canada, Germany, France, the UK, Italy, Japan and other countries of the First World (Sessions, 1995). This guarantees security and stability of REM funding in terms of opposition to the local governments. Modern radical environmental movements establish definitive ecological connections among private organizations, environmental groups and the global public sector. Finally, the mentioned processes would never to take place without the deep effect of globalization on human mentality. The final effect is obviously the most important anthropology-related aspect of globalization. Global concern with healthcare and environment protection as well as ecology propaganda in the countries of the First World provided significant "anthropological fundament" for radical environmentalists. Though these movements are extremely radical in nature and achieve their ends the same way as terrorists, social attitudes to radical ecologists are extremely positive in the countries of the First World. Globalization apparently resulted in "globalization of mentalities" of the First World nations and made people ready to understand the vitality of the issue and prompted their active participation in radical movements for environmental care. The experts believe that all ecologists' movements in the First World are associated with the "secondary change of mentality" in Europe and the US/Canada. Due to globalization the moral of western people changed significantly. New emerging values of citizens are pacifism, ecology, care and respect to the others, including wild nature. These anthropological changes are based on the following "grounds": "Globalization" of environmental threats: in terms of nations' proximity and sophistication on industry, ecological disasters may affect the humanity as a whole; Raise of the "global village" concept and recognition of nature's vulnerability Due to globalization the world has been compressed and grown smaller and environmental disasters are now as challenging as never before (Chernobyl's example is the most illustrative example); Growing concerns with ecology, raise of "ecological attitudes" in a result of ecological propaganda; Further development of civil society and social responsibility of the First World citizens. Conclusions The anthropological effect of globalization underlies the nature of associated global changes in the First World. If one tries to contextualize globalization in the broad sweep of human history without the analysis of its anthropological ends, his/her conclusions will be of a limited value. The globalization first literally occurs in "human minds" penetrating in regional cultures and mentalities. Without this anthropological effect globalization could never take place. It is well known that many of global processes never adjust in the countries alien to the First World mentality. Globalization of ecology movements is the perfect illustration to the idea. Regardless of global ecological aggravations, radical ecology movements take place only in the First World, the citizens of which are preoccupied with the issue of environmental care. Prior to the development of ecology movements, globalization created the "common agenda" for the nations, "tuned" people's mentalities on the vitality of eco problems and made them support radical ecologies. The model of globalization's effect on social anthropology in respect to ecology movement can be described the following way. First, globalization influenced growing liberalization of the nations and increased citizens' concern with Earth-centered policy. Second, simultaneously, globalization affected environment of the industrially-developed states and provoked growing discontent of the First World nations. Third, liberalization resulted in the development and spread of opposition to Earth-exploitation model on the regional level. Fourth, growing communication nets in the First World propagated the idea that immediately engrained in people's minds due to the common "anthropological fundament". Five, the local blazes of greens turned to exceed original limits and appeared already the global processes. Sixth, eventually people developed positive attitudes to radical environmentalists and supported the idea that gave the movements their "second wing". Thus, radical environmentalism as a global process before all affects anthropology of First World citizens. First of all globalization unifies their ideas, values and attitudes towards the ecological problems. Only afterwards, upon engraining in mentalities, these anthropological changes bring to life globalization in ecology movements. Bibliography: 1. Bari, Judi.2001. Revolutionary Ecology: Biocentrism and Deep Ecology. In: Hodge Podge. Vol. 7, pp. 35-38 2. Bookchin, M. (1980). Toward and Ecological Society. Montreal: Black Rose Books 3. Bookchin, M. (1997). Deep Ecology, Anarcho-syndicalism, and the Future of Anarchist Thought. In: Deep Ecology and Anarchism: A Polemic. London: Freedom Press, 47-58 4. Bowles, Samuel and Herbert Gintis (1987). Democracy and Capitalism. New York: Basic Books 5. Buell, F. (2001). Globalization without Environmental Crisis: The Divorce of Two Discourses in U.S. Culture In: MUSE, Vol. 9, Number 1-2, pp. 45-73 6. Delays to German nuclear waste train (November 23, 2005). [Online]. Retrieved November 25 2005 from http://www.neimagazine.com/story.aspsectionCode=132&storyCode=2032693 7. Di Leo, Jeffrey R. (2001). Whose Theory, Which Globalism Notes on the Double Question of Theorizing Globalism and Globalizing Theory. In: MUSE, Vol. 9, Number 1-2, , pp. 7-14 8. Drengson, A., and Yuichi I. (1995). The Deep Ecology Movement: An Introductory Anthology. Berkeley, California: North Atlantic. 9. Eckersley, Robyn. 1989. Green Politics and the New Class: Selfishness or Virtue. In: Political Studies. 37(2): 205-23 10. Glossary of Terms for Political Geography (2005). [Online]. Retrieved November 22 2005 from http://www.naiadonline.ca/book/01Glossary.htm 11. Inda, X. and Rosaldo, R. (2002) The Anthropology of Globalization. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002 12. Kahn, R. (2003). Radical Ecology, Repressive Tolerance, and Zocide [Online]. Retrieved November 22 2005 from http://richardkahn.org/writings/nonacademic/zoocide.pdf 13. Kauffman, L.A. (2000). Whose Movement [Online]. Retrieved November 22 2005 from http://www.alternet.org/story/9072/ 14. Kay, M. (1997). Ecologies: Anthropology, Culture and the Environment. [Online]. Retrieved November 22 2005 from http://web7.searchbank.com. February 5,1999. 15. Purchase, Graham. (1994). Anarchism and Environmental Survival. New York: Sage 16. Rosaldo, R. and Inda, J. X. (2002) Introduction: A World in Motion, in: Jonathan Xavier Inda and Renato Rosaldo, eds., The Anthropology of Globalization. Malden, MA: Blackwell, p. 1-34. 17. Sessions, G (1995). Deep Ecology for the 21st Century. Boston: Shambhala Publications. 1995. 18. Taylor, B. (2000). Deep Ecology As Social Philosophy: A Critique. In: Eric Katz, Andrew Light and David Rothenberg, eds. Beneath the Surface: Critical Essays on Deep Ecology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2000, 269-99. Read More