Sociological Aspects of Globalization - Essay Example

Sociological Aspects of Globalisation Globalisation brought about new structures into existence; and the traditional social, economic and political structures were radically changed by it. This can be witnessed at the global level, in cities, regions, and several nations. This change is not limited to a particular nation, as globalization has effectively dissolved the geographical boundaries between nations. This has permitted massive investment of capital across nations, and enhanced the free movement of labour, goods and services (Center For Globalization and Policy Research ). The areas that have benefitted the most, due to globalisation are employment, economic development, political organisations and social welfare. Globalisation has increased international competition, which has exposed the hither to fore insular domestic trade policies, of many a nation, to new challenges. Furthermore, globalisation created an environment, in which every nation had to recast its policies relating to domestic capital markets, labour markets, science and technology, and development. These policies had to be restructured to accommodate international challenges. Policy – makers, sociologists and other entities had to draft new policies to deal with the forces of globalisation, which were absent in the past. Thus, globalisation served to reform the entire social structure at all levels (Center For Globalization and Policy Research ). Globalization influences every human aspect and can be felt through its effects on daily life. It has changed the manner and increased the speed of communication, and promoted international travel. Globalisation has improved commerce. It has the capacity to compress the world into one global village, and it brings about a concrete global interdependence (Cheong, Oct2008). It is a novel concept regarding some of its aspects, and in other aspects it has been with us from quite some time. In the prehistoric times there were no geographical boundaries and independent states. Thus globalisation had already been in existence during that period. These prehistoric people had a common life style and culture, and capitalism modernised it. The origins of capital determine the ideology of globalisation. Therefore, the country that invests capital will have considerable influence on the material and philosophy of globalisation. The present economic globalisation revolves around a few affluent cities, which bring in foreign investment. This economic globalisation generates the immigration of labour to the states from which the capital originates (Cheong, Oct2008). The process of globalisation commenced after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, in the year 1989. It generated considerable aspirations and optimism about the future. However, after a decade the situation changed. Globalisation did not prove to be all that beneficial, and by the end of the 1990’s, many nations came to detest globalisation and there was a worldwide movement against it. The opponents to globalisation achieved some success, in mobilising global consciousness and the solidarity of nations. The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks proved to be a major setback to the process of globalisation. Subsequently, aversion and hostility towards globalisation increased (Pires-O'Brien, Summer2008). However, this aversion towards globalisation was principally confined to economic neo – liberalism and its pro – corporatist approach; which curtails individual freedom and attempts to change the local culture. It is aimed at making profits. Globalisation is an experiment in modernity, and this new concept is spreading rapidly across the world. It is creating new social structures and bringing into existence new lifestyles, cultures and political structures. Thus sociology is transforming into a new paradigm (Pires-O'Brien, Summer2008). However, it is incorrect to state that globalisation is changing the traditional concept of nation state and reducing its importance. Those who support this contention, point out that globalisation brings about a world, in which nations lose their identity and sovereignty. Such a globalised world would then be ruled by the large multinational organisations, trade structures and non government international organisations. For them, state is always a dominant and significant actor on the global platform that controls the power. Such a system can efficiently mitigate the dire consequences of neo liberalism at the global level. In some respects, this argument is acceptable (Pires-O'Brien, Summer2008). The world has been transformed into a global village and the speed of communication has increased, due to the unprecedented expansion of networks and information exchange. National geographical borders have evanesced and people can travel freely between many nations, as several nations have relaxed visa requirements. Moreover, there is free movement of workers, goods and services between nations. This is a new world, which was brought into existence by globalisation. The concepts of national sovereignty and state authority are slowly diminishing; and many nations are entering into meaningful relationships with other nations and regions. The new concept of international unity and legality is gaining importance. Consequently, globalisation can be termed as the outcome of the human instinct to engender a common system of social mores. As such, globalisation attempts to dominate the world and its cultures (Boutaleb). However, the extant variety of universalism is heavily dependent on technology, rather than human values. This technology is getting more sophisticated and result oriented, and such a trend of universalism was absent in the past. Globalisation is a process that has to be accepted by everyone, either willingly or unwillingly. It is an integrated system without any other choice for the nations of the world. The supporters of globalisation argue that it should be welcomed by each and everyone in the interest of humanity, and that accordingly, it is an inevitable process (Boutaleb). Globalisation is often considered to be an American concept. This is because after the end of the Gulf War, the US President Bush had expressed that it was time to form a new world order. In addition to this call, there was a United Nations Security Council summit on January 3, 1992 to discuss the new world order. This summit was motivated by President Bush, who was deeply involved with its genesis. The summit ended inconclusively, as there was no consensus about the basis and scope of the new order. Since it is the practice of the international community to demand a new world order after every war, this call for a new world order was also considered to be of the same ilk (Boutaleb). Some societies always magnify the negative aspects of globalisation. The truth is that their national capitalism is incapable of accommodating globalisation. It is important at this juncture to note that globalisation is not a dangerous process, as portrayed by its detractors. The latter contend that the hegemony of globalisation would devastate their national culture and principles, and set aside the protection provided to the weak and poor communities in their nations. In addition, these opponents of globalisation fear that it would enhance unemployment and poverty, and repeal the social security if it’s weaker citizens (Boutaleb). The opponents of globalisation describe it as a system, in which the financial aspects dominate social aspects and humanity. For them, globalisation is a new form of domination that differs from political or military control. They have termed it as financial domination, and they contend that globalisation would eradicate national identities and heritages to the maximum possible extent (Boutaleb). Opposition to globalisation comes in many forms, including demonstrations and protest movements. The first of these protests was staged in Seattle, wherein these critics proposed a totally different alternative to globalisation. They argued that this new alternative would provide an egalitarian model of globalisation. According to them, this new type of globalisation would balance the economy of the world, and cater to the needs of the developing nations. Moreover, this new type of globalisation would not affect the national principles, values and culture. Thus, they contended that this new form of globalisation would provide only positive outcomes and eliminate negative results (Boutaleb). A very important result of globalisation is the social integration of women. At present, women participate in employment and financially support their families. The number of women in power has also increased substantially. Globalisation provides new forms of jobs and opportunities for everyone. Women’s participation in politics increases and they obtain a greater number of advantages (Haque). Their integration into society has provided them with greater social awareness. Subsequently, the pro – women organisations have increased in number, and they have become more active in strengthening women’s welfare. This effect has percolated, even to the developing countries, where women’s organisations have increased, and where women’s participation in local community organisation has encouraged women to take part in a greater number of social projects (Haque). It goes without saying that globalisation improves the condition of women and their quality of life, and ensures that they are respected and honoured. This is the positive outcome of globalisation. As such, the participation of women in politics has reduced corruption. Women are more active in responding to the demands and challenges of society. This is definitely not the situation with men, and the advent of women in such areas is a telling indictment of the folly generated by men (Haque). Subsequent to globalisation, there was a shift in the perception of people in the developing countries of the Eastern world. People had been favouring the Western culture, and their perception towards life changed. They were willing to adopt the materialistic values that had previously been alien to them. The globalisation of the world’s economy brought about this change, and markets were flooded with new goods, everywhere. The media became more active, and the advertising of goods seduced the people into purchasing goods without any second thoughts. Increased incomes enable people to purchase goods and services without any hesitation. This new trend is definitely attributable to cultural globalisation; and the people, now have a wide range of choices (Bliss). The choices and opportunities before the people have increased and at the same time cultural diversity has reduced between nations. The people in non – westernized societies are adopting a Western lifestyle; and their choices reflect an endeavour to improve their quality of life. They now purchase CD players, sophisticated electronic goods and even branded shoes. The new products prove to be alluring for the young generation of the non – Western societies (Bliss). Moreover, even people in the most oppressive of countries are no exception to this trend. Individuals find greater opportunities to lead a better life. However, the culture and heritage of a society must be respected and developed, and the local culture should not be undermined, in the name of globalisation. Western societies are influencing the cultures of non – Western societies, under the garb of globalising the economy (Bliss). Opponents to globalisation claim that it would destroy national identity and culture. Some people argue that the reduction of cultural diversity would promote humanity and signify the progress of civilization. In addition, globalisation would increase communication and understanding between societies in the global world. Cultural diversity does not promote stability or prosperity in every society (Rothkop, 1997). Only the dominant culture would flourish and control the other cultures. Multiculturalism is a proven paradigm in many nations such as in India, South Africa, the EU and the US. Therefore, multiculturalism can be workable and manageable; and globalisation promotes multiculturalism. Globalisation radically changed the way the world lives, and there are novel types of social and political organisations. The political institutions have also undergone the process of globalisation, and a new world order is emerging due to this process. This transformation is not isolated to any one city, country or region, and it is evident throughout the world. There are new forms of communication and the rapid sharing of information between nations (Hoang & Liao, 2002). However, opponents to globalisation argue that it enhances inequality in society, and that its guarantee of growth is not veracious. They also hold that rapid industrialisation would increase child labour. The average household income in these nations has increased due to market integration. Moreover, the families that had previously encouraged their children to work have sufficient income to meet their daily requirements. At present, child labour has significantly declined in these developing nations (Hoang & Liao, 2002). Globalisation is inevitable in the present day world. It removes the classifications of people around the world. As such, there will remain only two classes of people after the complete globalisation of the world, namely the capitalists and workers. Globalisation will provide better opportunities to these two classes; and the capitalists would increase their wealth in an unheard of manner. For instance, politicians and civil servants in the poorer nations would find better opportunities to accumulate wealth in the global market (JOHNSON, 2006). They can take advantage of the funding programmes under globalisation, which requires the funding of trade unions and market forces, which would enable the men in power to easily grab their share of the funding. Globalisation promotes urbanisation in the developing and poor nations; and people will migrate from the rural areas to urban areas in search of better opportunities. Consequently, rural areas would be rendered. Despite these arguments, it is a proven fact that globalisation brings in economic growth and prosperity. As such, empirical evidence indicates that poverty is decreasing in the nations that adopted globalisation (JOHNSON, 2006). List of References Bliss, I. (n.d.). The effects of globalizatiion: Examining change. Retrieved November 12, 2008, from http://www.helium.com/items/433486-the-effects-of-globalization-examining-change Boutaleb, A. (n.d.). Criticism of Globalization : Positive and Negative Aspects. Retrieved November 12, 2008, from http://www.isesco.org.ma/english/publications/Islamtoday/20/P1.php Center For Globalization and Policy Research . (n.d.). Overview. Retrieved November 12, 2008, from http://www.sppsr.ucla.edu/cgpr/overview.htm Cheong, J. (Oct2008). Globalization and Migratory Processes in the Socio-religious, Economic and Political Context of the Malay Muslims of Malaysia. Transformation (02653788) , Vol. 25 Issue 4, p217-233, 17p, 1 diagram; (AN 34108349). Haque, R. (n.d.). SOCIAL AND POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF GLOBALIZATION FOR WOMEN IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES : THE BANGLADESH CONTEXT . Retrieved November 12, 2008, from http://www.asiaticsociety.org.bd/journals/vol%2052/SOCIAL%20AND%20POLITICAL%20IMPLICATIONS%20OF%20GLOBALIZATION%20FOR%20WOMEN%20IN%20DEVELOPING%20COUNTRIES.html Hoang, N., & Liao, J. (2002). Economic Effect of Globalization in Developing Countries:An Analysis of Vietnam and China. Retrieved November 12, 2008, from http://www.stanford.edu/class/e297c/Economic%20Effects%20of%20Globalization.pdf JOHNSON, B. (2006, September). Globalisation - What does it mean? Retrieved November 13, 2008, from http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/sep06/page10.html Pires-O'Brien, J. (Summer2008). Globalization and Everyday Life. Contemporary Review , Vol. 290 Issue 1689, p236-237, 2p; (AN 32999047) . Rothkop, D. (1997, June 22). In Praise of Cultural Imperialism? Effects of Globalization on Culture . Retrieved November 12, 2008, from http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/cultural/globcult.htm Read More