GLOBALIZATION
INTRODUCTION
The global markets of money, labour, capital, goods and services are basic features of
globalization theories.
Most of the economic theories of globalization are neo-liberal and neo-Marxian in its approach.
Neo-liberalism: Neo –liberal theories which emerged in 1930s to put forth the ides of free
operation of market,
opposition to state interventions and individual liberty shaped the processes of economic
globalization and
thinking about it. Milton Friedman and set of Chicago economists are major economists who
gave neo-
liberalism an ideological face. William Easterly and others favors the free market and market
fundamentalism as
basic virtue of economic success. There is strong faith in global expansion of capitalist system
and its inherent
virtue to trickle down to all participants. Deregulation, privatization and free trade are basic
necessity. Spending
on welfare by state should be curbed and limited government intervention is required for global
outreach of capital.
Neo-Marxian: Leslie Sklair takes a new Marxian approach to the understanding of globalization.
He proposes
that there are two kinds of globalization 1) capitalist globalization and 2) socialist globalization.
The spread of
transnational capitalism is an important factor behind capitalist globalization. In capitalist
globalization transnational capitalist class made up of four set of capitalists. The socialist
globalization is coming forward as resistance to these different set of capitalists.
Another very important theoretical approach was developed by neo-Marxists Michael Hardt and
Antonio
Negri’s in their work Empire (2000) and Multitude (2004). They use the metaphor of empire to
present a postmodern Marxian understanding of globalized economy.
The thinkers from different field like Giddens a sociologist, Harvey a geographer, etc emphasize
the
compression of time and space as important factor of economic globalization. Rapid
communication and transportation have compressed the space and structured it into a single
global time. Manual Castelles proposed the idea of network society which characterizes the
present day global economic order. The multicentered networks of capital information and
power rule the world through the help of highly mobile managerial elites who are the dominant
actors in the flows.
2.2 Political Globalization
Political scientist and sociologist have given attention to the global play of power by new
agencies in the present
economic world. The discipline called international relation has emerged as specialist set of
knowledge to study
these developments. The scholars are discussing the decreasing significance of nation state
and national identity.
Denationalization is dominant theme in theories of globalization across the discipline.
David Held a British sociologist theorizes the global challenges to nation state and national
sovereignty as
mainstay of globalization. He believes that political decision making international legal
frameworks for rights and duties and cultural contact are responsible for weakening of nation
state. The role of United States and Civil society organization in promoting universal
declarations on several political agenda is posing threat to role of nation state in these matters.
However several nation states have maintained sovereignty in relations to human mobility and
finance.
Ulrich Beck differentiates between “globalism” and “globality” to discuss the globalization. The
globalism
model prioritizes the economic flow and reduces everything else as subsidiary of it. Instead he
advocate for globality which give equal importance to ecology, culture, civil society and politics
in theorizing globalization.
Beck believes globality is are making nation state illlusiory and is important in founding of global
democracy.
2.3 Cultural Globalization
The cultural globalization discusses the issues of flows of culture and how it impacts the human
life in the world
today. Jan Nederveen Pieterse (2004) has identified three major paradigms in theorizing the
cultural aspects of
globalization, specifically on the centrally important issue of whether cultures around the globe
are eternally different, converging, or creating new “hybrid” forms out of the unique combination
of global and local cultures.
It has developed and discussed by George Ritzer as major way of looking at cultural
globalization and its potential implications for economic and political globalization as well. The
three type of culturalglobalization
are
Cultural Differentialism
Cultural Convergence
Cultural Hybridization
Cultural Differeentialism: This mode of thinking emphasizes the stubborn nature of culture and
its retaining capacity to diffrences. This also tends to focus upon the core of the culture which
remains unaffaected by the processes of globalization though surface structure may change
because of global connectedness. The most famous example of this theory is Clash of
Civilization thesis proposed by Samual P Huttington. He uses the
world civilization to describe the coherent cultural identities which exist in the world and
identifies eight such cultures in the world today. He proposes a historical argument to predict the
clash of these different civilizations in future.
Huntington is concerned about the decline of the West, especially of the United States. He sees
the United States, indeed all societies, as threatened by their increasing multicivilizational or
multicultural character. For him, the demise of the United States effectively means the demise of
Western civilization. Without a powerful, unicivilizational United States, the West is minuscule.
For the West to survive and prosper, the United States must do two things. First, it must reaffirm
its identity as a Western (rather than a multicivilizational) nation.
Second, it must reaffirm and reassert its role as the leader of Western civilization around the
globe. The reassertion and acceptance of Western civilization (which would also involve a
renunciation of universalism), indeed all civilizations, is the surest way to prevent warfare
between civilizations. Cultural Convergence: Cultural convergence focuses upon the systematic
homogenization and similarity of cultures across the globe. There is increasing sameness in the
cultures in the world today because of the local
cultures assimilation in dominant cultures. This similarities in culture is leading towards
prominent changes in
local cultures, however local realities are surviving in one way or other ways.
Cultural imperialism is an idea which reflects upon the influences of dominant cultures on local
cultures being imposed consciously or unconsciously. This may result in complete
transformation of local culture or in most of the case partial changes in one or other dimension
of culture. The cultural hegemony of north countries on south is clearly visible today and many
local cultures are threatened or being destroyed because of cultural
imperialism. This view celebrates the formulation of new global culture replacing all local cultural
deficiencies. The related idea of Detrritorialization emphasizes the decreasing significance of
place or geography in cultural experiences. The events and innovations in other parts of world
have impact today in local everyday lives. The role of media and communication technology is
significant in cultural imperialism as well as deterritorialization.
World Culture idea of cultural convergence highlights the structural isomorphism throughout the
world. There is surprising amount of uniformity which exists today because of spread of similar
models of politics, education, business, family etc. Advocates of this idea pursue the aim of
bringing a homogenized world culture which will be enabling and empowering for people all
across the world. The world culture approach looks at the positive
side of singular global culture and suggests the models to bring changes for achieving this goal.
Standard, guidelines and protocols are being devised to guide the establishment of one World
Culture.
McDonaldization as a global homozenizing idea was proposed by Sociologist George Ritzer. He
clearly outlines the principles which govern the McDonald fast food restaurant’s successful
functioning. These
principles are efficiency, calculability, predictability, control, and ironically the irrationality of
rationality. He believes that these principles of McDonald have taken over not only on the ways
which fast food industry is organized but also the various sector of life like education, NGOs,
Church etc. across the world have started
functioning.
Globalization of Nothing is another important contribution of Ritzer in the theories of
globalization which
emphasize upon the affinity between Globalization and Nothing. From nothing he means empty
forms which are
devoid of distinctive contents against something which is full forms rich in contents. He
proposes that there is
increase of these empty forms because they are easy to reproduce and transported. The world
wide spread of these similar empty forms like shopping complexes, tourist sites etc. is leaving
world without any diversity and content. This he calls globalization of nothing. He believe that
the imperialistic tendencies of powerful nations, corporations and international organization and
their desire motivated by economic growth and profit to impose themselves throughout the world
is responsible for the increasing nothingness. He calls this growth motivated globalization as
grobalization.
Cultural hybridization: It is about production of new and unique hybrids because of the mixing of
cultures. In
this sense globalization is creative process leading to new cultural realities. Roland Robertson
has coined a term
‘Glocalization’ to refer to the process of interpretation of global and local resulting into new
outcomes in different geographical locations. Hybridization itself is a term which refers to making
of cultural hybrids with mixed traits. Creolization refers to the mixing of language and culture into
unique acceptable forms.
Arjun Appadurai in his Modernity at large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalizations proposed the
idea of global flow and disjuncture within it. His contribution is central to the anthropological
understanding of globalization. He elaborates his understanding of global flows against five
scapes of globalization.
ethnsocape is the scape of identity with people and community in any geographical area. This
scape is in flow because people are highly mobile and their community identity is not fixed in
place. They may recognize cognitively with the place of origin but living realty as tourist,
migrants, refugee, expatriates etc. detach them
from any fixed territory. Those who cannot move live with imagination and fantasies of
movement.
technoscapes represents the flows through information and transportation technology at global
scale. The
technoscapes have changed the
financescapes are the rapid flows of huge sums of money across the world at unimaginable
speed. The stock
exchange and digital transfer of money have changed the way economies are connected and
exchanges are made.
Mediascapes involves the images and information created by media and the way it is
electronically communicated within no time. The power of media to influence the mode of
thinking and imagining is also very important in living in a global world.
Ideoscapes are political ideas and propaganda which are propagated by state and it spreads
and engulf the thinking about political possibilities. The counter ideas to stae also are part and
parcel of ideoscape having equal effect in channelizing anti state sentiment.
These multiple scapes are disjunctive and they are flowing in different direction and at different
speed. The way we experience these flows are fragmented and it leads to the creation of hybrid
forms in cultures.
3. Anthropology and Globalization Theory
The anthropologist used the idea of globalization and its theories to understand the changing
landscape of locations in which they conduct fieldwork. The anthropologists who were
traditionally focusing on bounded local communities unaffected by outside influences were
challenged by globalization thinkers to look for the outside influences including their own on the
ethnographic practices. The theoretical tools were designed and
borrowed to inform the new realities of local in a global world.
The globalization itself has provided opportunities for anthropologist to have easy and frequent
access to the
field. Availability of writings of native anthropologists can build a tradition of multi vocal
understanding of the
field. At the same time some anthropologists have taken this opportunity to celebrate the local
and challenge the
global onslaught on culture and tradition of remote people. The barriers across region have not
necessarily been erased and some anthropologists have carved new ethnographic regions, for
instance, South Asia to represent the people living in a landmass.
However the globalization approach in anthropology is not altogether new. The early thinkers of
Political
Economy and World System approach were emphasizing the impact of dominant core on
recessive periphery. Ande Gunder Frank and Historian Immanuel Wallerstein set the agenda for
understanding the underdeveloped economy crumbling under the developed west. Eric Wolf
and Peter Worsley followed the trend in anthropology
and criticized the Global capitalism and its impact on local people. These theories are looking at
unidirectional flow whereas globalization is about the multidirectional influence, at least in
principle.
Jonathan Friedman has coined his neologism Global Systemic approach to address the global
in anthropology.
He distinguishes his approach from globalization theories in anthropology. In his approach the
global and local
or at same plane and there is no higher global place floating above the local. Though local is
always part of global but it does not mean that local is produced by global. The global is arena
of interaction among the localities and global systemic is the study of logics of such interactions
and the processes that emerge from such
interactions. For him the globalization theory is empiricist and looks at apparent surface
phenomena of flow, movement, media and networks instead of the underlying structure which
makes this phenomenon apparent.
Global systemic approach calls for a transdisciplinary study of these underlying structures of
social reproduction
and history of human species.
The Globalization theory in anthropology is represented by the work of Ulf Hannerez, Arjun
Appadurai and Cultural Sociologist Roland Robertson. Ulf Hannerez, A Swedish anthropologist
is prominent name in theorizing about globalization in anthropology. He considered
Globalization as Global aspect of modernity
rather than all-encompassing Global Village approach. He proposes to redefine culture
signifying flow, process and partial integration instead of bounded integrated static whole. He
emphasizes the understanding of intermixing of cultures and making of new forms and called it
‘cultural creolization’. According to his view
global processes has impact on local life and culture. Generally the local resist and come out
with innovative creative forms of hybrids in this process. Arjun Appadurai who has been
discussed above is another name to shape the ideas of global culture and its local
entanglements.
French Anthropologist Marc Auge wrote a seminal work Non-Places to question the future of
anthropological notion of place, culture and community in the time of flux and global changes.
He argued that stability of place can no longer be taken for granted in this disembedded world.
The Actor Network Theory a specialty in Science and Technology Studies propounded by
French Anthropologist Bruno Latour is also an approach fit for doing fieldwork in globalized
world of science and technology. His theory talks about the processes of translation and
networking in various shifting contexts of material and nonmaterial realities.
The major theoretical argument in anthropology developed as a critic of globalization. It critiqued
the one way
process of globalization and its role in perpetuating the global inequality. The critics have termed
it as new imperialism and a catchy metaphor to mask the threat it poses for losers of
globalization from the winners. The globalization theory is nothing more than diffusionism where
Euro American West is new Egypt.
Whatever the critique may be the anthropologists are encountering hybrid cultures and life
forms in their field
which are mix of local national and global. The identity of anthropologist has also been shaped
by these realities of mixing and making of new forms. The globalization theory provides
important insight to look at these new
realities of human life and culture.