The word “globalization” has become stigmatized in today’s culture to be synonymous with other words such as “Westernization” and phrases such as “cultural imperialism.” However, globalization is not such a simple phenomenon that it can be summarized simply by the dominating cultural transfer of the United States and other Western countries to other nations. Instead, it is a more balanced and equal process; of the global becoming local. Culture does not occur in a vacuum and globalization is not a one way phenomenon. (1)
Within this fairly simple definition, there are two major opposing implications. The first is that globalization is opens doors and is a veritable fount of possibilities for relationships between countries. With better communications and greater interdependency, countries must hold more discourse with each other, unifying the world as a whole. However this is a very idealistic view and must be tempered with the second consequence of globalization; namely that it is “a capitalist victory that is dispossessing democracies, imposing policy homogenization, and weakening progressive movements.” (1)
Furthermore, it is impossible to ignore the fact that not all nations are on equal footing in terms of technology and communication. In fact, there is the phenomenon of “information poverty,” which often only serves to further alienate those outside of the technology loop, despite the increasing interconnectivity of the rest of the world. It does not help that these gaps are only widening as time progresses. (2) However, despite these occurrences, globalization cannot be denied as a major force in the world today, influencing political and economic systems as well as culture and societal norms.
(1) Curran, James/Park, Myung-Jin (eds.): De-Westernizing Media Studies. London, New York: Routledge 2000, 4-10.
(2) Norris, Pippa. “Information Poverty and the Wired World”. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics. 5 (2000): 1-4. Print.
I like the quote you picked out from the De-Westerning Media Studies article about how globalization is not a one way phenomenon and all the countries are learning from each other. I was curious why you think there is a such a global interdependency in the modern world. You reference the new interdependency and better communication, but why do countries now feel they have to utilize this communication. What was the basis for the beginning of globalization?
ReplyDeleteWell, in my opinion, there is definitely a lot of interdependency in the economic system especially. Greater communication and interaction between nations led to more exchange of goods, which created a huge market for importation and exportation. Also, there are many goods that our country "needs" in order to function that simply aren't made or available in the US, at least not for the same price/quality (ex. oil, computer parts). There is a lot of interdependency in the political sphere as well. I doubt our country would be faring so well if the US didn't have as many allies as it does.
ReplyDeleteThe main motivation for the use of communication is power. Other countries have more resources, be it labor, actual products or political clout. If the US can get a part of those resources through communication, alliances and trade, it gains more power.
Ironically, I believe that the beginning of globalization (an act of reaching out to the masses) is really based in satisfying personal agendas for more power, as stated above. Great questions!