Globalization can be defined as, “ the compression of the world and the intensification of the consciousness of the world as a whole.” [1] This goal is achieved through advances in technology aided by capitalist agendas. Nevertheless, globalization appears to be a positive process of the free exchange of ideas and information. However not all societies view globalization in this manner. In order to fully understand globalization as a process, it is important to realize its various degrees. The term globalization becomes too broad to define all forms of exchange. Therefore, the terms glocalization and grobalization better equip one to measure the extent of globalization. Glocalization is “the interpenetration of the global and the local resulting in unique outcomes in different geographic areas.”[2] An example of this can be seen through the growing market of sushi. In Japan, sushi is viewed as a culinary art form. Thus, only the finest ingredients are chosen. Chefs venture to the fish market where the most beautiful blue fin tuna are auctioned off to the highest bidder. This varies drastically from the American culture of sushi that can be found and purchased at a local grocery store. This example fits a more positive perspective of globalization. First, it shows that globalization is not unidirectional. Here, rather than westernization oppressing other countries, Japanese culture is being imposed on our society. Additionally, the globalization of sushi has acted as a process of homogeneity and heterogeneity in that America has adapted to Japanese culture while reinterpreting it to fit our culture. On the other hand, grobalization is “the imperialistic ambitions of nations, corporations, organizations, and the like, and their desire and need to impose themselves on various geographic areas.” [3] An example can be seen through the fast food corporations. An American tourist, traveling any where in the world might be hard pressed not to find a familiar favorite such as McDonalds. Critics of globalization prefer this concept because it promotes an idea that globalization has become the death of culture worldwide. According to Curran and Park, this idea of the death of culture has value yet is highly exaggerated.[4] It seems although they are critical of globalization, they see hope through its reinvention. Therefore, it is important to note globalization is a process that redefines cultures rather than murders them. Whether this is positive or negative depends on the audience.
[1] Robertson, Roland. Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. London:Sage Publications Ltd, 1992. 8.
[2] Ritzer, George. “Globalization: The Key Concepts”. SAIS Review. Vol.23 no.2 (2003) 189-200. 192.
[3] Ritzer, George. “Globalization: The Key Concepts”. SAIS Review. Vol.23 no.2 (2003) 189-200. 192.
[4] Curran, James/Park, Myung-Jin (eds.): De-Westernizing Media Studies. London, New York: Routledge 2000, 16.
I too agree that Globalization is a mostly positive process as it is not forceful and not a one-way street, but this post provides examples as to why some are hesitant to praise Globalization. Curran and Park are right to criticize certain aspects of Globalization but put fears to rest that it is the “death of culture”. Of course, like many other processes occurring domestically and internationally there are negative and positive outcomes, but to generalize Globalization as a purely negative or positive process would not be correct.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you enjoyed my blog contribution on globalization. I too think it is important to note that culture is always reinventing itself to meet modern constructs. Some may disapprove of the ways in which culture changes but as long as there are people in the world, culture will survive. However it is also important to understand that globalization is a broad term, perhaps even too broad to fully categorize its different forms. Once nations have better comprehension of the varying processes that occur, maybe globalization will carry less fear for those that view it negatively.
ReplyDelete