Non-fiction / Globalization, Teorrorism, & identity
What is Globalization?
Globalization is often referred to as an economic policy or phenomena. Globalization is often explained as an extension of neoliberal development theory and practices. Globalization is defined as a method of neocolonialism. Globalization is a byproduct of technological advancements. Globalization is a result of economic reform and the removal of international trade barriers. There is no unified definition of globalization with the academic community or the world at large. Globalization is most commonly explained as being a part of or fostering a great many disconnected processes and circumstances that are primarily economic and thusly also political. Globalization is often an attribute of another process, or a function of political or economics intuitions. Globalization is often referred to as being either good or bad; it is a concept one could have an opinion about and is able to make prescriptive measures in favor of or against because globalization is a policy, distinctly not a process or a phenomena, purposely propagated by a variety of intuitions. The majority of the conversation about globalization in academics, and otherwise, does not consider globalization to be a thing in itself.
What does this mean? Globalization is not usually discussed as a primary process; it is often secondary to, subversive to, or identified with an established concept. Globalization is an emerging concept, or should be treated as one; and thusly should be defined in relation to established institutions, but not limited to these strict situational confines. Globalization is more expansive phenomena than an ambiguous unofficial economic policy. When globalization is given its own history and defined in terms of an evolving social process it becomes more comprehensive, complete, and nonthreatening because it is not the disembodied henchman of global corporations and the countries of the metrapole. Globalization is not a phenomenon that can be demonized or sanctified; it is a process through which the world and all of its peoples and cultures are engaged in as a result of antiquity.
What is globalization? Globalization is not just an economic issue or process. To begin to understand the complexity of globalization we should begin to think of globalization as being a thing in itself, an apolitical phenomenon.
The History Of The Globalization Of Culture
History is one of the most important ways to situate an event. Most people view globalization as a new phenomenon of the 20th century. Oommen breaks from this conversation and starts the history of globalization much earlier. “[The]16C was the beginning of what we now call the global age[through] geographical explorations and colonialismthe division between modern culture and the traditional culture, or the culture of the old world and the new world ect.[sic]” began to develop. With dating globalization to the 16th centaury and attributing its development to European colonization and exploration we are able to find a need root cause for this phenomena. The cause of globalization and when it began to develop affects how we conceptualize this process. When we believe that globalization is a phenomenon of the 20th century we attribute its proliferation to multinational corporations, non governmental organizations, many multi-national treaties, and economic development. Where is the foundation of these organizations and policies? Where did they come from?
Colonialism is the answer. “Colonization is the source of the rupture between the primitive and the modern.” That is often central to the conversation about globalization. No one can dispute that colonialism has shaped the world, the argument lies with exactly how it did so. Oommen proposes that there was not one type of colonization, but three. How the Europeans colonized a people was determined by how they view their culture and thus justified their colonization. With each new region of exploration the Europeans met new peoples who were colonized for different reason. These reasons affect the structure and policies of colonization, as well as how the two cultures interfaced with one another.
In the New World, the Americas, the Europeans found savages. The savage other was conceptualized in a manner that required justification was provided for his being civilized. “[This society was considered to be] a society, which was nasty, brutish, and short. It was necessary to change that society[Europeans found] [t]he need to civilize the indigenous peoples of the Americas in order to improve their lives by providing a stable and more peaceful civilization. The New Worldbecame our world, replicative colonialism[and a] new cultural system, predominantly European, [were] transplanted
Africa was a different case from the Americas. The black other [was formed in the context of]The Dark Continent.[Africans were a ] people without a history [to the Europeans if these people had] no history, no nations [there was a need to]Civilize them
[Colonialization in] Africa and Asia left cultural deposits but did not change everything completely.
Africa is a curious mixture ofEuropean culture, Islamic culture, and local culture. In many places it is a syncretic culture.
The oriental other
The problem with the people of Near Orient according to the West?
a civilization with fostered slavery, which oppressed women it was necessary to civilize them.
Middle Orientlongest known history5000 yearscaste hierarchy and, of course, the oppression of women
For democracy to be institutionalized it was necessary to civilize them.
the people of Far Orient are a civilized people.”
Defining And Reconceptualizing Globalization.
T.K Oommen, an Indian sociologist, defines globalization as a sociological process. Oommens explanation of globalization is structured by a pluralist construct and examines globalization as a social phenomenon. The conceptual benefit of Oommens examination of globalization is that it is a process, a phenomenon, rather than a political policy, a multinational corporate conspiracy, or an economic mode of global free trade. Oommens globalization is not a neoliberals romanticized dream of laisser faire capitalism, nor a communist anarchists nightmare of corporate Americas supreme sociopolitical dominance in an actualized global laisser faire market economy. Oommens globalization is a multifaceted cultural process mediated by institutions, history, politics, and sociology.
One predominant concept of globalization is that it is a process that is producing a singular and monolithic world-culture that is based in consumerism. Many people commonly cite affects of material culture as evidence of a world-culture. The presence or popularity of the products and services of international corporations does not prove that the cultural values of the originating society have been internalized to the country these cultural affects are extorted to. Oommen is opposed to this concept as it is very limited. “[It is true that]material culture has a high propensity to spread and the non-material or the symbolic dimension of the culture gradually follows. [However] accessibility does not lead to acceptability. Something is accessible, something is available, and that does not mean it has become acceptable. Now it is also true in regard to non-material dimensions of culture[in this context]we find local adoptions[in non-Western countries their]give birth to numerous permutations and combinations [of the imported culture and artifacts mixed with the traditional culture and artifacts]. [In this case we should not]speak about world culture in singular but to look at the plurality of world cultures.”
Let us examine what Oommen is saying. When we are called to look at the plurality of world cultures it is in contrast with the concept of a monolithic world culture, not the fact that there are thousands of cultures across the world. It is important to remember that there are thousands of cultures across the world because these cultures are coming in contact with that of the Western modernity. This contact is mainly through material objects, these objects may hold significant symbolic value as a direct export of a culture, but the symbolic value changes with its context and environment. The objects that are considered major artifacts of global culture do not act as a unifying cultural force they are often identified as. These artifacts are not universal in meaning or because they are given a new meaning in each culture they are involved in, people adapt the use and meaning of the artifacts of global culture to suit the needs and beliefs of their culture. So, global culture and its artifacts are not uniform. We find that it is indeed incorrect to profess a singular global culture, but several global cultures that share certain unifying threads.
You need to log in to urbis or create an urbis account to review this writing.
Reviews
Sort Reviews by Newest | Oldest | Highest Quality | Lowest Quality | Newest Comments |
This 60 word review has not been unlocked.
This 52 word review has not been unlocked.
You’ve obviously done more than a bit of research for this paper; however, I still don’t know what globalization is within this context. If your paper is simply to define globalization then I reckon you’ve a good start; but, if you want to keep my attention as a reader then I should have a solid idea of what the paper is about in the first or second paragraph – I don’t.
- add/view comments (0)
In the first section I think that you use the phrase “globalization is” way too much. Try to mix it up a little bit.
In the second section you refer to Oommen but in the third section you tell us that he is an indian sociologist. I think that you should change that around and tell us in the second section who he is.
There are a bunch of spelling errors but you can fix them with spellcheck. And in the title you spelled “terrorism” wrong.
Overall I think that this is an interesting paper. Apt subject material.
Showing 1 - 4 of 4
Review item
Add to faves
GENERAL
REVIEW QUEUE
Ratings & Rankings
