Politics of the Developing Nations POSC 311
This blog is a pedagogical tool for Dr. Khan's Politics of Developing Nations [POSC 311-010] class.
About Me
-
- Name:Muqtedar Khan
Dr. Muqtedar Khan is Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Delaware. He is a Non-resident Fellow at the Brookings Institution. He is the author of American Muslims: Bridging Faith and Freedom (Amana, 2002), Jihad for Jerusalem: Identity and Strategy in International Relations (Praeger, 2004).
- Global Development Network
- enotes on Developing Nations
- These are links to Globalization and the Developing World
- Defining the Third World/Developing World
- Brief History of India
Links
5 Comments:
“For many people around the world, globalization is synonymous with Americanization”
If globalization is defined by mutual dependence, it is odd to find globalization synonymous with Americanization. Personally, I think that the activity of globalization by the United States of America is strengthened by its power, and thus interpreted as imperialistic. This imperialism is synonymous with Americanization. There is a difference though, between globalization and Americanization. Globalization is mutual, where Americanization is more closely related to the American Model used to impress upon undeveloped nations. Likewise, should power shift to an Eastern nation, like China for instance, the criticism and negative connotations would shift as well. It is specific to America right now, but this could change. For this reason as well, there should not be a concrete relationship between Globalization and Americanization. Any thoughts?
In the article for this blog, a definition of globalization by Barnett was that "Globalization is a condition defined by mutually assured dependence." However, in the article in the first blog it was said that globalization is "the gradual erosion of state sovereignty." All governments involved may be dependent upon each other, but there would probably be one that is dominant. I was just thinking that if a government is losing sovereignty and power, then another must be gaining power. In this case, I don't think that there should be a concrete relationship between globalization and Americanization per say, but I do think that there is a relationship between globalization and the world wide acceptance of whatever dominant culture is in power at that time. I don't think that all countries are necessarily imperialistically forced to adopt new technologies or ways of life but they do so anyway because they think that it will help their economy. I don't really know; I was just thinking.
I found this article to be very interesting and informative. The United States has been the world's dominant superpower for quite some time now, which inevitably leads it to be a major player in the spread of globalization. However, with India and China on the rise to becoming possible contending superpowers with the United States within the next few decades, the influence that that United States has over globalization could decrease. It is hard to say now whether India and China will in fact become global powers in the next few decades with the way this crazy world is, but it is highly possible. If India and China do in fact become world powers, they will have more equal roles in globalization to that of the United States. If this is the scenario in the years to come, I think that a lot of the hostility towards us from other countries will lessen because there will be other countries that are equally as strong and powerful. I think that if India and China become dominant world powers like the United States that other countries would not be so jealous or envious, and not constantly be looking for us to falter in our ways. Although the United States has not known anything other than being the sole dominant world power for so long, I think that it would be good if India and China do end up becoming superpowers as well because I think that it will decrease the tensions between the United States and other countries, and the world would be a more peaceful place.
The US and much of the Western world, in my opinion is a master of advertising, of spreading ideas and culture in the interest of new markets and sales. A tiny country in sub Saharan Africa is not as savvy about spreading its cuture, although it is also relatively powerless to prevent a cultural invasion. I find it difficult to see how, at this time, any other country could dominate the cultural spread like the West does.(I wont be surprised when the tides turn however.) I dissaprove of 'Americanization' in favor 'Anglobalization' or 'Westernization'.
In Contrast, perhaps the spread of Western culture isnt all stimulated by the country of origin.
A very interesting topic. It helps me to understand better U.S.politics. Just started my own blog on globalization, European affairs, new ideas, creative tools...Please visit
http://ideenwerk.blogspot.com and send me some comments. Perhaps you can even send me some more information about your work ? Or we could arrange a short interview, like Q & A via e-mail on "The United States of Globalization" ?
Post a Comment
<< Home