Comments on the 09.08.05 lecture on Globalization
If you have comments or observations to make about last week's lecture, you can make them here.
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).
- Important Guidelines for Posting
- Levels of Analysis
- 21st Century Demographics: Highs and Lows
- Asian Values
- Eastern Philosophy
- Defining Globalization
- The United States of Globalization
- Global Development Network
- enotes on Developing Nations
- These are links to Globalization and the Developing World
Links
29 Comments:
The systems theories, along with the previously discussed “3 P’s”, are very helpful in the understanding of globalization.
What Dr. Khan said about the Burger Kings in other countries really resonated with me. I found it so interesting to have a situation like, for example, "In 1992, the number-one restaurant in Japan measured by volume was McDonald's, followed...by Kentucky Fried Chicken. In France...the government attacks 'franglais' even as it funds Euro Disney outside of Paris" ("Jihad vs. McWorld," Barber, The Globalization Reader).
One of the major ideas brought up in our first Globalization readings, a thought I had in one of my first posts, is the clash of cultures. This is continued in our latest reading in the article "The Clash of Civilizations?" Written in 1993, it seems strangely contemporary to 2005. The idea of "The West Versus the Rest" is certainly what the world seems to be shaping up to be. A reaffirmation of faith, whether it be Christian (as seen in our own country), Judaism (as seen in Israel), Islam (young minds turning to terrorism), or Asian Values (as we see in, obviously, Asia) is a major component of the way we as a world changed our outlook on world politics.
This is also represented by Dr. Khan's "bubble-diagrams." One is a military diagram with the U.S. as the only large bubble and every other state is a small one. The other is an economic diagram with several large bubbles (including Japan, China, the U.S., and the U.K.), but still a lot of small bubbles. What does this tell us? It tells us that while the West still dominate militarily, but the economic field is changing to include former "developing nations." Is this an effect of globalization? Yes, of course it is. It is also a sign of change. How could a country like China, an odd conglomerate of Communism and Capitalism, have a booming economy that threatens to become the dominate world market? It is something beyond most Westerners to understand.
This is where we can use Dr. Khan's "Systems Theory" to help us understand how a former developing nation (from the communist bloc no less!) has become an economic powerhouse. You cannot view this from simple vantage point...Just as Dr. Khan's description of Bangladesh (I'm sorry...Bangladesh sticks in my mind. I apologize if that isn't the country he was referring to as I didn't write it down) as a developing nation that is very poor, but has a highly advanced political system is reminiscent of the way we must look at China's economy. (Side note: Bangladesh is a perfect example of the "island theory" explained in Chapter 11 of The Globalization Reader.)
Basically, what I took away from the last lecture is that you can never look at a country from one point (economically, politically, militarily, and culturally) and assume you know anything at all about it. For example, what if a country has a small and poorly-trained military, but when it is invaded, the citizens come together and repel the invaders. You have just learned something about the culture of that state that should probably have been studied before invasion. We can only understand "developing nations" by examining every detail of the culture, economy, etc.
mitchell masucci 9/11/05
(sorry, forgot)
Interesting comment Mitch. Now some people are talking not about West vs the rest, but Islam vs the rest.
Indeed, but is that truly what it's all about now? It's not truly all about Islam versus the West. Unfortunately that is what gets all the media attention.
As the article we read said, there are fundamentalists rising in all religions as a response to glabalization. As the world works to pull us closer to a homogenous society, cultures begin going back to their roots to become unique and seperate from the whole and avoid being swallowed up.
A world society is, in my mind, unavoidable, but it is hardly on the horizon. There are many differences that will need to reconciled and I don't see anyone in any particular culture bending over backwards to accept anyone else.
Many in the West can't believe how some cultures won't accept Western culture. They look at it from a single vantage point and, instead of trying to figure it out and look into other aspects of the culture, they label it as inferior.
Odd that a lot of people believe the Middle East to be a backward culture. Technologically, this is true. But many people generalize the people in the Middle East as bedouins, farmer folk, or generally uneducated, violent people. This is obviously far from the truth. My Islamic History professor last semester, Dr. Matthee, said the people of many middle-eastern countries love Americans. They hate our government, but they know to seperate the people from the administration. He said that one would be hard-pressed to find people who like Americans more than those who live in that area of the world the West loves to demonize.
mitch masucci 9/11/05
I thought last weeks lecture about Globalization was very intriguing and resonating with the experiences I had when I was back in Pakistan. Right before I came to US, PTV (Pakistani Television Network) and many other Indian Networks were advertising fast food restaurants such as McDonalds. But what I found more intersting was the fact that, Yes Globalization is happeneing, but the dominant culture and ideas being globalized is that of the West. When you walk in the streets of Tehran (Iran), you will find teenagers with rapper style baggy pants with football shirts of the teams they don't even know about with big rapper style jewelry (they actually call it Bling Bling too) hanging around their necks. I think some part of hatred against America is because of the fact that eastern world (especially Islamic Countries) do not want their teenagers to be influenced by the western culture.
I thought last weeks lecture about Globalization was very intriguing and resonating with the experiences I had when I was back in Pakistan. Right before I came to US, PTV (Pakistani Television Network) and many other Indian Networks were advertising fast food restaurants such as McDonalds. But what I found more intersting was the fact that, Yes Globalization is happeneing, but the dominant culture and ideas being globalized is that of the West. When you walk in the streets of Tehran (Iran), you will find teenagers with rapper style baggy pants with football shirts of the teams they don't even know about with big rapper style jewelry (they actually call it Bling Bling too) hanging around their necks. I think some part of hatred against America is because of the fact that eastern world (especially Islamic Countries) do not want their teenagers to be influenced by the western culture.
Mustafa Zia, September 11, 2005.
I thought last weeks lecture about Globalization was very intriguing and resonating with the experiences I had when I was back in Pakistan. Right before I came to US, PTV (Pakistani Television Network) and many other Indian Networks were advertising fast food restaurants such as McDonalds. But what I found more intersting was the fact that, Yes Globalization is happeneing, but the dominant culture and ideas being globalized is that of the West. When you walk in the streets of Tehran (Iran), you will find teenagers with rapper style baggy pants, football shirts of the teams they don't even know about and wearing big rapper style jewelry (they actually call it Bling Bling too) hanging around their necks. I think some part of hatred against America is because of the fact that eastern world (especially Islamic Countries) do not want their teenagers to be influenced by the western culture.
Mustafa Zia, September 11, 2005.
SO SORRY< there was some computer problems and somehow I published it three times. Very Sorry for that!
I agree with you, Mustafa, on your views of anti-Westernism. I think, much like there is counter-culture in many societies, there is a counter-culture in Islamic countries where at the same time it is popular to denounce the West and be Western at the same time.
A great article to read, and I made reference to it before, is "Jihad versus Mcworld" in our Globalization textbook. There is an interesting Yugoslavian story about two teenagers who are very Westernized who are assassinated by people who were dressed in a Western fashion as well.
I tend to view world history in a cyclical fashion. Just as countries or empires have risen to power (like the Roman empire, Napoleonic France, the Mongolian empire, etc.), they in turn lose power as they become eclipsed by a different rising star. Everyone talks about how the world is becoming increasingly westernized and about how western culture is taking over. Although I agree that the west is the culture of power right now, I do not believe that the west is "taking over." There is just as much nationalism for other cultures in different countries as there is adopting of western culture. I think that over time the rise of western culture will reach its zenith and another culture will be more dominant. Although there is many anti-american feelings circultating right now due to the war and other situations, I don't think that it will last forever.
Also, I think that the article that Mitch brought up is very interesting. As far as sociology goes, there is a great textbook called The McDonaldization of Society: An Investigation Into the Changing Character of Contemporary Social Life by George Ritzer. I myself have not had the opportunity to read this book but I have learned from some excerpts from it in Sociology 101. It is really really interesting.
woops...sorry I forgot.
That last post was by Kristin Uhlemeyer, 9/11/05
I wrote a somewhat lengthy post, but I feel that it makes sence and I had a few questions to pose as well. So get a comfy chair and some chips and enjoy :) The link will direct you to my own class blog.
Click here to view my post
I found the film that we watched in class last Thursday on globalization, "Beyond Borders" to be very informative, yet disturbing. I try the best that I can with the little fee time that I have to stay up to date with everything important that is going on in the world, but for some reason, I was not aware of such extreme negative consequences of globalization. I mean I was always aware that there were obviously some drawbacks of it, but perhaps actually seeing it live in front of me made me realize how serious it is. It is really sad to see so many people who already live below poverty level become poorer and be left with basically no options in life. Meanwhile, the richer keep on getting richer and forget about the millions and millions of people that are still starving and suffering while they rack in the multi-million dollar pay checks. Globalization is greatly contributing to the ongoing problems of prostitution, drugs, and crime on the street. It may not be right for people to turn to these options for money, but do they really have a choice? It's either make money in a non-respectful way, or make non at all and starve to death and die. I don't know how the government expects to get drugs off the streets when they do not make enough effort to improve the situation of so many millions of people...and cutting back on social services and education IS NOT a way to help improve such issues such as crime, drugs, prostitution, etc. One statistic that was completely mind-blowing to me was that the top richest 100 people have more money that the poorest 1 billion!!! There about 6 1/2 billion people in the world, so that means that 0.0000015% of the world's population is has more money that 15 percent of it---that is crazy! Shame on people. I think that it is good that so many of the people that have been negatively affected by globalization have been taking action by having protests, etc...it is good that they know what is going on and that they are doing all that they can to get there message across that something needs to be done soon. That is the truth, something needs to be done soon before this problem gets any worse and forces millions of people out of actually living.
KANDIS KOVALSKY
September 11,2005
I had a question. Francis, you said in your blog that "The argument was that this exponential globalization is widening the gap between the rich and the poor, and breaking out of poverty is about empowerment. Argued was that governments are catering to the rich and forgetting their poor." However on page 11 in "The Hidden Promise: Liberty Renewed" it states "yes, [globalization] does increase inequality, but it does not create a winner-take-all society, and the winners hugely outnumber the losers. " Is this true? If it is true then does it just seem like the gap is getting larger because we have a different standard of living than before which is more dependent on luxury items (or at least for westerners). The poor of today (particularly in America) are a lot richer than the poor of the past; although the rich are richer too. What is the place if inflation in globalization? Do people's changing views of what the "good life" is make a difference as well? We have a lot more than in the past but the grass is always greener i guess.
Kristin, while I agree that eventually the West will reach a zenith and begin to fall, I don't see that happening for several centuries.
Very soon I can see the economy of the United States and other Western countries being eclipsed by the economies of Japan and China, but one must realize that those countries are either making and/or exporting goods to us. China makes Western goods that ship all over the world, thereby making it more western. We watch American television shows on Sony televisions and drive in Toyota cars, but that isn't an exportation of Asian values, simply Asian goods made in a Western style.
History truly is cyclical, but it will be hundreds of years before the West's influence will begin to wane.
Three things will prevent our influence from fading in the near or even distant future:
1) The global influence the West possess militarily, politically, and economically. Do not underestimate the power of our government. While many at home and abroad disagree with Western government, we (as Westerners, not Americans) control the WTO, the UN, the EU, and NATO, etc.
2) The fact that everybody wants to be Western, or, at least, look Western. Our culture is exported all across the world (true, we receive other cultures, but not nearly at the same volume they receive ours).
3) The hatred of the West abroad. As long as other countries hate the West and try to destroy it, the West will pull closer together (if only for short periods of time) and fight for its own survival. Because of 1) and 2), the West will continually succeed at surviving.
As I stated above, the West will eventually fall out of major influence simply because history is, as Kristin said, cyclical. However, the West has been the major power since World War I (and arguably long before that if one excludes the Ottoman Empire). Of course, Communism was a stumbling block to the idea of Western dominance, but that's a whole different argument.
Mitch Masucci 9/12
Kristen- I think the most prominent problem, and I tried to touch on this in my post, was the definition of “poverty”. As far as the statement regarding globalization creating a society in which the winners outnumber the losers; In many ways I think that many people both rich an poor are losers in this social situation. I would argue that the losers outnumber the winners in this era. As Westernization sweeps the Globe, materialization comes right along as well. I would say you are correct in assuming that we have a different standard of living than we have in the past, and this is thanks to a society attempting to produce goods and services that are bigger better and faster; a direct result of globalization. The poor today are much more materially “wealthy” then they have been in the past. So are the rich. However, I argue that both groups, no matter how diverse, are equally lacking in the meaning of true happiness. For example, in many cultures, family is stressed over anything other aspect of life. No matter if one is rich or poor, if he has his family, then he is happy. This isn’t the case anymore. People these days have associated happiness directly with material wealth. So much in fact, that people kill family in order to inherit money. A poor man might steal bread from a store, while Millionaires use insider trading to make even more money. So much corruption is a direct affect of globalization. Everyone wants to be bigger better and faster, but no one wants to really work for it. It’s a huge rat race, and I think the biggest problem with globalization is not the widening gap between the haves and the have-nots, it’s the weakening of morality.
I also forgot to mention in my last post a thought I had. The poor are uprising because they don’t feel that the government cares for them. Perhaps they would prefer a more communist society? At one time the idea of communism was looked down upon because it takes away from our freedom and individuality. However, at what point will having a roof over their heads become more important than government involvement? With such a widening gap, will their ever be a fight for communism?
Frances, I'm not sure what you mean by "lacking the true meaning of happiness." Isn't that subjective?
I also disagree with the idea of "weakening morality." How many nations poured their hearts and wallets out to the tsunami victims? To the September 11th victims? To Hurrican Katrina victims? Bad people get good media attention, but another facet of globalization is the ability to get well-meaning people in touch with people who have nothing.
Mitch Masucci 9/12
Mitch- Everything of any value on this blog is subjective. Politics isn't Mathematics. Anyone can post a synopsis of a lecture, but in order to get anywhere productive or remotely intriguing we must be subjective. In any case, I think I explained it thoroughly when I described that a much less destructive happiness would be one in which people found pleasure in nonmaterial aspects of life, like family or friendships. Acts of kindness as means to help someone else, not just as a tax write off. Could you imagine the Political consequences of a nation not pouring their wallets and "hearts" out to Tsunami victims? Its an obligation. I am not speaking though, on a national level. I'm talking about the citizens that make up these westernized nations. Your examples of charity are valid, but none of them changed the way people look at charity in general. In fact, I'm not even talking about charity at all. Im speaking on a more on the growth towards material happiness, and a loss of virtues such as family and modesty. Even if this may not be true on a personal level, observe the shows on prime time television, and compare them to your television 20 years ago. The quickening mobility of everything from fast food to our daily routines leave little chance to enjoy everything we already have. I hope that answers your question.
Frances Meres 9/12/05
In the video we watched on globalization, a homeless woman said something that stuck with me. She said, "If you want us to get jobs, then give us jobs," and it made me think about our system of employment in the US. For every job I have ever had, an address was necessary for tax purposes when i filled out my W4 form. Homeless people, by their very definition lack a place of official residence, and therefore cannot aquire a legally paying job. Without a job, they cannot earn money to buy a home, but without a home, they cannot get a job. I was wondering whether this was the case in other countries as well. I was also wondering how people are suggested to surmount such an unfortunate cycle.
Matt Linder 9/12/05
I understand your position, Frances, but the "loss of virtues such as family and modesty" in Western culture doesn't neccessarily translate into "the loss of the true meaning of happiness." While I agree that almost everything we're discussing is subjective, "happiness" is one of the ideas so far out there that it can't be truly measured by anyone. Who says that family and modesty are essential to happiness? I don't plan on having children, but that doesn't mean I can't be happy. Unless, of course, you mean family values, which is a whole other can of worms.
Comparing a show on television today where a family discusses sex with their children to a show in the 50's and 60's where the husband and wife slept in seperate beds is no basis for a gauge of morality. While from one point of view, it can a disgusting lowering of morals, it is also the desire of the public to have shows that reflect real life. Husbands and wives don't really sleep in two beds. Teenagers do have sex. AIDS and Cancer, subjects never really talked about in the 50's and 60's, etc, are always on TV. I see television today as more of a gauge of how our lives really are, hence the rise of reality shows. Is that to say that some television shows don't go "too far?" Sure, there are a lot of television shows that I find disagreeable. The 700 Club, for example. Like I said though, it's a matter of preference and of where a person "draws the line."
I don't want to start a discussion on the morality of television, because we all have our vastly different ideas of what is ethical and appropriate, but just throwing that out there.
This is basically a preference issue here: many people like the quick world where there is always something to do and you're always on the move. Personally, I dig hanging out and taking things easy, but my girlfriend (for example) loves the fast-paced world.
Mitch Masucci 9/12
1) Translate is such an equalizing term. I related the two and your logical interpretation is getting the way of what I am trying to say.
2) Happiness is not “far out there”. Everyone finds happiness in their own way. Quite contrastingly, it can be measured by everyone.
3) I never said anything about children, but I expect that you have a girlfriend and friends of your own, as well as parents, or did at some point in time? People that mean something to you the way material possessions never could. Family values come into effect here too.
4) I’m not talking about sex at all. Sex has been around forever and any television station or parent who tries to deny it is silly. More over, I’m talking about the loose speech, a lessening of educational television and a replacement by…a majority of stations airing on prime time television the lives of the rich and famous. Their fancy cars and spoiled children. Also, I am talking about the fact that Television didn’t always come equipped with 500 stations. Rarely did people watch TV, unless it was the news or a family oriented activity. People were active, and involved. I am not saying that Television is immoral or wrong, it is simply evidence of a quicker, and in turn lazier lifestyle. By modesty, I mean having the humbleness to be glad for what you have and not feeling like you have to keep up with the Jones’ every five minutes. I’m not talking about modest dressing if that’s what you were getting at. We won’t start a discussion about the morality of television because that isn’t even what this post is about.
Overall Mitch, I think you are overanalyzing my point. I’m not talking about you, or your girlfriend, or any one individual. I am talking about westernized society on average having changed due to globalization. I am not saying that some people like or dislike it. If you remember, the post was originally about the widening gap between the rich and the poor; and the fact that the gap has always been there, but with the exponential desire for bigger, better, faster materials, the gap has since the past few decades, expanded quite widely. When the poor of FDR’s presidency were given the government’s help they were thankful. Now the system is more or less abused because the standard help the poor receive is expected. People do not have the values that they once did. Attitudes have become harsher and it is no wonder why some people can’t get a job.
Matt, that is a very interesting point and it was a comment that struck me as well. On the website homeless.org, statistics show that
* 20% work.
* 22% are mentally disabled.
* 11% are veterans.
* 34% are drug or alcohol
dependent.
It seems to me that there should be more opportunities for these people. Being homeless is really a catch 22 and it is very hard to get out of the cycle of poverty. With 22% being mentally disabled and 34% addicted to drugs there aren't many opportunities for these people to get the help they need or to be hired even if they are clean (if they are addicted) or have had proper training (if they are mentally disabled).
Also, I think that it is discouraging that 20% of homeless actually do work but they can not gain enough money to support themselves. Minimum wage is not enough. I waitressed over the summer and I babysat when I wasn't waitressing. Just for fun I calculated how much I would make per year. It may have been alright as wages since I still live at home and my parents halp support me but it is DEFINITELY not enough to live off of if you have to consider rent, food, clothing, etc. This should not be the case. Furthermore, where I worked you obviously didn't need any formal education; however, to get a job with better wages it is not only preferred but necessary. Even that is not enough sometimes.
I used to help at my middle school and high school with a program that an English teacher ran called Bridges. A ton of people from school would make lunches and donate clothes which would be given to homeless people in New York. What is striking is the amount of educated people who are homeless. These are people who have high school and college diplomas who may have hit a rough patch and could not get themselves back on their feet. It is also disconserting how many children are homeless. How can educators expect them to succeed in school when they don't even know where their next meal is coming from? In a capitalistic society there has to be losers in order for there to be winners but I feel like current systems kick people while they are still down. A lot of people don't like helping the homeless because they view it as the homeless person's own fault for the situation that they are in. They say that we live in a mobile society where they could better themselves if they really wanted but in a lor of situations I don't think that that's the case. What responsibilities does the government have and what responsibilities do we have as individuals?
--Kristin Uhlemeyer 9/12/05
a lessening of educational television
I'm sorry, I don't understand this. There is more educational programming on television now than at any other point in history. Because of Globalization and the tight-knit fabric of societies and a desire of parents to have more "worldly" children, there are educational shows all over the place. The history channel (my favorite) for example. Watch PBS for five minutes, and not even just the early morning children's programming, and tell me that there is less educational programming now than ever before. True, there are many "risqué" shows on prime-time, but that's because that is what the majority of people want to see. If one doesn't want their children learning the values of prime-time television, there is no reason to let the child watch it. That is a parenting issue, not a lessening of moral values issue.
Rarely did people watch TV, unless it was the news or a family oriented activity
M*A*S*H finale, 105.9 million viewers (February 28, 1983)
The Ed Sullivan Show with guests The Beatles, 73 million (February 9, 1964)
The Ed Sullivan Show with guests The Beatles, 70.7 million (February 16, 1964)
Super Bowl XVI, 85.2 million (January 24, 1982)
Dallas "Who Shot J.R.?", 83 million (November 21, 1980)
That is a list of the most watched U.S. television events according to Neilson Media. I wouldn’t call either number one or number five, or necessarily any of these, family or news programs. But as you can see, many people have been watching television for a long time. Since its inception, I don’t believe Americans have ever stopped watching television. None of these television events were even in the last two decades. People aren’t watching any more television now than they have been for years.
People were active and involved.
Is this to imply people aren’t active or involved now? I would certainly argue that. I’ve seen reports of obesity rates in American children, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they aren’t active. There are a number of factors at work there. I will concede that people are probably less active today than they were years ago, but that is a phenomenon spanning all of history. It is naturally human to want to make things easier. However, sports and participating in sports and athletic events is just as popular now as it ever was. Involvement in a political sense is very high now, too. The under-25 population still isn’t voting at what I believe the level should be, but it’s getting better.
a quicker, and in turn lazier lifestyle.
We should be thanking the stars communication is so fast. While some may argue, as you do, that it creates lazier people, I see it from a different view. If the tsunami had hit in 1805 instead of 2005, who would have known? Aid would not have reached the island for months or years. A quicker lifestyle is a result of globalization and the response time we have in today’s day and age far surpasses any other in history. You put a negative spin on the quickness of lifestyle, wondering when it will “catch up” with us. My question is, how fast can we push ourselves to go? Why shouldn’t we be able to go back and forth across the country at record speeds? Getting things done faster means a more productive society with, perhaps, more free-time. We have more free-time now than did any other society. I don’t see too many people working 12 hours shifts today. We have more leisure time. The faster and more efficient we our in the workplace, the more leisure time we will have and the higher our standard of living will be, which will continue the cycle. Business transactions move at unimaginable speeds across unimaginable distances between businessmen from countries that probably never would have spoken if this were 1950 or 1960.
I don’t see any problems with today’s society that haven’t been problems for every historical society. Entertainment is increasingly provocative, teens are rebellious, religious fundamentalism is high, life-styles are becoming easier and faster, technology is improving…none of this is new. What is new is how it is being spread across the world and how it is being accepted; if it is well received or poorly received. The question is how do we come together and make the unstoppable process of globalization work for everyone fairly. Hans Küng’s article in our Globalization Reader outlines a way we might do this. Though I find the idea of a universal code of ethics a better idea than a global society, I don’t see how it could be implemented. Any ideas?
mitch masucci 9/12
Frances. I thought your comment about "happiness" was very intersting. I think that globalization while having it's positives, is also affecting our social and moral standards in a negative way. Almost every student in today's world goes to college or university to essentially become rich. Ask a college student, Why do you go to college, and He/she will say, to have more money and to buy new stuff. I also think that it is badly affecting some cultural and traditional values. For examples, soccer has been a very traditional aspect of many european countries. But now it is becoming more of a Business and money making assets (like the Glazer brothers buying Manchester United).
Mustafa Zia 9/12
FORGOT THIS PART,
TO summarize I think the whole concept of happiness doesn't lie in being rich or poor has changed. It seems like in today's world, you need to be rich and "materialistic" in order to be happy, or at least that is what most people see it as. Globalization is creating business and financial opportunities for everyone and no one wants to be the last one. This hunger for money in return affects ( in a negative way) the way we look at society.
What I found most interesting about class on Thursday was that Professor Khan's personal experiences with globalization, or rather westernization in some instances, as well as the comments by many of the students on their encounters with globalization were very familiar to me. I traveled to Costa Rica in August and I was floored by the presence of American culture. I speak no Spanish, yet not only was I able to watch TV in English, American programs dominated the cable channels my TV received. Shows like the Gilmore Girls, E.R., and One Tree Hill were popular. Also, there was a Burger King, a Pizza Hut, and a TCBY all located in the same square at the center of Liberia. It was as if they were proud to place these American restaurants at the heart of their town to demonstrate their "modernity" and connection to the more developed areas of the world. I must say I was very surprised to see such familiar, American commodoties in such a foreign place. That experience combined with our class disscussion really helped me to understand that the world is, in fact, becoming a smaller place (just like the Disney song) and that cultural homogeneity is a looming possibility; perhaps not in perfect form, but at least to the point where there can be found more similarities between world regions and cultures than differences.
Rachael Casey 9/12/05
It is interesting to look at an idea such as globalization from different definitions. Viewing globalization from the phenomenon perspective allows me to understand how much has changed and how people are able to connect very easily. Through globalization, I am more aware of what is around me and find that the world is a more interesting place because I can experience different cultures through the internet or even fashion magazines. From this standpoint, I find globalization to be a comforting idea because it makes the world a smaller place, not a huge daunting area where no one knows anything about anyone else.
Jenna Douglass 9/12/05
In a different posting I stated that I did not necessarily agree with a direct correlation between the 9/11 attacks and the clash of civilizations. Some see this as the West vs. the Rest. Regardless, I do not dispute the basic notion that there exists or at least the potential to exists, a forthcoming major clash of civilizations. While some view it in terms of the West vs the Rest, that may not be appropriate after the fall of communism. During the Cold War the West was unified in its ideological opposition to communism. It is easy to formulate foreign policy and alliances when there is one main overarching objective. However, with the absence of the unitary communist threat, the world appears to be reverting back to when the advancement of nationalistic goals is paramount, yet because of the destructive capabilities of modern weapons/weapons systems realize that war is ultimately an unusable option. The new focus is on the exploitation of worldwide economic liberalization brought on by globalization. Continuing, the old warring states model is far from accurate. Multinational corporations, massive financial institutions such as the World Bank and NGO'S have blurred the distinction usually defined by political boundaries that were once viewed as the "line in the sand." Due to the inherent nature of capitalism and its reliance on resources and markets, the haves and the have-nots will continue to struggle. This struggle may not be carried out with arms between nations, but instead through civilizations that clash on various "battlegrounds" for reasons like immigration from lower tier to top tier countries resulting in the diluting of the latters cultural heritage. The emergence of a neo-nationalism can be seen by increasingly xenophobic populations in countries like France that fear the loss of their culture because of a massive influx of foreigners, mostly Muslims from North Africa. These western countries will continue to have internal struggles that test the integrity of their liberal values. Returning to the original argument about the West vs. the Rest, the nations of the west are heavily competing against one another in the economic realm. For example, the European Union is a economic competitor to the United States as exemplified by the feud between Airbus and Boeing. As China marches towards becoming a global economic superpower, as well as the emergence of India and Brazil to a lesser extent, the West will not necessarily be unified in their opposition to these expanding powers, but instead will view each other through the same adversarial economic lenses.
9/13/05 my bad
Post a Comment
<< Home