GE WORLD: The Contemporary World (Module 1-2) PDF

**College of Arts and Sciences** **Bayombong Campus** **DEGREE PROGRAM** **General Education** **COURSE NO.** **GE WORLD** **SPECIALIZATION** **COURSE TITLE** **The Contemporary World** **YEAR LEVEL** **All level** **TIME FRAME** **6 hrs** **WK NO.** **2-3** **IM NO.** 1 I. II. -...

**College of Arts and Sciences** **Bayombong Campus** **DEGREE PROGRAM** **General Education** **COURSE NO.** **GE WORLD** **SPECIALIZATION** **COURSE TITLE** **The Contemporary World** **YEAR LEVEL** **All level** **TIME FRAME** **6 hrs** **WK NO.** **2-3** **IM NO.** 1 I. II. - **The Conceptions of Globalization** - **Approaches to the Study of Globalization** - **Working Definition of Globalization** III. This chapter introduces the students the various concepts of globalization leaning from different perspectives and context on the use of the term by political scientists, economists and many social scientists. It aims to 1) differentiate the competing conceptions of globalization and 2) identify the underlying philosophies of the varying definitions of globalization. Generally, globalization is a term used as a process, condition, and ideology. While this chapter intends to adapt a working definition of globalization, this does not mean, however, to disregard the other concepts and meanings of globalization. Contextualization of conditions of time and settings is thus necessary. Further, theories and the importance and the challenges of globalization are to be tackled to better understand its context. IV. 1. Examine the various conceptions of globalization 2. Distinguish the different definitions from experts 3. Adapt a working definition of globalization V. Many researches have admitted the difficulty on coming up with an exact meaning of globalization due to various context that the term can be applied and used. The term is used differently in the field of economics, political sphere, culture and so forth. This is manifested on the study below. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | **[What is Globalization?]** | | | | Ritwik Bhattacharjee (2007) | | | | The reasons behind the conceptual difficulty of identifying | | globalization in exact terms of what it is and what it does, lie in | | the cyclic logic used to define it. Most researches on globalization | | tend to extract the meaning of globalization from the effects it has | | on a society's economy, political sphere, culture and the like. For | | example, a particular society's culture can be studied and the traits | | of globalization as might be found in them can be attributed back to | | the definition of globalization. Robertson (1990) found globalization | | to be the 'form' by which the world became 'united'. The perceived | | unity of the world gives globalization a definitional quotient, that | | of a 'grand unifier'. But this unity happens through different | | channels, varied planes of understanding. The multiple layers | | associated with globalization must be identified and addressed | | separately yet under a conceptual whole to decipher the meaning of | | the word. Tomlinson (1999: 22) for example identifies this | | multi-dimensionality as a natural concomitant of what he terms | | 'complex-connectivity'. However, he also points out that to | | understand globalization its multi-dimensionality must be reduced to | | a single dimension (Tomlinson, 17). But this reductionism cannot be | | sweeping in its scope. What Tomlinson underlines is that an analysis | | of a single dimension for example, culture as a part of the | | complex-connectivity associated with globalization---helps to | | identify globalization in relation to that specific dimension. | | | | So, the question remains: what is globalization? Without going into | | the debates concerning the problematic definition of the term itself, | | it can be roughly identified as a non-linear phenomenon based on | | accumulation, ordering and restructuring. It has no 'top' or | | 'bottom', no 'start' or 'end'. Globalization has no *fixed* point of | | departure from any previous historical socio-economic processes. It | | is much like a circle with no point of initiation or completion. In | | fact, globalization is a form of forced social evolution. It is | | man-made and yet its development and effects are natural to the | | extent that the results follow naturally from within the idea. It is | | an ideational construct encompassing all aspects of the modern (some | | would say post-modern) society. The idea of a 'globalizing world' in | | academic spheres relate to a 'shrinking' of distances, of a | | 'time-space compression'; a world where connections between and | | amongst people have become so easy, rapid and intricate that the | | 'territoriality' associated with the term 'space' has lost its | | relevance. Globalization in effect means becoming a part of the | | globe, not the world. This distinction is essential in marking the | | chief trajectory of the concept. World is the real-time association | | that we have *presently*. An association with the self and the | | surroundings, the 'immediates' such as family, friends, offices, | | clubs etc, where there is no place for the 'others', the strangers, | | the unknown. Globe as a word signifies the unity of mankind, of the | | people living on the planet. It is a universal attachment to a | | particular social life/being. Here, you take notice of someone in a | | different country a thousand miles away, or are affected by the | | economic downturns they are facing. Here, you develop ties and bonds | | with the other, the 'non-immediates'. Globalization thus becomes the | | process by which you become one with the globe. | | | | But how did this significant change come to happen? How did the | | Hobbesian 'selfish, nasty and brutish' individual come to terms with | | such a magnanimous connectivity where existence is supposedly more | | about the 'other' than the 'self'? Sadly it turns out that this | | beautiful thought of becoming one with the globe was a by- product of | | an agenda, an ideology. As noted earlier globalization has | | no *fixed* point of initiation but that it *evolved* from the | | historical socio-economic processes already in place. Globalization | | can be traced out from the inherent human tendency to look beyond, | | move forward and expand his senses. In a crude explanation it can be | | said that the roots of globalization were in human romanticism i.e. | | in the beauty of knowing the unknown. From deriving mere aesthetic | | pleasures this slowly made way to the greater socio-economic | | implications with the unrestrained movements of human beings, | | capital, information and culture. As human knowledge increased the | | dissemination of such knowledge became a priority along with | | movements. In the 16th century Europeans established worldwide trade | | connections and started spreading their culture. On the other hand, | | movements also resulted in territorial expansion and domination. | | Especially during the late 19th century period along with the rise in | | migration, trade increased and so did the formation of new norms and | | orders upon different colonies. After the end of World War II | | colonies created due to such expansion entirely on the basis of | | economic and material gains (the high ideal of disseminating | | knowledge or the romanticism associated with discovery has long died) | | gained independence and complete political sovereignty. What also | | happened was that the links, institutions that were in place during | | the colonial period transformed in to cultural residues, remnants of | | consciousness from the past (Lechner and Boli, 2004). | | | | However, the imperialist drive of the colonial powers riding on the | | back of military prowess had to wither away with the acceptance of | | core and intrinsic human values e.g. freedom etc. legalized through | | international organizations as the United Nations.But capital as an | | entity itself remained and kept on flourishing with the help of | | capitalist- industrialist societies, largely associated with the | | Western world. The collapse of the communist bloc in the early 1990s | | with the end of the Cold War saw the completion of capitalism as an | | accumulative and regenerative mechanism. But capitalism cannot | | flourish without new markets; newer territories must be conquered by | | capital for it to survive. Thus the military dimension of imperialism | | gave way to the economic imperialism through capital. Globalization | | as we experience it *today* originates specifically through the | | brisance of such a capitalist explosion situated in the | | commodity-plenitudes, mass consumption patterns etc. Featherstone's | | (1990) formulation that globalization is *not* a form of cultural | | imperialism driven by economic imperialism can be contested only when | | we are talking about globalization as it started anew in the late | | 1990s. With the help of technological inventions in communication, | | information-sharing gathered immense speed and thus globalization | | became truly 'global'. | | | | Globalization had thus gone through several phases in history before | | it reached the present state. It had evolved through time.Scholte | | (cited in Greig: 2002) on the other hand identifies three distinctive | | descriptions of globalization. First, globalization involves | | cross-border internationalization, effectuating increase in the | | movements of people, goods, ideas, thoughts, capital, technology etc. | | Second, globalization is described as amounting to or resulting in | | removals of barriers to large-scale movements of those previously | | stated items. As such, here globalization itself becomes a by-product | | of the removal of barriers. The third conception of globalization | | sees it as transcending borders diminishing territories and | | distances. Rupal Oza calls this 'the simultaneous solidification of | | global flows and the consolidation of the local identities' (2006, | | 4). This is termed the 'global-local nexus' or *glocalisation'*, one | | of the chief claims of globalists, where the global and local | | interactions submerge, transcending and bypassing any national level | | interactions. | +=======================================================================+ | | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | **[Approaches to the Study of Globalization]** | | | | Manfred B.Steger (2014) | | | | I. **Globalization as Economic Process** | | | | | | | | II. **Globalization as Political Process** | | | | | | | | III. **Globalization as Cultural Process** | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ **Advocates and Critics of Globalization** {#advocates-and-critics-of-globalization.TitleLevel2} ------------------------------------------ Globalization is one of the most controversial issues of our times. Supporters generally believe that it brings in greater economic efficiency that will eventually result in bring prosperity for the entire world. Critics think that it will largely benefit those who are already rich, leaving most of the world poorer than before. Economic globalization is generally applauded by corporate leaders and economists. But opposition to economic globalization is widespread in the labor and environmental movements for it has promoted exploitation of workers, children, farmers, and the environment. +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Advantages of Globalization** | **Disadvantages of | | | Globalization** | +===================================+===================================+ | - Productivity increases faster | - Millions of workers have lost | | when countries produce goods | their jobs because of imports | | and services in which they | or shifts in production | | have a comparative advantage. | abroad. Most find new jobs | | Living standards can increase | that pay less. | | more rapidly. | | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | - Productivity increases faster | - Millions of workers fear | | when countries produce goods | getting laid off, especially | | and services in which they | at those firms in | | have a comparative advantage. | import-competing industries. | | Living standards can increase | | | more rapidly. | | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | - An open economy promotes | - Workers face demands of wage | | technological development and | concessions from their | | innovation, with fresh ideas | employers, which often | | from abroad. | threaten to export jobs | | | abroad if wage concessions | | | are not accepted. | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | - Jobs in export industries | - Besides blue-collar jobs, | | tend to pay about 15 percent | service and white-collar jobs | | more than jobs in | are increasingly vulnerable | | import-competing industries. | to operations being sent | | | overseas. | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | - Unfettered capital movements | - Workers can lose their | | provide workers access to | competitiveness when | | foreign investment and | companies build | | maintain low interest rates. | state-of-the-art factories in | | | low wage countries, making | | | them as productive as those | | | in the developed countries. | | | | | | - | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ (Business Week "Backlash Behind the Anxiety over Globalization," 2000) A number of experts argue that both the anti-globalization and the pro-globalization stances are exaggerated. Those in the middle ground tend to argue that economic globalization is indeed unavoidable. They point out that even the anti-globalization movement is made possible by the Internet and is, therefore, itself an expression of globalization. They further contend that globalization can be managed, at both the national and international levels, to reduce economic inequalities and protect the natural environment. Such scholars stress the need for strong yet efficient governments and international institutions (such as the UN, World Bank, and IMF), along with networks of watchdog environmental, labor, and human rights groups. (Rowntree, Lewis, Price & Wyckoff, 2008) **Theories of Globalization** {#theories-of-globalization.TitleLevel2} ----------------------------- from PoliticalScienceNotes.com All theories of globalization have been put hereunder in eight categories: liberalism, political realism, Marxism, constructivism, postmodernism, feminism, Trans-formationalism and eclecticism. Each one of them carries several variations. ### ### **1. Theory of Liberalism** Liberalism sees the process of globalization as market-led extension of modernization. At the most elementary level, it is a result of 'natural' human desires for economic welfare and political liberty. As such, transplanetary connectivity is derived from human drives to maximize material well-being and to exercise basic freedoms. These forces eventually interlink humanity across the planet. They fructify in the form of: But its supporters neglect the social forces that lie behind the creation of technological and institutional underpinnings. It is not satis­fying to attribute these developments to 'natural' human drives for economic growth and political liberty. They are culture blind and tend to overlook historically situated life-worlds and knowledge structures which have promoted their emergence. All people cannot be assumed to be equally amenable to and desirous of increased globality in their lives. Similarly, they overlook the phenomenon of power. There are structural power inequalities in promoting globalization and shaping its course. Often they do not care for the entrenched power hierarchies between states, classes, cultures, sexes, races and resources. ### **2. Theory of Political Realism** Advocates of this theory are interested in questions of state power, the pursuit of national interest, and conflict between states. According to them states are inherently acquisitive and self-serving, and heading for inevitable competition of power. Some of the scholars stand for a balance of power, where any attempt by one state to achieve world dominance is countered by collective resistance from other states. Another group suggests that a dominant state can bring stability to world order. The 'hegemon' state (presently the US or G7/8) maintains and defines international rules and institutions that both advance its own interests and at the same time contain conflicts between other states. Globalization has also been explained as a strategy in the contest for power between several major states in contem­porary world politics. They concentrate on the activities of Great Britain, China, France, Japan, the USA and some other large states. Thus, the political realists highlight the issues of power and power struggles and the role of states in generating global relations. At some levels, globalization is considered as antithetical to territorial states. States, they say, are not equal in globalization, some being dominant and others subordinate in the process. But they fail to understand that everything in globalization does not come down to the acquisition, distribution and exercise of power. Globalization has also cultural, ecological, economic and psychological dimensions that are not reducible to power politics. It is also about the production and consumption of resources, about the discovery and affir­mation of identity, about the construction and communication of meaning, and about humanity shaping and being shaped by nature. Most of these are apolitical. Power theorists also neglect the importance and role of other actors in generating globalization. These are sub-state authorities, macro-regional institutions, global agencies, and private-sector bodies. Additional types of power-relations on lines of class, culture and gender also affect the course of globalization. Some other structural inequalities cannot be adequately explained as an outcome of interstate competition. After all, class inequality, cultural hierarchy, and patriarchy predate the modern states. **3. Theory of Marxism** Marxism is principally concerned with modes of production, social exploi­tation through unjust distribution, and social emancipation through the transcendence of capitalism. Marx himself anticipated the growth of globality that 'capital by its nature drives beyond every spatial barrier to conquer the whole earth for its market'. Accordingly, to Marxists, globalization happens because trans-world connectivity enhances opportu­nities of profit-making and surplus accumulation. Marxists reject both liberalist and political realist explanations of globalization. It is the outcome of historically specific impulses of capitalist development. Its legal and insti­tutional infrastructures serve the logic of surplus accumulation of a global scale. Liberal talk of freedom and democracy make up a legitimating ideology for exploitative global capitalist class relations. The neo-Marxists in dependency and world-system theories examine capitalist accumulation on a global scale on lines of core and peripheral countries. Neo-Gramscians highlight the significance of underclass struggles to resist globalizing capitalism not only by traditional labor unions, but also by new social movements of consumer advocates, environmentalists, peace activists, peasants, and women. However, Marxists give an overly restricted account of power. There are other relations of dominance and subordination which relate to state, culture, gender, race, sex, and more. Presence of US hegemony, the West-centric cultural domination, masculinism, racism etc. are not reducible to class dynamics within capitalism. Class is a key axis of power in globalization, but it is not the only one. It is too simplistic to see globalization solely as a result of drives for surplus accumulation. It also seeks to explore identities and investigate meanings. People develop global weapons and pursue global military campaigns not only for capitalist ends, but also due to interstate competition and militarist culture that predate emergence of capitalism. Ideational aspects of social relations also are not outcome of the modes of production. They have, like nationalism, their autonomy. **4. Theory of Constructivism** Globalization has also arisen because of the way that people have mentally constructed the social world with particular symbols, language, images and interpretation. It is the result of particular forms and dynamics of consciousness. Patterns of production and governance are second-order structures that derive from deeper cultural and socio-psychological forces. Such accounts of globalization have come from the fields of Anthropology, Humanities, Media of Studies and Sociology. Constructivists concentrate on the ways that social actors 'construct' their world: both within their own minds and through inter-subjective communication with others. Conver­sation and symbolic exchanges lead people to construct ideas of the world, the rules for social interaction, and ways of being and belonging in that world. Social geography is a mental experience as well as a physical fact. They form 'in' or 'out' as well as 'us' and they' groups. They conceive of themselves as inhabitants of a particular global world. National, class, religious and other identities respond in part to material conditions but they also depend on inter-subjective construction and communication of shared self-understanding. However, when they go too far, they present a case of social-psychological reductionism ignoring the significance of economic and ecological forces in shaping mental experience. This theory neglects issues of structural inequalities and power hierarchies in social relations. It has a built-in apolitical tendency. **5. Theory of Postmodernism** Some other ideational perspectives of globalization highlight the signifi­cance of structural power in the construction of identities, norms and knowledge. They all are grouped under the label of 'postmodernism'. They too, as Michel Foucault does strive to understand society in terms of knowledge power: power structures shape knowledge. Certain knowledge structures support certain power hierarchies. The reigning structures of understanding determine what can and cannot be known in a given socio-historical context. This dominant structure of knowledge in modern society is 'rationalism'. It puts emphasis on the empirical world, the subordi­nation of nature to human control, objectivist science, and instrumentalist efficiency. Modern rationalism produces a society overwhelmed with economic growth, technological control, bureaucratic organization, and disciplining desires. This mode of knowledge has authoritarian and expan­sionary logic that leads to a kind of cultural imperialism subordinating all other epistemologies. It does not focus on the problem of globalization per se. In this way, western rationalism overawes indigenous cultures and other non-modem life-worlds. Postmodernism, like Marxism, helps to go beyond the relatively superficial accounts of liberalist and political realist theories and expose social conditions that have favored globalization. Obviously, postmodernism suffers from its own methodological idealism. All material forces, though come under impact of ideas, cannot be reduced to modes of consciousness. For a valid explanation, interconnection between ideational and material forces is not enough. **6. Theory of Feminism** It puts emphasis on social construction of masculinity and femininity. All other theories have identified the dynamics behind the rise of trans-planetary and supra-territorial connectivity in technology, state, capital, identity and the like. Biological sex is held to mould the overall social order and shape significantly the course of history, presently globality. Their main concern lies behind the status of women, particularly their structural subordination to men. Women have tended to be marginalized, silenced and violated in global communication. **7. Theory of Trans-formationalism** This theory has been expounded by David Held and his colleagues. Accord­ingly, the term 'globalization' reflects increased interconnectedness in political, economic and cultural matters across the world creating a "shared social space". Given this interconnectedness, globalization may be defined as "a process (or set of processes) which embodies a transformation in the spatial organization of social relations and transactions, expressed in trans­continental or interregional flows and networks of activity, interaction and power." While there are many definitions of globalization, such a definition seeks to bring together the many and seemingly contradictory theories of globalization into a "rigorous analytical framework" and "proffer a coherent historical narrative". Held and McGrew's analytical framework is constructed by developing a threepart typology of theories of globalization consisting of "hyper-globalist," "sceptic," and "transformationalist" categories. The Hyperglobalists purportedly argue that "contemporary globalization defines a new era in which people everywhere are increasingly subject to the disciplines of the global marketplace". Given the importance of the global marketplace, multi-national enterprises (MNEs) and intergov­ernmental organizations (IGOs) which regulate their activity are key political actors. Sceptics, such as Hirst and Thompson (1996) ostensibly argue that "globalization is a myth which conceals the reality of an interna­tional economy increasingly segmented into three major regional blocs in which national governments remain very powerful." Finally, transformationalists such as Rosenau (1997) or Giddens (1990) argue that globalization occurs as "states and societies across the globe are experi­encing a process of profound change as they try to adapt to a more interconnected but highly uncertain world". Developing the transformationalist category of globalization theories. Held and McGrew present a rather complicated typology of globalization based on globalization's spread, depth, speed, and impact, as well as its impacts on infrastructure, institutions, hierarchical structures and the unevenness of development. They imply that the "politics of globalization" have been "transformed" (using their word from the definition of globalization) along all of these dimensions because of the emergence of a new system of "political globalization." They define "political globalization" as the "shifting reach of political power, authority and forms of rule" based on new organizational interests which are "transnational" and "multi-layered." These organizational interests combine actors identified under the hyper-globalist category (namely IGOs and MNEs) with those of the sceptics (trading blocs and powerful states) into a new system where each of these actors exercises their political power, authority and forms of rule. Thus, the "politics of globalization" is equivalent to "political globalization" for Held and McGrew. However, Biyane Michael criticises them. He deconstructs their argument, if A is defined as "globalization" (as defined above), B as the organizational interests such as MNEs, IGOs, trading blocs, and powerful states, and C as "political globalization" (also as defined above), then their argument reduces to A. B. C. In this way, their discussion of globalization is trivial. Held and others present a definition of globalization, and then simply restates various elements of the definition. Their definition, "globalization can be conceived as a process (or set of processes) which embodies a transformation in the spatial organization of social relations" allows every change to be an impact of globalization. Thus, by their own definition, all the theorists they critique would be considered as "transformationalists." Held and McGrew also fail to show how globalization affects organizational interests. 8. **Theory of Eclecticism** Each one of the above six ideal-type of social theories of globalization highlights certain forces that contribute to its growth. They put emphasis on technology and institution building, national interest and inter-state compe­tition, capital accumulation and class struggle, identity and knowledge construction, rationalism and cultural imperialism, and masculinize and subordination of women. Jan Art Scholte synthesizes them as forces of production, governance, identity, and knowledge. Accordingly, capitalists attempt to amass ever-greater resources in excess of their survival needs: accumulation of surplus. The capitalist economy is thoroughly monetized. Money facilitates accumulation. It offers abundant opportunities to transfer surplus, especially from the weak to the powerful. This mode of production involves perpetual and pervasive contests over the distribution of surplus. Such competition occurs both between individual, firms, etc. and along structural lines of class, gender, race etc. Their contests can be overt or latent. Surplus accumulation has had transpired in one way or another for many centuries, but capitalism is a comparatively recent phenomenon. It has turned into a structural power, and is accepted as a 'natural' circumstance, with no alternative mode of production. It has spurred globalization in four ways: market expansion, accounting practices, asset mobility and enlarged arenas of commodification. Its technological innovation appears in communication, transport and data processing as well as in global organization and management. It concentrates profits at points of low taxation. Information, communication, finance and consumer sectors offer vast potentials to capital making it 'hyper-capitalism'. Any mode of production cannot operate in the absence of an enabling regulatory apparatus. There are some kind of governance mechanisms. Governance relates processes whereby people formulate, implement, enforce and review rules to guide their common affairs." It entails more than government. It can extend beyond state and sub-state institutions including supra-state regimes as well. It covers the full scope of societal regulation. In the growth of contemporary globalization, besides political and economic forces, there are material and ideational elements. In expanding social relations, people explore their class, their gender, their nationality, their race, their religious faith and other aspects of their being. Constructions of identity provide collective solidarity against oppression. Identity provides frameworks for community, democracy, citizenship and resistance. It also leads from nationalism to greater pluralism and hybridity. Earlier nationalism promoted territorialism, capitalism, and statism, now these plural identities are feeding more and more globality, hyper-capitalism and polycentrism. These identities have many international qualities visualized in global diasporas and other group affiliations based on age, class, gender, race, religious faith and sexual orientations. Many forms of supra-territorial solidarities are appearing through globalization. In the area of knowledge, the way that the people know their world has significant implications for the concrete circumstances of that world. Powerful patterns of social consciousness cause globalization. Knowledge frameworks cannot be reduced to forces of production, governance or identity. Mindsets encourage or discourage the rise of globality. Modern rationalism is a general configuration of knowledge. It is secular as it defines reality in terms of the tangible world of experience. It understands reality primarily in terms of human interests, activities and conditions. It holds that phenomena can be understood in terms of single incontrovertible truths that are discoverable by rigorous application of objective research methods. Ratio­nalism is instrumentalist. It assigns greatest value to insights that enable people efficiently to solve immediate problems. It subordinates all other ways of understanding and acting upon the world. Its knowledge could then be applied to harness natural and social forces for human purposes. It enables people to conquer disease, hunger, poverty, war, etc., and maximize the potentials of human life. It looks like a secular faith, a knowledge framework for capitalist production and a cult of economic efficiency. Scientism and instrumentalism of rationalism is conducive to globalization. Scientific knowledge is non-territorial. The truths revealed by 'objective' method are valid for anyone, anywhere, and anytime on earth. Certain production processes, regulations, technologies and art forms are applicable across the planet. Martin Albrow rightly says that reason knows no terri­torial limits. The growth of globalization is unlikely to reverse in the foreseeable future. However, Scholte is aware of insecurity, inequality and marginalization caused by the present process of globalization. Others reject secularist character of the theory, its manifestation of the imperialism of westernist-modernist-rationalist knowledge. Anarchists challenge the oppressive nature of states and other bureaucratic governance frameworks. Globalization neglects environmental degradation and equitable gender relations. (politicalsciencenotes.com 2017) VI.