The Four Pillars of Global Studies PDF

5 THE FOURTH PILLAR OF GLOBAL STUDIES Critical Thinking Few global studies scholars would object to our proposltlon that their field is significantly framed by 'critical thinking'. As we emphasized throughout this book, global studies constitutes an academic space of tension that generates critical...

5 THE FOURTH PILLAR OF GLOBAL STUDIES Critical Thinking Few global studies scholars would object to our proposltlon that their field is significantly framed by 'critical thinking'. As we emphasized throughout this book, global studies constitutes an academic space of tension that generates critical investigations into our age as one shaped by the intensifying forces of globalization. The young field both embraces and exudes the global imaginary-those largely prereflexive convocations of the social whole within \Vhich the very problematic of globalization is continuously produced and contested. But if global studies scholars claim to analyze globalization processes through a critical prism, then they need to be prepared to respond to a number of obvious questions regarding the nature of their critical enterprise. How, exactly, is 'critical thinking' linked to global studies? Do globalization scholars favor specific forms of critical thinking? If so, which types have been adopted and for what purposes? Finally, what forms of internal and external criticism have been leveled against the field and how have these objections been dealt with? These four questions provide the guiding conceptual framework for this final chapter of our book. It seeks to provide both a conceptual orientation and the thematic overview indispensable for a full appreciation of the significance of critical thinking in the field. Bur let us pave the way for our ensuing discussion of this fourth pillar of global studies by first offering a brief reflection on various understandings of critical thinking. 146 Critical Thinking Critical Thinking: Analytical and Ethico-Political The cerm 'critical' derives from the ancient Greek verb krinein, which trans­ lates in various ways as 'to judge', 'to discern', 'to separate', and 'to decide'. The compound 'critical thinking', then, signifies a discerning mode of thought capable of judging the quality of a thing or a person by separating its essence from mere attributes. While modern social thinkers have postu­ lated a strong philosophical affinity between 'critical' and 'thinking', the conceptual connection between these terms goes back for millennia. Both Western and Eastern cultural traditions have celebrated the ethical virtues of critical thinking as epitomized in such heroic figures as Plato's beloved teacher Socrates, or Arjuna, the Bha}Zmh1rl Ci1a's courageous royal warrior. Indeed, most philosophical traditions do not understand critical thinking solely in analytic terms as a 'value-free' operation of our discerning mind. Socrates, for example, famously called conventional wisdom into question by subjecting rhe opinions of his fellow Athenian citizens to rational scru­ tiny. His dialectical mode of analytic thinking was inseparable from his ethico-politicil concerns with the existing social order in his native Greek city-state. Similarly, just prior to leading his troops into the epic battle at Kurukshetra, A1juna engaged Krishna, his divine charioteer, in a deeply political dialogue over the nature of his moral duties toward family members and friends fighting in both armies. for both Socrates and A1juna, critical thinking entailed a normative commitment to social justice along the reflec­ tive process of coming to rational decisions about worldly matters. Bm these vital ethical dimensions and political implications of rational thought were given short shrift in the 'critical thinking' framework created by leading Anglo-American educators during the second half of the twen­ tieth century. Turning a philosophical ideal into a popular educational catch phrase, these influential pedagogues elevated the program of 'enabling students to think critic1lly' to the universal goal of schooling. A teachable method of self-directed reasoning, such criticil thinking expressed itself in cognitive operations like 'seeing both sides of an issue, beiug open to new evidence that disconfirms your ideas, reasoning dispassiollately, demanding that claims be backed by evidence, deducing and illferring coI1clusioI1s from available facts, solving problems, and so forth'.1 However, the well-meaning efforts of these pedagogues to enhance the educationa 1 effectiveness of their vocation remained largely unconcerned with political and ethical reflexivity, thereby reducing the activity of critical thinking to a mere analyticil 'skill'. Indeed, their presentation of critical activity as a form of cognitive dexterity betrayed their rather impoverished social and ethical imagination. After all, confined to its 'neutral' analytic framework, critical thinking connected to  Critical Thinking 147 the life-world only in rather instrumental ways. For example, it resonated with the exhortations of business leaders \vho demanded from schools to improve their students' 'critical thinking skills' in the hope of taking material advantage of a 'well-educated workforce'. Other than making more profit­ able work-related judgments, however, the notion of 'well-educated' in this neoliberal context had no explicit ethico-political connection to the social world. Rather, it referred to economic efficiency, productivity, flexibility, and other instrumental skills highly valued in advanced capitalist societies. Even those few academic critical thinking experts who were willing to admit that the process of 'looking at an issue from multiple perspectives' never operated in a normative vacuum, were reluctant to spell our what critical thinking meant in concrete social contexts. But their explicit concession that critical thought processes were always intertwined with an object of thought provided at least a small opening for more ethico-political interpretations of the catch phrase. 2 After all, once it was conceded that critical thought needed to relate to an empirical referent-in this case, concrete 'content knowledge' (usually understood as disciplinary knowl­ edge of the world)-then it was possible to point to the crucial link between thinking and its social consequences. Since thought processes cannot be FIGURE 5,1 Two Interrelated Stages of Critical Thinking Analytical Problem Solving Stage 1 Balanced Objectivity Ethical Social Engagement Stage 2 Political Commitment 148 Critical Thinking isolated from the entire spectrum of the hum:111 experience, we ought to think of critical thinking encompassing the two interconnected dimensions of the analytical and the ethical. This conclusion bri11gs us back to the holistic insights expressed by the ancient philosophers: critical thinking inevitably contains a socio-political imperative. It was not enough to engage things merely in terms of how they are but also how they might be and should be. And to be mi11dful of the social dimensions of thinking also meant to be aware of the connection betwee11 contemplation and action, benveen analytical and ethical critical thi11king. Critical Theory: Old and New This emphasis on the crucial link between theory and practice has served as common ground for various socially engaged currents of critical thinking that have openly associated themselves with 'critical theory'. Originally used in the singular and upper case, 'Critical Theory' was closely associated with mid-twentieth-century articulations of 'Western Marxism' as devel­ oped by Max 1--Iorkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Walter Be1 amin, and other prominent members of the famous lnstirnte for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany. Fleeing political and racial persecution in Hitler's Germany, many of these first-generation 'Frankfurt School' social thinkers found new professional opportunities in the United States in the 1930s. W hile rejecting the Marxist orthodoxy of economic determinism, they retained a social democratic understanding of the emancipatory role of 'critique' in the class struggle for social justice and against new forms of alienation, commodification, and conformity generated in advanced capitalist societies. Analyzing modern 'mass society' by giving the spheres of political eco11omy and culture equal consideration, Critical Theory was as much a constructive enterprise committed to progressive social activism, as it was a descriptive denunciation of the persistence of asymmetrical power relations in society. Frankfurt School scholar Stephen Eric Bronner aptly summarizes the self-understanding of this influential intellectual tradition: 'Crirical Theory insists that thought must respond to the new problems and the new possibilities for liberation that arise from changing historical circumstances'. 0 In recent decades, the Critical Theory tradition carried forward by three successive generations of Frankfurt School thinkers has been subsumed under the pluralized framework of 'critical cheories'-in the plural and in lower case. In his recent efforts to offer a global cartography of these contemporary critical theories, the French soci;il thinker Razmig Keucheyan argues that they represent the contemporary inheritors of Western Marxism.·1  Critical Thinking 149 Ar the same time, however, critical theories have multiplied and now stretch across an extremely wide incellectual terrain. Covering convencional class­ based perspectives, they also include more contemporary identity-centered enunciations of social critique ranging from feminist theory and queer theory to psychoanalytic theory, from poststructuralism and postcolo­ nialism to indigenous thought, and from literary criticism and critical legal studies to critical race theory. In spite of their tremendous methodological diversity and philosophical eclecticism, today's critical theorists take as their common point of departure the historical specificity of existing social arrangements. They also share a vital concern with analyzing the causes of current forms of domination, exploitation, and injustice. Committed to the integration of theory and practice, critical theorists offer explicit and comprehensive challenges to what they consider to be unjust social arrange­ ments. In short, their critical acts of problematizing dominant social orders always contain a political dimension. How, then, are these new forms of critical theory linked to global studies? As we discussed previously, dominant neoliberal modes of globalization FIGURE 5.2 Pluralization of Critical Theory 150 Critical Thinking have produced growing disparities in wealth and wellbeing within and among societies. They have also led to an acceleration of ecological degra­ dation, new forms of militarism and digitalized surveillance, previously unthinkable levels of inequality, and a chilling advance of consumerism and cultural commodification. As we briefly touched upon in Chapter 2, the negative consequences of such a corporate-led 'globalization-from-above' became subject to democratic contestation in the 1990s and impacted the evolution of critical theory in at least two major ways. First, they created fertile conditions for the emergence of powerful social movements advo­ cating a people-led 'globalization-from-below'. These transnational activist networks, in curn, served as catalysts for the proliferation of 'new' critical theories developing within the novel framework of globalization. As we discuss in more detail below, many of these new critical theorists were inspired by local forms of social resistance to neoliberalism such as the 1994 Zapatista uprising in Chiapas, Mexico, the 1995 strikes in France and other parts of Europe, and the powerful series of protests in major cities around the world following in the wake of the iconic 1999 anti-WTO demonstration in Seattle. Critical intellectuals interacted with the partici­ pants of these alter-globalization movements at these large-scale protest events or at the massive meetings of the newly founded World Social Forum in the 2000s. They developed and advanced their critiques of market globalism in tandem with constructive visions for alternative global futures. IMAGE 5.1 Anti-WTO Protests in Seattle, 1999 Source: Eric Draper/Associated Press, AP Photo ID 99113001850  Critical Thinking 151 As a Zapatista manifesto puts it, 'If this world does not have a place for us, then another world must be made.... W hat is missing is yet to come'. 5 The second impact of corporate-led 'globalization-from-above' on the evolution of critical theory is closely related to the first. Since the struggles over the meanings and manifestations of globalization occurred in interlinked local settings around the world, they signified a significant alteration in the geography of critical thinking. Keucheyan has emphasized that the academic center of gravity of these new forms of critical thinking was shifting from the traditional centers of learning located in 'old Europe' to the top universities of the New World. 6 The United States, in particular, served as a powerful economic magnet for job-seeking academics from around the globe while also posing as the obvious hegemonic target of their criticisms. Indeed, during the last quarter century, America has managed to attract a large number of talented postcolonial critical theorists to its highly reputed and well-paying universities and colleges. A significant number of these politically progressive recruits, in turn, promptly put their newly acquired positions of academic privilege into the service of their socially engaged ideologies, which resulted in a vastly more effective production and worldwide dissemination of their critical publications. Moreover, the global struggle against neoliberalism heating up in the 1990s and 2000s also contributed significantly to the heightened interna­ tional exposure of cutting-edge critical theorists located in the vast 'postcolonial' terrains of Asia, Latin America, and Africa. In particular, the permanent digital communication revolution centered on the World Wide Web and the new social media made it easier for these voices of the global South to be heard in the dominant North. In fact, as Keucheyan points out, the 'globalization of critical thinking' culminated in the formation of a 'world republic of critical theories'. 7 Although this world­ wide community of critical thinkers is far from homogenous in their perspectives and continues to be subjected to considerable geographic and social inequalities, it has had a profound influence on the evolution of global studies. Still, we need to be careful not to exaggerate the extent to which such 'critical theories' pervade the field. Our discussion of the developing links between the post-1989 'new wave' of critical theories and critical globaliza­ tion studies should not seduce us into assuming that all global studies scholars support radical or even moderate socially engaged perspectives on what constitutes their field and what it should accomplish. After all, global thinking is not inherently 'critical' in our second, socially engaged, use of the term. An informal perusal of influential globalization literature produced during the last fifteen years suggests that nearly all authors express some 152 Critical Thinking appreciation for 'critical thinking' understood in our first sense as a cogni­ tive ability to 'see multiple sides of an issue' (in this case, the issue is 'glob:il­ ization'). But only about two-thirds of well-published globalization scholars take their understanding of 'critical' beyond the social-scientific ideal of 'balanced objectivity' and 'value-free research' and thus challenge in writing the dominant social arrangements of our time and/or promote emancipa­ tory social change. 8 This locates the remaining one third of globalization authors within a conceptual framev,.rork that transnational sociologist Willi:im Robinson has provocatively characterized as 'noncritical globaliza­ tion studies'_'J Obviously, global studies scholars relegated to this category would object to Robinson's classification on the basis of their differing understanding of what 'critical thinking' entails. The Basics of Critical Global Studies and the Responsibility of Intellectuals By the early 2000s, a growing number of globalization scholars were willing to adopt a socially engaged approach to their subject that became variously known as 'critical globalization studies', 'critical global studies', and 'critical theories of globalization'. 10 Most globalization researchers used the related terms 'global studies' and 'globalization studies' loosely, interchangeably, and without much system-building ambition in the pursuit of their transdis­ ciplinary globalization projects. In fact, the empirical referent of both 'global studies' and 'globalization studies' is the same global network of scholars dedicated to the transdisciplinary study of glob:ilization. Richard Appelbaum and William Robinson, two UCSB-affiliated global studies faculty and highly influential proponents of critical approaches to the study of globalization, called on like-minded scholars from around the world to produce the kind of research that could easily be identified as exercising 'a preferential option for the subordinate majority of emergent global society'. Their comprehensive overview of the collective project of 'critical global studies' (CGS) first appeared in 2005 in their substantive editorial introduc­ tion to their Cri1ical C/obaliza1io11 S111dies anthology. Including the contribu­ tions of nearly forty globalization scholars from around the world, the volume was based on an understanding of critical thinking that linked analytical operations of the mind to concrete ethico-political applications in the globalizing world of the twenty-first century. Regarding matters of conceptual.analysis, Appelbaum and Robinson emphasized that CGS should be broad enough to house a diversity of methods and epistemologies. Yet, they were equally clear in their convic­ tion that operating within the conceptual framework of globalization  Critical Thinking 153 committed global studies scholars to putting forward a cogent critique of the social dynamics and impacts of global capitalism. In their view, asym­ metrical power relations derived from the capital-labor relation still represented the central logic responsible for the systemic reproduction of unjust social structures worldwide. At the same time, however, they argued that capitalism was undergoing tremendous change. The current phase of globalization presented an 'epochal shift' from the 'nation-state phase of world capitalism' to the 'transnational phase of global capitalism' character­ ized by the globalization of the production of goods and services and the forging of so-called 'flexible' capital-labor relations. Moreover, global capitalism generated novel organizational forms such as decentralized management techniques, subcontracting and outsourcing, and transnational business alliances. Hence, a proper understanding of emergent global society required sophisticated forms of political economy analyses capable of explaining the emergence of new transnational structures-most impor­ tantly the social formation of a 'transnational capitalist class' and its political expression, the 'transnational state'. 11 Yet, Appelbaum and Robinson rejected the orthodox Marxist emphasis on the economic mode of production as the determining factor of various forms of culture, ideology, law, and other aspects located in the 'ideological superstructure'. Instead, they adopted a 'dialectical' form of critical thinking as developed by Antonio Gramsci. The Italian interwar socialist philoso­ pher had rejected the separation of political economy analysis from cultural investigations as a false dualism that obscures rather than elucidates the complex reality of society. His dialectical approach suggested that the different dimensions of social reality did not possess an independent status but were internally related and thus the mutually constitutive factors of the larger social 'totality'. For Gramsci, it was the role of 'organic intellectuals' to utilize their critical analysis of capitalist society on behalf of the oppressed and exploited against hegemonic power blocs. In particular, their task was to produce a new culture and diffuse a new, more just, conception of the world. 12 Following the Italian philosopher's suggestion, Robinson's analysis of the role of culture in the global capitalist system focused, therefore, on consumerism, individualism, and competition as structurally interdepen­ dent processes linking economic and cultural globalization.13 Similarly, fellow neo-Gramscian global studies scholar Leslie Sklair employed a judicial mix of conceptual argument and empirical analysis to explore the formation of the transnational capitalist class. His 'global system theory' suggested that the new transnational practices of global capitalism operated simultaneously in three interrelated spheres: the economic, the polit­ ical, and cultural-ideological. Concentrated in transnational corporations, the 1 54 Critical Thinking transnational capitalist class was assuming ever more control of the processes of globalization. following his philosophical mentor, Sklair insisted that the forces driving the globalization of capiulism could not be properly appreci­ ated within the na rrow parameters of a political economy analysis. A holistic 'Gramscian' understanding of the reproduction of the economic system required, therefore, a close examination of the 'profit-driven culture-ideology of consumerism'. Sklair concluded that, at that moment, no social movement appeared even remotely capable of disrupting the relatively smooth running of global capitalism. Still, he concurred with Appelbaum and Robinson's thesis of the special responsibility of critical intellectuals to challenge the culture-ideology of consumerism produced and disseminated by the hege­ monic transnational capitalist class. 14 Perhaps the most lucid contribution to the subject of intellectual responsibility in the Global Age flowed from the pen of the celebrated French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu who had become intensely involved with the global justice movement in the last years before his untimely death in 2002. Titled ' for a Scholarship with Commitment', his televised 1999 keynote address for the Modern Language Association Meeting in Chicago, invoked French novelist Emile Zola's role as an engaged 'public intellectual' during the infamous Dreyfus Affa ir in late nineteenth-century France. Like Zola, who accused his government of hiding its anti-Semitic bias behind the veil of 'patriotism' and ' judicial objectivity', Bourdieu argued that today's intellectuals 'must engage in a permanent critique of all the abuses of power or authority committed in the name of intellectual authority'. for Bourdieu, such critical thinking was especially important in a globalizing world where 'scholars have a decisive role to play in the struggle agains t the new neoliberal doxa !opinion] and the purely formal cosmopolitanism of those obsessed with words such as "globalization" and "global competitive­ ness'". Accepting their ethical responsibility meant that academics had to breach the 'sacred boundary' inscribed in their minds that separated scholarship from social commitment. As Bourdieu emphasizes, 'Today's researchers must innovate an improbable but indispensable combination: scholarship 111irlz co111111it111em, that is, a collective politics of i ntervention in the political field that follows, as much as possible, the rules that govern the scientific field'. It is i mportant to note that Bourdieu's willingness to follow, as much as possible, the scientific logic of 'objectivity' of science showed a proper respect for the analytical dimension of critical thinking. However, Bourdieu was equally clear that academics ought not remain in such politi­ cally neutral territory, but had to be prepared to take rhe second step in critical thinking: the acceptance of their erhico-political obligation as 'public intellectuals' to contest all forms of domination and exploitation by  Critical Thinking 1 55 rhe powerfu l. Ultimately, Bourdicu likened schobrly intervention in the social world on behalf of the powerless to an indispensable act of giving symbolic force to critical ideas and analyscs. 1s Whether applied by Bourdieu's 'public intellectuals' or Gramsc i 's 'organic intellectuals', the dialec tical method at the heart of critical global studies serves to connect rational analysis with social com mitment. As Appelbaum and Robinson emphasize, the ulti mate goal of this process is 'sclf­ kn mvlcdgc of global society through act ive theorizing and political work'. 11' Elaborating on their critical epistemological issucs, Jamcs M ittelman offered an important contribution to the methodological framework of CGS. Responding to the related questions, 'what do critical globalization scholars really want to find out?' and 'what is their desired knowledge ? ', the promi­ nent globalization theorist set out to identify com monalities among the proliferating critical knowledge sets produced by the 'countcrhcgemonic historical bloc' of globalization scholars from around the world. M ittelm an's careful investigation of pertinent CGS li terature yielded what he called a 'coherent complex of critical knowledge' consisting of the following five interac ting components. 17 Reflexivity, the first clement of CGS, connotes an awareness of the rela­ tionship between knowledge and specific material and political conditions. M ittelman insists that to be reflexive means to probe the historical context and power interests embedded in various globalization perspectives. This critical emphasis on often-conflicting historical perspectives also relates to M ittclman's second component-historicism-which incorporates the t i me di mension in global studies. As we discussed in the previous chapter, rigorous historical thinking has the potential to correc t abstract views portraying specific forms of globalization-such as the global integration of markets-as the inevitable outcome ofa benign capitalist process. M i ttelman refers to the third component of CGS as 'decentcring', which involved the production of myriad perspectives and forms of knowledge of globalizat ion from both its epicenters and the margins. Such a 'dccentcred lens' prov ides the necessary peripheral vision that enabled critics to sec globalization from multiple angles and spatial locations-especially from the point of view of the marginalized regions of the global South. M ittelman characterizes transdisciplinarity, the fourth element of CG S, as the ability to forge 'cross­ overs' between the social sciences and complementary branches of knowl­ edge. Key to a critical understanding of globalization, crossovers encourage scholars to break through disciplinary barriers in their holistic pursui t of real-world problems. S trategic transformations, the final component of M irtelman's version of critical global studies, involve a willingness to present ongoing challenges to the hegemonic power interests of the inc ipient global 1 56 Critical Thinking integrat s theory and contains ci political cbalfenges,unjust'so.cial pn1ctice dimension ,. orcters Soci;II Historical Social GJobal GJopal Awareness C6nfext Trcmsfs:irmation ngagemenf Citizenship society. For Mittelman, the organic intellectuals behind these strategic maneuvers develop emancipatory visions that have practical purposes for the formation of more democratic forms of globalization. As he emphasizes, 'The goal is to inculcate a new moral order in lieu of the dominant ethos­ currently an ethos of efficiency, competition, individualism, and consump­ tion inscribed in neoliberalism'. 1 8 Echoing the overlapping social concerns of Gramsci and Bourdieu, Mitrelman's 'complex of critical knowledge' can be seen as a research agenda for public intellectuals committed to generating a 'new common sense' about the negative consequences of neoliberal globalization. By linking their object of analysis to the production of a socially empowering peda­ gogy, such engaged academics would feed the 'creative mills of critical globalization studies' that would produce alternative knowledge and powerful visions of an egalitarian global future. Bourdieu calls them 'real­ istic utopias' and Mittelman refers to them in a similar manner as 'grounded utopias'. Most importantly, Mittelman's relentless emphasis on the impor­ tance of producing critical epistemologies reminds socially engaged researchers not to underestimate the significance of studying the subjective dimensions of globalization: scrutinizing the language used to frame global­ izing processes, revealing the institutions in which knowledge and ideology are created, locating an analysis within definite cultural contexts, listening to different voices, and engaging in embodied and lived experiences in concrete social contexts. 1 9  Critical Thinking 1 57 Critical G l obal Studies and G l obal Activist Thinking Having dealt sufficiently with the first guiding question posed at the outset of this chapter-'H ow, exactly, is critical thinking linked to global studies? '-let us now tackle questions number two and three: 'Do global­ ization scholars favor specific forms of critical thinking?' and, 'If so, which types have been adopted and for what purposes? ' Given the obvious spatial limitations of this chapter, we confi n e our discussion to what we call 'global activist thinking'-the dominant form of critical thinking utilized by influ­ ential CGS public intellectuals. W hile this 'activist' style of criticism engages a large number of themes associated with the main domains of globalization, this section concentrates on just a few significant issues: the connection between 'global civil society' and 'global citizenship', the tremendous impact of the global justice movement on the evolution of CGS, and growing critique of unsustainable ecological practices linked to neoliberal globalization-from-above. As the previous section has made clear, the dialectical approach embraced by critical global studies scholars like Appelbaum, Robinson, Sklair, and Mittelman allows for an analysis of the 'totality' of emergent global society. It makes possible not only an investigation of crucial cultural dynamics within the related framework of global capitalism, but also sheds light on the connection of theoretical reflection with practical issues of social justice. As Appelbaum and Robinson observe, such forms of reflexivity inspire a style of critical global thinking that is 'deeply informed by our political activism'. Explicitly committed to 'building bridges between this field and the global justice movement', they emphasize their moral obligation 'as scholars to place an understanding of the multifaceted processes of global­ ization in the service of those individuals and organizations that are dedi­ cated to fighting its harsh edges'. Indeed, one of the most important achievements of their Critical Clobalizatio11 St11dies anthology consists in the skill of its contributors to provide their critical assessment of contemporary globalization dynamics in a language accessible to both socially engaged scholars and non-academic movement activists. The editors describe the style of critical thinking that informs their understanding of CGS in the following way: We believe that the dual objectives of understanding globalization and engaging in global social activism can best be expressed in the idea of a critical globalization studies. We believe as scholars it is incumbent upon us to explore the relevance of academic research to the burning political issues and social struggles of our epoch, and to the many 158 Critical Thinking conflicts, hardships, and hopes bound up with globalization, more direcdy stated, we are not indifferent observers studying globalization as a sort of derached academic exercise. Rather, we are passionately concerned with the adverse impact of globalization on billions of people as well as on our increasingly stressed planetary ecology. 20 This 'dual objective' of CGS to produce globalization theory that is useful to emancipatory global social movements animates 'global activist thinking'. Articulated by dozens of scholar-activists hailing from different disciplines, this style of critical thinking also addresses the important spatial concerns of connecting local or national grievances to the larger normative ideals located at the global scale such as 'global justice', 'global equality', and 'solidarity with the global South'. Indeed, most of the globalization scholars engaged in global activist thinking could be characterized as 'rooted cosmopolitans' who remain embedded in their local environments while at the same time cultivating a global consciousness as a result of their vastly enhanced contacts to like­ minded academics and social organizations across national borders. Their social activism co-evolved with an emergent 'global civil society'-a space of uncoerced human association that was no longer confined to the borders of the territorial state. The British social scientist Mary Kaldor, one of the earliest analysts of the globalization of civil society, demonstrated in her work how this worldwide network of social activists advocating 'globalization­ from-below' was also linked to anti-war movements and other NGOs concerned with minimizing violence in social relations. 2 1 Kaldor's research convinced many public intellectuals that the building of an egalitarian global civil society was not just about the struggle to rectify economic inequities creaced by global capitalism, but also about building world peace and finding innovative, transnational forms of conflict resolution. As it turned out, Kaldor's thematic focus on creating global alternatives to war became espe­ cially important in a post-9/1 1 world plagued by new manifestations of 'global insecurity' such as the prolonged 'Global War on Terror', intrusive systems of digital surveillance, and proliferating strategies of 'cyber-warfare'. Stimulated by the vitality of emergent global civil society, CGS scholar­ activists thought of new ways of making their intellectual activities in the 'ivory tower' relevant to the happenings in the global public sphere. These novel permutations of global activist thinking manifested themselves in two interconnected projects. The first involved the linking of critical educa­ tional activities directed to the cultivation of what was increasingly referred to as 'global citizenship'. Absorbing these new civic values, the second project sought to produce emancipatory knowledge that could be used directly in the ongoing struggle of the global justice movement against the  Critical Thinking 159 dominant forces of globalization-from-above. To illustrate these two varia­ tions on the theme of global critic:d thinking, let us engage the relevant ideas of some CGS scholar-activists. Educati n g for G l obal Citizenship Based at Yonsei University in Seoul, South Korea, Hans Schattle has emerged as one of the principal authorities on 'global citizenship'. As he has pointed out, the term is linked to the classical cosmopolitan traditions of ancient Greece and Rome that regarded each human as worthy of equal respect and concern, regardless of the legal and political boundaries of any government jurisdictions. 22 But it was not until the latest wave of globaliza­ tion starting in the 1 990s that the term leapt into the modern public discourse. In the twenty-first century, 'global citizenship' has been embraced by educational institutions, transnational corporations, advocacy groups, community service organizations, and even some national governments. Although the phrase means different things to different social groups, it has increasingly been associated with educational initiatives seeking to inspire young people to grow into morally responsible, intellectually competent, and culturally perceptive global citizens. For example, in September 2012, U N Secretary General Ban Ki-moon released his educational initiative 'Global Education First', which aimed to make a major contribution to the global movement for education. The thirty-two-page initiative features as its 'Priority Area 3' the objective to 'foster global citizenship'. Noting that the interconnected global challenges of the twenty-first century call for far­ reaching changes in how people think and act for the dignity of their fellow human beings, the document describes the crucial relationship between global education and global citizenship in the following way: Education must be transformative and bring shared values to life. It must cultivate an active care for the world and for those with whom we share it.... Education must fully assume its central role in helping people to forge more just, peaceful, tolerant and inclusive societies.... We now face the much greater challenge of raising global citizens. Promoting respect and responsibility across cultures, countries and regions has not been at the centre of education. Global citizenship is just taking root and changing traditional ways of doing things always brings about resistance. 23 As Schattle notes, the promotion of global citizenship in the educational arena involves a number of elements: the cultivation of thinking beyond 160 Critical Thinking I MAG E 5.2 Global Citizenship Poster at RM IT University, 20 1 5 S011rre: Tom nuso D ur:rnte, The Visual A rch ive Project o f the G lobal I maginary at: www. t h e - v i s u a 1 - a re hi ve- proj e c c - o f- t h e - glo ba l-i magi n a r y.co 111 /v isu a l - g l o ba 1- imagiiury/ Reproduced with perm ission o f Tomnuso D u rante one's imagined physical bou ndaries coward a global consciou sness of plan­ etary interdependence, a sense of one's globa l responsibi lity and shared mora l obligations across humankind, a nd the strengthening of democratic ideals of democratic empowerment a nd participation. 24 Recently, the Seoul­ ba sed global studies scholar has taken his a nalysis a step fu rther by suggesting that the process of globaliza tion a nd the 'globa l ' form of citizensh ip can be v iewed as compatible, i n terac tive categories. If so, then the swdy of global ization itself represents a n educational path to global citizens h ip that calls for a 'critical way of thinking a nd living within new geographical, i ntel lec tual, and moral hori zons'. 20 Echoing some points of Scha ttle's typology, educational psychologists Duarte Morais a nd A nthony C. O gden present global citizensh ip as a mu lti­ dimensional construct consisti ng of three fa ctors : ( 1 ) Social responsibility u nderstood as students' perception of global i nterdependence and a soc ial concern for other individuals, societies a s a whole, a nd the environment; (2) Global co111perc11ce defined as students' openness to cultura l d i fference, an i nterest i n world issues, and a n awa reness of their own cu ltural biases a nd  Critical Thinking 1 61 limitations, which strengthens a commitment to multiculturalism; a nd (3) Global civic e11gage111e11t expressed in students' understanding of local, national, and global issues and their involvement in social volunceerism, political activism, a nd community service. 2c' Global studies pioneer Mark Juergensmeyer adds a nother element by linking 'global citizenship' to specific educational efforts to create 'global literacy'-the ability of students to see themselves as active 'citizens of the world', capable of critical examinations of specific aspects of diverse cultures and economic practices as well as influential global trends and patterns. 27 This emphasis on the critical interpretation of globalizing dynamics dove­ tails with innovative projects like the Global Learning Value Rubric, :rn educational matrix developed by teams of faculty experts representing colleges and universities across the United States. Commissioned by the Association of American Colleges and Universities, this performance assess­ ment tool defines 'global learning' as the 'critical a nalysis of a nd an engage­ ment with complex, interdependent global systems and legacies (such as natural, physical, social, cultural, economic, and politic:il) and their impli­ cations for people's lives a nd the earth's sustainability'. Constituting a serious attempt to link the analytical a nd ethico-political dimensions of critical thinking, this educational framework lists three desired global lea rning outcomes. First, students should become informed, open-minded, and responsible people who are a ttentive to diversity across the spectrum of 162 Critical Thinking differences. Second, they should be able to understand how their actions affect both local and global communities. Third, students should acquire the interest and facility to address the world's most pressing and enduring issues collaboratively and equitably. 28 Generating Emancipatory Knowledge for the Global Justice Movement Those CGS scholar-activists who committed themselves as early as the 1990s to the educational enterprise of advancing the values and practices of global citizenship also showed a strong affinity for the global justice move­ ment and its contesration of the enormous injustices and inequalities produced by neoliberal globalization. Hence, their understanding of global citizenship entailed the search for emancipatory knowledge that would help the forces of global civil society to generate transnational forms of solidarity, especially with the poor and disadvantaged in the global South. This critical grounding of global studies in emancipatory I MAG E 5.3 ' Occupy Wall Street' Camp in Washington, DC, 2012 Source: Tommaso Durante, The Visual Arch ive Project of the Global I maginary at: www. t h e - v i s u a l- a rc h i ve- proj e c t - o f- th e -glo ba 1 - i m a g i n a ry.com /v i s u a l- g lo ba ! ­ i maginary/ Reproduced with permission ofTommaso Durante  Critical Thinking 1 63 practice connects the educational mission of public intellectuals to more explicit efforts to generate emancipatory knowledge in support of the struggles of the global justice movement (GJM) -and, more recently, the global Occupy Movernent. 29 A large number of these social movement­ oriented scholar-activists have acknowledged the galvanizing impact of the ' Zapatistas' in the mid- 1990s on the evolution of their global activist chinking. On January 1 , 1 994, the day the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) took effect, a relatively small group of guerillas calling them­ selves the Zapatista Army of National Liberation launched an uprising in their native province of Chiapas in Southern Mexico. Drawing on an eclectic set of beliefs and values linked to Che Guevara, Emiliano Zapata, indigenous Mayan culture, and Catholic Liberation Theology, the Zapatistas had stitched together an interpretive framework that presented their rebel­ lion as an act of popular resistance against their government's neoliberal free-trade policies. Engaging in effec tive global framing, their leader Subcomandante Marcos announced to the world that the local struggle in Chiapas was of global signifi cance: ' [W] e will make a collective network of all our particular struggles and resistances: an intercontinental network of resistance against neoliberalism, an intercontinental network of resis­ tance for humanity'. 3 ° Keeping their promise, the Zapatistas ultimately proved to be immensely successful in transmitting their message to other progressive civil society networks around the world. Their efforts led to the organization of the First Intercontinental Gathering for Humanity and Against Neoliberalism, held in 1996 in in the jungles of Chiapas. Attended by more than four thousand participants from nearly thirty countries, the conference set into motion further globalization-from-below initiatives that sensitized scores of scholars and activists to the suffering of poor peas­ ants in the global South caused by market-globalist policies such as the I M F 's lending practices of requiring developing countries to implement neoliberal 'structural adjustment programs'. Ultimately, the creation of the global 'Zapatista solidarity network ' exerted a profound influence on the founding and evolution of the World Social Forum (WSF). The WSF was established in 2001 as an alternative progressive forum to the market-globalist World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland. Designed as an 'open meeting place', the WSF encouraged and facilitated a free exchange of ideas among scholars and activists dedicated to challenging the neoliberal framework of globalization-from-above. In particular, the WSF sought to accomplish two fundamental tasks. The first was ideolog­ ical, reflected in concerted efforts to undermine the premises of the reigning market-globalist worldview. WSF member organizations constructed and 164 Critical Thinking IMAG E 5.4 Zapatista Gathering in Chiapas, Mexico, 1 994 S011rce: Marco Ugarte/Associated Press, AP Photo I D 941 0 1 50 1 72 disseminated alternative articulations of the global imaginary based on the core principles of the WSF: equality, global social justice, diversity, democ­ racy, non-violence, solidarity, ecological sustainability, and planetary citizenship. The second task was political, manifested in the attempt to realize these principles by means of mass mobilizations and non-violent direct action aimed at transforming the core structures of market globalism: international economic institutions like the WTO and the IMF, trans­ national corporations and affiliated N GOs, and large industry federations and lobbies. 3 1 To illustrate what GJM-connected global activist thinking means, let us briefly consider the critical perspectives of Susan George and Naomi Klein, two leading public intellectuals connected to the WSF and frequent lecturers at universities around the world. An American-born political activist living in France with deep roots in the a nti-Vietnam War movement, George has been a prolific writer on global social justice. An active participant in most alter-globalization demonstrations in the 1 990s and 2000s, she has produced a steady stream of essays critical of what she calls 'corporate-led globaliza­ tion'. She has held key offices in prominent rransnational justice networks and her widely read articles and books have earned her the reputation as one  Critical Thinking 1 65 of the premier ' idea persons' of the GJM. In the 2000s, George presented the main principles, values, and demands of the global justice movernenr in exceptionally clear and condensed language in a monograph, which employed in its title the official slogan of the WSF: A nother World Is Possible {f... 32 At the core of George's extensive critique of market globalism lies her unshakable conviction that the liberalization and global integration of markets has led to greater social inequalities, environmental destruction, the escalation of global conflicts and violence, the weakening of participa­ tory forms of democracy, the proliferation of self-interest and consumerism, and the further marginalization of the powerless around the world. In order to contest more effectively the powerful worldview behind the creation of these social pathologies, she emphasizes the significance of the ongoing ideological struggle over the meaning and direction of globalization. Yet, she insists that the aim of uncovering the 'real meaning' of the world's increasing connectivity can only occur indirecrly by means of exposing the underlying economic dynamics of global capitalism. Hence, she uses 'globalization' as a signifier that contains both a negative and positive meaning. The former becomes visible in the distorted market­ globalist articulation of the global imaginary. George's insistence on putting the qualifiers 'finance-driven' or 'corporate-led' in front of the term 'global­ ization' represents, therefore, an act of discursive resistance to the dominant neoliberal narrative. The positive meaning of globalization highlights the possibility of an undistorted translation of the global imaginary as 'people-led globalization' that serves the interest of all humanity, not just a powerful few. Although George reaffirms the GJM's commitment to 'fight capitalism', she rejects Marxism's radical anti-market rhetoric: 'The issue as I see it is not to abolish markets.... Trying to ban markets would rather be like banning rain. One can, however, enforce strict limitations on what is and is not governed by market rules and make sure that everyone can participate in exchange'. Indeed, George shows no hesitation to dispense with Marxism's traditional agent of social change-'the international working class'-as 'more wishful thinking than reality'. The revolutionary expectation of the inevitable collapse of capitalism strikes her as a 'global accident' unlikely to occur. Even if such a doomsday scenario were to occur, it should not be cheerfully welcomed for it would entail 'massive unemployment, wiped­ out savings, pensions and insurance ; societal breakdown, looting, crime, misery, scapegoating and repression, most certainly followed by fascism, or at the very least, military takeovers'. George connects her rejection of orthodox Marxist thinking with a criticism of both the Soviet-style systems 166 Critical Thinking of sta te-socialism and the na'ive political schemes of the Ne,v Left in the l 960s. While acknowledging their far-reaching culrnral and social influence, she reminds readers tha t the political and ideational foundation of the New Left was not strong enough to withstand the 'neoliberal onslaught of the Reagan- Tha tcher years'. 33 George contributed the lead chapter to Appelbaum and Robinson's Crirical Globalizario11 Srurlies anthology affirming the 'positive role of academia and intellectuals' in the GJ M. At the same time, she makes clear that the movement has no anointed 'leaders' or a 'cadre' empowered to give binding marching orders to the masses or prescribe rigid ideological injunc­ tions. The GJM's decentralized natur e means tha t the impact of social activism on theory formation is just as signi ficant for affiliated public intel­ lectuals as the more conventional dynamics of theory guiding practice-in this case the generation of conceptual blueprints that might help the GJ M 'atta in i ts goals through the tools of scholarship'. In such a spirit of mutual collaboration and experimentation, George offers scholar-activists four concrete pieces of advice for the advancement of critical global studies. first, she warns against the concentra tion of research efforts on the condi­ tions of the world's poor and disadvantaged: 'Those who genuinely want to help the [global justice j movement should study the rich and powerful, not the poor and powerless'. Her rationale for this unusual suggestion is rather striking: 'The poor and powerless already know what is wrong with their lives and chose who want to help them should analyze the forces tha t keep them poor and powerless. Better a sociology of the Pentagon or the Houston country club than of single mothers or L.A. gangs'. Second, she makes a strong case for the significance of transdisciplinarity as the mode of critical thinking par exccl!e11ce: 'One should also rake as a given tha t, just as rules are made to be broken, disciplinary boundaries are made to be crossed'. Third, she urges public intellectuals eager to contribute to the GJ M tha t they have to be more rigorous than their ma instream colleagues. ' If you're in the academic minority, you must assume that the m;uority will be O U ( to get you and you' ll need high-quality body armor to be unassailable. One way to do this is to use the adversary's own words'. 34 fond of citing that ' ideas have consequences'- the 1 950s slogan of American conservatives-George reminds CGS schola r-activists of the importance of creating permanent 'think tanks' and effective intellectual networks committed to the spread of global critical thinking. George's last point deserves some additional elaboration. W hile the GJ M has not been able to endow major left-leaning think tanks tha t rival conser­ vative institutions like the Adam Smith Institute in L ondon or the Heritage founda tion in Washington, DC, there has been considerable progress in  Critical Thinking 167 the expansion of intellecrnal networks linking glob:ilization scholars :ind movement activists. In :iddition to the \X/Sf and its multiple affiliated regional social forums, there has been a proli feration of smaller academ ic networks dedicited ro the direct support of counter-hegemonic globaliza­ tion movements. for example, the Global Studies Association (GSA) was founded in 2000 at Manchester Metropolitan University, UK, and is now based at the Centre for Global and Transnational Politics at Royal Holloway, University of London. Its p urpose is to bring together and advance the efforts of critical scholars and activists interested in promoting the creation and dissemination of transdisciplinary knowledge in the social and human sciences concerning globalization. Its sister organization, the GSA North America, was established two years later under the leadership of its organi­ zational secretary Jerry Harris. A CGS scholar-activist and labor historian affiliated with DeVry University in Chicago, Harris has been actively involved in many alter-globalization struggles :md edited a comprehensive study on the global Occupy Movement. 35 Most recently, the International Network of Scholar Activists (INoSA) has been organized by Jackie Sm ith, a prominent scholar of global social movements based at the University of Pittsburgh, and other like-minded public intellectuals from around the world. INoSA is a fast-growing network of teachers and scholars from many disciplines committed to advancing social movements and radical democracy-both within and outside academia. The organization supports scholarship and educational work related to these efforts, especially within the World Social forum process. Indeed, Jackie Smith has published a steady stream of influential work on the WSf and its pivotal role in the effort to define an alternative course of globalizarion. 3 r, As o ur final example of global activist thinkers who seek to generate emancipatory knowledge for the GJ M and related global civil society networks, let us consider Naomi Klein, a tremendously influential voice in the GJM's struggle against the neoliberal forces of globalization-from­ above. The Canadian journalist, filmmaker, and university lecturer emerged in the wake of the 1 999 anti-WTO protests as the best-selling author of No Lo/,;O: Ta king A i111 ar Bra nd B11/lies. The book soon became one of GJM's 'required texts'. Blasting the sweat labor practices of powerful transnational corporations (TNCs) like Nike in so-called 'export producing zones' in the global South as well as their worldwide promotion of an uncritical, brand-conscious consumer culture, Klein suggested that giant corporations such as Shell and McDonald's were controlling m: or political institutions and thus actively undermining the core values of democracy. Adjusting the Frankfurt School's central themes of commodification and alienation to the globalizing world of the twenty-first cent ur y, the scholar-activist argued 168 Critical Thinking that the unholy alliance of TNCs and neoliberal governments aimed at nothing less than 'the privatization of every aspect of life, the transforma­ tion of every activity and value into a commodity'. But she also noted that the market-globalist policy package of 'cutting taxes, privatizing services, liberalizing regulations, busting unions' had the unanticipated effect of 'sowing the seeds of a genuine alternative to corporate rule' by encouraging the formation of a multi-issue, transnational network of global civil society actors. Hence, in the final part of the book, Klein calls upon her readers to engage in this struggle and resist the advance of corporate rule through a variety of actions ranging from educational sit-ins and shareholder lobbying to mass demonstrations and anti-brand campaigns and boycotts. 37 As Klein's message was finding tremendous resonance in the global public sphere-especially among students at college campuses in the global North-she was already busy expanding her global critical thinking in the context of 9/11 and its impact on the GJM. In particular, she connected her critique of global capitalism and its supportive political framework to the exploding issues of militarization, secur ity, and surveillance. Realizing both the dangers and opportunities in a post-9/1 1 world, Klein suggested a change in movement strategy: 'After 9-11, the task is even clearer: the chal­ lenge is to shift a discourse around the vague notion of globalization into a specific debate about democracy'. 38 Her goal was to link thousands of local movements fighting neoliberal globalization to the rapidly growing anti-Iraq War movement. The resulting new 'movement of movements' would cohere around demands for distributive justice, global peace, and democratic accountability. Klein continued her line of critical inquiries into the capitalism-militarism nexus in her next best-selling study. The Shock Doctrine investigated the links between the ideological evolution of neolib­ eral economics and its practical application as a ' disaster capitalism' in various global contexts : Augusto Pinochet's authoritarian Chile in the 1970s, Margaret Thatcher's United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan's conservative America in the 1980s, post-1989 liberalizing China and post­ Soviet transitional Eastern Europe in the 1990s, and the post-9/11 Middle East region ravaged by George W. Bush's 'Global War on Terror'. Klein's critical analysis suggested that the I raq War served as a model for the global export of 'privatized war and reconstruction'-a 'package deal' securing profits of billions of dollars for TNCs. 39 Still, Klein's critical thinking kept evolving. Her most recent investiga­ tion into the social and political causes of global warming-yet another bestselling book-represents a striking example of what might be the most significant and promising trend in global activist thinking in recent years: the marriage of 'red' and 'green' traditions of critical theory. Explaining  Critical Thinking 169 the current global climate change crisis as yet another consequence of the neoliberal policies of 'disaster capitalism', the Canadian scholar-activist sees the core obstacle in the way of a transition into a more sustainable future as the stranglehold that market logic has secured over public life. The media power and worldwide reach of market-globalist propaganda is making the most direct and large-scale responses seem politically heretical. Challenging this ideological dominance of neoliberal 'common sense' on 'securing jobs' and 'exploiting natural resources', This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate tries to achieve two goals: of fering a critique of the status quo capable of changing the public discourse and providing an attractive alternative vision that might encourage direct social action on a mass scale. As for the first objective, the author seeks to demonstrate how 'unfet­ tered corporate power' driving the process of globalization-from-above has posed a 'grave threat to the habitability of the planet'. As she states ironically, ' [T] he liberation of world markets, a process powered by the liberation of unprecedented amounts of fossil fuels from earth, has dramatically sped up the same process that is liberating Artie ice from existence'. With regard to the second goal, Klein provides numerous uplifting examples and concrete illustrations of globally connected, local activist networks that have joined the battle between capitalism and the environment on the side of our planet. Posing climate change as the 'ultimate, all-encompassing global crisis', Klein calls especially on scholar­ activists to develop an alternative-energy 'Marshall Plan for the Earth' that includes concrete suggestions of how to secure 'financing and technology transfer on scales never seen before'. As she makes abundantly clear, however, without a massive wave of popular mobilization that coincides with the promotion of such globally-coordinated environmental policies, it is unlikely that governments will embark on a green energy path anytime soon: 'Put another way, only mass social movements can save us now'. 40 In other words, the GJM must merge with the global climate movement without jettisoning its dialectical critique of global capitalism and its neoliberal ideology. Indeed, Naomi Klein's global activist thinking resonated most with scholar-activists whose intellectual contributions evolved in the context of the global struggle against market globalism. These public intellectuals are the indispensable catalysts for the rapid convergence of critical 'red' thinking challenging the dynamics of global capitalism and critical 'green' thinking seeking to reverse our planet's ecological degradation.4 1 Ultimately, then, the critical thinking framing of global studies encourages forms of social engagement that link educational engagement and the production 1 70 C ritical Thinking of emancipa tory knowledge for social movements to political projects comm itted to advancing social j ustice on a global level. Concluding Remarks: Critiques of Global Studies As this chapter-a nd, indeed, our book-draws to a close, the only subject left to consider is the capacity of global studies for self-criticism a s expressed in our fi nal guiding question : W hat forms of internal and external criticism have been leveled aga i nst globa l studies a nd how h ave these obj ections been dealt with? Obviou sly, the critical thinking frame crea tes a special obliga­ tion for all schola rs working i n the field to l isten to and take seriously i n ternal a nd external criticisms with the intention of correcting existing shortcom ings, illum inating blind spots, and avoiding theore tica l pitfalls and dead ends. As is the case for a ny newcomer bold enough to be entering today's crowded a nd competitive a rena o f academ ia, globa l s tu dies, too, has been subjected to a w ide ra nge of criticisms ranging from constructive i nterventions to ferocious attacks. Since previous chapters have already covered some of the reproaches a nd objections raised by globaliza tion rejectionists, skeptics, world-systems theorists, I R experts, a nd other critics, we will l i m it our discussion in this concluding section to a brief overview of two i n fluential critiques of the field. The fi rst criticism concerns the in tellectual scope of global s tudies as well as its cu rrent status in various academic setti ngs a round the world. Perhaps the most polished formulation of this criticism comes from Ja11 Nederveen P ieterse, a discerning i n ternal critic haili ng from UCSB 's Global Studies Department-the most successfu l o f its kind in the United S ta tes. Much to h i s cred it, P ieterse's privileged position of being affi liated with the fi rst fu ll­ fledged global studies Ph D progra m i n the cou n try does not prevent h i m from engaging in constructive sel f -criticism. I n his recent a ssessment of the field , he presents a rather bleak pic ture of 'actual global studies as it is researched and taught at u niversities a round the world '. for Pieterse, the cru x of the problem lies with the field 's immatur ity and lack o f foc u s : it has, intellec tually, ' ba rely developed' beyond a discipline-based study of global­ i za tion. Moreover, he a l leges that currently existing global studies programs a nd con ferences a re still rela tively rare and haphazard ; they resemble 'sca f­ folding without a roof'. finally, the global studies scholar bemoans the dea rth o f i ntellectual i n novators willing a nd able w provide necessary 'progra mmatic perspectives on global studies' fra med by 'multicentcred a nd mu lrilevel thinking' capable of 'adding value' ro the field. 42 Pieterse's intervention is i mporta nt for a nu mber o f reasons. for one, it provides a necessary corrective to the idea l i zed and roma nticized acco u nts  Critical Thinking 1 71 that often accompany the rise of a new academic endeavor. In fact, the authors of the present study could probably be found guilty of this charge more than once in the preceding chapters of their work. Moreover, Pieterse is certainly right in pointing to the current childhood stage of global studies as, in many respects, a serious affliction plaguing this inexperienced academic initiative. Incidentally, most academic fields deemed ' barely developed' are prone to display, paradoxically, a certain kind of youthful arrogance expressed in exaggerated aspirations to 'set things straight' and brash proclamations of serving as bastions of intellectual innovation. Global studies is no stranger to such boastful behavior. At times, its invidious airs of superiority displayed toward 'conventional disciplines' have given just cause for consternation as have some of its hubristic and ultimately unproven claims to novelty and universality. As James Mittelman has pointed out, there lies a severe risk 'in any attempt to encapsulate all phenomena in a single, totalizing framework, irrespective of whether it is named "global" or "globalization" studies'.43 To be sure, there is nothing wrong with sincere aspirations to univer­ sality. But, as IR critic Justin Rosenberg's important, yet somewhat dated, appraisal of globalization theory points out, the 'grand theory' claims of some thinkers have not been substantiated. He charges that 'globalization studies' has set itself up as a field capable of generating a new 'general social theory' in which 'globalization' serves as both the evolving outcome and the explanatory category for social change in the contemporary world. The result has been the new field's lamentable tendency to indulge in 'a concep­ tual inflation of the "spatial," which is both difficult to justify ontologically and liable to produce not explanations but reifications'. 44 Although most of Rosenberg's early broadsides against 'globalization theory' have been effec­ tively countered in subsequent years, we share his distaste for the overblown intellectual ambitions of some global studies scholars. 45 Finally, Pieterse's criticism hits the nail on its head when he points to the often shocking discrepancy between the rich conceptual promise of the field-as, we hope, has been laid out in this study-and the poor design and execution of 'actual global studies as it is researched and taught at universi­ ties around the world'. As we noted in the Introduction of this book, there is some truth to the complaints of some external critics that a good number of 'actually existing' global studies programs lack focus and specificity, which makes the field appear to be a rather nebulous study of 'everything global'. Like most of the other interdisciplinary efforts originating in the 1990s, global studies programs sometimes invite the impression of a rather confusing combination of wildly different approaches reifying the global level of analysis. 1 72 Critical Thinking But perhaps the most troubling development we have observed in recent years is that 'global studies' has been increasingly used as a convenient catch phrase by 'academic entrepreneurs' eager to 'cash in' on its popularity with students. Thus, its desirable label has become attached to a growing number of conventional area studies curricula, international studies offerings, and diplomacy and foreign affairs programs-primarily for the pur pose of boosting their intellectual and instructional appeal without having to make substantive changes to the familiar teaching and research agenda attached to such programs. Unfortunately, these vacuous and instrumental appropria­ tions have not only caused much damage to the existing global studies 'brand' but also cast an ominous shadow on the future of the field. In spite of its obvious insights, however, Pieterse's critique of 'actually existing global studies' strikes us as unbalanced. Much of the empirical data presented in the appendix and supplemental online resources of this study shows that there are promising pedagogical and research efforts underway in the field. These initiatives suggest that Pieterse's instructive pessimism must be matched by cautious optimism. To be sure, our empirical examina­ tion of the field shows global studies as a project that is still very much in the making. Yet, its tender age and relative inexperience should not deter globalization scholars from acknowledging the field's considerable intellec­ tual achievements and growing institutional infrastructure. As we have endeavored to demonstrate in our discussion of its four pillars, global studies 'as it actually exists' has come a long way from its rather modest and eclectic origins in the 1990s. Of course, there can never be enough global studies conferences and workshops, but it simply defies reality to blow off the current choices of pertinent academic programs and professional gatherings as 'scaffolding without a roof'. For example, the regular meetings of the Global Studies Associations (UK and North America) and the annual convenrion of the Global Studies Consortium provide ample networking opportunities for globalization scholars from around the world. In fact, Pieterse himself is a founding member of the Global Studies Knowledge Community, a very active global studies organization holding large confer­ ences and publishing a refereed scholarly journal devoted to mapping and interpreting past and emerging trends and patterns in globalization. 4 6 In addition, our discussion of the growing global studies literature has revealed, contra Pieterse, the existence and ongoing emergence of profound intellectual innovators. Equipped with the necessary intellectual hard and software, they are furnishing those trailbbzing 'programmatic perspectives' that contain 'multicentered thinking', 'multilevel thinking', and many other favorable features Pieterse deems essenfril for the evolution toward a 'value­ added' global studies. Many global studies teaching programs and research  Critical Thinking 1 73 centers around the world already incorporate a good number of the desired qualities we have identified in this book. As discussed in Chapters 2 to :'), global studies scholars arc developing serious initiatives to recenter the social sciences toward global systemic dyn:imics and incorporate multilevel analyses. They are rethinking existing an:ilytical frameworks that expand critical reAexivity and methodologies unafraid of mixing various research strategies. I n short, the very rationale for writing this book-the delineation of global studies as a reasonably coherent, transdisciplinary 'space of tension' dedicated to the exploration of globalization processes and framed by both disagreements and agreements-yields a more complex and accurate picture of che young field. 'Actually existing' global studies appears to be in far better shape than Pieterse would have us believe. Where he sees intellectual underdevelopment and scaffolding without a roof, we also observe intel­ lectual innovation, cutting-edge research, and thriving teaching programs. Our guarded optimism notwithstanding, however, we appreciate the crit­ ical interventions of global studies insiders and agree that there is plenty of room for further improvement. The second criticism we discuss in this concluding section comes from 'postcolonial ' thinkers located both within and without the field of global studies. As Robert Young explains, postcolonial theory is a related set of perspectives and principles that involves a conceptual reorientation toward the perspectives of knowledges developed outside the West-in Asia, A frica, Oceania, and Latin America. By seeking to insert alternative knowledges into the dominant power structures of the West as well as the non-West, postcolonial theorists attempt to 'change the way people think, the way they behave, to produce a more just and equitable relation between che different people of the world'. Emphasizing the connection between theory and practice, postcolonial intellectuals consider themselves critical thinkers challenging the alleged superiority of Western cultures, racism and other forms of ethnic bias, economic inequality separating the global North from the South, and the persistence of 'Orientalism'-a discriminatory, Europe­ derived mindset so brilliantly dissected by late postcolonial theorist Edward Said.47 Thus, Young concludes, postcolonialism is a socially engaged form of critical thinking 'about a changing world, a world that has been changed by struggle and which its practitioners intend to change further'.4 8 A good number of postcolonial and indigenous theorises have examined rhe connections between globalization and postcolonialism.49 While many have expressed both their appreciation and affinity for much of what global studies stands for, they have also offered incisive critiques of what they see as che field's troubling geographic, ethnic, and epistemic location within the hegemonic Western framework. The noted ethnic studies scholar Ramon 1 74 Critical Thinking Grosfoguel, for example, offers a clear and comprehensive summary of such postcolonial concerns: 'Globalization studies, with a few exceptions, have not derived the epistemological and theoretical implications of the epistemic critique corning from subaltern locations in the colonial divide and expressed in academia through ethnic studies and women studies. We still continue to produce a knowledge from the Western man "point zero" god's-eye view'. 50 Some postcolonial thinkers, like the WSF-connected scholar-activist Boaventura de Sousa Santos, have taken their epistemic criticism beyond the confines of global studies in their indictment of the hegemonic academic framework as failing to recognize the different ways of knowing by which people across the globe provide meaning to their existence. In fact, his charge of 'cognitive injustice' moves far beyond conventional academic approaches and methodologies, deeply penetrating into the supposedly 'counter-hegemonic' territory of most of the 'critical theories' we discussed in this chapter. De Sousa Santos argues that 'genuine radicalism seems no longer possible in the global North', because 'Western, Eurocentric critical theory' has lost the capacity to learn from the experiences of the world. Haunted by a 'sense of exhaustion', he charges, the tradition of critical theory has lapsed into irrelevance, inadequacy, impotence, stagnation, and paralysis. Hence, his ideal of 'epistemological justice' contains the radical demand to end what he calls 'epistemicide', that is, the suppression and marginalization of epistemologies of the South by the dominant critical theories of the North. De Sousa Santos concludes that if the critical impulse is to survive in the twenty-first century, it is imperative for radical thinkers around the world to distance themselves from the Eurocentric critical tradi­ tion that has provided only weak answers for the strong questions confronting us in the Global Age. 51 Postcolonial critics like Grosfoguel and De Sousa Santos provide an invaluable service to global studies by highlighting the conceptual parochi­ alism behind its allegedly 'global' theoretical and practical concerns. Indeed, their intervention suggests that global studies thinkers have not paid enough attention to the postcolonial imperative of contesting the dominant Western ways of seeing and knowing. They also force all scholars working in the field to confront questions that are often relegated to the margins of intel­ lectual inquiry. Is critical theory sufficiently global to represent the diverse voices of the multitude and speak to the diverse experiences of disempow­ ered people around the world? What _sort of new and innovative ideas have been produced by public intellectuals who do not necessarily travel along the theoretical and geographical paths frequented by Western critical thinkers? Are there pressing issues and promising intellectual approaches  Critical Thinking 1 75 that have been neglected in critical global studies? Some of these questions also point to the central role of the English language in global studies. With English expanding its status as the academic lingua franca, thinkers embedded in Western universities still hold the monopoly on the produc­ tion of critical theories. Important contributions from the global South in languages other than English often fall through the cracks or only register in translated form on the radar of the supposedly 'global' academic publishing network years after their original publication. At the same time, however, it is essential to acknowledge the progress that has been made in global studies to expand its 'space of tension' by welcoming and incorporating global South perspectives. As early as 2005, for example, a quarter of the contributions featured in Appelbaum and Robinson's Critical Clobalizations St11dies anthology came from authors located in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Since then, pertinent criticisms from within that demanded the inclusion of multiple voices and perspectives from around the world have proliferated. Consider, for example, Eve Darian-Smith's recent condemnation of taken-for-granted assumptions on the part of Western scholars to speak for others in the global South. 52 Moreover, scores of public intellectuals hailing from the global South such as Samir Amin, Ibrahim Aoude, A1jun Appadurai, Mohammed Bamyeh, Walden Bello, Nestor Garcia Canclini, Enrique Dussel, Wang Hui, Liu Kang, Sankaran Krishna, Alvaro Garcia Linero, Achille Mbembe, Eduardo Mendieta, Walter Mignolo, Jamal R. Nassar, Norani Othman, Anibal Quijano, Arundhati Roy, Saskia Sassen, Vandana Shiva, Supriya Singh, Nevzat Soguk, Ramesh Thakur, Chico W hitaker, and Paul Tiyambe Zeleza have not only produced influen­ tial studies on globalization, but also have stood in solidarity with movement activists struggling against the forces of globalization-from-above. Finally, we must not forget that it was the Mexican Zapatista movement­ mostly composed of indigenous campesinos in the region-that confronted globalization-from-above with a resounding i Ya basta ! , thus inaugurating what eventually became the global justice movement. In this context, it is important to remember the point we made earlier in this chapter about the role of the West, and the United States in particular, as a magnet for postcolonial scholars from around the world. As Keucheyan has emphasized, 'For today's critical theorists, U.S. universities constitute a site of recognition comparable to Paris for writers in the first half of the twentieth century'. 53 Still, with regard to the postcolonial criticism of global studies, we come to the same conclusion as in the previous charge related to the field's underdeveloped scope and status. We appreciate and take seriously the post­ colonial interventions and agree that there is still plenty of room for further improvement. 1 76 Critical Thinking Looking back at the stated purpose of this study, we hope to have supplied readers with an adequate delineation of global studies in terms of its four 'pillars' or 'framings': globalization, rransdisciplinarity, space and time, and critical thinking. Most of all, this book has sought to pay tribute to the growing significance of global studies and its many affiliated scholars and students who appreciate its importance as :rn unorthodox academic 'space of tension' linking the arts, sciences, and humanities. But let us end with the tiniest of speculations about the future of global studies. Perhaps its most pressing task for the next decade is to keep chipping away at the disciplinary walls that still divide the academic landscape today. Animated by an ethical imperative to 'globalizc knowledge', such transdis­ ciplinary efforts have the potential to reconfigure our discipline-oriented academic infrastructur e around issues of global public responsibility. 54 This integrative endeavor must be undertaken steadily and tirelessly-but also carefully and with the proper understanding that diverse and multiple forms of knowledge are sorely needed to educate a global public. The necessary appreciation for the interplay between 'specialists' and 'generalists' must contain a proper respect for the crucial contributions of the conventional disciplines co our growing understanding of globalization. But the time has come to take the next step. The rising global imaginary demands nothing less from students and faculty hailing from all disciplines and fields of inquiry. Let us approach our core activities of learning, teaching, and research with the innovative openness and cosmopolitan intellectuality befitting the interdependent world of the twenty-first century. NOTES Dan iel T. Willi ngham, 'Critical T h i n k i n g : W hy I s It S o H a rd to Teach;,', A rrs Ed11rario11 A,/iry Rc11icw 1 09.4(2008), p. 8. 2 I bid., pp. 8 - 1 0 , 1 7. S e e a l s o Richard P a u l a nd Linda Elder, The 1\1i11iafltr(' C11idc to Crirical Thi11ki11.Q Co11ccp rs and Tools, (Tonu les, C A : Foundation for Critical T h i n k i n g Press, 2008). 3 S ee Stephen Eric Bron ner, Critical Theory: A Very Shorr lmrod11nio11 (Ox ford : Oxford University Press, 2 0 1 1 ) , p. 7. 4 R.azmig Keucheya n , G regory Elliott, tra n s. The L f:ft 1-lelllispherc: 1\ifapp i11g Crirical Theory Today (London rnd New York: Verso, 2 0 1 3) , p. 1 2. 5 Ejerrir,1 Zaparista de Liberaci,111 Nario11al (2008), cited i n Charles Li ndblom and Jose Pedro Zt'.1 quete, Thr Srrng_r;lrfor thl' I,Vorld: Librrario11 J\1011e111wtsfor thr 2 1sr Ce11111ry (Stanford : Stanford Un iversity Press, 2 0 1 0 ) , p. 2. 6 Keucheya n, The Le/r 1-/cmi.,pherc, p. 3. 7 I bid. , pp. 2 0- 1. 8 See Steger, Clol>ali.@ s, Chapter 2. 9 Robinson, 'What Is a Critical Global ization Studies ;, I ntellectual Labor and Global Society', i n Appelbaum a nd Robi nson, Crirical C/obalizario11 St11dirs, p. 1 2.