Anakena - Week 1 Debating Globalization

Anakena Paddon

SOC 400

Debating Globalization

What quickly became apparent when diving into these readings was how divided all these scholarly opinions are. But when I looked closer, I realized that interestingly, each author was using historical evidence and trends from the past to support their own point of view on globalization, which inevitably clashed with the others’. These varying interpretations of our own histories leading to the plethora of possible interpretations of globalization made me realize the breadth of this topic, and, quite honestly, made me a little nervous about its complexity. As someone who like answers and has trouble grounding myself in the abstract and continuing questions, it will be curious for me to see how I work my way around these topics and try to find answers for myself.

Friedman’s “The World is Flat” engaged me from the beginning, by his title. The main idea behind his point was, as his interviewee in India clearly stated, “the playing field was being leveled”. For Friedman, this means that the principal “knowledge centers” of the world are being interconnected into a single global network. For Friedman, the main advantage of this is that, if used wisely and respectfully of others, this newly flattened world could provide enormous potential for prosperity and innovation, the likes of which have never been seen at such a global scope. But he reminds us quickly that terrorist cells are already abusing this interconnectedness, thus super-empowering groups of “angry, frustrated and humiliated people”. He then breaks down the history of globalization into three main histories (see below) stating that Globalization 3.0 will see more empowerment of the individual (as opposed to the nation or the corporation) and a rising diversity, in which those in power and on the main global scene are less and less white and from the Western world.

Era	Time Period	Dynamic Force	Who runs the world?	Main Questions?
Globalization 1.0	1492-1800 Large à Medium	Muscle (weapons development, military, etc)	Countries and their Governments	Where does my country fit into global competition and opportunities?
Globalization 2.0	1800-2000 (featuring Great Depression & WWI & WWII) Medium à Small	Breakthroughs in Hardware	Multinational Companies	Where does my company fit into the global economy?
Globalization 3.0	2000- Small à Tiny & FLATTER	Software & the new power for individuals to collaborate and compete globally	The Individual	Where do I fit into the global composition?

I think through Friedman’s anecdote of the work he did in India, he captures quite accurately the common view of globalization, which is a very business-oriented interconnectedness. Friedman reminds us of this with his comment of connecting the main information centers of the Western world and the rising nations like India and China.

Reading Friedman and Ghemawat back to back definitely highlighted the main opposing “teams” in the globalization issues. How I interpreted Ghemawat’s main point was that globalization is not necessarily some evil force we all have to suffer through and hopefully come out of alive. It was a long time coming, developed in various stages (in this sense, I believe he would agree with Friedman’s breakdown of the various histories of globalization), but most importantly according to him: it is reversible. Indeed, although techonologically we may be becoming more connected (although I would more confidently use the term “accessible”, because I’m not convinced we are more connected), geographically, barriers are far from disappearing, and I would argue that they have intensified greatly. I fly a lot, because of living in France and going to school here, and I can confidently say that I have witnessed the airport security (particularly at American airports) intensify over the past few years. When I flew into Boston this January, returning from a month in France, the customs officer asked me the normal questions and then uttered an almost sympathetic “Welcome Back”, as though he felt sorry for me that I ever had to leave the country and should be extremely relieved at being safe and home in the glorious USA.

Overall, I thought that Ghemawat’s questions on the overturning of globalization were very interesting. What does that mean for us? Would most people be able to stomach the idea that we are not necessarily on a set path out of our control? Would we change that path if we knew we could? Do those who would want to stray off that path have the power to do so, or is the chosen path set by those in power who are reluctant to give up control?

I had read Sen’s “How to Judge Globalism” previously and enjoyed using it as a means to recontextualize the other texts, particularly in making sense of the stark opposition between Friedman and Ghemawat. The sense of urgency and worry I feel when thinking of globalization and the way people so often associate impending doom when talking about it was somewhat calmed by Sen reminding us that movements like these are neither new but long in the making and also reversible. The common understanding of globalization as a new phenomenon of interconnectedness is ahistorical, and wrong, according to Sen. The extract ends with Sen discussing the real potential that globalization offers, if people can figure out a fair way of distributing benefits and resources. My question is, supposing we someday reach a point where the unequal sharing of benefits is less of an issue than it is today, where does the earth and the environment fit into this?

Huntington’s extract of “The Clash of Civilizations” was another example of how history is used to back up theories and proofs. His main hypothesis resides in the idea that the “fundamental source of conflict in this new world will be cultural”, and the clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. Personally, I had some trouble accepting this as something “new”. Although I understand the evolution from countryàmultinational corporationàindividual in the structure of those who hold power, I have trouble agreeing with the fact that our world has not always been about a clash of civilizations. Haven’t the divisions that made for the need to define and align oneself behind a country or corporation or individual risen from our cultural differences and the varying ways in which we see the world? Remember, Huntington reminds us that clash does not necessarily mean conflict, which itself does not necessarily mean violence. Indeed, the clash that occurs between civilizations may be two groups coming together, being exposed to one another, utterly peacefully.

Although I’m far from having the answers I want, I can say that this has allowed me to separate the various ‘camps’ in my mind, and the principal views on globalization. One thing most seem to agree on is that the main problem with globalization is not its existence but the way an equal distribution is not in effect and is not allowing most of the world to benefit from the cultural, economic and political intertwining we are witnessing. 

Allison Terlizzi
1/30

            The articles for this week focused on how societies are coping with the increase in global connectivity and western influence specifically. Thomas Friedman outlines the eras of globalization in his article, “The World is Flat” which focuses on global technology. When he writes that the world is becoming flattened, he is equating this to a playing field being leveled (Friedman, 19). Smaller countries are gaining speed with the technology they develop, slowly catching up with the technology the West has. Even more importantly, people around the world are now able to communicate in real time using computers, networks and software. The world is being leveled in the sense that there exists now one global network. Friedman goes on to explain the stages of globalization- the first being a country’s need for expansion through sheer power and force. The second stage was the introduction of multinational companies going global for markets and labor through a consistent movement of goods for a global economy to exist (Friendman, 21). The third stage emerging in 2000 was globally connecting the common person to the network, giving power to the individual to collaborate easily through the network and applications. Now in the third stage of globalization, more and more non-western, non-white people are able to participate in the global network, and this is empowering to the individual and contributes to the non-literal sense of flattening the world (Friedman, 50). While I have seen this interconnectivity on a personal level by speaking to family and friends while traveling in other nations through the Internet, I do not see the world as flat in my eyes. While we all have the technology available, many people in poor countries still cannot afford it.

            Contrasting to Friedman, Pankaj Ghemawat provides insight to why the world actually isn’t flat, when looking at the growing wealth disparities between the rich and poor. Ghemawat points out that world is actually less connected than we think, described by the ten percent presumption, placing actual internationalization at 10%. Another important point Ghemawat makes is the harsh prevalence of geographic boundaries, as we can see in the Indian IT world, an industry not exempt from political and geographic constraints, serving the US for capital investments (Ghemawat, 47). One thing the author said that I agreed most with is, “We’re more wired, but no more global (48)”. This relationship is based on trade of goods and services for money, but people are not connected personally. People don’t want to globalize, and we see this in the US at our borders. We expend resources and energy for protecting our borders and purposefully keeping people out.

            Amartya Sen discusses globalization and how it could be looked as Western expansion in “How to Judge Globalism”. While some consider this expansion as a gift from the West, Sen believes it is one example of western dominance, nothing short of tyrannical that does not serve the interests of the poorer nations of the world (Sen, 28). Sen believes that globalization is not Western at all, instead information, ideals, and expansion has historically been transferred from East to West. If we reject globalization because we associate it with Western domination we are overlooking its benefits as well as the contributions that come from many areas of the world (Sen, 29). Referring to technology, she clears up the notion that technological expansion was not West-led, in fact as basic technology such as printing was developed by the Chinese (30). Globalization however isn’t unfair to the poor- they too benefit from it although not much compared to wealthier nations. The global arms trade shows us how developed nations benefit greatly from globalization because they are the ones who can afford the arms and reap the benefits in this market, such as the United States (Sen, 35). Whoever is manufacturing the arms is going to be the one’s able to use them. The distribution of the benefits is clearly unequal, and what I found most interesting is that the protestors for anti-globalization make some of the most globalized events. What I took away from this article is that globalization and global democracy are two separate things. Expending the poor for their services is not all wrong and in fact they do benefit from it somewhat, obviously on a much smaller scale.

            “The Clash of Civilizations?” by Samuel Huntington and “The Clash of Ignorance” by Edward Said, dispute whether the source of conflict in the new world is based on cultural divisions. Hungtinton suggests that conflicts between the West and non-West have put the West in charge of shaping history with the non-West’s support, (Huntington, 23). Civilizations exist with sharp lines distinguishing them and civilization identity is an important component when shaping these lines. He said cultural identity will lead to increased conflicts in the future for the following reasons: One’s religious denomination causes cultural differences, the increased interaction between different peoples, economic and modernization and social change, the growth of civilization consciousness, cultural characteristics are more personal so conflicts concerning them are harder to reconcile and lastly economic regionalism is increasing. People think about the world in terms of “us versus them” and conflicts arise on both the micro and macro levels- on fault lines for control of territory and economic power. Said opposes what Huntington says concerning the West’s objective in becoming a global power. Policy makers want to make the West stronger by fending themselves against “others” like Islam (Said, 1). We see this in our nation’s anti-Islam movement and the racism against middle-easterners that is so apparent today. Said also feels that Huntington’s argument poses societies in strict opposition with each other, where in reality there is much sharing going on between cultures and nations. Generalizations, cultural assertions and labels are inadequate (Said, 2). Islam doesn’t breed hate, but we associate Muslim people with the attacks on our country and generalize Muslims as radical when one radical group did the attack.

            The articles for this week told me that globalization is controversial by nature and we must look at this topic in terms of reality- and not constantly place it in positive and negative light. The authors we read for Debating Globalization clearly took a stance one way or another on whether globalization is a good thing or bad thing. If we accept globalization as real and happening it will allow us to analyze and come to our own conclusions for its impact on the world as a whole.

Rachel Becker

January 30, 2012

Response #1

            Seeing as this is a course on globalization, it never really occurred to me that we would begin by discussing whether or not globalization exists at all.  I assumed that we would discuss all of the implications of globalization, but this is an entirely new argument for me.  It is particularly interesting to read articles written in response and opposition to each other, as we have with Thomas L. Friedman and Pankaj Ghemawat and then Samuel P. Huntington and Edward W. Said.  This is obviously a contentious and continuously developing issue for us today.

            Globalization seems in many cases to be a matter of ego.  Amartya Sen (2002) writes, “And now, the great achievements of the West are spreading to the world.  In this view, globalization is not only good, it is also a gift from the West to the world” (p. 28).  Sen is noting here an ethnocentric worldview, one that many Westerners hold.  We believe that we are at the pinnacle of success and that living in any way other than how we do would be a step backwards.  Interestingly, one of the first things that I learned in my sociology classes was to keep an open mind about other countries and cultures and to avoid using my life experiences and context to judge.  This is especially important when conducting research, but also a helpful lens that allows you to be objective about what you are seeing.  Yet, as Huntington (1993) points out, it is important to acknowledge that differences are inherent in civilizations.  As we notice them, though, we cannot project our preconceived notions of the norm.  This view of globalization is that the privileged West is allowing the poor, disadvantaged parts of the world to share in some of our success.  It is presumptuous to assume that nothing could or should be learned in the opposite direction.  Sen (2002) also points out that this was not the case historically, when information and ideas were truly spread from all over the world.

            Huntington (1993) builds on this idea when he writes about how likely a non-Western country is to be accepted in to Westernization.  This assimilation rests on two items: their physical proximity to an already Westernized country and the closeness of their values to Western norms.  Said (2001) says that if a country has been deemed unacceptable for integration into the Westernized world, they can be labeled as an intrinsic “other” and ostracized.  Said (2001) writes that Huntington (1993) is guilty of perpetrating these hurtful generalizations in his writing.  Said (2001) writes, “Certainly neither Huntington nor Lewis has much time to spare for the plurality of every civilization … or for the downright ignorance involved in presuming to speak for a whole religion or civilization.  No, the West is the West, and Islam Islam” (pp. 1-2).  These groups are presented as dichotomous others who could not possibly share the same ideals.  It is poisonous to possible future interactions.  

            This also raises the question of whether people from the West are taking advantage of people from the East.  Friedman (2005) writes with excitement, “Young Indian engineers, men and women, walk briskly from building to building, dangling ID badges.  One looked like he could do my taxes.  Another looked like she could take my computer apart.  And a third looked like she designed it!” (p. 18).  This leads Friedman to believe that the world is flat, but makes me wonder why we can’t do these things for ourselves.  Yes, I understand that the spread of knowledge is essential, but I also wonder why customer support and tax help have to be outsourced.  Is it not exploitative to pay someone significantly less than they would make in America, even if it is more than they would make in their country?  I think it is.  American companies get all the credit while large portions of the work, especially the unpleasant parts like dealing with furious customers, are handled elsewhere for cheap.      

            Ghemawat (2007) brings up the issues of privacy and the internet as they relate to globalization.  Friedman (2005) says that the “dynamic force” behind the current push of globalization is the ability of individual people to “collaborate and compete globally.”  With the advent of the internet, this puts people in contact with each other, and in opposition to each other, on an entirely newfound scale.  Ghemawat (2007) says, though, that the possibility of these interactions does not mean that they are actually occurring.  Instead, people are becoming increasingly isolated and absorbed in their own technology.  I have inferred from her writing that Ghemawat seems to believe that this is almost a form of fear tactics by the media and politicians; we are made to believe that we are exposed and replaceable. I believe that the ability to contact people from all over the world has been perceived as threatening, so people have retreated to more insular lifestyles and activities as a response.  Our college can easily be scaled down to a microcosm here, as college students on our campus frequently experience this.  I frequently see students who are uncomfortable having a conversation face to face with a professor, or even a peer.  They would much prefer to text or email than navigate an interaction in person.  There is a wealth of knowledge available to us, but by no means do the majority of us take full advantage of it.

            These articles do an excellent job of laying the groundwork for our class.  They show that globalization, whether it is actually as far spread as we have been told or not, and its implications are incredibly complicated.  I don’t believe that I have been able to draw any conclusions from these readings, but I don’t think that I was supposed to.  This shows the complexity of the semester ahead of us and also how much this topic already affects and will increasingly continue to.

Monica Butler Post #1

Monica Butler  - Post #1 - 1/30/12

              
        This weeks readings were a valuable introduction into the theories about globalization and where the world is going in terms of the interactions that the globe is having between nations. However, we are still left with the issues of globalization, whether it is good or bad and whether it really is at the level that we as Westerns imagine it is. Each author was able to make a concise and intelligent argument on either side with evidence to back their ideas up. So, who is it that we are supposed to believe when each argument is followed by a just as compelling retort? Or must we just answer the issue ourselves?

           

        One of the most compelling of the articles was by Amartya Sen in “How to Judge Globalization.” The argument laid out a logical explanation of why globalization is feared and why it should not be. Globalization is misunderstood. Is it about Western imperialism or is it causing the poor to get poorer? These issues many have with globalization are results of hysteria. Hysteria and uproar that change in the world, modernization of the world will only harm. Sen’s analogy of globalization and the family helped me understand his argument more easily. Its about fairness, as long as globalization is fair then it will only benefit all nations. We must distribute all the benefits.   I believe that Sen is arguing that if we take from lesser developed worlds we must give back to them, not by imposing our western ideologies on them, but fostering their development in the business economy. This to me is the most important way for a western positively impact lesser developed nations because it is allowing them, without destroying their culture or ideologies, to compete and participate in the global economy. This is ultimately what will help a nation rise above. However, the issue with this argument is how do we make sure that everything is fair? Sen used the argument of fairness in the family between men and women and women and men benefit from the marriage. However, is a marriage generally always fair? Or does the man, many times, have more of the power? How can this be fair, and in comparison to globalization won’t there always be a superior and an inferior nation? Whether its a western country or later China, someone has to be on the bottom.

        Samuel Huntington also puts his spin on what globalization means to the world today in “The Clash of Civilizations?” Arguing his idea of civilizations and groupings he generalizes the level of individuality each nation has. While many may share similar ideologies it is difficult to group these civilizations of western and non-western nations. Against his argument, as two western nations, should America and Italy be grouped in the same categories? As developed nations with many western ideologies when it comes down to how the countries operate and most importantly the ideologies of the people, these nations should never be grouped in the same “civilization” category. And to add to that, Huntington’s idea of grouping nations disputes the central belief of Americans as a nation of individualism. Does globalization destroy individualism and identity? Edward Said in “The Clash of Ignorance” is angered and agrees with my opinion that Huntington's article, while it does point out how the world is becoming “smaller, it is a complete generalization. I see this with the generalization of the West, but Said also discusses the recent grouping of the middle east and the Islamic world. This idea of civilizations justifies the generalizations that all Muslim nations are the same and have the same identities. However, even contemporary news disputes this idea. If these nations were the same and had all the same ideologies, then why would there be so much conflict among the various nations? The reasons we, as westerners, group the Islamic nations is due to our fear. We are threatened by these nations, for religious reasons, cultural reasons, and military reasons. We are reasserting our dominance because the globalization of the Islamic nations is a threat to the power position of the Western nations. 

        In “Why the World is Flat” Thomas Friedman and Pankaj Ghemawat’s “Why The World Isn’t Flat” there are two counter arguments and there is validity in each idea. I believe that it is significant to point out that Ghemawat brings up this idea of the “10 percent presumption” but then also recognizes that momentum in the global movement is strong and that this entire globalization is only beginning. While Friedman, believes that globalization is already here, his argument of the 3.0 stage we are in somewhat supports Ghemawat’s argument because it admits that we are just starting to collaborate as individuals. 

      However, the most significant point of the idea “globalization 3.0” is that it is not western driven like many would assume. What about the gigantic nations and growing superpowers of India and China. Like Sen pointed out, China and India have been a part of the world’s globalization for thousands of years. The Chinese introduced the world to explosives and noodles and India gave the world the decimal system. Where Huntington went awry again was how he said that the West has had no economic challengers other than Japan. Well, what about China? China is more and more on the radar of the world and many, especially America, fear how China can use globalization to assert themselves as the world’s new superpower. I believe China is the greatest element to consider when speaking about globalization in contemporary times. Ghemawat argues the 10 percent presumption, but it seems like we import a lot more than 10% from China to America. If we as American’s fear China taking advantage of globalization what can we do about? Is the solution lying in Sen’s ideas about balancing globalization and fairness? If we do not start thinking of the world as flat now, it might catch up to many nations before they can realize that globalization is here to stay.

Post 1 Greg Demetriou

Post 1
Greg Demetriou
1/30/12

         In Huntington’s (1993) article, “The Clash of Civilizations?” I found it very interesting when he explains what has unfolded since the cold war in terms of identifying nations. Huntington explains that the identifications of “first world,” “Second World,” and “Third World” are no longer relevant, and there has been a major shift to identifying nations based on their “Culture and Civilization.” (1993, p: 23) Huntington continues by explaining that this shift will illuminate the differences between cultures, thus manifesting into more conflict. As anyone who has studied sociology knows anytime difference is highlighted conflict ensues. Although this tendency has seemingly been curbed, I believe the opposite has occurred. People like to believe that they except and embrace differences, but I would say this perception is a delusion of grandeur that is common among American people. As this coincides with Huntington’s thoughts I think that the real problem with globalization is not rooted in inevitable conflict, but in standardizing the human experience.

I completely agree with Huntington, but what will result from these conflicts will be the standardizing of the human experience. In my opinion what separates humans from animals is the opportunity for alternative experience. Some people live lives dependent on technology, and some people live like nothing has changed since the beginning of time. Either way two members of the same species live entirely different lives. I feel that is the most unique thing that seperates humans from animals. Globalization leads to uniformity. The positive aspects are it affords everyone the luxuries of modern reality. But it also removes the differences in lifestyle that initiated the conflicts that started everything.

            This directly relates to Sen’s article, “How to Judge Globalism” when the author speaks about fair sharing and opportunity.  The main problem I have with this starts with the way the author explains globalization is seen as Westernization. The author continues by explaining the areas in which equality is needed to make globalization truly positive. I feel the argument is lost here because viewing globalization as westernization insinuates that America is the proverbial blue print of globalization.

As the author repeatedly articulates the necessity of equality in globalization, all legitimacy is lost when America is used as the standard for globalization. The inequality that liters every aspect of social life in America will be emulated and reproduced in any place affected by globalization. The people who benefit from the inequality of America will benefit from inequality worldwide. If one were to base their perceptions of globalization on this article they would be inclined to believe that globalization would make inequality synonymous with humanity. The differences that have manifested into inequality in America are the same differences that will perpetuate inequality world wide in respect to globalization. Additionally, these differences that manifest into inequality are the same differences that Huntington explains will cause conflict.

As I read Ghemawat’s I found myself thinking more about the way technology manipulates expectation and perceptions, than the actuality of globalizing the world. When Ghemawat articulates his astonishment that physical boundaries are pervasive. The damaging aspect of globalization is that it makes common sense foreign. Something as simple as understanding that in order to impact a place one must go there should not elude people who face this reality. Only in the westernized reality where instant gratification is more familiar than actuality, are people shocked by something this simplistic. This is not an insult to the author and his observation. But it is an injustice that goes along with the privileges of technology. When the author explains that physical boundaries should not affect cyber space the consequences of privilege are most transparent.

A micro example of this delusional reality is simple math in America. Something as simple as division is taught as early as elementary school, however the influence of calculators has robbed citizens of this ability. The convenience of technology paralyzes the abilities of humanity, and through globalization this practice will become the standard. 

Leah Feutz- Post #1 "Debating Globalization"

Leah Feutz Post #1 "Debating Globalization"

            This weeks readings were very interesting not only in individual content, but also in the contrasts they struck with each other and the varying ideas they presented on different aspects of the discourse of globalization. I want to echo Thomas’ characterization of Friedman’s work as “optimistic and inspiring”, because, at first, glance, it does feel like a very positive and confident portrayal of the world we live in. It is very appealing to think of the world as a place where “the global playing field is being leveled” and “individuals from every corner of the flat world are being empowered” (Friedman 2005, 22). However, after reading Friedman’s work, I was left feeling like the “flattening” of the world was more of a convenient metaphor rather than having a basis in reality. His explanation of the world felt idealistic and like an “exaggerated vision”, as Ghemawat puts it. I tend to agree more with the general sentiments and assertions of Ghemawat, who explains that “the world is not nearly as connected as these writers would have us believe…globalization’s future is more fragile than you know” (Ghemawat 2007, 46). I think to imagine the world as an equal playing field ignores many of the ways in which people are unequally affected by globalizing forces, and differences in access to the means by which people can participate in this globalized market, (if they want to participate at all). I also think that it is interesting to examine the viewpoint from which these various authors are approaching the idea of globalization, seeing that globalization does not affect everyone in the same way and so the biases of these lenses are important to acknowledge. I am interested to learn more about the various groups referenced in the readings who are cited as being ambivalent about the globalized world or wanting to “opt out” of globalization. I don’t want to make assumptions that globalization is equivalent to progress, and so it will be interesting as the semester progresses to see the different effects that globalization has on different communities, and how globalization can be characterized depending on its varying influence. While I saw Sen’s piece (as with all of these pieces) as more of a theory instead of accepting it as fact, I feel that it was an important point to assert that, “the idea of an immaculate Western conception is an imaginative fantasy” (Sen 2002, 30). He sums up the inequalities of globalization in saying that there is an uneven “overall balance of institutional arrangements-which produces very unequal sharing of the benefits of globalization” (Sen 2002, 36). He does not say that globalization does not have its benefits, but that instead there is a need for a reform of “institutional arrangements-in addition to national ones”, in order to make sure that people get “a fair share and a fair opportunity” (Sen 2002, 36). Edward Said criticizes Sen’s work, writing, “how finally inadequate are the labels, generalizations, and cultural assertions” (Said 2001, 3). This generalization, labeling, cultural assertions, and overall more idealistic or simplified view of the world we live in and the global forces at work is something I want to avoid, and therefore I am very excited to learn more about the complex issues we face when trying to understand globalization.

Thomas Schrader 1/30/12 - Weekly Response #1

Thomas Schrader – Weekly Response #1 - January 30, 2012

            Who would have thought the topic of globalization could be so widely argued and debated even among the experts. I would like to start with Thomas Friedman optimistic and inspiring work on our recent global investment in technology (i.e  “broadband connectivity,” “computers became cheaper,” “explosion of software,”) since 2000. This is what I and probably most people think about when they reflect on how the world has changes in the last several decades. Globalization in these senses has definitely had an impact. When Friedman speaks to the idea that this has now “leveled the playing field,” I can only assume he means that other nations are finally on par with the West. And in most of our minds, we probably think of the West as the most developed on the planet. I really enjoyed his references to Globalization “1.0” and “2.0,” both of which are periods I also believe heavily reshaped and shrank the world. Things like re-discovering America, new ways of producing energy, the mere invention of telephones and, eventually, internet, as well as things we take for granted like railroads and planes vastly made the world feel just that much smaller. Those are all pretty amazing things.

            What I think I would feel somewhat comfortable arguing against, as Pankaj Ghemawat in “Why the World Isn’t Flat” would agree with, is that Friedman’s “Globalization 3.0.” did not really have this same affect as the others. It may have the appearance, and perhaps even the potential to be another incredible innovative time, but really, how much more connected have we become globally? Sure, Facebook advertises as one of the greatest ways to connect globally but how many talk to more than a few friends on a regular basis which live no more than a country’s length away. I appreciate Friedman’s clarification that the power is now with the individual. That is very true. Individuals can watch YouTube videos of protests on the other side of the world, and join in blog discussions with others living anywhere. But how much have these innovations really expanded and challenged who we interact with. More importantly, how much do we really care about becoming global citizens? Does the average American use Youtube for anything more than to listen to songs or watch comedic performances. Is Facebook anything more than a way to show thousands of pictures? My conclusions about these two articles would probably question that if the world is really flattening, then does anyone really care below the surface?

            Huntington’s “The Clash of Civilizations” was the first article I read. His primary argument revolves around the cultural conflicts that arise between civilizations. The sources of such conflict include: difference developed over centuries, increasing global interactions, economic modernization, the duals roles of the West, less easily resolves cultural differences, and increasing economic regionalism. At first, I was very convinced of Huntington’s point. In other disciplines and in most discussions around global issues, we are always talking about the power of the West and the how the West has come synonymous with the domination of Western interests. This sort of “us” and “them” mentality certainly increased radically after 9/11, especially in Americans who already had little understandings of other non-western cultures, such as but not simply Islam. Since this tragedy, the critics of Islam, and the Middle East in general, has definitely been harsh, only further drawing a line between the these two distinct cultures. Still, I can see that my generation is probably becoming less ignorant about how integrated these two cultures really are. At least, from what I see, there are many whom are more open to exploring other cultures and being more sensitive.

            I think that Amartya Sen takes a much more open view in “How to Judge Globalism,” explaining it is truly a “misdiagnosis” to say that globalization is merely an imperialistic result of Western nations. I appreciated how Sen connects many concepts and ideas thought to have developed in places like America to their true historical roots in places like China and India. In such a globalized world, the real problem is the distribution ad arrangements of global benefits. This goes back to Friedman’s view of the world as “Flat.” I think that Sen would reply by saying that even as the world is getting flat, thanks to centuries of contributions from nations around the world, the poorer regions may be flate-r but are not leveled with those running everything.

            I think the take away from this introduction to globalization is that this topic is more than complicated. While in many ways a globalized world has made nations, people, and ideas so much more connected, there has similarly been a split and disconnect which has developed into cultural clashes. Perhaps individuals are still yet unable to utilize advances in the last decade to the fullness of their potential. Perhaps also, Westerners feel that with being in countries that serve as world superpowers, there is no real need to push globalization to its best use or to really expand our thinking about how other nations could truly benefit from more opportunities to be a part of the this new era of globalization.

Weekly Response 1

Maggie Nelsen

1/30/12

Weekly Response #1

                This week’s selection of readings discussed globalization in general, and it quickly became apparent that the topic is controversial. I was intrigued and a little shocked by Ghemawat’s downplaying of the magnitude of globalization; he forms the argument that the world is not as focused on global interactions as most scholars claim. Throughout his piece he emphasizes that national borders and local or national companies remain the focus, and receive most of the business action and money. While there may be some truth to that, I don’t think localization alone trumps the growing phenomenon of globalization…However, this point was well supported by his example of Google’s difficulties to establish itself in Russia because of the language barrier. One point I did agree on whole-heartedly with Ghemawat, was the importance of physical location. In order for Google to be successful in Russia they had to commit to the “old fashioned” way of doing things: Actually set up offices there, hire personnel who could speak Russian and English presumably, who could have some actual face-to-face interactions to form business ties with their Russian counter-parts. While this is a little off topic from Ghemawat’s beliefs about globalization in general, this example highlights something very important and quite related to globalization. In this technological age, CEO’s, boards of trustees, businessmen, all expect deals, arrangements, or new projects to materialize quickly as a result of modern technology. However, I think a lot of the world is blind to what is lost in the process, less human-to-human interaction and effort, people are losing skills and abilities they had just two generations ago mastered. Technology is replacing some of the tasks people used to do themselves—tasks that one might realize too late, humans do better. It’s like the Will Smith movie, iRobot. It appears Google’s struggles in Russia, is a case in point. Hoping for an another expedient set up in yet another foreign country—continuing to extend its enormous financial success globally—Google probably was not expecting to have impeding challenges in Moscow. Ghemawat’s concludes: “Even now, borders between countries define—and constrain—our movements more than globalization breaks them down”(48). I would have to tweak this claim a bit. I would argue that borders, and by extension foreign cultures and peoples, do indeed constrain our movements, but not so much that it cannot be breached by globalization. Google did ultimately establish itself in Russia after all.

                “The World is Flat” is a thought-provoking catch phrase to sum up “Globalization 3.0”.  I agree with Friedman's overall belief that globalization is changing our world and the way not only mega corporations interact, but individual, every-day people interact as well. His prime example and muse to this revelation, outsourcing to India, has been a hot topic of discussion and I think proves his point well, but there are some crucial missing pieces to his work. The missing piece is what Amartya Sen focuses on: the disproportion of globalization, the overwhelming poverty and primitive conditions that co-exist with the modern, technical age.  I find it hard to delve deep into the topic of globalization, without giving major consideration to the fact that a whole continent—Africa—and other regions are experiencing a life very different from those of us. While primitive or impoverished peoples may be touched by globalization per say—like Professor Jafar’s example of potato chips and desert nomads—ultimately that is inconsequential because these brushes with the modern or wealthier world do not affect or help them. Sen’s other main point is about the intrinsic connection between globalization and westernization—also really crucial to include in such a discussion. Being a Westerner, it is a little difficult to gain an objective perspective on this. The Realist school of thought of international politics assures me that all states seek interactions and take actions that are out of self-interest, and if that means exploiting others or breaking promises, so be it. This is only the result and reality of the anarchic world we live in. Therefore, Realists would have it that there is nothing immoral in so called western imperialism, or the US taking advantage of the labor or land in poor countries, etc. In the context of globalization, this Realist philosophy and view of the world may be true, but I’d like to think we can give the US/the West and poorer countries a little more credit than that respectively. I can acknowlede that the West and the U.S. do take advantage of circumstances in other countries, and take up business deals or practices that only benefit them. This aspect is indeed a major component controling the flow of globalization. But one cannot forget the contributions non-western societies or poorer countries have made to globalization, especially cultural and technological contributions. As Sen describes, ancient history and even just a few centuries ago, much of the flow of globalization was East to West. In this regard, historical analysis of globalization becomes very pertinent to ascertaining power struggles in the world today between these two “sides”. I am realizing while writing this how much there is to process and ingest in order to understand globalization today and what is good and what is bad and what should be—that is difficult to sort out.

                This sort of leads me to discuss Huntington’s well-known piece: The Clash of Civilizations, otherwise known as “the West against the Rest” and “the West versus Islam” is taking prominence on the world stage. I definitely think a lot of conflict and extremist rhetoric on both sides (West/East, etc.) is resultant of the fact that many people, both the average citizen and politicians, often form their philosophies and ideas about the world based upon stereotypes of other cultures, without really understanding or knowing the foreign country or people at all. I think this is very much the case in the disconnect and conflict between Muslims and Americans/Westerns. Of course this does not apply to all Muslims or Americans, but I think there is much hatred in the Middle East toward the West because many of those people are angry about the U.S.’s involvement in events like the Gulf War or Israel. Likewise, Americans have unfortunately developed an extremist understanding and stereotyped version of those practicing Islam. Both groups have failed to understand one another’s culture and values from an authentic standpoint, in other words not just the extremist’s side or only choosing to see the bad parts in one another. Some Americans need to realize Muslims are not the bad guys; the authoritarian leaders manipulating Islamic principles for their own political benefit are the bad guys. And some Middle Easterners who view America as imposing western values on the world or exploiting others must realize that Americans don’t have a universal ambition to take over the world and smear other cultures in the process of transforming them all into subservient democracies. My point is, peoples of the world need to do their homework. Determine the beliefs and values of the majority of the population—not just the elites, politicians or extremists who make headline news—learn what is really going on in a culture, and their history. If the world keeps running on stereotypes and misconceptions of one another, Huntington may be correct in predicting a clash of cultures of sorts.