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.