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.