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.