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.
I really liked your connection to "fear." At the end of the day, that is what much of these authors are hinting at. At the same time, thinking that the world will soon become "flat" as Friedman speaks about is, in many ways, hard to imagine. I don't think that Western powers would ever forfeit power for the sake of more equality, that is not how it works usually. The connection to the arms race was a very relevant example because it shows that instead of putting their barriers and defenses down to become more connected, most nations (even those thought of as inferior) are realizing the only way to be equal is to have an equal amount of threatening weapons as ones neighbor. Hiding behind the optimism of globalization and connectivity are real fears of nations.
ReplyDelete