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.