Greg Demetriou
1/30/12
In
Huntington’s (1993) article, “The Clash of Civilizations?” I found it very
interesting when he explains what has unfolded since the cold war in terms of
identifying nations. Huntington explains that the identifications of “first
world,” “Second World,” and “Third World” are no longer relevant, and there has
been a major shift to identifying nations based on their “Culture and
Civilization.” (1993, p: 23) Huntington continues by explaining that this shift
will illuminate the differences between cultures, thus manifesting into more
conflict. As anyone who has studied sociology knows anytime difference is
highlighted conflict ensues. Although this tendency has seemingly been curbed,
I believe the opposite has occurred. People like to believe that they except
and embrace differences, but I would say this perception is a delusion of
grandeur that is common among American people. As this coincides with
Huntington’s thoughts I think that the real problem with globalization is not
rooted in inevitable conflict, but in standardizing the human experience.
I completely agree with Huntington, but
what will result from these conflicts will be the standardizing of the human
experience. In my opinion what separates humans from animals is the opportunity
for alternative experience. Some people live lives dependent on technology, and
some people live like nothing has changed since the beginning of time. Either
way two members of the same species live entirely different lives. I feel that
is the most unique thing that seperates humans from animals. Globalization
leads to uniformity. The positive aspects are it affords everyone the luxuries
of modern reality. But it also removes the differences in lifestyle that
initiated the conflicts that started everything.
This
directly relates to Sen’s article, “How to Judge Globalism” when the author
speaks about fair sharing and opportunity. The main problem I have with this starts with the way the
author explains globalization is seen as Westernization. The author continues
by explaining the areas in which equality is needed to make globalization truly
positive. I feel the argument is lost here because viewing globalization as
westernization insinuates that America is the proverbial blue print of
globalization.
As the author repeatedly articulates the
necessity of equality in globalization, all legitimacy is lost when America is
used as the standard for globalization. The inequality that liters every aspect
of social life in America will be emulated and reproduced in any place affected
by globalization. The people who benefit from the inequality of America will
benefit from inequality worldwide. If one were to base their perceptions of
globalization on this article they would be inclined to believe that
globalization would make inequality synonymous with humanity. The differences
that have manifested into inequality in America are the same differences that
will perpetuate inequality world wide in respect to globalization.
Additionally, these differences that manifest into inequality are the same
differences that Huntington explains will cause conflict.
As I read Ghemawat’s I found myself thinking more
about the way technology manipulates expectation and perceptions, than the
actuality of globalizing the world. When Ghemawat articulates his
astonishment that physical boundaries are pervasive. The damaging aspect of
globalization is that it makes common sense foreign. Something as simple as
understanding that in order to impact a place one must go there should not
elude people who face this reality. Only in the westernized reality where
instant gratification is more familiar than actuality, are people shocked by
something this simplistic. This is not an insult to the author and his
observation. But it is an injustice that goes along with the privileges of
technology. When the author explains that physical boundaries should not affect
cyber space the consequences of privilege are most transparent.
A
micro example of this delusional reality is simple math in America. Something
as simple as division is taught as early as elementary school, however the
influence of calculators has robbed citizens of this ability. The convenience
of technology paralyzes the abilities of humanity, and through globalization
this practice will become the standard.
I liked your phrasing of the “illusion of grandeur” when it comes to people – specifically Americans – saying they accept differences. I think the U.S. definitely likes to think of itself as a huge melting pot, because historically it has witnessed so many waves of immigration from around the world, but I have been fewer places where race and racism were so talked about and almost obsessed about. If we think even of how orientation is run at Conn, there are seminars on race and diversity – we love to talk about our differences and yet there continue to be many bias incident reports, reporting racist slurs, on a regular basis.
ReplyDeleteWhere I would disagree with you is when you say that globalization is not a Westernization. Although I believe that pattern may change (indeed, as Friedman and others suggest that the power players will increasingly be less White and less Western), it seems as though now the power players are the Western nations, and that among those, the US plays a very important role in the spreading of information, practices, foods, music, art, policies etc so that in effect I would say there is truth to the statement that current globalization is similar to Westernization.
I liked your analysis of Sen's article and I think the author brings up a very important distinction between globalization and westernization. These two terms should not be confused because sure enough globalization has traditionally been spread from the east. If America is used as the basis for globalization then we see inequality spread worldwide as well. It will then be perpetuated worldwide. Where I find myself disagreeing with you is when you say inequality will become synonymous with humanity. To me, it would just look like democracy would spread worldwide, not necessarily inequality. Although we are a nation where few people have the majority of wealth, other nations have more extreme disparities between the rich and poor
ReplyDelete