Thomas Schrader – Weekly Response #1 - January 30, 2012
Who
would have thought the topic of globalization could be so widely argued and
debated even among the experts. I would like to start with Thomas Friedman optimistic
and inspiring work on our recent global investment in technology (i.e “broadband connectivity,” “computers
became cheaper,” “explosion of software,”) since 2000. This is what I and
probably most people think about when they reflect on how the world has changes
in the last several decades. Globalization in these senses has definitely had
an impact. When Friedman speaks to the idea that this has now “leveled the
playing field,” I can only assume he means that other nations are finally on
par with the West. And in most of our minds, we probably think of the West as
the most developed on the planet. I really enjoyed his references to
Globalization “1.0” and “2.0,” both of which are periods I also believe heavily
reshaped and shrank the world. Things
like re-discovering America, new ways of producing energy, the mere invention
of telephones and, eventually, internet, as well as things we take for granted
like railroads and planes vastly made
the world feel just that much smaller. Those are all pretty amazing things.
What
I think I would feel somewhat comfortable arguing against, as Pankaj Ghemawat
in “Why the World Isn’t Flat” would agree with, is that Friedman’s
“Globalization 3.0.” did not really have this same affect as the others. It may
have the appearance, and perhaps even the potential
to be another incredible innovative time, but really, how much more connected
have we become globally? Sure, Facebook advertises as one of the greatest ways
to connect globally but how many talk to more than a few friends on a regular
basis which live no more than a country’s length away. I appreciate Friedman’s
clarification that the power is now with the individual. That is very true. Individuals can watch YouTube videos
of protests on the other side of the world,
and join in blog discussions with others living anywhere. But how much have
these innovations really expanded and challenged who we interact with. More
importantly, how much do we really care about becoming global citizens? Does
the average American use Youtube for anything more than to listen to songs or
watch comedic performances. Is Facebook anything more than a way to show
thousands of pictures? My conclusions
about these two articles would probably question that if the world is really flattening, then does anyone really care
below the surface?
Huntington’s
“The Clash of Civilizations” was the first article I read. His primary argument
revolves around the cultural conflicts that arise between civilizations. The
sources of such conflict include: difference developed over centuries,
increasing global interactions, economic modernization, the duals roles of the
West, less easily resolves cultural differences, and increasing economic
regionalism. At first, I was very convinced of Huntington’s point. In other
disciplines and in most discussions around global issues, we are always talking
about the power of the West and the how the West has come synonymous with the
domination of Western interests. This sort of “us” and “them” mentality
certainly increased radically after 9/11, especially in Americans who already
had little understandings of other non-western cultures, such as but not simply
Islam. Since this tragedy, the critics of Islam, and the Middle East in
general, has definitely been harsh, only further drawing a line between the
these two distinct cultures. Still, I can see that my generation is probably
becoming less ignorant about how integrated these two cultures really are. At
least, from what I see, there are many whom are more open to exploring other
cultures and being more sensitive.
I
think that Amartya Sen takes a much more open view in “How to Judge Globalism,”
explaining it is truly a “misdiagnosis” to say that globalization is merely an
imperialistic result of Western nations. I appreciated how Sen connects many
concepts and ideas thought to have developed in places like America to their
true historical roots in places like China and India. In such a globalized
world, the real problem is the distribution ad arrangements of global benefits.
This goes back to Friedman’s view of the world as “Flat.” I think that Sen
would reply by saying that even as the world is getting flat, thanks to
centuries of contributions from nations around the world, the poorer regions
may be flate-r but are not leveled with those running everything.
I
think the take away from this introduction to globalization is that this topic
is more than complicated. While in many ways a globalized world has made
nations, people, and ideas so much more connected, there has similarly been a
split and disconnect which has developed into cultural clashes. Perhaps
individuals are still yet unable to utilize advances in the last decade to the
fullness of their potential. Perhaps also, Westerners feel that with being in
countries that serve as world superpowers, there is no real need to push globalization
to its best use or to really expand our thinking about how other nations could
truly benefit from more opportunities to be a part of the this new era of
globalization.
During the debate about whether or not the world is flat, I also thought of facebook and how we are increasingly able to connect globally, but often choose to do so only locally. I am friends with people and family members who live all around the globe, and I can follow big events in their life on a regular basis through social media forums such as facebook, but how often do I pick up the phone and call? Not very often.
ReplyDeleteAt a larger scale, I liked your question about what this inability to connect at a global scale means for us who are on our way to becoming (hopefully) global citizens. Does it simply mean we have the power to video-conference with people in Zimbabwe and Taiwan? Or does it imply that as citizens, we have both rights and duties to ensure the just balance and equilibrium between those in power and those without.