Weekly Response 1

Maggie Nelsen

1/30/12

Weekly Response #1

                This week’s selection of readings discussed globalization in general, and it quickly became apparent that the topic is controversial. I was intrigued and a little shocked by Ghemawat’s downplaying of the magnitude of globalization; he forms the argument that the world is not as focused on global interactions as most scholars claim. Throughout his piece he emphasizes that national borders and local or national companies remain the focus, and receive most of the business action and money. While there may be some truth to that, I don’t think localization alone trumps the growing phenomenon of globalization…However, this point was well supported by his example of Google’s difficulties to establish itself in Russia because of the language barrier. One point I did agree on whole-heartedly with Ghemawat, was the importance of physical location. In order for Google to be successful in Russia they had to commit to the “old fashioned” way of doing things: Actually set up offices there, hire personnel who could speak Russian and English presumably, who could have some actual face-to-face interactions to form business ties with their Russian counter-parts. While this is a little off topic from Ghemawat’s beliefs about globalization in general, this example highlights something very important and quite related to globalization. In this technological age, CEO’s, boards of trustees, businessmen, all expect deals, arrangements, or new projects to materialize quickly as a result of modern technology. However, I think a lot of the world is blind to what is lost in the process, less human-to-human interaction and effort, people are losing skills and abilities they had just two generations ago mastered. Technology is replacing some of the tasks people used to do themselves—tasks that one might realize too late, humans do better. It’s like the Will Smith movie, iRobot. It appears Google’s struggles in Russia, is a case in point. Hoping for an another expedient set up in yet another foreign country—continuing to extend its enormous financial success globally—Google probably was not expecting to have impeding challenges in Moscow. Ghemawat’s concludes: “Even now, borders between countries define—and constrain—our movements more than globalization breaks them down”(48). I would have to tweak this claim a bit. I would argue that borders, and by extension foreign cultures and peoples, do indeed constrain our movements, but not so much that it cannot be breached by globalization. Google did ultimately establish itself in Russia after all.

                “The World is Flat” is a thought-provoking catch phrase to sum up “Globalization 3.0”.  I agree with Friedman's overall belief that globalization is changing our world and the way not only mega corporations interact, but individual, every-day people interact as well. His prime example and muse to this revelation, outsourcing to India, has been a hot topic of discussion and I think proves his point well, but there are some crucial missing pieces to his work. The missing piece is what Amartya Sen focuses on: the disproportion of globalization, the overwhelming poverty and primitive conditions that co-exist with the modern, technical age.  I find it hard to delve deep into the topic of globalization, without giving major consideration to the fact that a whole continent—Africa—and other regions are experiencing a life very different from those of us. While primitive or impoverished peoples may be touched by globalization per say—like Professor Jafar’s example of potato chips and desert nomads—ultimately that is inconsequential because these brushes with the modern or wealthier world do not affect or help them. Sen’s other main point is about the intrinsic connection between globalization and westernization—also really crucial to include in such a discussion. Being a Westerner, it is a little difficult to gain an objective perspective on this. The Realist school of thought of international politics assures me that all states seek interactions and take actions that are out of self-interest, and if that means exploiting others or breaking promises, so be it. This is only the result and reality of the anarchic world we live in. Therefore, Realists would have it that there is nothing immoral in so called western imperialism, or the US taking advantage of the labor or land in poor countries, etc. In the context of globalization, this Realist philosophy and view of the world may be true, but I’d like to think we can give the US/the West and poorer countries a little more credit than that respectively. I can acknowlede that the West and the U.S. do take advantage of circumstances in other countries, and take up business deals or practices that only benefit them. This aspect is indeed a major component controling the flow of globalization. But one cannot forget the contributions non-western societies or poorer countries have made to globalization, especially cultural and technological contributions. As Sen describes, ancient history and even just a few centuries ago, much of the flow of globalization was East to West. In this regard, historical analysis of globalization becomes very pertinent to ascertaining power struggles in the world today between these two “sides”. I am realizing while writing this how much there is to process and ingest in order to understand globalization today and what is good and what is bad and what should be—that is difficult to sort out.

                This sort of leads me to discuss Huntington’s well-known piece: The Clash of Civilizations, otherwise known as “the West against the Rest” and “the West versus Islam” is taking prominence on the world stage. I definitely think a lot of conflict and extremist rhetoric on both sides (West/East, etc.) is resultant of the fact that many people, both the average citizen and politicians, often form their philosophies and ideas about the world based upon stereotypes of other cultures, without really understanding or knowing the foreign country or people at all. I think this is very much the case in the disconnect and conflict between Muslims and Americans/Westerns. Of course this does not apply to all Muslims or Americans, but I think there is much hatred in the Middle East toward the West because many of those people are angry about the U.S.’s involvement in events like the Gulf War or Israel. Likewise, Americans have unfortunately developed an extremist understanding and stereotyped version of those practicing Islam. Both groups have failed to understand one another’s culture and values from an authentic standpoint, in other words not just the extremist’s side or only choosing to see the bad parts in one another. Some Americans need to realize Muslims are not the bad guys; the authoritarian leaders manipulating Islamic principles for their own political benefit are the bad guys. And some Middle Easterners who view America as imposing western values on the world or exploiting others must realize that Americans don’t have a universal ambition to take over the world and smear other cultures in the process of transforming them all into subservient democracies. My point is, peoples of the world need to do their homework. Determine the beliefs and values of the majority of the population—not just the elites, politicians or extremists who make headline news—learn what is really going on in a culture, and their history. If the world keeps running on stereotypes and misconceptions of one another, Huntington may be correct in predicting a clash of cultures of sorts.