Globalization is sooo much more in-depth and complicated than I have ever thought- it is a part of every aspect of our lives to an extent. I have thought of globalization as a vehicle for new and better ways of doing things, new ideas and better opportunities for all- like a broadening of awareness – an education on all that is new and improved. I never thought about how globalization can and does in many ways- widen the gap between social classes.
I feel really bad because I have been thinking like the usual American in that – our ways are the best and most advanced and anyone who adopts our standards will have an advantage. What globalization does is – it magnifies the different classes of people which in turn will only increase the problem of those less fortunate classes. – it intensifies inequality-
It is kind of like globalization buts everyone into one single group and globalization is directly in the front of the group, those able to reach the benefits of globalization can profit but what about all those poor people in the back of the group- they will never be able to gain anything because globalization is so far from them- and only due to the fact of where they are located- it’s not their fault.
Globalization has:
• not given everyone an equal chance to use global space
• not redistributed the wealth to those who need it most
• not benefited the already underprivileged
• helped to start social movements that are aimed at equality and justice for all
“The adoption of different approaches to globalization could yield more just outcomes.” p. 320 (Scholte)
- I really like this idea because we often forget that other peoples ways and methods are just as effective as our own- this way we will learn more about each other- that’s what globalization is all about- sharing and learning :)
In the 1990’s wage differences among different countries widened- meaning the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. One example our book gives- p. 322 is in Brazil (1990’s) when the riches fifth earned 26 times more than the poorest fifth of the country- that’s very sad to me.
Because governments are always on the top – the ones getting richer- they don’t do as much as they could to fix the social gaps. World resources are available to all – gaining access to them is another story as is government distribution- how will the different governments distribute what they have gained- will they use it to benefit themselves or to help those who need it the most? Ex: public services (my favorite- public education) If our public education stinks- like ours does in a lot of cases- a private education is available, but only to the rich. That is a perfect example of inequality based on class.
Even redistribution processes such as socialism really do no good- spreading the accumulation just does not happen as is intended- to do away with class division. It has though in some ways or in some areas of the world that have used this method, kept class divisions from getting bigger- still those in the bottom rung are at a huge disadvantage.
Gender inequality in the work place always seemed to me to be equal- or at least more equal in most ways but I now understand how wrong I am in believing this! More jobs may be available to women- but a lot if not most are those that do not require much skill – our book referred to it as sweatshop work. Even though more jobs have become available due to more trade and better manufacturing of goods, many times those workers are underpaid and have no choice but to do the exhausting work- they have no voice even if they were to speak out – its either work or your family might not eat.
- one thing I thought of was the working woman’s domestic duties as well- it seems like in all cultures, no matter if you get a job or begin school- you still have to take care of the home and children- just a thought :)
So along the lines of gender- globalization has helped women’s opportunities but hurt them in others.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Perceptions of Part One Scholte
Scholte clearly has a strong grasp of the failings of many of the classical interpretations of what is meant by globalization. He also is quite aware of the pitfalls that exist in reactions against it as well as a full embrace of globalization. However, I must comment on a few problems I see with some of his references and frame work of thought. In his discussion of communication technologies, Scholte completely fails to make any mention of Sir Arthur C. Clarke's book, "How the World was One" on the development of communication technologies. While the book was written for a more "popular" audience, it does great justice to the topic by explaining how hard it was to develop the technologies for global communications. In general, I am not fond of Scholte's treatment of technological developments. He argues that the lack of high speed communication and high speed travel was what marked the period before globalization, or that the volume of communication was what makes the difference, or the breath and depth to which people interact with these technologies. While high speed-high capacity communication all over the globe is a truly new phenomena, it is firmly grounded in the gradual development of communication technologies over the last two centuries. I cast my time frame so wide because one must understand that in order to have a technology, there must be research into the physics before a product can be produced. Early studies of electricity, magnetic fields, and material sciences were what made the telegraph, telephone, radio, television, computer, and internet possible in the first place. I suppose that one could imagine a world in which communication technologies always developed wirelessly but it does not change the fundamental fact that technological processes are an evolutionary process with stops and starts. Thus, when each new technology was "globalized" it may not have had the deep impact that the internet has but it still was a facilitator bringing people in disparate parts of the world closer together.
Furthermore, Scholte argues that global ecological problems did not exist until recent times. This is a terribly naive and unnuanced view of the world and global ecology. While it is true that the scale of global ecological problems have grown exponentially, the problems have always been present in human society. The increase in the size of the human population and the development of new technologies have helped to facilitate the creation of the grave environmental times in which we find ourselves, but global climate change began with the start of the Industrial Revolution and the spread of industrial development has only made the problem worse. (I will not say wide spread because of the always defused nature of green house gas emissions) Loss of biodiversity has arguably been a fact of human existence since at least the last Ice Age and probably earlier. The cultivation of sugar in the West Indies led to the destruction of the rain forests on those islands and the loss of many species. While mahogany did not go extinct, it came quite close as a result of deforestation from sugar cultivation to meet a rather global demand for the substance and its products, and as a result of the unsustainable harvest of the wood for cabinet makers in America and Europe.
In general, I fully agree with Scholte that globalization as seen from the 1980s onward is quite distinct from anything else that proceeded it, but I would say that its antecedents have been with humanity sense at least the eighteenth century and some much earlier. I suppose my main point of contention is his interpretation of environmental and technological matters. A far more robust and thorough discussion of these developments is required if one is to better understand how the world became "global."
Furthermore, Scholte argues that global ecological problems did not exist until recent times. This is a terribly naive and unnuanced view of the world and global ecology. While it is true that the scale of global ecological problems have grown exponentially, the problems have always been present in human society. The increase in the size of the human population and the development of new technologies have helped to facilitate the creation of the grave environmental times in which we find ourselves, but global climate change began with the start of the Industrial Revolution and the spread of industrial development has only made the problem worse. (I will not say wide spread because of the always defused nature of green house gas emissions) Loss of biodiversity has arguably been a fact of human existence since at least the last Ice Age and probably earlier. The cultivation of sugar in the West Indies led to the destruction of the rain forests on those islands and the loss of many species. While mahogany did not go extinct, it came quite close as a result of deforestation from sugar cultivation to meet a rather global demand for the substance and its products, and as a result of the unsustainable harvest of the wood for cabinet makers in America and Europe.
In general, I fully agree with Scholte that globalization as seen from the 1980s onward is quite distinct from anything else that proceeded it, but I would say that its antecedents have been with humanity sense at least the eighteenth century and some much earlier. I suppose my main point of contention is his interpretation of environmental and technological matters. A far more robust and thorough discussion of these developments is required if one is to better understand how the world became "global."
From Wired Magazine: "Journalist Tweets From Jail With Guard’s Phone"
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/09/tweet-of-the-day/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29
This article does a great job of illustrating how uneven globalization's effects have proven. Although Afghanistan is probably one of the most remote locations in terms of communication, there are people living there that have access to cell phone communication and the internet. However, these technologies have not penetrated into the culture of the Afghans and thus allowed the journalist to give some notice of his location to others.
This article does a great job of illustrating how uneven globalization's effects have proven. Although Afghanistan is probably one of the most remote locations in terms of communication, there are people living there that have access to cell phone communication and the internet. However, these technologies have not penetrated into the culture of the Afghans and thus allowed the journalist to give some notice of his location to others.
Saving us from ourselves
I found it interesting in the discussion of religion and globalization in "The Paradox of a Global US" that there are missionaries from the third world seeking to enter the West for the purpose of proselytizing the gospel to save Westerners from their liberal non-orthodox ways. The schism in the Anglican Church over the ordination of homosexual clergy has been especially interesting to me because my great aunt is Episcopalian. Her bishop actually resides in Africa after her congregation and others decided to they no longer wished to associate with the American conference. The church itself (Saint Luke's) was founded in 1833 in Georgetown, Pennsylvania. The congregation probably has thirty people on a good day for services as the town's population is around 150. While the town is not remote in a strict geographical since, it is fairly removed from the broader world of Beaver County by virtue of the fact that there are only two roads into town. It fronts the Ohio River but no longer has any direct connection with that most august conduit of trade. In some respects it represents the antithesis of globalization, the population is very insular and could scarcely care about what goes on in the wider world unless it directly affects the town. Yet, that the bishop of the Episcopal Church resides in Africa and has fairly regular communication with the congregation is a testament to how thoroughly interconnected human society has become. Religion is by no means divorced from this process and in some ways the missionary zeal of the nineteenth century combined with the advances in modern communication and transport technologies have made the situation of Saint Luke's possible. Yet in some respects it has allowed the church to stay within the larger Anglican community while attempting to separate itself from what the congregation sees as the sins of a liberal agenda within the Episcopal Church. In another age such an ideological schism would have likely resulted in the formation of a splinter organization or a totally new congregation. I am sure from the African bishop's perspective, he is helping to save a congregation in America from the sins of a heretical ordination that is a result of the Episcopal Church's willingness to depart from orthodoxy. Thus, while in earlier times the congregation of Saint Luke's would have thought it was the African that needed his soul saved, today quite the opposite has developed. Africans think that those in the West are the ones in need of a help. This will prove especially problematic for the Catholic Church in the future as it too will likely face a division between the Western bishops and those in the Third World. Globalized religion has created just as many challenges to society as has the broader swath of Globalization. Yet, perhaps while those peoples in the traditional Third World have had much to fear from the onset of globalization, with religion it seems probable that perhaps the institutions in the West have much to fear from the disciples their ancestors created in the broader world if they wish to hold onto their control of institutional hierarchies while also "changing with the times" in the West.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Globalization
When I think of the US as a world power, the first thing that comes into my head is our military. Our military, by far surpasses any and all others. My first experience with foreign military came in 2003 when I worked in military logistics along side of a few British troops. Overseas I was able to work with both Japanese and Korean military men. I was very surprised with each culture- I guess because I have gone through Marine Corps military training; I expected a lot more from them. I remember thinking- wow- there is NO comparison!
The US has a military presence in just about every country- we dominate the world when it comes to military. We have the largest in terms of size (manpower) and the best in terms of military equipment (weaponry and defense vehicles). Every year the US spends around $700 billion on our military- that does not even come a little bit close to ANY other country’s military expenditures. We have over 1000 military bases and/or insulations all over the world. 737 bases are in foreign countries, and I think since 9-11 that 9 or 10 new ones have been established abroad (I think J).
When you think about it- most of our bases are on “US soil” (I think we just kind of rent the land for the others) so that means that we own the land on which the bases are built- the US, or I guess you could say the Pentagon is the biggest land owner in the world- that right there to me is WORLD POWER- we own most of the world so in most cases we cannot help but Americanize the rest.
Some of our bases are for training purposes, permanent basing for communications or military intel, land, sea or air operations and some are merely used as stockage areas or staging areas- it really does not matter what type of base it is- they all (the ones abroad anyway) give the US a vital presence in other countries. It is kind of like “outa sight, outa mind”- no country can forget the US.
Chapter 8 goes into detail explaining the US’s resistance to globalization from other nations- I don’t think it should be called resistance though- it’s just that no other country has produced anything else that comes close to what we have so why would we except any type of globalization from anyone else? It would be like “dating DOWN” when you go from dating a hottie to dating a not so hottie. The US because of its extreme power does not abide by many UN policies – the International Criminal Court for example- since the Bush admin- we do not follow the order of the ICC because (in my opinion - thanks to Bush) we think that other countries may persecute our people unfairly in a way to kind of pick on us because we have lost any and all popularity or good standing we may of once had. I think we are just trying to preserve some sort of order among states- it is our job because we are the most powerful, we are trying to spread something good- democracy and we have the means to defend ourselves, our ideas, our values that we have spread abroad and we have the means to defend those who accept us. We offer protection- and I don’t agree that we only offer protection those who conform to our American ways- we offer protection for those who have ethical and just views toward all of humanity- that should be every country and every person but unfortunately it isn’t. I don’t think that some sort of compassion for others is too much to ask of those who we protect and help when they need us- it is for the good of all of us J
I am sorry- sometimes I am way too warm and fuzzy :)
The US has a military presence in just about every country- we dominate the world when it comes to military. We have the largest in terms of size (manpower) and the best in terms of military equipment (weaponry and defense vehicles). Every year the US spends around $700 billion on our military- that does not even come a little bit close to ANY other country’s military expenditures. We have over 1000 military bases and/or insulations all over the world. 737 bases are in foreign countries, and I think since 9-11 that 9 or 10 new ones have been established abroad (I think J).
When you think about it- most of our bases are on “US soil” (I think we just kind of rent the land for the others) so that means that we own the land on which the bases are built- the US, or I guess you could say the Pentagon is the biggest land owner in the world- that right there to me is WORLD POWER- we own most of the world so in most cases we cannot help but Americanize the rest.
Some of our bases are for training purposes, permanent basing for communications or military intel, land, sea or air operations and some are merely used as stockage areas or staging areas- it really does not matter what type of base it is- they all (the ones abroad anyway) give the US a vital presence in other countries. It is kind of like “outa sight, outa mind”- no country can forget the US.
Chapter 8 goes into detail explaining the US’s resistance to globalization from other nations- I don’t think it should be called resistance though- it’s just that no other country has produced anything else that comes close to what we have so why would we except any type of globalization from anyone else? It would be like “dating DOWN” when you go from dating a hottie to dating a not so hottie. The US because of its extreme power does not abide by many UN policies – the International Criminal Court for example- since the Bush admin- we do not follow the order of the ICC because (in my opinion - thanks to Bush) we think that other countries may persecute our people unfairly in a way to kind of pick on us because we have lost any and all popularity or good standing we may of once had. I think we are just trying to preserve some sort of order among states- it is our job because we are the most powerful, we are trying to spread something good- democracy and we have the means to defend ourselves, our ideas, our values that we have spread abroad and we have the means to defend those who accept us. We offer protection- and I don’t agree that we only offer protection those who conform to our American ways- we offer protection for those who have ethical and just views toward all of humanity- that should be every country and every person but unfortunately it isn’t. I don’t think that some sort of compassion for others is too much to ask of those who we protect and help when they need us- it is for the good of all of us J
I am sorry- sometimes I am way too warm and fuzzy :)
My first "posted" post!!!!
I have really enjoyed reading this book, it was very easy for me to read, I was able to read it very quickly and I found each chapter really interesting, especially my chapter- chapter 7.
One idea in the first chapter that I keep going back to is that globalization is a process and not a thing (p.6). I think that is why I believe that the idea of globalization could have began with the silk road as it could have begun (as some may think) after the second world war. It is a process that is continually evolving and changing – just as the world and its people do. Our global structure is ever changing; therefore globalization will be ever changing. Changes or events that take place are factors of globalization.
I think that from day one people have been trying to spread their ideas, values, traditions – maybe I should not even say “trying” because I think that these concepts of one’s everyday life are spread or shared unintentionally. It is just kind of like introducing something new to someone- they either like it and use it or they don’t. Everyone always thinks that their ideas and values are the best so they want to share them- like religion, that’s why we have preachers, to preach the supposed “right” word of god and to hopefully gain a few more followers, so could we then say that each world religion has or is globalizing?
I could go on and on – this book has me kind of hooked now on the subject of globalization- I have so many ideas and thoughts on the matter now and I don’t think that I have ever thought much about it. It is so interesting- I have been relating everything (since I read the book) to globalization- everything from my Chinese exchange student speaking to her parents on Skype to fast food and fashion. I have a ton of ideas for my paper, I just need to narrow it down to one topic- I think I will do either fashion or fast food though.
America has totally dominated and globalized both, some may disagree with me on the fashion part though.
On to chapter 7: Media globalization and cultural imperialism.
Our government promotes the free trade of audiovisual media, as does the European nations, but they argue that this free circulation does nothing but spread our ethics, or “Americanism” all over the world. In my opinion, we are a successful country, we make great movies so we can’t help but spread our ideas around through our movies- foreigners want to watch our movies. Maybe the European officials should put more money into their media corporations, and then maybe we would be watching their movies. One example that Pearson and Khullar use is that after WWI American media exposure was limited in the European countries and representatives lobbied for more exposure of domestic films. The European citizens didn’t want this- they wanted their American films back.
The flow of media has not always been from America to Europe. We all know that us Americans at one time took our culture, knowledge and traditions from Europe- it’s where we all started. Many people thought and still do think of the European way as socially and culturally correct, a home to the elite and rich. We were able to take from that society what we liked about it and leave behind the rest. America did that with European ideas and values as well as with European media. Films and music were imported and slowly America began making them better- they came up with the concept and we just made the concept better- bigger- easily available to Americans and then eventually to Europeans.
American made films continue to be successful throughout the world; Europe is still the biggest importer of American made media. It makes sense to me- who else has a Hollywood? Who else throws millions into their movies? Who else pays actors from all over the globe to star in their films? We are great at what we do, but we would never be the success that we are without the help of the influence of Europe.
One idea in the first chapter that I keep going back to is that globalization is a process and not a thing (p.6). I think that is why I believe that the idea of globalization could have began with the silk road as it could have begun (as some may think) after the second world war. It is a process that is continually evolving and changing – just as the world and its people do. Our global structure is ever changing; therefore globalization will be ever changing. Changes or events that take place are factors of globalization.
I think that from day one people have been trying to spread their ideas, values, traditions – maybe I should not even say “trying” because I think that these concepts of one’s everyday life are spread or shared unintentionally. It is just kind of like introducing something new to someone- they either like it and use it or they don’t. Everyone always thinks that their ideas and values are the best so they want to share them- like religion, that’s why we have preachers, to preach the supposed “right” word of god and to hopefully gain a few more followers, so could we then say that each world religion has or is globalizing?
I could go on and on – this book has me kind of hooked now on the subject of globalization- I have so many ideas and thoughts on the matter now and I don’t think that I have ever thought much about it. It is so interesting- I have been relating everything (since I read the book) to globalization- everything from my Chinese exchange student speaking to her parents on Skype to fast food and fashion. I have a ton of ideas for my paper, I just need to narrow it down to one topic- I think I will do either fashion or fast food though.
America has totally dominated and globalized both, some may disagree with me on the fashion part though.
On to chapter 7: Media globalization and cultural imperialism.
Our government promotes the free trade of audiovisual media, as does the European nations, but they argue that this free circulation does nothing but spread our ethics, or “Americanism” all over the world. In my opinion, we are a successful country, we make great movies so we can’t help but spread our ideas around through our movies- foreigners want to watch our movies. Maybe the European officials should put more money into their media corporations, and then maybe we would be watching their movies. One example that Pearson and Khullar use is that after WWI American media exposure was limited in the European countries and representatives lobbied for more exposure of domestic films. The European citizens didn’t want this- they wanted their American films back.
The flow of media has not always been from America to Europe. We all know that us Americans at one time took our culture, knowledge and traditions from Europe- it’s where we all started. Many people thought and still do think of the European way as socially and culturally correct, a home to the elite and rich. We were able to take from that society what we liked about it and leave behind the rest. America did that with European ideas and values as well as with European media. Films and music were imported and slowly America began making them better- they came up with the concept and we just made the concept better- bigger- easily available to Americans and then eventually to Europeans.
American made films continue to be successful throughout the world; Europe is still the biggest importer of American made media. It makes sense to me- who else has a Hollywood? Who else throws millions into their movies? Who else pays actors from all over the globe to star in their films? We are great at what we do, but we would never be the success that we are without the help of the influence of Europe.
Monday, September 6, 2010
Americas Global War on Terrorism
I got into an interesting conversation with my brother Sunday. We were discussing Americas involvement in the wars in Afghanistan. His argument was that the sole purpose of our presence there was to control the oil in the area. I tried to explain to him my belief that our involvement there is because of Americas commitment to Globalization and World Empire. I told him I thought that our presence was mainly to establish military, economic, political and cultural centers of power within that region. I told him I thought America was putting forth a concerted effort to isolate Iran. He strongly disagreed and continued to support the idea of oil being the main cause of conflict in the Middle East.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)