Kennedy and Cohen conclude that the transformations have lead to ‘globalism’, a new consciousness and understanding that the world is a single place. However, as sociologists, we also need to be cautious in our use of the term ‘globalisation’ – as Wiseman indicates: “Globalisation is the most slippery buzzword of the late 20th century because it can have many meanings and be used in many ways.” We can illustrate this by looking closely at the theoretical interpretations of the concept:
- Globalists – Believe globalisation is a fact that is having real consequences for the way that people and organisations operate across the world. Globalists are not united on the consequence of such a process: Hyperglobalists welcome such developments; Pessimistic globalists argue that globalisation is negative and is a form of Western imperialism.
- Traditionalists – Do not believe that globalisation is occurring. They argue it is a myth or, at best, is exaggerated.
- Transformationalists – Occupy a middle ground between globalists and traditionalists.
It is in the area of economic globalisation that the debate between traditionalists and Hyperglobalists can most obviously be seen. Thompson notes that the hyperglobalist position claims there has been a rapid and recent intensification of international trade and investment such that distinct national economies have dissolved into a global economy determined by world market-forces. Although this is seen as a bad thing, this still means that economic inter-relationships have improved.
An important aspect of economic globalisation is the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade, or GATT, which was a set of rules established in 1944 to govern global trade. GATT particularly aimed to reduce trade barriers and competition between nations. The World Trade Organisation, or WTO, replaced GATT in 1994, and extended the agreements on trade in goods, as well as negotiating a new GATT – which covers services such as telecommunications and banking. The main impact of these economic rules has been the increase in the flow of global finance from $17.5 trillion in 1979, to over $3000 trillion in 2000. This is also aimed to improve economic inter-relationships by reducing competition and increasing services between nations.
However, Marxists and other global pessimists have criticised the free-trade agenda of the WTO. They claim that global trade rules are unfair and biased against developing countries as these countries are being pressured to open up their economies immediately to Western banks and transnationals, and to abandon tariffs on imports from the West. In this way, globalisation does not improve economic inter-relationships, but instead allows the West to be more dominating of developing countries.
The neo-Marxist, Frobel, notes that from the 1970s onwards, we have seen substantial movement of industrial capital from the advanced industrialised world to the developing world. Many developing nations in the 1970s and 1980s set up export-processing zones (EPZs) or free trade zones (FTZs), in which transnational companies were encouraged to build factories producing goods for export to the West. This new international division of labour (NIDL) is thought by hyperglobalists to benefit world consumers by enhancing competition and thus keeping prices of goods reasonably low. This also creates a political inter-relationship between the developed and developing worlds. However, traditionalists like Frobel see the NIDL as merely a new form of neo-colonial exploitation.
The global growth and spread of cultural goods (especially cinema, television, radio, advertising, music and internet) in recent years has been phenomenal. McKay notes that the total number of television sets in the developing world has grown so rapidly that it has had a globalising effect on people in the developing world.
Hyperglobalists see the global media as beneficial because it is primarily responsible for diffusing different cultural styles around the world and creating new global hybrid styles in fashion, music, consumption and lifestyle. It is argued that in the postmodern world such cultural diversity and pluralism will become the global norm, thus improving the cultural inter-relationships between societies.
Pessimistic globalists, in contrast, are concerned about the concentration of the world’s media in the hands of a few powerful media corporations. It is suggested that media moguls are able to influence business, international agencies and governments and consequently to threaten democracy and freedom of expression.
It is also argued that such media corporations are likely to disseminate primarily Western, especially American, forms of culture. For example, most films released by these organisations are produced in Hollywood and so are of a certain formulaic type. There have been concerns that these Western forms of culture reflect a cultural imperialism that results in the marginalisation of local culture. However, transformationalists are critical of cultural-imperialist arguments for three reasons:
- These arguments make the mistake of suggesting that the flow of culture is one way only – from the West to the developed world. This focus fails to acknowledge how Western culture is enriched by inputs from other world cultures and religions.
- It assumes that people in the developing world are consumer dopes. In fact, their involvement in global culture may result in them accessing a wider range of choices.
- It underestimates the strength of local culture.
The problem with neo-Marxist and traditionalist views is that they tend to over-focus on economic globalisation and neglect the globalisation of culture. They also make the mistake of viewing globalisation as a one-way process and as a form of cultural imperialism. They consequently tend to see globalisation as leading inevitably to dystopia, rather than improving any bonds between societies.
Pessimistic globalisers, such as Barber and Schulz, fear that we are turning into a ‘McWorld’, in which cultures and consumption will be standardised. However, the limited evidence we have so far suggests that hybridity – cultural borrowing and mixing – rather than uniformity may be the outcome of global cultural change. Cohen and Kennedy optimistically state that globalisation will lead to an extension in human rights, universal access to education and communications and multicultural understanding, meaning improved cultural inter-relationships.
In conclusion, it cannot be denied that globalisation is occurring, but whether this is a good or a bad thing depends on the theoretical position you decide to take.
