To what extent is it possible to speak of a'global society'?

Really it should be the former, however many people see the latter statement to be

true, that globalisation is the world-wide domination of one culture above all others.

Obviously the culture in question is that of the West, in particular the US, which is

why globalisation is often referred to as ‘Westernisation’ or ‘Americanisation.’ That

there have been influences of some cultures upon others can hardly be denied. Such

relations have always existed: much of ancient Roman culture came from Greece, and

much of Japanese thinking, and even the writing system, was ‘imported’ from China.

In terms of the division of the modern world, these influences have largely been one-

way, the cultures of the rich Western countries affecting other areas of the world;

people in most of the world are now wearing Western dress, for instance, and it is

much easier to get pizza in Nairobi than to get Kenyan food in Rome.

        There are a great deal of arguments to suggest that globalisation is causing the

world to come together in a kind of global society, both culturally and economically,

but it is true to say that the West has definitely had far more influence over the East

than the East has had over the West. Greater awareness of non-western cultures is

learnt through education, interactions and the media - although rarely are any of these

cultural traits adopted. Conversely, western cultures are often forced upon peoples

through the media (predominately controlled by the technologically advanced West),

company branding and the ability of westerners to travel across cultural boundries

(whilst their non-western counterparts may not be economically or politically able). It

is therefore hard for these non-western cultures to compete, and so cultural

globalisation sees the emergence of America and the West. Think of all the so-called

‘global’ popstars, how many of these don’t come from either England, Australia or

the United states? True, they are global in the sense that their music reaches all over

the world, but they are certainly not global in their origin. This without doubt is an

argument in favour of the ‘global society’, however it is also another example of the

West being resposible for globalisation. Movies are watched world over by anyone

who has access to a television or a cinema, yet how many of these are not made in

Britain or America? Very few. These films are viewed in other countries, just dubbed

in their own language. Yet to say that there is no influence coming from the opposite

direction is untrue. Music, certainly in the UK, is increasingly being influenced by

other cultures, particularly from parts of Asia and the Caribbean. There are also the

‘Bollywood’ films; musical movies which are made in India. These are often shown

on television in the UK, but usually on the less mainstream channels. Without doubt

East and West are being united through the mediums of music and fims, but the West

definitely dominate these.

        There is another way however, in which non-Westerners have made moves

toward a ‘global society’ which Westerners rarely take part in, and that is

immigration. ‘Over 30 million people have moved to Europe since the Second World

War’ and with them they have brought culture from the four corners of the Earth.

The West is becoming more and more integrated through immigration and in a fully

globalised world, the whole planet would be like this, a fully integrated community.

They bring with them food, music and customs from their homelands. Think of all the

different take-aways and restaurants it is possible to get foreign food from in the UK.

Through immigration we are taking huge steps closer to a ‘global society’.

        Economically, globalisation is definitely beginning to forge the beginnings of

a ‘global society’.A  fully globalised economy would be one in which there is a single

universally acepted currency and where there are no differences in economic policies

between nation states, no trade restrictions or barriers, and where nations no longer

have control over their own economy, as their own economy as such does not exist,

but is part of the wider global economy. Clearly today we don't have this single

economy, however in recent years there have been movements towards it, evidence of

economic globalisation. Europe now has the Euro, and it's important to realise that

this isn't just a unit of currency, but shows how the different economies of Europe can

effectively become one, as by signing up to a joint currency a nation is also signing

away total control over fiscal and monetary policies. This again is evidence that it is

only a select few wealthy countries that are perhaps undergoing some processes of

globalisation, however poorer countries have also been Americanised through the

often black-market use of the US dollar. For example, in Vietnam and many other

poor countries, US dollars are prefered as payments over predominately weaker and

more vulnerable local currencies.

        Many people argue that not only is there not a global society, but that

globalisation does not exist at all. Sceptics often argue that economic globalisation is

a myth, whilst what they actually mean is that we're not living in a global economy,

they fail to realise that globalisation is a process rather than an end result. ‘Financial

markets only exist on a large scale in wealthy countries; multinational enterprises and

transnational companies aren't totally global; employment isn't always globally

mobile; foreign direct investment is concentrated in the wealthy countries.’ All are

evidence that our economy isn't truly global, but none tell us that globalisation doesn't

exist. In fact, they do quite the opposite, they illustrate various ways in which the

economy has become more global over the years. Globalisation definitely has its

opposers. For example, one argument put forward against it is that globalisation

‘reduces democratic controls by nation states and their communities over their

econmic affairs.’ 

        In conclusion, it seems that it is possible to speak of a ‘global society’,

however what it is not possible to speak of is that this society is complete. It is far

from it, however movements have been made towards it; it is in its embyonic stage.

Economically, many advancements have been made; much of Europe has adopted a

single currency and communications between nations from all parts of the world have

been enhanced since the creation of the internet. Culturally, globalisation has been

equally as effective. Through the immigration of non-Westerners to Europe and

America, people of all different races and religions live within the same community; it

is possible to eat in Chinese, Thai, Cantonese and Indian restaurants; you can watch

European football which has been star-studded with the most talented footballers from

South America, Asia and Africa. Globalisation is definitely occuring and one day the

world will have a monoculture, a ‘global society’, but for now it remains a far off

idea. A current fully globalised world is a myth, globalisation is not.

---