Globalization and Its Effect - Annotated Bibliography Example

Dirlik, A. (2007) “Thinking Globalization Historically," Chapter 2 in Dirlik, Global Modernity in the Age of Global Capitalism, Boulder, CO: Paradigm. In this chapter, Dirlik attempts to historicise globalization as a concept and phenomenon. First, he makes an analytical distinction between globalization as a historical process at least as old as the history of capitalism, and as a new way of looking at the world and its past. He then contrasts the political and intellectual consequences of globalization today with that of the late 19th century, where observers identified a level of economic globalization greater than at present. Whilst 19th century globalization led to nationalism, colonialism and epistemological universalism, present-day globalization is postcolonial, challenges the nation-state, and marked by a breakdown of universalism. Globalization, Dirlik argues, is not simply global integration, as suggested by its economistic ideologues and interpreters, but a new mode of fragmentation and of comprehending the world. It is therefore necessary to critically consider the historical relationship between globalization as a new beginning in breaking down old hegemonies and as the ultimate victory of capitalist modernity. He concludes that whilst globalization is best understood historically, it also has produced new ways of looking at history, and that there is a need to write world history in non-Eurocentric ways and to understand globalization from two different historical perspectives. Ikenberry, G.J. (2007) Globalization as American Hegemony, in Held, D. and McGrew, A. (Eds.) Globalization Theory, Cambridge: Polity, p. 41-62. Ikenberry shows the linked history, present, and future questions between American hegemony and open economic markets characteristic of globalization. Whilst this is not surprising since “economic relationships always bear the imprint of powerful states”, what is admirable is how America successfully utilised its political and economic interests and the tools – building institutions, managing monetary policy, and forging security alliances – to open the world economy. Ikenberry attributes hegemonic success to political and economic leadership that allowed America to resist temptations of protectionism, colonialism and isolationism. Global domination and leadership, by allowing America’s political-economic partners to prosper, assured security and economic prosperity despite distractions of domestic politics and international security. This strategic interdependence amongst America’s allies, in Europe and Japan, led to winning the Cold War. “As American hegemony and globalization enter a new phase, would America remain the provider of needed institutions, rules and stability?” In answer, Ikenberry proposes two questions: first, how important is stable and non-competitive great power relations; and second, America’s willingness, as the world’s only superpower, to underwrite global rules and institutions. The chapter ends with the warning that a hegemonic state that rejects a rule-based international order can be a threat to globalization. Portes. A. (1997) Globalization from below: The Rise of Transnational Communities, Princeton University, http://www.transcomm.ox.ac.uk/working%20papers/portes.pdf Portes discusses a “theoretical form to the concept of transnational communities as a less noticed but potentially potent counter to the more visible forms of globalization” resulting from “technological improvements in communications and transportation”. Transnational communities are grassroots efforts to cope with the globalization of capitalist production. These straddle political borders and are sustained economically by opportunities from the “differences between state boundaries”. Portes, who looks at globalization primarily from the viewpoint of the workers who make it possible, has three main arguments: First, the emergence of transnational communities is tied to the logic of capitalism itself and is brought into play by the interests and needs of investors and employers in the advanced countries; Second, that these communities represent a distinct phenomenon at variance with traditional patterns of immigrant adaptation; and Third, that because the phenomenon is fuelled by the dynamics of globalization itself, it has greater growth potential and offers a broader field for autonomous popular initiatives than alternative ways to deal with the depredations of world-roaming capital. The author concludes that, whilst the short-term effects of transnationalism may be characterised by abuse and chaos, balance can be restored by technologies and the entrepreneurial potential within these communities. Kaplan, C. (2002) Transporting the Subject: Technologies of Mobility and location in an Era of Globalization, PMLA 117 (1): 32-42. The author discusses key issues arising from one of the paradoxes of technological advancements in this age of globalization: whilst technology in a globalising world brings people closer together, it does so in ways that may keep them further apart. The reason, according to Kaplan, is “disembodied mobility” that result from new technologies allowing “ever-increasing powers of transformation and transport” and that is applied to “information, business and the self.” With the use of examples such as the interaction between a cyberspace sex client and a sex worker in a remote location and that of a digital report on a company’s financial performance that could be clinically detached from the personality of the company’s workers, Kaplan raises questions about the perception of “what counts as human, culture or knowledge” in a wired, globalising world. She also explores how the perception of the self could be defined and transformed by the same technological influence on the conceptual binaries of mobility and location and how doing so not only redefines reality but also determines the “formation of new collective personas or communities” that, in effect, threatens the sovereignty of states and the extent to which it could exercise control over its citizens. Friedman, T. (2005) “It’s a Flat World, After All.” New York Times, April 3 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/03/magazine/03DOMINANCE.htmI This web article is a summarised introduction to the author’s book The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century”. Friedman traces the history of 21st century globalization that “flattened” the world and created a level playing field where poor countries compete economically and politically with the rich ones. He identifies ten “flatteners”: three historical dates – 11/9, 8/9, and Y2K – that created the platform for collaboration; six forms of collaboration that became opportunities for global competition; and the broadband connectivity and technology that made all these possible. These define what Friedman terms as Globalization 3.0, characterised by the empowerment of individuals and small groups that resulted from the convergence of “new players, on a new playing field, developing new processes for horizontal collaboration…that (he) believes (to be) the most important force shaping global economics and politics in the early 21st century.” The challenge to each worker in America, according to Friedman, is to find out where one fits “into the global competition and opportunities of the day” and discover “how one can collaborate with others globally.” This, Friedman concludes, demands a “comprehensive, energetic and focused” response similar to what America did to win the Cold War. Niezen, R. (2004) A World Beyond Difference: Cultural Identity in the Age of Globalization, Oxford: Blackwell. Niezen characterises globalisation as the movement towards the integration of peoples, a contest between two intellectual currents attempting to define a global identity – cultural universalism and cultural particularism. He applies a neo-Marxist framework to show how both currents overlap and feed on each other, producing a synthesis that ends up better for all. What accounts for this result is one of the paradoxes of globalization, that whilst globalization leads to common standards and cultures, what Niezen calls an “ideal, borderless world of tolerance, cultural playfulness and a form of abolutism,” it also gives rise to the rejection of all absolutes. Niezen concludes that one of the most significant consequences of a “rapidly globalising modernity is… that the once isolated and powerless now have a more varied and effective armature of resistance.” Amongst the reasons for this, he cites the durability of boundaries of nation-states and of minority communities, the persistence and extension to smaller political units of the nationalist principle of inclusion through exclusion, strident forms of religious nationalism, consciousness of social homogeneity and collective myths of shared tradition and common destiny, and self-negating hypocrisy: the inflammation of subject people’s wounded pride and the counter-reactive reinforcement of identity boundaries. Held, D. and McGrew, A.G. (2007) Chapter 9: Beyond Globalization/Anti-Globalization, pp. 161-173; Chapter 11: Reconstructing World Order: Towards Cosmopolitan Social Democracy and Chapter 12: Implementing Cosmopolitan Social Democracy, pp. 206-237, in Globalization/Anti-Globalization: Beyond the Great Divide, Cambridge: Polity, 2nd edition. Chapter 9 discusses the current controversies and emerging complexities of the globalization analyses amongst globalists and sceptics. Using Holton’s schema, the authors describe four waves of globalization scholarship: theoretical, historical, institutional and deconstructive. These four waves allow a mapped heuristic of the contest over the intellectual hegemony of globalization where the vertical is characterised by either globalist or statist/societal forms of analysis (sceptics) and a horizontal axis representing normative domains that differentiate cosmopolitan and communitarian forms of ethical reasoning, i.e., an attachment to some ideal of the “good global community” as opposed to the advocacy of a plurality of coexisting good national or local communities. Chapter 11 discusses the rise of the Cosmopolitan Social Democracy, a social construct arising from globalization and characterised by the rule of law, security, social justice, human rights, democracy and legitimacy. The authors outline a set of short- and long-term measures encompassing that transformation of governance, security, and economy. Chapter 12 contains suggestions on how to carry this out, including the founding of a World Environmental Organization to promote global agreements to ensure sustainable development. The question is: how far can people unite around these concerns and overcome opposition from well-entrenched geopolitical and geoeconomic interests? Reference List Dirlik, A. 2007, “Thinking globalization historically," in Dirlik, A. Global Modernity in the Age of Global Capitalism, Paradigm, Boulder CO, chapter 2. Friedman, T. 2005, “It’s a flat world, after all”, New York Times, April 3. Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/03/magazine/03DOMINANCE.htmI [14 November 2009] Held, D. and McGrew, A.G. (Eds.) 2007, “Chapter 9: Beyond globalization/anti-globalization”, pp. 161-173; “Chapter 11: Reconstructing world order: Towards cosmopolitan social democracy and Chapter 12: Implementing cosmopolitan social democracy”, pp. 206-237, in Globalization/Anti-Globalization: Beyond the Great Divide, 2nd ed., Polity, Cambridge. Ikenberry, G.J. 2007, “Globalization as American hegemony”, in Held, D. and McGrew, A. (Eds.) Globalization Theory, Polity, Cambridge, pp. 41-62. Kaplan, C. 2002, “Transporting the subject: Technologies of mobility and location in an era of globalization”, PMLA, vol. 117, no. 1, pp. 32-42. Niezen, R. 2004, A World Beyond Difference: Cultural Identity in the Age of Globalization, Blackwell, Oxford. Portes. A. 1997, “Globalization from below: The rise of transnational communities”, WPTC-98-01, Princeton University. Available from: http://www.transcomm.ox.ac.uk/working%20papers/portes.pdf [13 November 2009] Read More