Leslie Sklair's and Competing Conceptions of Globalization - Literature review Example

Name : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Tutor :xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Title :Leslie Sklair’s account of Globalization Institution : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date :xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx @ 2011 Introduction Leslie Sklair, “an emeritus professor of sociology at the London School of Economics and Political Science and also the President of the Association of Global studies” has written and lectured much about Globalization. He has visited other universities as a professor such as New York University, University of Southern California, and University of Sydney among others. His writing called “Globalization: Capitalism and its Alternatives (2002)” has been reproduced into other languages such as Arabic, Korean, Persian, Portuguese and Japanese. According to Sklair(1999), globalization revolves on the idea that it is hard to study contemporary problems at the level of individual countries and their relations with other countries. He argues that these problems need to be looked at through global processes. Sklair strengthens his argument by borrowing from the arguments of other globalists who predict that transnational corporations as an example of global forces are gaining much power and threatening the idea of the nation-state. He observes that many people are pessimistic about the relevance of the nation-state although nationalism is still held strongly in some parts of the world. He thinks that the major issue in understanding literature on globalization is that many people who use the term do not differentiate it with internationalization since some people interchange the meanings of these two terms (Sklair 1999). International brings about a mix up of globalization concepts based on the current and changing nation-states system. Global on the other hand has to do with emerging processes and a social relations system whose basis is not in the nation-states system. On this argument Sklair does not remember that all problems cannot be addressed using one formula. Since the world is faced with a variety of issues originating both from within and outside of some countries it is not wise to choose to eliminate national and international solutions to problems. Global processes may result into disharmony first because ‘global’ is a new idea that many people are yet to agree with. My view would slightly go against what Sklair proposes. It is better to combine the global and nation-state avenues in dealing with world problems. Sklair(1999) says that many theorists believe that the other units apart from the state-nation system should be used in analyses. They say that nation-state is of less significance in certain important respects compared to global forces like mass media and those corporations behind their establishment, social movements and transnational corporations. Some of these corporations are wealthier when compared to many nation-states. Global forces in one way or another have come on the platform of the nation-state relationship. Their establishment has been successful because the nation-state and relations between countries was in place. It is not clear that these global forces will satisfy the needs of all especially those opposed to the global idea. According to Yearely (1995) there are two major obstacles in the process of understanding globalization which are: the close connection existing between the nation-state and sociology and the geographical differences existing between countries. In sociology globalization studies are centered on two major phenomenal classes which a few decades ago became so significant. These classes include the global culture and the coming of the globalized economy operating on new production, consumption and finance systems. Although not all globalization researchers agree on the existence of a global culture and economy many of them agree that changes are taking place in the national, local, and regional economies because of globalization even in places where globalization is limited. The idea of the existence of globalization cannot be ignore except in the remotest of regions in the world. The technology we have has penetrated to many places although not everywhere. People who have researched on globalization have directed their attention on two aspects. The first one is how the transnational corporations (TNC) facilitate globalization of production and capital. The second is the transformations in some types of TNC at the global level and the owners of the mass media. This has a connection with some consumption patterns as well as the consumerism culture globally. The biggest TNCs make annual sales and assets bigger than the Gross National products of many countries. Corporations such as Toyota, Shell, General Motors, and Coca Cola among others have bigger economic ability than many countries (Sklair 1999). Some writers who do not believe in economic globalization take issue with the fact that the majority of TNCs are based in Europe, USA and Japan and their trade is among themselves. They say that the analysis of world economy is still based on national corporations meaning that the idea of a global economy is just mythical. I would suggest that these arguments carry weight. Economic globalization is not felt every where though. The many things being mentioned such as global consumerism as indicators of globalization are confined to specific areas. Many of these areas are urban centers and cities in which the transnational corporations have much influence. How does one claim that there could be global consumerism or the effect of globalization in a remote village in some of the world’s poorest countries? However Sklair argues that these writers overlook the fact that these corporations have operations away from their home countries and through this they establish global strategies. It is wrong to make the assumption that all those TNCs based in Japan, USA or Europe are driven by national interests. Instead they serve the interests of their owners. This is regardless of the fact that the development of TNCs from the beginning varies form one place to another. We need to analyze globalization bearing in mind that it is a phenomenon that came about just recently in the 60s. This helps us to understand the problems between TNC developments nationally and the upcoming global dynamics and structure. Another aspect of globalization emphasized on by globalization proponents is the increasing control and ownership in the third world countries of the electronic mass media more so television. A study by Unesco reveals that there is a great increase in the amount of Television sets per capita from 10 for every 1000 people to 60 for every 1000 people in 1970 and 1993 respectively. Due to this many researchers think that there is a globalization wave taking place in third world countries through mass media (Sussman and Lent 1991, Sklair 1995). Only a few big TNCs control the operations of television, associated media as well as other varieties of marketing media. TNCs with their headquarters in the USA have dominated the market for long but currently they are receiving competition from those in Japan, Australia, Europe and other countries like Mexico and Brazil. This is true; however it does not represent a full global picture. I would get more convinced if the competition and challenge being given to corporations based in the USA came from all over the world. Only the few huge players in economic matters are growing and gaining power while the majorities are still left out. A global picture is unlikely to be created if only the leading economic powers of the world produce TNCs competing among themselves. I could agree with this idea that the competition being given to the USA by Mexico and Brazil charts a ‘global’ course but this again I find it just a drop in the ocean. The world is big and many other countries needed to come in order for us to claim that there is a globalization in the process through this kind of change. According to Sklair, globalization theory and research can be classified through very many ways. One way is to form a comparison between the mono-causal and multi-causal accounts of the development of the idea just like McGrew (1992). He says that it is important to go by this way but it is deficient in two ways. It combines together people with totally different views. He also classifies thinkers as mono causal who support other ideas as well and multi causal who do not necessarily route for many causes. Another approach is to look at how globalization studies are focused on specific disciplines. Of the social sciences which have contributed to globalization research four of them are worthy to be mentioned thus Geography, sociology, anthropology and “international political economy.” Within contemporary sociology there are four globalization research sources which are identified thus; world systems, global culture, global society and global society approaches (Sklair 1999). The first source the ‘world systems approach’ is founded on the difference that can be made between those countries at the core, semi peripheral and peripheral nations considering their continually changing positions in division of labor internationally where the capitalist global system dominates. A proponent of this approach, Wallerstein and others of like mind could say they were global all the time but in much literature about ‘world systems’ the global concept is not captured anywhere. In “Global formation” (1989) Chase Dunn suggests a logic with two sides which are politics and the economy. Since the economy of the world still national exists in the economies of nations then the problems of wallerstain’s analysis still surface. The model of the world system therefore lacks any global dimension except for its international focus. Wallerstein avoids using the word globalization since to him the model’s economy are based on division of labor internationally which makes clear the difference between the countries at the core, periphery and semi periphery. Many people believe that since this model is more economistic it cannot address cultural issues (Chakravartty 2008). Another globalization model borrows much from ‘globalization of culture.’ This approach deals with the ups and down that a homogenizing culture based on mass media causes to national identities. This model though makes a problem out of the globalization culture. Such a thing is caused by the big expansion in communication mass media and the global village. It is believed that the spread of mass media through television sets makes people all over to see same images at a time thereby causing the ‘global village’ effect. Contributions made by anthropologists also matter in the globalization debate. For example Fried man believe that the fragmentation taking place in cultures and ethnic groups and the ‘modernist fragmentation’ are trends that constitute to the global reality. Some theorists on the ‘globalization of culture debate’ have added their voices to the ongoing arguments concerning postmodernity where the mass media is featured centrally. Albrow & King (1990) have articles which contain many issues that are closely related to global sociology, globalization and global society as upcoming problems in social sciences (Holton 1998). Through out history researchers on global society have argued that the idea of global society became only believable only in this modern age which is characterized by “science and technology.” This gives the 20th century a face totally different from that of any other age. Discussions in globalization literature have claims that the nation-state is falling in significance and the increasing strength in global institutions and belief systems. Spybey (1996) in Sklair (1999) does not support the idea that there is globalization in modernity. He is of the view that modernity has come after globalization. The important thing is to find out if globalization is a very new phenomenon coming just after the 1960s as Sklair argues or an old phenomenon given a new name. Sklair advances a strong point since the strongest sense of the world becoming one has started having its impact on people in just like 50 or 60 years ago. People started thinking of a unite world after the two world wars. That is when they realized that division, wars and unnecessary conflicts are detrimental to the existence of humanity. Globalization in my opinion could be a new phenomenon which has caught the world with the growth of technology and more so communication. Psychologically there seems to be a necessity for people to believe that a global society is possible. According to Mc Grew (1992) in Sklair (1999) this is explained by researchers struggling with the obvious disparities between globalization on one side and the strife driven by ethnic and other particularistic interests. Through this approach the globalization problems based on ethics can be appreciated. A global human society with justice is necessary to escape the threat caused by the ability of humanity to destroy the world through toxic accidents and even war. The possibility of a global society then becomes less significant. This is because one thing that all know is that a totally just society cannot be a reality in this present times. Humanity is devising all kinds of schemes through selfish interests which turn out to be unfair and unjust to others. For example the economically stronger countries are pursuing technological advancement at the expense of the economically weaker countries since all of us share the environment. Pollution and degradation of the environment will eventually affect poorer countries more than the rich. Injustices of this kind cannot be avoided completely out so that globalization can be allowed to take effect. It therefore follows that globalization is bound to advance this injustices if it has to take over. Sklair(1999) notes that the global capitalism model puts the predominant global forces within the context of a capitalism that is globalizing with the day. Writers supporting this model have their unique globalization analyses. However all of them work toward the ‘global’ concept which is above the nation-state relations and national economies in competition among themselves. Sklair supports a clearer global system model whose origin is not in cross state borders or in non state actors. Analytically they can be differentiated in three levels which are cultural ideological, political and economic (Sklair 1999). All these have a main institution. The economic practice has transnational corporations; the political practice has the transnational capitalist class and consumerism cultures for “transnational cultural ideological practices.” The theory’s agenda is about how the above three work towards world transformation through the world capitalism. The globalization concept is resisted by those who think that it is interference in their lives. Globalization has come together with research by New Social Movements (NSM) theorists who think that the “traditional response of the labor movement to global capitalism” founded on the politics of class is a failure. They claim that there needs to be a new study must be done on identity politics in order to resist successfully the forces of sexism, environmental damage, and capitalist exploitation among other injustices (Sklair 1999). These people who oppose globalization could have a point. The unity of specific units economically, culturally and even politically can possibly be fragmented by the globalization idea. As globalization spreads as claimed by Sklair and others who support his idea, it causes other negative effects such as the injustices mentioned above which people may fell they would do well without. Now, since they come with globalization people would feel that globalization all together with its ill effects must be resisted. For example if every other household around the world would have a television set indicating the ‘globalization effect’ then it means that anything negative coming through that television affects or infiltrates the minds of all who view it. In this manner globalization creates an effect which could promote the injustices we have seen such capitalism, sexism or environmental degradation (Chakravartty 2008). Conclusion This paper has presented an evaluation of Leslie Sklair’s argument on globalization. Sklair proposes that the nation-state arrangement and the international relations are no longer able to solve the problems being experienced at the global level. He suggests that these problems should be viewed through global processes. Many other thinkers have added their opinions on this debate. Others choose to side with Sklair while others correct him. Generally the global idea is no longer a myth as other thinkers maintain. It is a reality that has not taken over the whole globe. Only part of the globe is ‘affected’ especially in the urban centers while the bigger chunk of it feels nothing. The global village idea has been promoted by technological advancement which has not penetrated all the parts of the world. The transnational corporations that mark globalization also are still centered in specific few countries of the world. Therefore the idea of globalization may be there but not as much as Sklair claims. References Leslie Sklair, Competing Conceptions of Globalization, Journal of World-Systems Research, Vol V, 2, 1999, 143-162, http://jwsr.ucr.edu/archive/vol5/number2/html/sklair/index.html Kathleen White, Globalization: Critical concepts in sociology Vol. 2: The nation-state and international relations. Global Communication/Media Anthony McGrew and David Held, Globalization and anti-globalization 2007 Robert J. Holton, Globalization and the Nation-State 1998 Chakravartty, P. Global Communications: Toward a Tran cultural Political Economy 2008 A. S. De Beer, Global journalism: topical issues and media systems P. Chakravartty, Global Communications: Toward a Tran cultural Political Economy R. Anderson and L. Strate, Critical Studies in Media Commercialism Read More