Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1


Ratings: (0)|Views: 15 |Likes:
Published by rvkahn

More info:

Published by: rvkahn on Mar 31, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization
First Edition. Edited by George Ritzer.© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2012 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Globophilia can be defined generally as anideological perspective affirming that glo-balism in either its economic, political, orcultural aspects is a beneficial and necessary social force in the world. Conceived broadly,in this way, those who support globophilicideas may variously hail from differing ends of the political spectrum, be in favor of culturalcosmopolitanism or not, and believe either incapitalist or alternative economic frameworks.Still, the existence of a core focus upon the needfor unfolding globalism as a driving engine fortheir ideological ends characterizes all formsof globalization advocates as at least somewhatglobophilic in their persuasion. More specifi-cally, however, globophilia is most typically amoniker used to describe the particular posi-tions of globalization ideologues who lobby forthe extension of the “Washington Consensus,”neoliberal-styled policies of capitalist modern-ization throughout the world, thereby arguingthat such globalization is inevitable as well assynonymous with the continued revelation of democratic progress, cultural diversity, con-sumer choice, and increasing social equity.Opposed to both these forms of globophiliawould be globophobic ideologies that are fun-damentally anti-globalization in either theirconservative, state isolationist views, or radicallocalist philosophies such as those developedby bioregionalists, parochial municipalists, orothers working for strong forms of social sub-sidiarity. Yet, just as many alter-globalizationadherents are at least tacitly globophilic in theirsupport of globalization-from-below – or whatManfred Steger (2009) has referred to as “jus-tice globalism” – in being likewise resistant of hegemonic forms of globalization-from-above,it should be noted that in this regard those whoadvance critical and dialectical views favoringalternative forms of globalization maintainelements of globophobic dispositions as well.As Douglas Kellner (2002) has argued inhis work, during the great rise of globalizationdiscourse from the 1980s to the new millen-nium, imaginaries of the global tended to bedichotomized into either boosterish adver-tisements for globophilia or inflammatory polemics of globophobia. While major schol-arly critiques of market globalization were alsoadvanced at this time, such as George Ritzer’s(1993) “McDonaldization” thesis, buoyedby rapid and revolutionary developments indigital technology and the media, globophilicclaims became altogether dominant in the1990s. Common to many of these globophilicbeliefs was that the global Internet and tele-communications network then coming intobeing could germinate novel understandings of universal human potentials across peoples’ dif-ferences, generate profound waves of culturaland political freedoms throughout the globe,and produce new economic markets capable of ameliorating global poverty as well as of under-mining the sorts of traditional monopolisticinfluences that had previously served to stiflepopular ingenuity and the democratization of wealth within the advanced capitalist nations.Arguing this line, American state propagan-dists like Francis Fukuyama (2006) and futur-ologists such as Alvin Toffler and NicholasNegroponte, as well as Bill Gates – who becamearguably the world’s chief spokesperson for thefuture-oriented benefits of the informationsociety – grabbed headlines and so popular-ized a form of globophilia that championedglobalization as a naturally evolving, emanci-patory social force driven by technological andeconomic determinism.In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, proponentsof market globophilia were nevertheless chal-lenged to make sense of a burgeoning jihadmovement against what Benjamin Barber (1996)
2had described as the “McWorld” of supposedprogress represented by the growing globalinstantiation of Americanized values, norms,and interests. Some took up variants of SamuelHuntington’s (1998) claims about there being acomplex “Clash of Civilizations,” in which globaleconomic modernization strategies generatetheir own problematic contradictions in theform of antagonistic struggles for ethnic nation-alism and religious identity. Others emphasizedthe rise of secular political resistance againstglobal neoliberal frameworks pushed for by groups such as the World Trade Organization,World Bank, or G-8 countries, stressing the lit-eral qualities behind the World Social Forum’salternative economic message of “Another worldis possible.” Thus, globophilia became revealedin the mainstream as a contested ideology – thestruggle being not simply between transnationalcapitalist globalization and anti-globalizationadvocates, but between competing ideologies(potentially inclusive of religious fundamental-ism), each seeking to gain control of the emerg-ing global order for differing ends.Still, over the last decade market globalismhas undoubtedly remained in the ascendant,with previous US presidents, George W. Bushand Bill Clinton, articulating collaborative butdiffering poles of the movement. Claiming that9/11 was an orchestrated attack against theidea that government should be democratically elected and that citizens should enjoy a widearray of cultural and economic freedoms, Bushand his administration on the one hand care-fully linked the neoliberal discourse of marketglobophilia to neoconservative foreign policy ideals concerned with the necessity of pre-emptive war and additional forms of preven-tative state interventionism designed to bolsterthe worldwide export of “democracy” (i.e., theconsumer society). On the other hand, throughthe development of his William J. ClintonFoundation – whose mission is to strengthen“the capacity of people throughout the world tomeet the challenges of global interdependence”
Clinton has become a chief proselytizer of market-based initiatives to improve the world’shealth, education, environment, energy, andother economic empowerment sectors. Whilecorporations have also increasingly moved toincorporate a rhetorical position of their work-ing to “green the globe” for the world’s generalimprovement, nonprofit organizations like theClinton Foundation highlight the pivotal rolepresently being played by nongovernmen-tal (NGOs) and international governmental(IGOs) organizations as globalization actorsfor sustainable development. Although someof these institutional entities clearly work onbehalf of a global civic society and alternativeforms of social economy beyond capitalism,many simply extol market globalism in its Bushor Clinton varieties as well.In the last few years, market globalism hastaken on globophilic populist dimensions aswell. The best-selling globalization ideologueThomas Friedman (2007) now frequently romances the role that individuals and smallbusinesses will play in using globalization toachieve more justice, health, and wealth forthe largest class of people the world has everknown. Revivifying neoliberal ideas from the1990s, Friedman claims that the current globalconsumer society has finally become a utopian“flat world” networked together through per-missive markets and technology that in turndrive the propagation of democratic formsof political participation and equitable eco-nomic exchange from below. Additionally, heargues that while globalization has undeniably resulted in the ongoing contradiction of a worldbeset by serious issues such as overpopulationand global warming, the new global market’s vital ingenuity can be counted upon to produceunheralded eco-modernist advances capableof stabilizing our energy, environmental, andother social woes.In conclusion, those seeking to understandglobophilia need to be cognizant of its variousideological complexities, contested methodsand discursive aims, as well as internal ambi-guities. Not all forms of globophilia turn onmarket globalist desires; and a critical dialec-tical perspective on globalization reveals thatwhile ethical forms of globophilia in oppo-sition to neoliberalism exist, there are also

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->