Lesson 1.

Understanding Globalization

The first week of the course introduces the concepts of globalization that will be analyzed in
greater depth later in the course. In this first lecture, your instructor/tutor will discuss three texts
that critically present definitions and concepts of globalization. The discussion will focus on how
various conceptualization, periodization, and localization of globalization can change our
perspective in the process. Is globalization a contemporary phenomenon, or is it relevant to go
further back in time for better understanding of the phenomenon? Should we focus sources or
origins in the Western world only, or is there also a certain role for other parts of the world to
play? Is globalization an irreversible and inevitable condition? Jan Nederveen Pieterse and Jan
Aart Scholte offer two opposing views to these questions. On the other hand, Manfred Steger
suggests another perspective of conceptualizing globalization.

The aim of this lecture is to point out to the students the underlying principles of the competing
definitions and conceptualization of globalization. At the end of the lecture, the students should
be able come up with their own working definition of globalization.

Concepts to Master

1. Globalization 10. Internationalization

2. Presentism 11. Liberalization
3. Eurocentrism 12. Universalization
4. Endogenous globalization 13. Westernization
5. Exogenous globalization 14. Modernization
6. Centrist world-system 15. supraterritorial
7. Globality 16. Globalization as a process
8. Oriental globalization 17. Globalization as a condition
9. Multicentrism 18. Globalization as an ideology

Introductory Literature
 Nederveen Pieterse, J. (2012). Periodizing Globalization: Histories of Globalization, New
Global Studies, 6(2), 1-25. Online at
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan_Nederveen_Pieterse/publication/
270899664_Periodizing_GlobalizationHistories_of_Globalization/links/54e
3a0c80cf282dbed6cca0d.pdf.
 Scholte, J.J. (2008). Defining Globalisation. The World Economy. 31(11), pp. 1471-1502
[E-journal]
 Steger, Manfred B. “Ideologies of Globalization.” 2005. Journal of Political Ideologies,
10 (1):11-30
Lecture Outline: Histories and Definitions of Globalization

Literature 1: “Periodizing Globalization: Histories of Globalization” by Jan Nederveen

Pieterse (2012)

I. Problems with Periodizing Globalization

A. Presentist leanings: it overlooks structural patterns, present as novel what are older
features and misread contemporary trends
B. Eurocentric view: World history begins with the “rise of the West” (1500 and 1800 as
the start of Eurocentric history)
C. This view of globalization is not global: It ignores or downplays nonwestern
contributions to globalization (it makes little sense in times of growing multipolarity)
D. It is out of step with wider globalization research
E. The periodization of globalization is not a given and is one of the areas of controversy
in globalization research

II. Presentism and Eurocentrism

A. The term globalization came out first in business studies in the 1970s and started to be
most frequently used in the 1990s. Because the theme of globalization took off in the
1990s and key texts on globalization were written in this period, much of the discussion
is marked by 1990s themes and sensibilities. Then key works on globalization were
written so globalization was colonized by then reigning perspectives that were imposed
on globalization, even though they were not particularly global.
1. Giddens (1990)- defined globalization as an “extension of modernity”, although
modernity is a western project
2. David Harvey’s (1989) “time-space compression” - it became an oft-quoted
description of globalization, even though the idea of the “annihilation of distance”
is mechanical and inappropriate (time, space and distance still matter because
access to communication and mobility is differentiated by class)
B. Several disciplines date globalization from the 1970s with the formation of global value
chains and accelerated communication (most economics, international relations, political
science, and media studies). A further periodization refers to neoliberal globalization,
1980-2000.
C. The disadvantage of taking contemporary times as start time of globalization is
presentism or ignoring history.
D. The disadvantage of modernity (from 1800) as a cutoff in globalization thinking is
Eurocentrism, an “intellectual apartheid regime” (Hobson 2004:243), a “great wall”
(Jennings 2011) that cuts Europe off from global history and gives us a biased and
shallow perspective on both history and modernity. The disadvantage of using “modern
capitalism” (from 1500) as a cutoff is ignoring earlier forms and infrastructures of
capitalism (Fernand Braudel argued, why not the thirteenth century).
E. The following tables present an overview of disciplines and perspectives on
globalization, with their timelines of globalization, listed from recent to early.
 Table 1. Globalization According to Social Science and Humanities Disciplines
Disciplines Time Agency, domain Keywords
Political Science, 1980 “Internationalization of the state,” Competitor states, post international
International relations INGOs politics, global civil society

Development studies IMF, World Bank Debt crisis, structural adjustment

policies
Geography Space, place Local-global interactions,
glocalization
Economics 1870 Multinational corporations, Global corporation, world product,
technologies, banks, finance, global value chains, new economy,
hedge funds sovereign wealth funds
Cultural studies Media, film, advertising, ICT Global village, McDonaldization,
Disneyfication, hybridization
Philosophy 1850 Ethics Global problems, global ethics
Sociology 1800 Modernity Capitalism, industrialism,
urbanization, nation states
Political economy 1500 Modern capitalism “Conquest of the world market”
History, historical 3000 BCE Population movements, trade, The widening scale of social
anthropology technologies, world religions cooperation, global flows, ecumene
Biology, ecology Time Integration of ecosystems Evolution, global ecology, Gaia

Table 2. Cluster of Major Perspectives on Start of Globalization

Time Frame Dynamics of Globalization Disciplines
Short 1970 Production and transport technologies, form of Economics, political
enterprises, value chains, marketing, cultural flows science, cultural and
communication studies
Medium 1800 Modernity Sociology

1500 World market, modern capitalism Political economy

Long 3000 BCE Growing connectivity, forms of social cooperation History, anthropology,
archaeology

III. Broad view and a long view of social science (Norbert Elias, 1994)
A. Several features that are associated with contemporary globalization existed also in
earlier eras, which gives us a finer understanding of what is distinctive for contemporary
times.
B. The long view breaks the spell of Eurocentrism, which is essentially the nineteenth-
century perspective when the West was triumphant.
C. The long view enables us to understand that the contemporary rise of Asia is a
comeback, a resurgence, which gives us a clearer perspective on ongoing trends and
implies an account of globalization that is more relevant in global contexts.
D. The long view syncs with the broad definition of globalization as growing connectivity
over time, the growing density in connections between distant locations.
E. It breaks with representations of the past as immobile and segmented, which is refuted
by research on migrations (Hoerder 2002), travel, technology (McNeill 1982) and the
movement of knowledge and religion.
F. The long view embeds globalization in evolutionary time: ecological adaptability and
ability to inhabit all of planetary space.
 G. Disadvantage of the long view: Globalization becomes too general, too all-encompassing
a framework.

IV. World History, History of Globalization

A. The timeline of the conventional western history curriculum is the premodern (pre-1500),
early modern (1500-1850), modern (1850-1945) and contemporary eras: reaffirms
Eurocentrism
B. Wallerstein’s “modern world-system” (core, semi-periphery, periphery relations) is not
merely Eurocentric; it is also centrist in claiming a single central world-system. Centrism
(and its kin universalism) is a trope that is as old as the first civilizations, empires and
religions that claimed a dominant status.
C. Cioffi-Revilla (2006: 87) distinguishes two dynamics of globalization, endogenous (“a
process of growth or expansion that takes place within a given world region”) and
exogenous globalization (which “occurs between or among geographically distant world
systems that had previously been disconnected from each other”). From a European
viewpoint, its development is endogenous globalization, whereas from the viewpoint of
Africa and the Americas it is exogenous globalization; so the distinction is vague.
Centrist world-system thinkers privilege globalization as system expansion (endogenous
globalization) over exogenous globalization.
D. Most theories on the history of globalization measures not of globalization but of
globality. They assume that for globalization to occur there must first be globality, so in
effect they diagnose a condition, not the process through which it comes about.
1. “No world system is global, in the sense that all parts articulate evenly with one
another” (Abu-Lughod): Global connections are never entirely global.
2. Globalization is a process, not a condition.
3. Globalization functions as a heuristic, “a shift in attention paid to questions of
knowledge, communication flows, actor, network relations, interconnections, spatiality,
mediality, agency, etc. (Holban, 2013). Korotayev (2005) adopts this view when he
focuses on innovations and technologies as the driver of globalization and Rennstich
(2006) adds collective learning.
E. In many recent accounts the definition of globalization has shifted to growing worldwide
connectivity (Nederveen Pieterse 1995, 2009a: 43). It implies that growing connectivity
is not a recent trend. It does not require a specific, definite beginning. The rhythms of
globalization follow the vicissitudes of connectivity, which are not always in forward
motion; there are accelerations as well as breakdowns of connectivity. When connectivity
grows, so do subjectivities and cultures of connectivity that enable connections to
become productive, such as trade languages and ecumenical practices, so at every step,
globalization is an objective as well as a subjective process.

V. Oriental Globalization
1. We have multiple phases of oriental globalization— Eurasian globalization and east to
west movements in the early silk roads; Middle East globalization west to east, with
caravan and maritime trade moving towards Asia; and Asian globalization, east to west
from the Tang period onward
2. Hobson (2012) distinguishes four historical phases of oriental globalization:
 1. “Proto-globalization (from 500 to 145) - the extensity, intensity, velocity, and
impact of Afro Eurasian interactions. Orientalization was dominant in the sense
that the “proto-global network was crucial for delivering Eastern resource
portfolios into Europe.”
2. “Early globalization” (1450 and 1492-1830) - “the diffusion of ‘resource
portfolios’ from East to West” led to the “fundamental re-organization of societies
across the world including Europe,” a period he characterizes as “Orientalization
dominant and Occidentalization emergent.”
3. “Modern globalization” (1830– 2000) – it witnessed the “Occidentalization in the
ascendance, with the West being the dominant civilization,” which was achieved
by colonization and neocolonial globalization, i.e. Western capitalism.
4. The current phase, “postmodern globalization,” witnesses “the return of China
to the center of the global economy.”
3. Hobson’s views differ markedly from Eurocentric accounts, it provides nuances of
relative influence and credits oriental influences, past and present.
4. For Nedeerven Pieterse (2009a), Hobson’s view is meaningful for two provisos:
1) it should be viewed as part of wider, long ongoing process of east-west osmosis
further back in time: “globalization is braided”;
2) The terminology of modernity (and variants premodern, postmodern) carries such
Eurocentric luggage that it is best avoided in periodizing.

VI. The Greco-Roman World and Globalization

A. Arab-Muslim world – it was the epicenter of early oriental globalization; played as
the “middleman civilization” brokering between wider worlds (Europe, Asia-Africa)
B. The importance of Greco-Roman history for globalization history includes the
following:
1. It establishes a link between Bronze Age Afro-Eurasia and later developments
and helps to make the sway from prehistory to the present intelligible.
2. It matches the thesis of a commercial revolution from 1000 BCE. 3.
3. Inserting the intermediate steps sheds light on the Hellenic character and
infrastructure of oriental globalization that took shape in the Middle East from
500 CE.
4. The plural, creole, multicultural Mediterranean of recent ancient history research
debunks another Eurocentric myth, the myth of antiquity itself (as in Bernal’s
“Aryan myth” of the classical world).
5. It does away with the influential narrative of an East-West split (as in
Schliemann’s construction of the battle of Troy, Wittfogel’s oriental despotism,
and Huntington’s clash of civilizations).

VII. Conclusion
A. Many globalization studies are steeped in presentism and eurocentrism. The general
principle is, the later the timing of globalization, the greater Europe’s role and the
more Eurocentric the perspective (Nederveen Pietersee 1995).
B. The long view gives a deeper insight in the history and depth of human
interconnectedness. While its advantage is, it embeds globalization in the longue
 durée and in evolutionary time, its disadvantage is that globalization becomes too
wide and general a category.
C. Identifying different phases and centers of global history is difficult as well as poses
problems of identifying and labeling periods. If globalization is defined as growing
connectivity, the rhythms of globalization are a function of connectivity conditions,
spurred by transport and communication technologies and conditions of security.
D. Identifying a start time of globalization hinges on the definition of globalization and
the unit of analysis. If the unit of analysis is connectivity, connections are as old as
human history, as old as when people dispersed and wandered across the planet.
E. The question “when did globalization begin” makes clear the assumptions that frame
globalization; making these explicit is the purpose of discussion, which seeks to serve
as an X-ray of globalization thinking. The table below features the 5 phases of
globalization:

Phases Start time Central nodes Dynamics

Eurasian globalization 3000 BCE Eurasia Agricultural and urban
revolutions, migrations, trade,
ancient empires
Afro-Eurasian 1000 BCE Greco-Roman world Commercial revolution
West Asia, East Africa
Oriental globalization 1 500 CE Middle East Emergence of a world economy,
caravan trade
Oriental globalization 2 1100 East and South Asia and Productivity, technology,
multicentric urbanization, silk routes
Multicentric 1500 Atlantic expansion Triangular trade, Americas
Euro-Atlantic 1800 Euro-Atlantic economy Industrialization, colonial division
of labor
20C globalization 1950 US, Europe, Japan: Trilateral Multinational corporations, (end
globalization of) Cold war, global value chains
21C globalization 2000 East Asia, BRICS, emerging New geography of trade, global
societies, petro economies rebalancing

F. Multicentrism is based on the premise of “multiple origins of social complexity, not

on a single origin from which social complexity radiated” (Cioffi-Revilla 89). That
multicentrism can go together or be interspersed with periods of hegemony does not
undo the premise itself. Rather it sheds light on the diversity of practices of empire
and hegemony. The premise of multicentrism unsettles the proclivity towards the
singular that is widespread in social science and the humanities—as in globalization,
capitalism, modernity, “the modern world-system,” rather than globalizations,
capitalisms, modernities (Nederveen Pietersee 2009b). Bentley (2006) rightly
criticizes “modernocentrism” as a deeper problematic than Eurocentrism.
G. Taking into account the ancient globalizations (Mesopotamian, Afro-Eurasian,
oriental), western hegemony is a late comer. 21st century globalization breaks the
200-year pattern of dominant North-South relations with an East South turn
(Nederveen Pieterse 2011), so the era of western hegemony becomes a historical
interlude, lasting from approximately 1800 to 2000. Asian dynamics have been the
driving force of the world economy during 18 of the past 20 centuries (Maddison
2007), through most of the career of globalization, and present times indicate a return
to a historical “normal”.
Literature 2: “Defining Globalization” by Jan Aart Scholte (2008)

I. Rise of the G-Word

A. The English noun ‘globe’ dates from the 15th century (derived from the Latin globus) -
denotes a spherical representation of the earth several hundred years ago
B. The adjective ‘global’ entered circulation in the late 17th century and began to
designate ‘world scale’ in the late 19th century, in addition to its earlier meaning of
‘spherical’ (OED, 1989 VI, p. 582)
C. ‘Globalize’ (verb) – appeared in the 1940s, together with the term ‘globalism’
D. ‘globalization’ as a process – first surfaced in 1959 and entered a dictionary two years
later (Schreiter, 1997, p. 5; and Webster, 1961, p.965)
E. Notions of ‘globality as a condition – began to circulate in the 1980s (Robertson,
1983)
F. Roland Robertson began to ‘interpret globality’ in 1983 (Sociology)
G. Theodore Levitt wrote of ‘the globalization of markets’ in 1983 (Business studies)
H. Some researchers in International Relations focus on ‘global interdependence’
(Rosenau, 1980). Economists, geographers and others picked up the concept later in
the decade.
I. 1990s – Globalization has become a major academic growth industry --- it is now
explored across disciplines, continents, theoretical approaches, and political spectrum
J. Some theorists have even presented globalization as the focal point for an alternative
paradigm of social enquiry (Shaw, 1999; Mittelman, 2002).
K. Anthony Giddens (1996) – has observed that ‘there are few terms that we use so
frequently but which in fact as poorly conceptualized as globalization’
L. There is persistent ambiguity and confusion over the term (i.e. ‘globaloney’, ‘global
babble’, and ‘glob-blah-blah’)
II. Redundant Concepts of Globalization
A. Globalization as internationalization – Globalization here is viewed 'as simply
another adjective to describe cross-border relations between countries'. It describes the
growth in international exchange and interdependence. With growing flows of trade
and capital investment, there is the possibility of moving beyond an inter-national
economy, (where 'the principle entities are national economies') to a 'stronger' version
- the globalized economy in which, 'distinct national economies are subsumed and
rearticulated into the system by international processes and transactions'
B. Globalization as liberalization - In this broad set of definitions, 'globalization' refers
to 'a process of removing government-imposed restrictions on movements between
countries in order to create an "open", "borderless" world economy'.
C. Globalization as universalization - In this use, 'global' is used in the sense of being
'worldwide' and 'globalization' is 'the process of spreading various objects and
experiences to people at all corners of the earth'.
D. Globalization as westernization or modernization (Americanization) - Here
'globalization' is understood as a dynamic, 'whereby the social structures of modernity
(capitalism, rationalism, industrialism, bureaucratism, etc.) are spread the world over,
normally destroying pre-existent cultures and local self-determination in the process.
 E. The four definitions outlined above between them cover most current academic,
corporate, journalistic, official and popular discussions of things global. These four
definitions do not exhaust the possible definitions of globalization.

III. New conception of globalization: Globalization as transplanetary, more

particularly supraterritorial – connections between people
A. Here 'globalization' entails a 'reconfiguration of geography’, so that social space is no
longer wholly mapped in terms of territorial places, territorial distances and territorial
borders. Anthony Giddens' has thus defined globalization as 'the intensification of
worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local
happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa (Giddens
1990: 64).
B. David Held et al (1999: 16) define globalization as a 'process (or set of processes)
which embodies a transformation in the spatial organization of social relations and
transactions - assessed in terms of their extensity, intensity, velocity and impact -
generating transcontinental or inter-regional flows and networks of activity'.
C. For Scholte, globalization as supraterritorial offers the possibility of a clear and
specific definition of globalization. The notion of supraterritoriality (or trans-world or
trans-border relations), he argues, provides a way into appreciating what is global
about globalization. His argument runs something like the following:
1. There is no need to replace the 'internationalization' by 'globalization' where it
refers to a growth in interaction and interdependence between people in different
countries. This process of internationalization has been going for centuries - and it
adds nothing theoretically to describe it as globalization.
2. To describe the process of breaking down regulatory and other barriers to trade as
globalization is similarly flawed. The liberal discourse of "free" trade is quite
adequate to convey these ideas.
3. The notion of globalization as universalization also fails to provide new insight.
The move towards universalization is a long-running one - and so little or nothing
is added by substituting the notion of globalization.
4. The understanding of globalization as westernization has developed particularly in
the context of neocolonialism and post-colonial imperialism. It is, again, difficult
to see what advance the notion of globalization provides as against the discourse of
colonialism, imperialism and 'modernization'. As Scholte argues, 'we do not need a
new vocabulary of globalization to remake old analysis'.
5. Important new insight can, however, be gained from approaching globalization as
the growth of 'supraterritorial' or transworld relations between people. It
allows for us to explore deep-seated changes in the way that we understand and
experience social space.
D. “The proliferation and spread of supraterritorial connections bring an end to what could
be called 'territorialism', that is a situation where social geography is entirely territorial.
Although territory still matters very much in our globalizing world, it no longer
constitutes the whole of our geography.”

E. The first four approaches are all compatible with territorialism, the fifth is not. Within a
territorial orientation 'place' is identified primarily with regard to territorial location.
 However, we have witnessed a fundamental change. There has been a massive growth in
social connections that are unhooked in significant ways from territory.

IV. Conclusion
A. When defined in a particular geographical fashion, the notions of ‘globality’ and
‘globalization’ can be valuable additions to the conceptual toolkit for understanding social
relations.
B. A definition of globalization as a respationalization of social life opens up new
knowledge and engages key policy challenges of current history in a constructively critical
manner. Notions of ‘globality’ and ‘globalization’ can capture, as no other vocabulary, the
present ongoing large-scale growth of tranplanetary – and often also supraterritorial –
connectivity.
C. Globalization as supraterritorial has different ideas from internationalization,
liberalization, universalization and westernization.
D. For Scholte, the conception of globalization is in no way intended to be the last word about
what the term might mean because for him, no definition is definitive. The aim is not to
issue final pronouncement, but to offer ever-provisional ideas that provoke further
reflection and debate.

Literature 3: “Ideologies of Globalization” by Manfred Steger (2005)

I. Globalization as a process, condition, and ideology
A. Globalization as a process
 Globalization – A set of social processes that appear to transform our present
social condition of weakening nationality into one globality; human lives
played out in the world as a single place; redefining landscape of sociopolitical
processes and social sciences that study these mechanisms.
B. Globalization as a condition
 Globality – A social condition characterized by tight economic, political, cultural
and environmental interconnections and global flows, making currently existing
political borders and economic boundaries irrelevant.
C. Globalization as an ideology
 Global Imaginary - A concept referring to people’s growing consciousness of
belonging to a global community
-destabilizes and unsettles the conventional parameters within which people
imagine their communal existence
II. Six core claims why globalization is an ideology
A. Globalization is about the liberalization and global integration of markets
 Globalization is about the triumphs of markets over governments; globalization
means the spread of free-market capitalism to virtually every country in the
world; the spread of the idea of ‘free trade’, ‘free markets’, liberal ideas such as
‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ around the world
B. Globalization is inevitable and irreversible
 Quoted Philippine politician Manny Villar who said: “We cannot simply wish
away the process of globalization. It is a reality of a modern world. The process is
irreversible.”
 State leaders like Margareth Thatcher and Ronald Reagan who pushed for
 neoliberal ideas have been heard proclaiming that globalization is happening and
cannot be stopped
C. Nobody is in charge of globalization
 Globalization does not promote the agenda of any specific class or group
D. Globalization benefits everyone (… in the long run)
 Globalist believe that free trade and free market, will bring wealth and prosperity
to everyone.
E. Globalization furthers the spread of democracy in the world
 Democracy, freedom, free markets, and free trade are all synonymous words.
Economic and political forces are the two main drivers of globalization.
F. Globalization requires a global war of terror
 Globalization scholars think that the subsequent aggressive and militaristic US
foreign policy is a response to protect the gains of globalization which was openly
challenged during the 9-11 attack by Osama bin Laden’s global network of terror.