Being Sociological

Chapter 15
Globalizing
 The concept of globalization
• ‘Globalization’ is now a central concept in the public discourse of
the early twenty-first century. In less than three decades, it has
gripped the imagination of billions around the world who find
themselves witnesses to one of the most rapid yet precarious social
transformations in human history.
• Globalization has contributed to the emergence of a global social
consciousness, of ‘global imaginaries’ that frame how we see
ourselves and our place in the ever-expanding and ever-changing
global community.
• Most people have by now formed some opinion about the reality
of ‘globalization’. Indeed, most of us also hold strong normative
views about whether globalization, understood as the extension
and intensification of social relations across world-time and
world-space, should be seen as a ‘good’ or a ‘bad’ thing.
As a result of processes of globalization, we are witnessing the
emergence of global political ideologies – what we call
globalisms – which seek to mould and shape how globalization
occurs and thus influence the future structure and shape of
society at local, national and global levels.
 Theories of Globalization
Although the origin of the term ‘globalization’ can be traced
back to the early 1960s, it was not until the late 1980s and
1990s that it emerged as a pivotal signifier in academic debates
and public discourse relating to increasing social and economic
interdependence. ‘Globalization’ surfaced as a buzzword
because the tangibility and visibility of globally interrelated
life called for a single word naming this interconnectedness.
The comet-like appearance and proliferation of the concept
reflects not only the ‘objective’ compression of time and space,
but also testifies to the ‘subjective’ thickening of a global
consciousness – the global imaginary – whose articulations of
the world as a single place were spread by various power
elites.
 Four Main Theories of Globalization

• Globalizers or hyper-globalizers;
• Rejectionists;
• Sceptics;
• Modifiers.
 Globalizers and Hyperglobalizers
Globalizers argue that globalization is a profoundly
transformative set of social processes that is moving us into a
new chapter of human history (Albrow, 1997; Held and
McGrew, 2007). Key ‘globalizers’ include David Held and
Anthony McGrew, Ulrich Beck, Kenichi Ohmae and James
Mittelman. While conceding that globalization is not a single
monolithic process but a complex and often contradictory
progression of simultaneous social integration and
fragmentation, they insist that both qualitative and
quantitative research projects clearly point to the existence of
significant worldwide processes that can be appropriately
subsumed under the general term ‘globalization’ (Rosenau,
2003).
The representatives of this perspective are united in their
conviction that globalization is both empirically ‘real’ and
truly ‘global’ in its reach and impact.
 Rejectionists
• Rejectionists contend that existing accounts of globalization
are incorrect and exaggerated. They note that just about
everything that can be linked to some transnational process is
cited as evidence for globalization and its growing influence.
Hence, they suspect that such general observations often
amount to little more than ‘globaloney’ (Veseth, 2006).
• Linda Weiss (1998) refers to globalization as ‘a big idea
resting on slim foundations’.
• However, as new empirical studies seem to provide better
ammunition for globalizers, the number of dyed-in-the-wool
rejectionists has dramatically dwindled.
• Similar arguments come from the proponents of world-system
theory (Chase-Dunn, 1998; Frank, 1998) who suggest that the
modern capitalist economy in which we live today has been
‘global’ since its inception five centuries ago. Thus, world-
system theorists seek to modify the use of the term
‘globalization’ from referring to relatively recent phenomena
to the idea that globalizing tendencies have been proceeding
along the continuum of ‘modernization’ for a long time.
 Modifiers
The third major theoretical approach to globalization,
‘modifiers’, is comprised of globalization critics who dispute
the novelty of the process, implying that the label
‘globalization’ has often been applied in a historically
imprecise manner. Robert Gilpin (2002), for example, accepts
the existence of globalizing tendencies, but he also insists that
the world economy at the dawn of the 21st century was less
integrated in a number of important respects than it was prior
to the outbreak of World War I.
 Sceptics
• Sceptics, the fourth theoretical perspective on globalization,
nonetheless emphasize the limited nature of current
globalizing processes.
• Prominent sceptics Paul Hirst and Grahame Thompson
(2001) claim that the world economy is not a truly global
phenomenon, but one centred on Europe, East Asia, and
North America.
Without a truly global economic system, they insist, there can
be no such thing as globalization:
‘[A]s we proceeded [with our economic research] our
scepticism deepened until we became convinced that
globalization, as conceived by the more extreme
globalizers, is largely a myth’ (2001, p2).
• In response, globalizers have pointed to two problems with
this ‘Hirst–Thompson thesis’:
• Firstly, the authors set overly high standards for the economy
in order to be counted as ‘fully globalized’. For example,
Hirst and Thompson argue that the concentration of much
international economic activity in member states of the
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) (and increasingly also China, India and Brazil)
discounts it from being considered truly ‘global’, despite the
fact that this ‘OECD +3’ group includes nearly 40 countries
that are all distinct culturally and linguistically.
• Secondly, Hirst and Thompson’s efforts to construct an
abstract model of a perfectly globalized economy
unnecessarily polarizes the topic by pressuring the reader to
either completely embrace or entirely reject the concept of
globalization.
• Some globalizers have noted that sceptics like Hirst and
Thompson implicitly assume that globalization is primarily
an economic phenomenon.
• As a result, they portray all other dimensions of globalization
—culture, politics and ecology, for example —as reflections
of deeper economic processes. However, globalization is a
multidimensional phenomenon, thus focusing solely or
primarily on its economic dimensions provides an incomplete
picture of the extent of globalization’s influence and impact.
 Dimensions of Globalization
The main dimensions of globalization are
•Economic;
•Political;
•Cultural;
•Ecological;
•Ideological.
 Economic Globalization
Economic globalization refers to the intensification and
stretching of economic interrelations across the globe. In
addition to the more traditional factors of production, labour
and land, economic globalization includes gigantic flows of
capital and technology that stimulate trade in goods and
services.
New forms of economic products have developed, such as
hedge funds and derivatives, which enable greater flows of
investment and capital from one national economy to another.
 Political Globalization
Political globalization refers to the expansion and acceleration
of political relations and interdependencies across world-time
and world-space. These processes raise important issues
pertaining to the politics of the modern nation-state and the
international states-system.
Specifically, these processes challenge traditional conceptions
of the principle of state sovereignty, highlight the growing
impact of intergovernmental organizations like the United
Nations, the G8 and the G20, and raise questions concerning
future prospects for regional and global governance (Baylis,
Smith, and Owens, 2008).
 Cultural Globalization
Cultural globalization refers to the intensification and
expansion of cultural flows and interdependencies around
the world. ‘Culture’ is a very broad concept, referring in
general terms to the symbolic construction, articulation, and
dissemination of meaning (Robertson, 1992; Pieterse, 2003).
The cultural dimension of globalization influences the use of
language, the shape of world religions, global media, food,
fashion, films, literature, music and numerous other aspects
of global public life.
Yet cultural globalization scholars also argue that we are
witnessing a homogenization of culture as a result of
globalization. This homogenization is seen most clearly in
the emergence of global media conglomerates, resulting in a
few global companies controlling a vast majority of the
world’s media and access to news and information, and
hence promoting a monolithic form of consumer culture.
 Ecological Globalization
• Ecological globalization signifies the compression of our
natural environment as a result of the processes laid out
above. In recent years, global environmental issues have
received enormous attention from research institutes, the
media, politicians and economists, none more so than global
climate change (Stern 2007; Oxfam 2009).
• Ecological globalization highlights the increasing
interconnections across national boundaries. Ecological
problems are transnational in nature, requiring global
collaboration and global solutions.
 Ideology and Globalization
• As a result of processes of globalization, we are witnessing
the increasing emergence of political ideologies that attempt
to influence and make sense of material practices at the
global level.
• Processes of globalization are associated with ideologies
expressing the global imaginary that both influence and
make sense of everyday events and practices.
 Michael Freeden
• Political ideologies display unique features anchored in
distinct conceptual ‘morphologies’ or structures.
• Freeden proposes three useful criteria for determining the
degree of ‘maturity’ that sets a full-blown ideology apart
from a fledgling ideational cluster:
• Its degree of uniqueness and complexity;
• Its context-bound responsiveness to a broad range of
political issues;
• Its ability to produce effective claims in the form of
conceptual chains of decontestation.
 Decontestation
This is the process by which ideas are taken out of the contest
over meaning and thus are seen as ‘truths’ by many people. In
other words, these ideas become naturalized through attempts
to reduce the indeterminacy of their meanings to fixed,
authoritative definitions and statements.
‘An ideology attempts to end the inevitable contention over
concepts by decontesting them, by removing their meanings
from contest. “This is what justice means,” announces one
ideology, and “that is what democracy entails.” By trying to
convince us that they are right and that they speak the truth,
ideologies become devices for coping with the indeterminacy of
meaning….That is their semantic role. [But] [i]deologies also
need to decontest the concepts they use because they are
instruments for fashioning collective decisions. That is their
political role’ (Freeden, 2003, p.54-55).
Thus the elite codifiers of competing global ideologies
(globalisms) generate contested claims about what it means to
live in a globalizing world. Today’s competing globalisms, like
the previous ideologies of the national imaginary, remain
always contingent, arguable, and in tension with each other.
 Market Globalism
Market globalism constitutes today’s dominant ideology. Its
chief codifiers are corporate managers, executives of large
transnational corporations, corporate lobbyists, high-level
military officers, journalists, public-relations specialists,
intellectuals writing to large audiences, state bureaucrats and
politicians.
The structure of market globalism is built around a number of
interrelated central claims: that globalization is about the
liberalization and worldwide integration of markets; that it is
powered by neutral techno-economic forces; that the process
is inexorable; that the process is leaderless and anonymous;
that everyone will be better off in the long run, and that
globalization furthers the spread of democracy in the world
(Steger, 2009, esp. Chapter 3).
 Justice Globalism
Justice globalism can be defined by its emphasis on
restorative and redistributive notions of justice, universal
rights, participatory democracy, socio-economic and
environmental sustainability, and global solidarity (Steger
and Wilson, 2012).
• Justice globalism:
• Articulates that the process of globalization thus far has
been powered by corporate interests, to the detriment of
the vast majority of the global population;
• Suggests that the process can take different pathways;
• Argues that the democracy carried by global neoliberal
processes tends to be thin, procedural and representative,
rather than participatory and all-encompassing;
• Claims that ‘globalization-from-above’ or ‘corporate
globalization’ is responsible for the multiple global crises
(financial, energy, climate, food), increasing global
inequality and extreme poverty that we are witnessing in
the early 21st century (Steger and Wilson, 2012).
Thus, justice globalism draws upon a generalizing,
deep-seated imaginary of global connectedness.
 Religious Globalism
• Religious globalism’s most spectacular strain today is
jihadist Islamism, represented by groups such as Jemaah
Islamiya, Hezbollah, Hamas and the al-Qaeda terrorist
network.
• Other religiously-inspired visions of global political
community include fundamentalist Christian groups such
as the Army of God and Christian Identity, a number of
Zionist organizations, Sikh movements, Falun Gong, and
the Aum Shinrikyo cult in Japan.
Despite their emphasis on religion and spirituality and in
some cases strong conservative foundations, religious
globalisms still also promote an alternative global vision.
• These three globalisms are part of a complex, roughly-
woven, but patterned ideational fabric that increasingly
figures the global as a defining condition of the present
while still remaining entangled in the national.
• People who accept the central claims of these globalisms
internalize the apparent inevitability and relative virtue of
global interconnectivity and mobility across global time and
space.
 Future Trajectories of Globalism
• Globalizing ideological forces both generate and respond to
new ‘global problems’ beyond the reach of nationally-based
political institutions and their associated ideologies. These
new global problems include:
• Financial volatility;
• Climate change and environmental degradation;
• Pandemics such as AIDS, swine flu and avian flu;
• Energy and food crises;
• Widening disparities in wealth and well-being;
• Increasing migratory pressures;
• Cultural and religious conflicts;
• Transnational terrorism.
• The unfolding struggle between market globalism and its
two main ideological challengers – justice globalism and
religious globalisms – employs ideas, claims, slogans,
metaphors, and symbols to win over the hearts and minds of
a global audience.
• Will this epic contest lead to more extensive forms of
international cooperation and interdependence, or will it stop
the powerful momentum of globalization?
 ‘Mild reform’ or ‘market globalism with
a human face’
• Market globalist forces might make some moderate
adjustments and pursue a less transparent road to their
ultimate objective, the creation of a single global free market.
Assuring people of their ability to ‘manage globalization
better’, market globalists would rely on their public-relations
efforts to sell their milder version of corporate-driven
globalization to the public.
• However, if implemented at all, their proposals would remain
very modest, leaving the existing global economic
architecture largely intact. In short, this can be summarized as
‘reformist talk but ‘business as usual’ or ‘more of the same’.
• In the last few years, this mild reform scenario has clearly
been the dominant trajectory of globalization, particularly in
response to the GFC 2007-2010.
• Market globalists have attempted to explore neoliberal
policy alternatives for developing and transition countries
and to improve official decision-making on economic issues.
• The problem with such mild reformism is that it focuses only
on certain institutions like the IMF and makes such vague
assurances that it has become necessary to direct the process
of globalization in a way that benefits all people.
• If ‘business as usual’ continues as the dominant trajectory of
globalization, then there is the very real possibility of a
second future scenario, a severe social backlash caused by
the unbridled economic and cultural dynamics of
neoliberalism.
• The theoretical arguments underpinning such a ‘backlash
scenario’ are often associated with the work of the late
political economist Karl Polanyi (1944).
Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation
(1944)
• Polanyi chronicled how commercial interests came to
dominate society by means of a ruthless market logic that
effectively disconnected people’s economic activities from
their social relations. The principles of the free market
destroyed complex social relations of mutual obligation
and undermined communal values such as civic
engagement, reciprocity, and redistribution.
• The market globalism of the 1980s/1990s represented a radical experiment in
unleashing the utopia of the self-regulating market on society.
• Justice globalists challenged this project vigorously in the streets of the world’s
major cities (mass protests in Paris in 1995 and 1998, the famous ‘battle of
Seattle’ in 1999, and protests at meetings of the G8 and G20 such as in Rome
and Gleneagles).
• Religious globalist forces such as radical Islamism also challenged the
neoliberal project, launching a massive attack against what they considered to
be a morally corrupt ideology of secular materialism that had engulfed the
entire world.
• In response to the devastating al-Qaeda strikes, the Bush administration
switched from the soft-power strategy (relying on influence from cultural
sources, shared values and common interests to encourage people and states to
act in accordance with America’s interests) to the hard-power model of imperial
globalism that would dominate for much of the 2000s, a model that relies on the
use of force rather than the influence of ideas and shared interests (Nye 1990).
 The contradiction at the heart of the neo-
liberal project
• Neoliberal market globalism requires frequent and extensive
use of state power in order to dismantle the old welfare
structures and create new laissez-faire policies.
• Similarly, the creation, expansion, and protection of global
free markets demands massive infusions of central state
power.
• Hence the resulting ideological contradiction: market
globalist elites pushing for an ever-expanding mobility of
capital must contend with the state’s security logic that calls
for inspection, surveillance, and other limitations on the free
movement of people, goods, and information across national
borders.
 The ‘global new deal’
• As Fareed Zakaria (2008) suggests, it is also possible that
the ‘rise of the Rest’ – especially China and India – might
actually increase international cooperation and encourage
the forging of new global alliances and networks. This
third future scenario can be called a ‘global new deal’, for
it would signify the rise of political forces ready to
subject the global marketplace to greater democratic
accountability through more effective global regulatory
institutions.
 Specifics of a ‘global new deal’:
• A ‘Marshall Plan’, the collective name for policies
implemented in post-Second World War Europe to encourage
growth and rebuilding, for the global South that includes a
blanket forgiveness of all Third-World debt;
• The levying of a tax on international financial transactions;
• The abolition of offshore financial centres that offer tax
havens for wealthy individuals and corporations;
• The implementation of stringent global environmental
agreements;
• The implementation of a more equitable global development
agenda;
• The establishment of a new world development institution
financed largely by the global North through such measures
as a financial transaction tax and administered largely by the
global South;
• The establishment of international labour protection
standards;
• Greater transparency and accountability provided to citizens
by national governments and international institutions;
• Making all governance of globalization explicitly gender
sensitive;
• The creation of new, global political and economic
institutions such as a World Parliament, a Fair Trade
Organization, and an International Clearing Union.
 To conclude…
It seems that the world desperately needs fundamental
change expressed in a different vision of what our planet
could look like. We have perhaps reached a critical juncture
in the history of our species. Lest we are willing to
jeopardize our collective future, we must find new ways of
dealing with new forms of interdependence that emerge as a
result of globalization. The United States of America and
rising powers like China, India, Russia, and Brazil carry a
special responsibility to put their collective weight behind a
form of globalization that is not defined by economic self-
interest alone, but one that is deeply infused with ethical
concerns for humanity and our natural environment.
• The three future scenarios remain inextricably intertwined
with matters of ideology: the kinds of ideas, values, and
beliefs about globalization that shape our communities.
• As a result of processes of globalization across economic,
political, cultural and ecological dimensions of society,
ideologies have begun to articulate ‘global imaginaries’. The
rising global imaginary is present not only in the ideological
claims of political leaders and business elites who reside in
privileged spaces around the world.
• The global imaginary is nobody’s exclusive property. It
inhabits class, race, and gender, but belongs to none of these.
• It is an impressive testimony to the messy superimposition of
the global village on the conventional nation-state and further
demonstrates the complex and multifaceted nature of
globalization.
 Discussion Point 1: Market, Justice and
Religious Globalisms
•Is the idea of market, justice and religious globalisms
compelling?
•What elements of each are apparent in the world today?
•Who are the main winners and losers associated with the
three globalisms Steger and Wilson discuss?
 Discussion Point 2: Globalization and
Imperialism
•Is monopoly capitalism in the form of transnational
corporations becoming more influential?
•What constraints are placed on the nation-state through
globalization (e.g., international treaties, organizations, etc.)?
Whose interests do these constraints serve?
•Is resistance to Imperialism based mainly in the Third World
or are chickens coming home to roost in the imperialist
powers?