Explain what we mean by globalisation and highlight its’ alleged benefits to mankind.
To answer this question we must be selective. What we are
asked to
define is broad. It describes a process that is going on around us and
affects
everyone and everything on this planet. As far back as the 1960’s the
term
‘global village’ was being used. Yet the origins of globalisation stem
much
further back. Arguably globalisation was taking place as far back as
the
Renaissance and Magellan’s journey around the world. One could even say
that
some of the processes that we attribute to its modern definition were
taking
place as far back as the days of the Roman Empire. It becomes
impossible
therefore to draw a starting point for globalisation. Was the invention
of the
aeroplane? Or the invention of the Internet? Technology and transport
seem to
be the causes, but it is the anthropologist’s job to analyse the
effects in
particular.
There are a number of definitions of globalisation. One
concise
definition comes from Lechner and Bali “Globalisation effectively
captures the
growth of linkages across national boundaries, the global expansion of
market
economy and the rise of a complex but integrated society” (Lechner and
Bali,
2004) Other definitions have tended to include awareness of the
process, yet
this is clearly not the case for some. We witness the isolation of
China from
the rest of the world, and remember that not everybody is familiar with
the
brand Coca Cola as examples of this. Other definitions have included
the reference
to dominant cultures (usually the United States or the ‘west’) but this
has
come to be dismissed by many in the field as not being a wholly
accurate
description of the process. Even the definition here can be seen as
insufficient as it speaks of a society, which
can be seen
to imply cultural homogenisation. There indeed are many arguments and
examples
to show that this is not the case. Perhaps another definition that
answers our
question is “ a condition in which the rapid flow of capital, people,
goods,
images, and ideologies across national boundaries continuously draws
more of
the world into webs of interconnectedness, thereby compressing our
sense of
time and space and making the world seem smaller.” Indeed the latter
part of
this definition can be seen to be true, but it must be noted that there
are
many countries which seek to restrict this and therefore it can be a
slight
over generalisation.
There are a few aspects of this process that must be
remembered before
assessing its benefits. Firstly the term modernity must be
differentiated from
globalisation, but must at the same time, be analysed as it is an
integral part
of the process. Thomas Eriksen defines modernisation as everything that
“capitalism, the modern state and individualism mean to human
existence” (T.
Eriksen p. 297) Technology is crucial to understanding modernisation.
Communication technology contributes in two ways to the disengaging of
certain
cultural phenomenon form space, he argues. The first are the various
aspects of
youth culture, from Coca Cola to Levi jeans, popular films to political
problems like the environment. These aspects exist both locally and
globally at
the same time. The second is the various array of communication media
which
allow people to be ‘anywhere in the world at anytime’. Added to this is
the jet
plane which allows one to get anywhere on the globe within 24 hours.
Aspects of globalisation can be observed in both institutions
and
cultural representations. The state is an example of an institution in
this
respect. It is very difficult though possible to maintain an existence
isolated
from the state. It impinges on most aspects of our lives, especially
through
taxation and ‘legitimate violence’ as Eriksen puts it. Capital which is
‘disembedded’ from territory is another important aspect of
globalisation
though not universal. Companies can invest almost anywhere in the
world. This
results in what is known as the ‘butterfly effect’, where if for
example
exports of Taiwanese computers increase one year then a shop in
California may
go bankrupt. Similar to this is the environmental ‘crises’ where a
disappearance of the Rainforests can affect climate worldwide and a
nuclear
reactor meltdown will be reported in newspapers from China to England.
The
paradox of globalisation as Eriksen sees it is that the world is made
both
smaller and larger at the same time. Smaller in that one can travel
anywhere in
a short space of time and bigger in the sense that we know more about
remote
and exotic places and can therefore recognise our mutual differences.
It is worth taking a look at the five dimensions of global
cultural flow
as Appadurai (1990) sees them. The first is the ethnoscape which refers
to the
‘landscape of persons who constitute the world in which we live’ or the
demographic features of the world such as migration and communities.
After this
is the technoscape which essentially means the distribution of
technology or
‘global configuration… of technology’. Thirdly Appadurai talks of the
finanscape which is the flow of capital referred to earlier. Lastly
there are
the ideoscape (ideological messages) and mediascape (mass media
constructions).
Global consciousness, while not necessarily the case for all,
again
should be analysed to help us define globalisation. Roland Robertson
introduces
this term to us along with ‘compression of the world’. Evidence of a
global
consciousness comes from terms such as world order, world peace, human
rights
and ‘saving the planet’. This
consciousness
is a result of accelerated world compression in the last ten years in
particular.
As with anything, there are both good and bad sides to
globalisation.
Some of the features which will be analysed here are for the most part
good,
but will contain some negative aspects. These aspects will also be
analysed in
order to reach a balanced conclusion. Globalisation is broken down into
four
main categories. 1) The Political, 2) the economic, 3) the social and
4) the
cultural. While anthropologists are mainly concerned with the latter,
it is necessary
to study the others in order to understand the cultural aspects of it.
Each of
them are interrelated and it is this impossible to grasp one without
understanding the other.
Daniel T. Griswold argues in his article for the Centre for
trade policy
studies, that politically, globalisation has benefited the
world. It has
encouraged the growth of democracies and toned down conflicts. People
who live
in an open economy, on average live longer, eat better, and because
they are
generally better educated are able to assemble more freely and elect
their
rulers democratically. This positive relationship with the state means,
in his
view, that they are less likely to fight wars. “There is no evidence
that
globalisation has fomented violence, either within of among countries.”
(D.
Griswold). The worst strife the world has seen in recent years has
occurred in
places that were relatively undemocratic and economically protected
such as
Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and the former Yugoslavia. He quotes the World
Bank as
saying, “the incidence of civil war has declined sharply in the
globalising
developing regions, but has risen sharply in Africa.” The reason for
this is
that a closed market can often create frustration and envy of the
wealth of
others whereas in an open market, people can channel this into creating
wealth.
Politically we have also seen
the rise in organisations such as the EU and the United Nations. In
particular,
the latter while relatively weak has served the world on many occasions
in
acting as peacemaker in conflicts. The European Union, while perceived
by many
as merely an economic project was in fact originally a peace project.
It was
born out of a desire to end wars by making countries so economically
interdependent that conflict would be unthinkable. In this respect it
has
succeeded.
There are certain truths in what Griswold says. However it is
obvious
that he tends to over-generalise and admits that “these observations
are not
based on academic theories but on how the world really works”. So how
does the
world really work? Griswold’s analysis is based on an economic
definition of
globalisation. Free trade is the basis of this definition and
indeed the
main cause behind the increase in wealth throughout the world, which
has in
turn led to the rise in communications. In another article he defines
globalisation as “ the growing liberalisation of international trade
and
investment, and the resulting increase in the integration of national
economies.”
The question arises then; what is so good about free trade?
In an
article entitled The Blessings of Free Trade, James Glassman
states
“work is what we need to do in order to acquire things that enable us
to live
well. Free trade helps us get those things more cheaply because it
allows many
more producers to sell them to us--- and because it frees us to
concentrate on
the work we do best.” (J. Glassman 1998) Free Trade is based on the
idea first
thought of ‘comparative advantage’, first thought of by economist David
Ricardo
in 1817. As Adam Smith, the founder of modern economics said “never
make at
home what it will cost more to buy… if a foreign country can supply us
with a
commodity cheaper than ourselves can make it, better buy it off them”
Admitting
that indeed some people are hurt by free trade such as those in the
textile
industries, Glassman points our that on the whole a country gains as
all the
consumers are the ones to benefit.
Dan Griswold highlights two other benefits of economic
globalisation.
The first is faster economic growth and the second is reductions in
poverty.
Under globalisation consumers gain rapidly from a wide range of imports
which
improve their standard of living. Domestic producers gain from cheaper
intermediate inputs. On the export side he says, these industries can
enjoy a
quantum leap in economies of scale by serving global markets rather
than only a
confined and underdeveloped domestic market. By opening up their
markets they
can gain access to higher levels of technology which gives them
‘latecomer’s
advantage’. This implies faster economic growth which benefits the
country as a
whole. He points to a study by Jeffrey Sachs and Andrew Warner of 117
countries, which show that open economies grow much faster than closed
ones.
Specifically in the 70’s and 80’s a rate of 4.5% for open economies
compared
with 0.7% for closed economies.
Reduction in poverty has been a major benefit of
globalisation. The
world bank studies have show again and again that poverty has been
reduced
dramatically. In East Asia, the number of people living in absolute
poverty has
declined from 432 million to 267 million. Globalisation has facilitated
the
spread of modern medicine, which helps to reduce infant mortality and
increase
life expectancy. As Griswold rightly points out “ opponents of
globalisation try
to blame poverty in the world on the spread of trade and investment
liberalisation. But those regions where poverty and inequality have
been most
visible…Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, and the Indian
Sub-continent…
followed policies of economic centralisation and isolation.” (D.
Griswold).
Some of the challenges for economic globalisation though include
eradicating
the gap between rich and poor, and doing away with trade barriers of
rich
countries against poor countries, which ironically was precisely what
the WTO
was attempting while anti-globalisation protesters were marching
outside last
summer.
From a religious point of view does
globalisation have anything to offer? Perhaps the religion regarded, as most at odds
with globalisation is Islam. Heather Havrilesky writing for salon,
quotes those
interviewed in the in the Middle East as saying such shows as friends
are
“cultural pollution” and a “threat to Muslim identity.” M. Miasami,
points out
that it is not in fact globalisation Muslims have a problem with but
Westernisation. Globalisation has become associated with the “liberal
classical
economic theory” (M. Miasami 2003) Globalisation he says targets the
narrowing
of the gaps separating different communities. Westernisation on the
other hand,
tends to be a one way street, meaning that “one region attempts to
dominate and
control other regions in the name of globalisation”. He points out that
while
westernisation of society is condemned, modernisation is not. Indeed
this is
true when we remember the use that Al Qaeda have made technology in
their fight
against the U.S.
On the international forum for
Islamic dialogue, Dr. Chandra Muzaffar has published an interesting
article
regarding the role of religion in globalisation. “It was religion that
first preached
the oneness of mankind,” she says. “ And yet.. The vision of religion
has all
but faded into oblivion”(C. Muzaffar) She argues that the current
globalisation
process has its roots in western colonial domination although that is
no longer
the case. Some advantages for religion of globalisation are as follow:
1) the
reduction of poverty, 2) acceleration of social mobility which results
in
burgeoning middle class as “no religion denies its followers a measure
of
degree of material comfort”, 3) The dissemination of knowledge and the
promotion of health care, 4) breakdown in communication barriers which
she says
is “something religion should welcome”, 5) It presents the potential
for
members of different communities, cultures and religions to know one
another on
an even greater level. 6) It allows people to demonstrate sympathy for
people
thousands of miles away, “connected human hearts separated by land and
language
colour and cultures as never before in human history. 7) Issues such as
rule of
law, public accountability and human rights which are in harmony with
the
fundamental principles of Islam and certain other religions, and 8)
ideas
relating to women’s rights which are welcome by Islam she says, and not
necessarily in contrast with the Q’aran.
Despite these benefits there is still much left to be desired
with the
current situation she asserts. Problems include, environmental
degradation,
income gaps and the facilitating of foreign investors at the cost of
infrastructure for the people. The immoral character of the global
economy is
especially important, as is, the decline in cultural diversity and the
lack of
inculcation of moral values in the education. This is because education
is
forced to restructure in order to cope with modern demands. Regarding
the
information on the Internet religions view is clear that there is a lot
of smut
in cyberspace and “not all knowledge leads to wisdom”. However, despite
this
she concludes that the challenge presented to religion is to make use
of this
medium and global network to promote its message and not to allow
“narrow
minded bigots to monopolise the airwaves”. We also have seen an example
of this
with Mecca Cola which offers an alternative to Coca Cola. With 10% of
the
profits going to a Palestinian children’s charity it capitalises on the
wave of
anti-American feeling persuading consumers to “buy Muslim”. This is
backlash it
is claimed not against globalisation or America but against American
foreign
policy. Nevertheless it serves as a useful example to those who wish to
promote
their religion in a positive way.
Jonathan Friedman, in his book Cultural Identity and
Global
Processes, asserts that globalisation need not be in conflict with
local
cultures. In his chapter on Globalisation and Localisation he
gives a
number of examples of how certain cultures have used the global capital
market
to their advantage. The Ainu of Japan for example, while not recognised
as an
ethnic minority by the Japanese government, have asserted themselves on
the
world stage. It is impossible to take on one single interpretation of
the
cultural and ethnic situation globally he argues. Global
decentralisation has
created a cultural renaissance as meaning that the intensive practice
of
identity has become the hallmark of our age. “Liberation, and
self-determination, hysterical fanaticism, ever increasing border
conflicts,
all go hand in hand with an ever increasing multi-nationalisation of
world
market products” (Friedman 1994 p.102)
Les Sapeurs are an institution of people who in quite simple
terms dress
elegantly. Se saper, the French word means to dress elegantly. The
groups
official name is Societie des Ambianceurs et Personnes
Elégantes. They progress
through a danse de griffes with great name labels and displayed
accordingly as part
of the ritual status. The display of
expensive goods is a sign of power and defines ones social rank. This
may seem
quite normal to those in the west as modern consumerism where
appearance and
being are quite distinct from one another, where Friedman says there is
a ‘real
person’ beneath the surface. But this is not the case for the Congolese
Sapeurs
– these two aspects are identical, you are what you where. They are an
expression of the life force possessed bu a person and life force is
always and
everywhere external. Consumption he emphasis is a life and death
struggle for
psychic and social survival and consumes the entire person. This
therefore
presents a real threat he claims to the real power structure.
The Ainu of Japan have been for many years, ‘painfully’
integrated into
modern society. They must as Friedman puts it, enter modernity as Japan
defines
it. In the 1970’s however a cultural movement developed. It began with
the
establishment of schools for the teaching of language and traditions.
Beyond
this they have established traditional dance, weaving and woodcarving
which
occur on a weekly basis. These events are advertised in order to
encourage
newspaper coverage and to get tourist to come along. These tourists are
not
only encouraged to buy Ainu products but to participate in the
activities, hear
about the mythology, rituals, history and taste Ainu food. Friedman
quotes one
villager as saying “we make carvings because we cannot stop. It is in
our
blood” Thus the commodicfication of their identity has not had a
de-authenticating effect. This has led to the creation of a distinct
identity
in a Japan where such specificity is officially interpreted as mere
variation
on Japanese culture. Although they may appear to be as extreme as the
Sapeurs,
in their strategy, their intents are diametrically opposed to one
another.
The Hawaiian cultural movement on the other hand is
inherently and
adamantly anti-tourist. This movement too began in the 1970’s and the
culture
had also begun to decline after years of integration with the Unites
States and
surrounding countries to a lesser extent. Hawaiians do not feel the
need to
advertise their local culture. This has been done for them. Friedman
says the
“constitution of Hawaiian identity excludes tourism and especially the
objectification of Hawaiians implied by tourist commercialisation.”
This is
obviously in contrast to the Ainu where their goal is to present their
identity
as they conceive it, the products are extensions of themselves.
Friedman sums up his argument as thus. “Congolese consumes
modernity to
strengthen themselves. The Ainu produce traditional goods in order to
create
themselves. The former appropriate otherness, while the latter produce
selfhood
for others. Hawaiians produce selfhood for themselves.” The Congolese
at the
bottom of a hierarchy of ranked well-being defined as imported life
force,
desperately struggle to appropriate the latter via accumulation of what
appear
to us as signs of status, but which for them are the substance of life. For both the Ainu and the Hawaiians as
opposed to the Congolese, ‘traditional’ culture is experienced as
external, as
a past that has been lost and must be regained. In conclusion he states
that in
taking the global historical framework of reference for consumption as
part of
identity we can see clear differences in the strategies as well as
their
transformations in time.
Other examples of this can be seen in our own culture in
Ireland, where
the Irish language is increasingly adapting to new mediums to promote
itself.
Interesting is the case of Galway city where American tourists flock to
see
‘traditional’ music. This music and culture is indeed genuine and not
of the
despised de-authenticated type. In an article entitled How Sushi
Went
Global, Theodore C. Bestor uses sushi as a prime example of the
globalisation of an regional industry, “with intense international
competition
and thorny environmental regulations; centuries-old practices combined
with
high technology…”(T. Bestor 2000) It also disproves the theory that
westernisation is the same as globalisation and that the flow is east
to west
also.
All these perceived benefits of globalisation have their dark
sides too.
For instance, even though the cultures examined above may not be
de-authenticated as perceived by most in the culture, some could argue
that
certain aspects of the culture have been left out which are important
too.
Nevertheless the important point is that the cultures have not died out
as has
was thought earlier in the 20th century by anthropologists
alike.
They have adapted and changed with modern times. Religions have to some
extent
done this too.
The positive sides to globalisation outlined in this essay
have been
multidisciplinary, which is necessarily to grasp globalisation in its
fullest
meaning. AT the same time though, they are all interlinked. At the very
core of
the process is economics. If the people are materially happy then
generally
they are happy in other ways of life, or at least it is a
stepping-stone. Yet
difficulties have emerged in the capitalist system which calls for the
need to
maintain tighter control over it. Provided this can be done then
globalisation
should benefit most. Religions have praised globalisation for bringing
the
world’s peoples closer together, raising material wealth and bringing
important
social issues to the fore, yet still maintain a large number of
reservations.
Politics has benefited from a more peaceful world. Without
globalisation peace
projects, such as the EU could not have taken place. Finally the
cultural
aspects of globalisation have been debated ad nauseum among
anthropological
circles and to no definite conclusion. What can be said is that we are
witnessing perhaps the emergence of new cultures as variations of the
old.
Rather than homogenisation we have hybridisation which is not
necessarily a bad
thing and the reviving of old cultures with modern twists.
T. Eriksen,
Small Places, Large Issues
Daniel T.
Griswold, The Best Way to Grow
Future Democracies. www.freetrade.org/pubs/articles/dg-2-15-04.html
James K.
Glassman, The Blessings of Free Trade, www.freetrade.org/pubs/briefs/tpb-001.html
Roland
Robertson, World Compression and Intensification of Global
Consciousness,
Heather
Havrilesky, Besieged by “Friends”. www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/cultural/2003/0715friends.htm
M. Miasami.
Islam and Globalisation www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/cultural/2003/0808islam.htm
Dr. Chandra
Muzzafar, Globalisation and Religion: Some Reflections www.islam21.net/pages/keyissues/key1-42.htm
Jonathan
Friedman, Cultural Identity and Global Processes
Theodore C.
Bestor How Sushi Went Global , 2000 www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/cultural/2001/1201sushi.htm