Being Sociological Chapter 15 Globalizing The concept of

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 1960 s, it was not until the late 1980 s and 1990 s 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 Mc. Grew, 2007). Key ‘globalizers’ include David Held and Anthony Mc. Grew, 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-inthe-wool rejectionists has dramatically dwindled.

• Similar arguments come from the proponents of worldsystem 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 21 st 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, p 2).

• 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 G 8 and the G 20, 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, socioeconomic 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 allencompassing; • 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

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, roughlywoven, 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 1980 s/1990 s 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 G 8 and G 20 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 2000 s, 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

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?