Globalization - Notes

Globalization – Notes
NOTES
The French call this mondialization. See, for example,
Ortiz (2006). However, as is clear from his book’s
title, Jean-Luc Nancy (2007) distinguishes between
mondialization, defined as the open creation of the
world, and globalization which is seen as a more
closed and integrated process.
2 Wolf (2005: ix) is slightly more circumscribed in his
judgment saying that globalization “is the great
event of our time.”
3 The term “social” here and elsewhere in his book is
used very broadly to encompass social process in
various sectors – political, economic, social, etc.
4 It should be noted that while the concept of
globalization,
if not this particular definition, is
now very familiar to all of us, it is actually of very
recent vintage. Chanda (2007: 246) reviewed an
electronic database that archives 8,000 sources
throughout the world (newspapers, magazines,
reports). He does not find a reference to globalization
until 1979 and then only in an obscure
European administrative document. By 1981 there
are still only two mentions of the term globalization,
but then such references take off reaching
over 57,000 in 2001. Interestingly the number
drops off after that, but it has begun to rise once

again. It seems likely that the number of references
to globalization will soon exceed that of the previous
peak in 2001.
5 This definition requires several amplifications or
clarifications. First, the idea that globalization is
transplanetary is derived from Scholte (2005).
Second, while globalization is transplanetary, little
traverses the entire planet. The latter is the outer
limit of globalization, but it is rarely approached.
Third, the definition as a whole seems to imply a
“grand narrative” of increasing globalization, but
it is recognized that globalization occurred on a
far more limited scale at earlier points in history
(see Chapter 2) and that the changes described
here are often uneven and that in some cases (e.g.
in the case of immigrants, see below) there was
greater liquidity, things flowed more easily, in earlier
epochs. Fourth, it should be pointed out that
not all of the phenomena mentioned in this definition
are equally liquid or flow to the same
degree. Clearly, communication is the most liquid
and flows the most easily; places and people are
far less liquid and their flow is much more limited.
However, places are much more likely now than in
the past to flow around the world as represented
by the global presence of many fast food restaurants
and other chains. In some senses, people
(e.g. as immigrants) moved more easily in the late
nineteenth and early twentieth century when

nation-states had far fewer restrictions on immigration
than they do today (but those restrictions have increased greatly recently). However, overall
people today are more liquid and flow more easily
globally as, for example, tourists, business travelers,
and the like, and even as immigrants, at least
in some senses (e.g. the flow is much more multidirectional
than it was in that earlier epoch). It is
even more the case that social relationships are
more liquid, and flow more easily, than they did in
the past. Fifth, Tomlinson (2007: 352) offers a definition
of globalization that has much of the flavor
of the perspective being offered here: “complex,
accelerating, integrating process of global connectivity
. . . rapidly developing and ever-densening
network of interconnections and interdependencies
that characterize material, social, economic
and cultural life in the modern world”; another
definition emphasizing flows, interconnectedness,
and also barriers can be found in Yergin and
Stanislaw (1998: 383).
6 For other metaphors applied to globalization,
see Kornprobst et al. (2008).
7 This reflects the tensions that always exist in globalization
since the Greeks resent this theft. This
resentment has grown recently with the building
of a new Acropolis Museum in Athens (part of it
opened in 2008) which makes a point of highlighting
the missing portions of the Parthenon.
8 As we will see, capitalism is very much implicated

in globalization, but as we will also see throughout
this book, there is much, much more to
globalization
than capitalism or economics more
generally.
9 A similar point of view is offered by the popular
journalist Thomas Friedman with his notion “fluid
networks” which operate in a largely unimpeded
manner across what he sees as an increasingly
“flat world”; for more on Friedman’s thinking, and
a critique of the idea of a flat world, see Chapter 4.
10 For a rebuttal to this argument, see Weiss (1998).
11 In addition to “flow” Chanda (2007) uses terms like
“flowing,” “water,” “ripples,” and “waves” in discussing
globalization. “Tracking Global Flows” is the
title of Inda and Rosaldo’s (2008a) Introduction to
an anthology of work in anthropology on globalization,
and flows is the organizing principle of that
book. The five substantive sections of that book
deal with the flow of capital, people, commodities,
the media, and ideologies. Paul Gilroy (1993: 190)
often uses images of ships and sea voyages in his
discussion of global “flows.” See also Ong (2006a).
12 This is in line with one of the two approaches
outlined
by Martin, Metzger, and Pierre (2006). That
is, that which is truly global is not simply similar
changes in many countries.
13 John Urry (2009) sees this as part of the fact that

everything these days seems to be on the move
and, as a result, we need a new “mobilities” theory
to deal with that reality.
14 Although, as we will see, especially in Chapter 13,
great global inequality, especially in this case the
“digital divide,” prevents large portions of the
world from receiving many of these flows.
15 Although, contrary to US propaganda, al-Qaeda
did not have much of a role, if any, in Iraq.
16 George Soros (2000: xix) argues, for example, that
global capitalism has “produced a very uneven
playing field.”
17 For a similar point of view, see Shamir (2005:
197–217).
18 While this discussion will focus on structures, it is
clear that structures are created, run, and staffed
by human agents who direct their operations. This
is in line with the general tendency in social theory
to be concerned with the relationship between
structure and agency. See Ritzer (2008b: 394–420).
19 In fact, such routes, “trade routes,” have existed
for centuries (e.g. the Silk Road of the thirteenth
century) and continue to exist, although they have
been greatly affected and modified by technological
advances of all sorts. See Ciolek (2007: 1180–4).
20 Castells (2000); Holton (2007); in fact, the idea of
networks is so important to the study of globalization
that there is even a journal called Global
Networks: A Journal of Transnational Affairs.

21 One who emphasizes interconnections is Nayan
Chanda in Bound Together: How Traders, Preachers,
Adventurers, and Warriors Shaped Globalization.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007.
22 Meyer and Geschiere (2003) also discuss the “dialectics
of flow and closure,” although their concerns
are more microscopic than here in the sense
that they are concerned with the closure of identity
in the face of flows of people.
23 As the song from Showboat says, “Ol’ Man River . . .
He Keeps on Rollin’ Along.”
24 For a similar view, see Ho (2005).
25 Lowenhaupt Tsing (2005: 6) addresses power here
rather than flows.
26 Tapscott and Williams (2006); for a critique of this
see Keen (2007).

Globalization - Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Globalization - Notes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Globalization - Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Globalization – Notes

The French call this mondialization. See, for example,

Ortiz (2006). However, as is clear from his book’s

title, Jean-Luc Nancy (2007) distinguishes between

mondialization, defined as the open creation of the

world, and globalization which is seen as a more

closed and integrated process.

2 Wolf (2005: ix) is slightly more circumscribed in his

judgment saying that globalization “is the great

event of our time.”

3 The term “social” here and elsewhere in his book is

used very broadly to encompass social process in

various sectors – political, economic, social, etc.

4 It should be noted that while the concept of

if not this particular definition, is

now very familiar to all of us, it is actually of very

recent vintage. Chanda (2007: 246) reviewed an

electronic database that archives 8,000 sources

throughout the world (newspapers, magazines,

reports). He does not find a reference to globalization

until 1979 and then only in an obscure

European administrative document. By 1981 there

are still only two mentions of the term globalization,

but then such references take off reaching

over 57,000 in 2001. Interestingly the number

drops off after that, but it has begun to rise once

to globalization will soon exceed that of the previous

5 This definition requires several amplifications or

clarifications. First, the idea that globalization is

transplanetary is derived from Scholte (2005).

Second, while globalization is transplanetary, little

traverses the entire planet. The latter is the outer

limit of globalization, but it is rarely approached.

Third, the definition as a whole seems to imply a

“grand narrative” of increasing globalization, but

it is recognized that globalization occurred on a

far more limited scale at earlier points in history

(see Chapter 2) and that the changes described

here are often uneven and that in some cases (e.g.

in the case of immigrants, see below) there was

greater liquidity, things flowed more easily, in earlier

epochs. Fourth, it should be pointed out that

not all of the phenomena mentioned in this definition

are equally liquid or flow to the same

degree. Clearly, communication is the most liquid

and flows the most easily; places and people are

far less liquid and their flow is much more limited.

However, places are much more likely now than in

the past to flow around the world as represented

by the global presence of many fast food restaurants

and other chains. In some senses, people

(e.g. as immigrants) moved more easily in the late

nineteenth and early twentieth century when

people today are more liquid and flow more easily

globally as, for example, tourists, business travelers,

and the like, and even as immigrants, at least

in some senses (e.g. the flow is much more multidirectional

than it was in that earlier epoch). It is