Several months ago I posted an analysis of the UN Millennium Declaration (UNMD). One of the things I mentioned was the stated goal of the UNMD, to promote globalization in a positive light and to ensure that everyone benefits equally from it. I went on to provide a very brief definition of "globalization", just enough to serve my purposes at the time. Nevertheless, it's clear that globalization is a very complex concept that requires more attention (probably even more than I may ever have the opportunity to devote to the subject). What I would like to do now is to present a brief overview of my current understanding of the concept based on recent literature. This is certainly not the only definition of globalization, but I believe it is one of very few ways of defining it in a manner that is consistent with the goals of the UNMD. (Note: references are incomplete. I'll fix this in the next couple of days.)
Click below to read on...
The concept "globalization" is often characterized as a hopelessly vague concept that can, and will be used to justify any number of ideologies or world views. While there are those that feel that this is sufficient reason to abolish the concept, others see this as an indication of healthy discourse contributing to the formulation of a meaningful concept (Bartelson, Robertson & Khondker). What is being suggested by the latter group is that concepts like "globalization" do not refer to 'things' that we can identify or point to. Rather, that they attempt to capture the current conceptual state of our attempts to construct meaningful expressions about the world around us through our discourse. As such, these concepts are constantly undergoing change both through our attempts to apply them and our attempts to understand them. This is certainly consistent with what has already been said about globalization as it is construed in the UNMD, where globalization is portrayed as something that can, and presumably will be, ultimately understood as a positive force for all citizens of the world. Therefore by setting such goals, the signatories of the UNMD have committed to encouraging and enabling discourse amongst all citizens of the world to shape our ultimate understanding of globalization.
There is a tendency to define globalization in terms of metaphorical relations with past and current elements of changing international relations. Scholte (cite) has identified typical definitions that follow this model:
1. Globalization as internationalization – In this context, globalization is identified with increasing interdependence between nation-states primarily in the form of economic transactions. As such, Scholte sees this as simply placing a “globalization” label on the older notion of “international relations”.
2. Globalization as liberalization – In this context, globalization is equated with the economic policies of neoliberalism that promote an open and “borderless” global economy. Scholte points out that neoliberalism is not a necessary component of globalization and that other policy frameworks are available.
3. Globalization as universalization – In this context, globalization is used to describe the homogenization effects of global transfer of products, cultures and ideas. Scholte points out that the exchange of culture and policy is not a new phenomenon.
4. Globalization as Westernization – In this context, globalization refers to a specific type of universalization that is commonly identified with U.S. culture and is seen as a cultural colonization rather than homogenization. Scholte does not reject the idea that Westernization and globalization may be connected, but points out that this is no reason to equate the two since future globalization could take a different direction.
5. Globalization as supraterritoriality - In this context, globalization describes the spatial and temporal reconfigurations in our social space. This definition of globalization identifies “… the planet – the earthly world as a whole – as a site of social relations in its own right.”
Scholte rejects the first four definitions purely on pragmatic grounds in that they do not provide new insights into the nature of international relationships or are not useful for the present discourse. In a certain sense, this is in keeping with what has been said before, i.e. that the concept of globalization is shaped by discourse and that our primary concern is to ensure that the resulting concept is a positive one. On the other hand, what Scholte seems prepared to overlook is that the definitions that he rejects must, since they are presented as legitimate definitions by others, reflect someone's impression of globalization. As such, they cannot be simply discarded, but must be dealt with in the context of the current discourse.
Bartelson (cite) offers a simpler classification of existing definitions of globalization; as transference, as transformation, and as transcendence. This classification is, for the most part, consistent with Scholte's, although Bartelson groups some of Scholte's elements into more general categories. What is different about Bartelson's classification is that he portrays these categories in terms of the direction of the impact of globalizing forces, with transference operating "inside out" (pg. 184), transformance operating "outside in" (pg. 187), and transcendence "[dissolving] the divide between inside and outside." (pg. 189). While Scholte portrays his distinct categories of globalization as separate discourses, some of which can easily be dismissed, Bartelson sees these as necessary elements for understanding and supporting the current discourse in which "the global" is portrayed as a distinct domain, or in Scholte's terms, the "supraterritorial" domain.
Scholte's conceptualization of "globalization as supraterritoriality" is the only one of the five that he identifies that he does not reject. He and Bartelson, with his "globalization as transcendence", seem to be in agreement that this is an accurate portrayal of globalization in contemporary discourse, although they don't entirely agree on how we got here or how we carry that discourse forward.
This concept of globalization as supraterritoriality identifies “… the planet – the earthly world as a whole – as a site of social relations in its own right.” This is not to say that social relations across the planet are a recent development, these have certainly existed in many forms before. The change that Scholte is describing with this definition is that in the past these relations have had a distinct territorial character because of the time and distance involved in transfer along these connections. In the present environment, these relations take place in one global territory, either over the Internet or in “global cities”, such as London or Tokyo. Exchanges that are conducted in these spaces do not necessarily involve transfers across vast physical spaces and are therefore nearly instantaneous. Nevertheless, this is not to say that supraterritoriality has replaced territoriality, rather that it adds a layer of complexity to relations between territories (Scholte pg. 26). Interactions that eventually take place in the supraterritorial space still tend to originate in traditional territories, ex. business transactions are conducted in territorial currencies, computer users access the Internet from territorial locations, and products that are bought and sold in the supraterritorial space usually end up in territorial locations. Whether or not supraterritoriality will replace territoriality remains to be seen. This possibility is at least not ruled out. Indeed, the exchange of “virtual” goods, such as Internet domains or game-related valuables, may be indications of what is to come.
It is clear from the discourse on globalization that “... a rapid and sustained shift is occurring in the ways we learn and do things.” (Stromquist & Monkman, 2000). What drives these changes is first and foremost developments in ICTs (Singh, 1999). Scholte’s definition of globalization as supraterritoriality echoes these concerns in its emphasis on the increasing importance of ICTs in global relations, and consequently the increasing importance of information and knowledge related work that goes with it. While we can identify examples of knowledge successfully transcending borders throughout human history without modern ICTs (Kanwen, 2001), it is the speed and ease with which information now flows that gives rise to the issues commonly related to globalization in current times. As the discourse on globalization is increasingly facilitated by ICTs, and therefore shaped by ICTs, it becomes crucial that to ensure that the emerging concept of globalization is equitable for all, that everyone is able to use those technologies to participate in the discourse.
This brings us to the significance of globalization for the UNMD and MDGs. The aim of the international development community is to ensure that the supraterritorial global space is one which welcomes and reflects the values of all concerned. In terms of development needs, this means ensuring equal and equitable access to the supraterritorial space and the discourse and social interactions it facilitates. Most important for the achievement of these goals are education and ICTs. In this context, the primary role for education is to empower individuals and communities to participate in the discourse that is constantly shaping our conceptualization of globalization and the primary tools for this are ICTs. Therefore, we can conclude that the promotion of ICTs are central to any and all development efforts. This includes adapting ICTs to the needs of developing countries and providing individuals with the skills and self-confidence needed to engage with the global community on a wide range of matters and for a wide range of tasks. Adaptation of technology can include developing technologies that can operate in environments with little or no access to traditional communications infrastructure or electricity, designing interfaces that suit different cultures, ex. multi-lingual applications, meaningful visual representations, etc.. The skills needed include, but are certainly not limited to, literary skills, numerical skills, basic computer skills (including network related skills), information and communications skills (i.e. ability to critically evaluate information and contribute to discourse) and awareness of ethical concerns related to the use ICTs to engage with a global population. These are very general needs and should not be considered to be separable from any single context. These pertain equally to developed, as well as developing countries and should be considered necessary elements in any activity, be it related to education, health, business management, daily life, etc..
Posted by thay0012 at June 28, 2006 12:01 PM | TrackBack