Globalization. George Ritzer

CONTROLS GLOBALIZATION?

There is another issue with thinking that globalization (or de-globalization) is inexorable. Thinking in terms of such inevitabilities also serves to reduce people to the status of “judgmental dopes” (Ritzer and Stepnisky 2017: 387) who can do nothing but blindly accept such changes. While it is true that people may often be overwhelmed by such large-scale changes, they always retain the ability to act singly and collectively to modify, if not prevent, such changes. While people may at times seem like judgmental dopes, at other times they are much more likely to act as powerful agents (Giddens 1984) and even “dangerous giants.”⁵

      This relates to the distinction between “globalization from above” and “globalization from below” (Kellner 2002; Langman 2012). We can define globalization from above as a process that is created and controlled by centralized and powerful groups, such as the wealthy elites or MNCs (especially those associated with the North), and imposed on less powerful groups. Globalization from above is associated with neoliberalism (see Chapter 4) and popular writers like Thomas Friedman. When looked at in this way, globalization is to a large degree imposed on individual actors in both the North and the South, and the greatest benefits go to a minority of powerful states, MNCs, and wealthy individuals.

      While much of globalization is certainly from above, social scientists are particularly attuned to globalization from below that serves, at least to some degree, to counteract it and shape its outcomes via more democratic processes. Globalization from below can take the form of marginalized groups and social movements, which struggle to make globalization benefit more people and to make global processes more democratic. In addition, globalization from below can also involve whole nations (largely in the less developed world). From the perspective of globalization from below, people are agents, even “dangerous giants.” Through grassroots activism, strikes, boycotts, and social movement mobilization, they fight against the inequities produced through globalization from above.

      Globalization from below generally relates to the counter-reactions to globalization from above. As a result, it is often called the “anti-globalization” movement, but this would be a misnomer because the movement is generally not against globalization per se, but rather specific forms of that process, especially globalization from above. (Terms like alter-globalization or global justice movement are also often affixed to it – for more on this, see Chapter 15.) Thus the various groups and organizations associated with that movement (most generally the World Social Forum) oppose impositions by, for example, the US, Wal-Mart, and the IMF. These organizations and groups cannot be seen as being anti-globalization because in many cases they are global themselves and their ambition is to create and sustain global processes and movements that stand in opposition to globalization from above.

Alter-globalization is generally seen to have come of age in protests against the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Seattle in 1999 (although there were precursors such as protests in Madrid in 1994). In Seattle, the protestors forced the postponement of the opening session of the WTO meeting and violent protests occurred for days. The media attention to these activities gave important visibility and momentum to the alter-globalization movement. This movement took a more collective form with the creation of the World Social Forum (WSF) in Porto Alegre, Brazil in 2001. That organization has met nearly every year since, usually in January because that is the month that the group that represents much of what it is opposed to, the World Economic Forum (WEF) (composed mainly of business and political leaders, although others – journalists, intellectuals – may also be invited), meets annually in Davos, Switzerland. Both the WEF and, more importantly in this context, the WSF (as well as the organizations and groups that are involved in it) are global in nature and therefore WSF cannot be considered as being anti-globalization. Rather, it is an example of globalization from below.

      A particularly good example of this is the Italian-based Slow Food Movement. Founded in 1989 and getting its spark from protests against the opening of a McDonald’s at the foot of the Spanish Steps in Rome, Slow Food has become a global movement (Galli and Degliesposti 2012; Snyder et al. 2018). Its 100,000 members participate in 2,400 food communities that span 160 countries around the world. Thus, Slow Food is global in character and involved in various ways in globalization. It is clearly not anti-globalization, but it is opposed to various types of globalization from above, most obviously the global proliferation of McDonald’s and other fast-food chains that offer industrialized fast food. More positively, Slow Food is in favor of the support and even global distribution of local foods that are produced by traditional methods and that have not come to be controlled by agro-industries. Slow Food has expanded in various directions and is involved in various activities, many of which are global in scope and opposed to globalization from above. For example, since 2004 it has sponsored a meeting, Terra Madre, that involves representatives from many countries around the world brought together to discuss such issues as organic foods, small-scale farming and fishing, and above all the sustainable production of food. At the same time, it opposes such forms of globalization from above as the global exportation and proliferation of genetically modified foods.

The most general point here is that globalization is not restricted to the actions of those on “top” (e.g. nation-state and MNC leaders), but also comes from the “bottom” in the actions of people and groups that have a different, often conflicting, vision of globalization. Of course, there are also many other people and groups that are anti-globalization. Far-right nationalist parties may be the most visible such groups today, and even seek to participate in regional (e.g. European Parliament) and global organizations (United Nations) with the intent of fighting them from within. Such anti-globalization groups struggle against any form of globalization and reinforce separation and isolation. These groups reject, or seek to dismantle, such institutions and connections. Perhaps the most important point in this context is to recognize that globalization, or at least any specific type of globalization, is not inexorable because of the actions of the groups associated with alter-globalization (and in some instances, anti-globalization).

DOES GLOBAPHILIA OR GLOBAPHOBIA HAVE THE UPPER HAND?

      The preceding is related to the chasm that exists between those who are fans of, and favor, globalization (globaphilia) and those who fear it and are opposed to it (globaphobia). Those who are globaphiliacs see much to celebrate about globalization. They tend to emphasize its positive, and to deemphasize its negative, sides. Those associated with globaphobia tend to see people as “victims” of globalization and its largely negative consequences. Then there are middle-ground positions on this: “neither globaphobia nor globaphilia seem entirely justified. Globalization is neither a limitless source of benefit to humanity, as some claim, nor is it guilty of all the ills for which it is held responsible” (de la Dehesa 2006: x).

GLOBAPHILIA

      A great deal of attention has been devoted, at least until recently, to the economic success attributed to globalization (Kahn 2012). It is clear to supporters that the North has gained disproportionately from globalization. There is a tendency to ignore the “losers” in the process, including not only most of the South, but also those in the North who have not been beneficiaries of these economic gains. While the losers are ignored, they are expected to take solace in the assumption that while they may not yet have gained much, they will soon, if only they are patient. Adopted here is the view that a “rising sea raises all boats” and eventually most, if not all, will be beneficiaries of globalization’s economic advances.

Another positive view associated with globaphilia is that globalization will bring with it increasing democratization. There is an assumption that economic progress leads to democracy and/or democracy leads to economic progress (Friedman 2002). In addition, there is the view that democracy itself is being spread by globalization, despite the fact that globalization has brought both democracy and authoritarian regimes (Moghadam 2013). There are various other