Globalization. George Ritzer

and unpopular regimes. There are also social movements and INGOs that are trying to address problematic aspects of globalization (e.g. BRAC, Greenpeace, Médecins Sans Frontières, the Sierra Club, Slow Food). However, while such INGOs are important, they often pale in comparison to the strength of nation-states and MNCs that oppose them, to say nothing of such IGOs as the World Bank, the IMF, and so on, that are devoted to the continuation, if not expansion, of globalization.

      MORE, PERHAPS MUCH MORE, NEEDS TO BE DONE

      Many activists, even those involved in INGOs opposed to globalization in its current form, feel that not enough is being done, that much more needs to be done, to deal with at least the most problematic aspects of globalization (e.g. global climate change), if not the process as a whole. Given the great problems associated with globalization already mentioned to this point and to be discussed much more throughout this volume, it is clear that this is the view that is closest to the one taken here. Much can be done and needs to be done to address the ills associated with globalization. In terms of specifics, what needs to be done is defined by the various problems associated with globalization. All of those that can be addressed need to be addressed and they should be addressed in the order of their negative effects on the largest number of people in the largest areas of the globe. Clearly, that means that what needs to be addressed first is the wide range of problems traceable to globalization as they are experienced in, especially, the South, as well as in the impoverished and marginalized areas in the North.

CHAPTER SUMMARY

      The study of globalization is home to significant debates and controversies. The major split is between globalists and skeptics. The “great globalization debate” engages with the question of the very existence of globalization. Globalists argue that globalization exists and it encompasses the entire globe. Skeptics contend that there is no such thing as globalization since a significant portion of the world’s population is excluded from the processes associated with it. While globalists observe one broad process of globalization, skeptics point to not one, but many globalizations.

      Globalists consider globalization an increasingly powerful phenomenon, which, among other things, has led to the decline of the nation-state. Skeptics respond by pointing out that, in recent years, the nation-state has reasserted itself and regained its role as a key world player. Globalists view globalization as a new process while the skeptics argue that it is simply a new term for an old, even ancient, process.

      Economically, globalists emphasize structures such as the multinational corporations (MNCs), the transnational economy, and the emergence of a new global division of labor. Skeptics retain a focus on national economies and nation-state-based regional conglomerations, arguing that there are few genuine MNCs today. Globalists maintain that while the continuing power of nation-states is undeniable, their ability to control economic markets is steadily declining.

In terms of the global order, globalists observe the development of various relationships in the global world which do not involve the government. On the other hand, skeptics contend that the world continues to be dominated by relations among and between national governments.

      Culturally, globalists tend to accept the idea of a culture common to most areas of the world. Skeptics generally reject the idea of a common global popular culture and argue that culture is becoming increasingly varied.

      Some critics argue that we have transnationalism or regionalism, rather than globalization. Transnationalism is a more limited process which refers largely to interconnections across two, or more, national borders. Regionalism is the coordination of a limited number of states within a geographically-defined area through mutual interdependence. It may be more accurate to say that transnationalism, regionalism, and globalization all exist today, depending on which phenomena we are analyzing.

      The origin of globalization can be analyzed through five perspectives. First, globalization can be seen as being hardwired into humans, in the form of a basic urge for a better life. This instinct results in the spread of globalization through commerce, religion, politics, and warfare. Second, globalization may be perceived as a long-term cyclical process. In this view, there have been other global ages prior to the present one, and each age is destined to contract and disappear, after attaining a peak. Third, globalization can be viewed as a series of historical phases or waves, each with its own point of origin. A fourth perspective argues that the multiple points of origin of globalization are located in seminal historical events. A fifth view focuses on broader, more recent changes in the twentieth century. It argues that the global processes in motion prior to WW II were more limited in geographic scope and less intensive than the global processes of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.

      There exist various types of globalizations. Some major categories include economic globalization, political globalization, cultural globalization, globalization of religion, science, health and medicine, globalization of sport, and globalization of higher education. Rather than a single point of origin for globalization as a whole, there are separate points of origin for different globalizations.

      The factors that drive globalization are also hotly debated. The materialist approach tends to identify objective factors such as capitalism, technology, and multinational corporations as the driving forces of contemporary globalization. The ideational position stresses the role of idea systems, information, and knowledge as the prime movers in the process. Alternatively, we can see globalization as being driven by both material and ideational factors.

Some scholars have noted that in spite of greater liquidity and ever-more flows of various types, flows do not necessarily go everywhere. Even when they do, they affect different places with varying degrees of intensity. Using another metaphor, it could be argued that globalization “hops” from one locale to another, rather than flowing evenly through all locales. While globalization flows more easily through the developed world, it bypasses many locales in the less developed world.

      Disputes exist regarding the future development and expansion of globalization. Some view globalization as an inexorable process. But with a growing backlash to globalization today, and the effects of COVID-19, fewer see it as inevitable. Here, it is important to distinguish between globalization from above and globalization from below. Globalization from above is a process that is created and controlled by centralized and powerful actors, such as wealthy elites or MNCs (especially in the North). Globalization from below, which involves marginalized groups and social movements that struggle to make globalization benefit more people and for global processes to be more democratic, can serve to make the process less inevitable.

      A difference of opinion exists between globaphiliacs and globaphobics. Globaphiliacs emphasize the positive aspects of globalization. They argue that globalization leads to great economic growth and a contingent spread of democratization and civil society. Globaphiliacs tend to deemphasize its negative aspects, particularly the people who have not been beneficiaries of the process. The globaphobics’ critiques of globalization are diverse, emerging not only from left and liberal quarters, but also from the conservative right. These critics emphasize the negative impact of globalization on the less well-off portions of the world’s population, or fear the threat to national culture and identity. Some scholars adopt a middle ground in these debates.

      Large groups of people feel disadvantaged by various aspects of globalization. Some are of the opinion that globalization is an inexorable process. Others argue that not only can the process be slowed down, it can be stopped completely. Another view is that the problems existing in globalization are being addressed by major players as well as International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs). However, many activists feel that much more needs to be done to deal with the most problematic aspects of globalization.

      DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

      1 Is the current era unique in terms of globalization? What factors contribute to or detract from this uniqueness?

      2 In what ways is globalization a homogenizing process?

      3 Define globalization from below. Is it capable of offering adequate resistance to the pressures created