Globalization. George Ritzer

that the US’s massive debt will rapidly speed its decline (Ferguson 2012).

ANTI-AMERICANISM

There is no dearth of anti-Americanism around the world. Various individuals and groups have found many things about the US to dislike, if not despise, including its militarism, its obsession with guns, its continuing use of the death penalty (Singh 2007), its seemingly extraordinary religiosity (especially fundamentalism) (Berggren and Rae 2007), its role in global warming (including its temporary withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement), its culture (Ciftci et al. 2017), the imperialism (e.g. television programs, movies, even its [fast] food) associated with it, and especially recently former President Donald Trump, his America-first attitude, and his disparaging comments about other countries and their people (Velasco 2017). Indeed, opinions of the US in several countries around the world, while always ambivalent, plunged dramatically after the American-led 2003 invasion of Iraq and throughout Bush’s presidency, increased again under Obama, and fell dramatically again under Trump (Pew Research Center 2017). Interestingly, however, anti-American sentiment was higher under George W. Bush than for Trump. This is explained, in part, by that fact that “Trump does not personify America to foreigners in the way that Bush did” (Schalit 2018). In addition, foreigners who were critical of US policy under Bush largely felt that Bush represented Americans, whereas many foreigners believe that Trump does not widely represent Americans in the same way.

      Americanization has long been accompanied by a counter-reaction to it in various places in the world that can be thought of as anti-Americanism. Just as Americanization has proliferated as a process closely linked to globalization, so, too, has anti-Americanism. Not only is it an increasingly global phenomenon, but it is also one that seems to flow far more readily than Americanization to the far reaches of the globe. It also seems more intense than in the past and there is certainly far more attention and publicity devoted to it. But what, exactly, is anti-Americanism?

      Although anti-Americanism has become a buzzword in political and academic circles, it (like Americanization) is used by so many, and in so many different ways, that it is today a vague concept lacking in coherence. It is necessary to realize that anti-Americanism is not a homogeneous phenomenon, even if the word itself conveys a sense of a kind of general criticism that is expressed similarly in much of the world. There are distinct forms, causes and expressions of anti-Americanism, in other words there are anti-Americanisms (just as we saw in Chapter 2 that there are globalizations) rather than an overarching anti-Americanism (Singh 2006). It is such an amorphous concept that both opposition to US cultural, economic, and political policies, as well as more sweeping negative generalizations about the US, are included under the heading of anti-Americanism. It can encompass everything from casual and superficial criticism of the US to a deep-seated and widely shared animosity to it. In O’Connor’s (2007, 2012) words, “one person’s criticism of the United States is another person’s anti-Americanism.”

      We can begin with one well-known definition of anti-Americanism:

      Anti-Americanism is a predisposition to hostility toward the United States and American society, a relentless critical impulse toward American social, economic, and political institutions, traditions, and values; it entails an aversion to American culture in particular and its influence abroad, often also contempt for the American national character (or what is presumed to be such a character) and dislike of American people, manners, behavior, dress, and so on; rejection of American foreign policy and a firm belief in the malignity of American influence and presence anywhere in the world. (Hollander 1992: 339, emphasis in the original)

This is a rather breath-taking definition of anti-Americanism encompassing a wide range of specific phenomena, and similar to other views of “a generalised prejudice against, and disdain for, America and Americans” (Schalit 2018). Its attraction is its sweep, but the diversity of phenomena encompassed by that sweep makes it clear that our sense of anti-Americanism needs greater refinement.

      There are a number of ways of refining the general idea of anti-Americanism. For example, Naim has analyzed anti-Americanism in terms of several categories (Naim 2002: 103–4).

       Psychological and religious hostility stemming from, and perpetuated by, long-lasting stereotypes and images of America.

       Historical anti-Americanism referring to the resentment toward the US based on its past behavior.

       Political and economic anti-Americanism rooted in current political and economic policies of the US.

       Lastly, cultural anti-Americanism, or the resentment of America’s cultural domination and the displacement of local cultures as a result of America’s global cultural imperialism. The cultural aspect of the resentment to the US is focused on the homogenizing effects of US culture, tastes, values, consumer goods, industries, and systems throughout the world.

      Perhaps the most important dimension of anti-Americanism focuses on the dangers, the catastrophe, threatened by the rise of American consumerism (Ceaser 2003). Related to this is the idea that what dominates American consumption, and is most threatening about it, are its highly uniform and standardized goods and services. (It may be that we are seeing the rise of a new form of anti-Americanism as others blame American economic excesses for the Great Recession.)

      James Ceaser takes the position that the largely European ideas associated with anti-Americanism have served to inhibit dialogue between the US and Europe (as well as between the US and the rest of the world). He argues that Europeans need to free themselves from the grip of anti-Americanism so that a genuine dialogue can take place. Ironically, Ceaser almost certainly wrote just before the single event – the second US invasion of Iraq in 2003 – that has done more than anything else in recent memory, if not in history, to fuel anti-Americanism in Europe and much of the rest of the world as well.

O’Connor (2007, 2012) recognizes that anti-Americanism takes many forms, but one important form for some people is that it becomes a prejudice. In this case, anti-Americanism can be seen as prejudice when it prejudges America, Americans, and American action, when it offers a one-sided view of things American, and when its view of America is undifferentiated. To overcome such a prejudice, and to develop a far better critique of America, that critique must be “based on details and evidence, rather than broad prejudices and stereotypes; from analysis, not knee-jerk rejection” (O’Connor 2007: 19). More generally, he argues that this prejudice, like all others, (1) needs to be challenged and confronted; (2) needs to be seen as making clear the need for a more differentiated view of the US; and (3) needs to be viewed as being in opposition to intelligent thought. Thus, “the challenge is how to engage with America without letting anti-American prejudices overwhelm critique” (O’Connor 2007: 21). Overall, O’Connor argues that to take anti-Americanism seriously, it must be based on intelligent critique well grounded in facts rather than based on prejudice against the US.

COMPARISONS WITH GLOBALIZATION

      While there are some signs of de-globalization (see chapter 2), many dimensions of globalization nonetheless continue in the early twenty-first century. Relative to globalization, some of the other processes (colonialism, development) have been superseded in importance and others seem to have passed their prime and to be in decline (Westernization, Americanization). It could be argued that imperialism, or at least the “new imperialism,” has been incorporated into globalization. Given the rise of China as a global power, Easternization, like globalization, is likely to show dramatic growth in the coming years.

      Globalization is inherently multidirectional with global flows moving in innumerable directions. It has no single, definable point of geographic origin. All of the others are much more unidirectional, flowing from well-defined points – the imperial powers, the colonial powers, the developed world, the West, the United States, the East.

      Globalization is not nation-state based and is likely, as we will see in several places in this book, to pose