How does globalization impact national civilizations? Is globalization responsible for the dilution or publicity of international civilizations?
In an epoch when and a state where immature people watch Australian soaps, American films, and listen to Canadian music, it would be impossible to reject the averment that ‘globalisation’ has effects on civilizations around the universe, whether those effects be economic, political, or merely one’s pick of amusement. Yet globalization must be recognised as being more than merely the import of telecasting shows – it covers countries every bit broad as “global economic trade, the liberalisation [ sic ] of economic markets, the progress of the transnational corporation … and capital mobility” ( Keating et al 2001: pg 44 ) . This is non even limited to states which portion a linguistic communication, which might be expected to hold more easy portable cultural personal businesss ; “Friends” , the American Television show, is an international cultural phenomenon regardless of its English linguistic communication medium. It is said that telling a ‘Coca cola’ anyplace in the universe will be understood. Yet this is non to state that the full universe, or even the English speech production universe, is deriving a individual cross-national capitalistic, consumerist civilization. Many differences remain, and non simply in the quirky, alone ‘little things’ – globalisation’s effects on national civilizations are elusive, instead than overmastering, adding a touch of acquaintance to the strange, instead than replacing the unique with the bland. A assortment of cross-border international civilizations do be, but they have ever been so, for illustration down national boundary lines, where the locals don’t rather speak the linguistic communication of either state, but alternatively an merger of the two. Globalization has merely permitted – and it has non compelled – this same manner of phenomena to happen on a much larger graduated table.
The English speech production universe is possibly the best microcosm of cultural globalization to look at, if merely due to the cultural weight that the United States manages to transport. Yet this is non the lone topographic point in which globalization has its effects on civilization. The European Union is a peculiar illustration where increased flows of labor, and determinations about policy being taken at a supranational degree mean that national civilizations are introduced to each other, and transported across boundary lines – sometimes to make enclaves of one civilization life within an country usually filled with another, sometimes to a merger in which both civilizations are changed, accommodating to their new fortunes. The political and economic effects of the EU on the state provinces of Europe, and their internal civil orders besides can non be understated when look intoing international and multinational organic structures. The EU, nevertheless, is non simply a force behind increased globalization ; it is besides, by necessity, accommodating to a universe in which globalization is in consequence ( Zielonka, 2006: pg93 ) . An increased degree of economic integrating was ever the intent behind the European Union, but whether it would hold gone every bit far as it has without the apparition of globalization coercing the European economic systems to go more unfastened and liberalised is a inquiry which can non be answered. It is, nevertheless, interesting to see what Europe would look like if it did non hold to postulate with the full universe being on its doorsill. The rearward inquiry, of class, of what globalization will intend for the EU of the hereafter is merely as interesting – will a individual EU front man, whether or non it bears the name of ‘President’ or ‘Foreign Minister’ come to the bow? And if it doesn’t, will the EU be able to hold any weight in a universe dominated by the US, India and China? Already, once ‘undeveloped’ states have found that they can hold a powerful voice in universe personal businesss due to the increasing trade and wealth that globalization brings. In the hereafter, a stronger political function may good follow.
The extent to which ‘simple culture’ – people across many states sharing indistinguishable trade name consciousness, and life in the same manner – has been much debated with mention to globalization, and was suggested by “eighteenth and 19th century enlightenment thinkers” , every bit good as, possibly more predictably, Marx ( Keating et Al: 2001: pg 44 ) . Culture is, of class, expensive to make in footings of both fiscal resources and the people required for creativeness ; Monaco would ne’er be able to hold every bit big a movie industry as Hollywood. In that sense, it is far easier to merely ‘buy in’ imports from other states, in which instance those which are already significant, in measure and celebrity are most likely to be the 1s brought in, making a barbarous circle reenforcing the cultural laterality of ‘something else’ , until the ultimate consequence appears, which would merely be “a common, widely distributed culture” ( Ibid ) . Yet such imports are far easier to convey about in footings of media civilization than, for illustration, political civilization. If a state has a individual private Television channel, and that chooses to import American Television, so that will quickly go a portion of that country’s civilization, and it will be shared with America, and whichever other states besides purchase it. That demand non, nevertheless, have a deeper impact on the state in inquiry ; their political civilization would non alter, their societal values would be improbable to travel with really great velocity. In order for those to alter, ‘globalisation’ , entree to information about and goods and services from other states is non plenty by itself. It has to be coupled together with a desire and a will in single states to alter their ain system, in order to travel towards that of another.
It is, of class, possible to switch attitudes without switching the systems themselves. Each state has their ain alone political agreements, their ain manner of organizing legislative, executive and judicial power ; many are non democratic, many are hardly recognizable to western democracies. Yet unless they have a preexistent ground to alter the existent system, such as a revolution, the political agreements are improbable to switch, nevertheless good consciousness is of the constructions in other states, nevertheless clear the comparative strengths or failings of each system may be. However, attitudes, about political relations and policies can good alter within those inactive civil orders, as a consequence of exposure to the statements and activities of others. Possibly the most seeable of these in recent old ages has been the spread of green political relations, across the EU and so the universe, from being comparatively vague, to being at the top of the political docket. Merely in Germany have a national Green party been active at the top degrees of authorities and international personal businesss, and yet the positions they espoused managed to filtrate through to inform the political relations non merely of Germany, but of other EU provinces and other states and continents. This sort of cross-pollination is globalization in action, in which actions and events in one state inform those in another without straight obliging or determining them. It is, possibly, a soft signifier of globalization than the stereotype of a McDonalds and a Starbucks on every corner, and a more elusive and accurate portraiture of the manner in which globalization is altering our universe.
Whilst the lazy stereotype of globalization being nil more than a consumer led desire to utilize the same trade names and store at the same shops, whichever state one might be in, is permeant, it is non a good manner to look at, or see what globalization really is. The easy communicating, and contact between states allows activities in one to inform another, leting a more tightly knit planetary community, in which differences are understood, alternatively of feared. The effects of globalization are broad and are varied, and screen affairs from political relations to economic sciences to mass civilization – yet no ‘domestic’ versions of any of these demand be damaged by an increasing internationalization. Economicss is more than simply consumerism, and allows goods to be sold anyplace in the universe. Politics is more than aping another’s system, and allows a better informed argument. A cross boundary line civilization of openness may good be emerging, but one which has a local spirit in whichever state it is to be found, and one which does non endanger to replace, but alternatively complement those it finds already present.
Berger, Peter L. , and Samuel P. Huntington. “ Many Globalizations – Cultural Diversity in the Contemporary World ” , Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002
Cox, Michael, John Ikenberry, and Takashi Inoguchi, “ American Democracy Promotion – Urges, Strategies, and Impacts ” Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000
Paul Jay, “ Beyond Discipline? Globalization and the Future of English ” in PMLA, Vol. 116, No. 1, Particular Subject: Globalizing Literary Studies. ( Jan. , 2001 ) , pp. 32-47.
Keating, Michael, and John McGarry. “ Minority Nationalism and the Changing International Order ” , Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001
Douglas Kellner, “ Speculating Globalization ” in Sociological Theory, Vol. 20, No. 3. ( Nov. , 2002 ) , pp. 285-305.
Miller, David. “ On Nationality ” , Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1997
Ronaldo Munck, “ Globalization: Deconstruction and beyond ” in Latin American Positions, Vol. 29, No. 6, Globalization and Globalism in Latin America and the Caribbean. ( Nov. , 2002 ) , pp. 24-31.
Zielonka, Jan. “ Europe as Empire – The Nature of the Enlarged European Union ” Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006