George Ritzer - Globalization

4 4This definition requires several amplifications or clarifications. First, the idea that globalization is planetary is derived from Scholte (2005). Second, while globalization is planetary, little traverses the entire planet. The latter is the outer limit of globalization, but it is rarely approached. Third, the definition as a whole seems to imply a “grand narrative” of increasing globalization, but it is recognized that globalization occurred on a far more limited scale at earlier points in history (see Chapter 2) and that the changes described here are often uneven and that in some cases (e.g. in the case of immigrants, see below) there was greater liquidity, things flowed more easily, in earlier epochs. Fourth, it should be pointed out that not all of the phenomena mentioned in this definition are equally liquid or flow to the same degree. Clearly, communication is the most liquid and flows the most easily; places and people are far less liquid and their flow is much more limited. However, places are much more likely now than in the past to flow around the world as represented by the global presence of many fast food restaurants and other chains. In some senses, people (e.g. as immigrants) moved more easily in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century when nation-states had far fewer restrictions on immigration than they do today (but those restrictions have increased greatly recently). However, overall people today are more liquid and flow more easily globally as, for example, tourists, business travelers, and the like, and even as immigrants, at least in some senses (e.g. the flow is much more multidirectional than it was in that earlier epoch). It is even more the case that social relationships are more liquid, and flow more easily, than they did in the past. Fifth, Tomlinson (2007: 352) offers a definition of globalization that has much of the flavor of the perspective being offered here: “complex, accelerating, integrating process of global connectivity … rapidly developing and ever-densening network of interconnections and interdependencies that characterize material, social, economic and cultural life in the modern world”; another definition emphasizing flows, interconnectedness, and also barriers can be found in Yergin and Stanislaw (1998: 383).

5 5In addition to “flow” Chanda (2007) uses terms like “flowing,” “water,” “ripples,” and “waves” in discussing globalization. “Tracking Global Flows” is the title of Inda and Rosaldo’s (2008) Introduction to an anthology of work in anthropology on globalization, and flows is the organizing principle of that book. The five substantive sections of that book deal with the flow of capital, people, commodities, the media, and ideologies. Paul Gilroy (1993: 190) often uses images of ships and sea voyages in his discussion of global “flows.” See also Ong (2006).

6 6Although, contrary to US propaganda, al-Qaeda did not have much of a role, if any, in Iraq.

7 7While this discussion will focus on structures, it is clear that structures are created, run, and staffed by human agents who direct their operations. This is in line with the general tendency in social theory to be concerned with the relationship between structure and agency. See Ritzer and Stepnisky (2017).

Is There Such a Thing as Globalization?

Is it Globalization, Transnationalization, or Regionalization?

If There is Such a Thing as Globalization, When did it Begin?

Hardwired

Cycles

Phases

Events

Broader, More Recent Changes

Globalization or Globalizations?

Economic

Political

Cultural

Religion

Science

Health and Medicine

Sport

Education

What Drives Globalization?

Does Globalization Hop Rather than Flow?

If There is Such a Thing as Globalization, is it Inexorable?

Who Controls Globalization?

Does Globaphilia or Globaphobia Have the Upper Hand?

Globaphilia

Globaphobia

Finding a Middle Ground

What, if Anything, Can Be Done About Globalization?

Nothing!

Everything!

Necessary Actions are Already UnderwayMore, Perhaps Much More, Needs to be Done

Chapter Summary

Chapter 1presented an overarching and integrated perspective on globalization as well as at least some details on a few of its (innumerable) elements. However, we have proceeded to a large extent as if globalization in general, as well as the particular perspective on it offered here (with its focus on flows and barriers, processes and structures), is not in dispute. Indeed, the entire field of globalization studies is riddled with differences of opinion and great debates (Dean and Ritzer 2012; Ritzer and Atalay 2010; Zürn and de Wilde 2016). In this chapter we present some of these differences. The goal is to offer a more nuanced sense of globalization.

We begin with an issue that, from the tenor of the discussion in the first chapter, would appear to be a non-issue. That is the question of whether or not there is some set of developments that can legitimately be called globalization. While the prior discussion, as well as the reality of this book and its title, indicates that the answer to that question will, in the end, be in the affirmative, it is worth reviewing the debate over the very existence of globalization.

The “great globalization debate” is between those who are skeptical about the process (the “skeptics”) and those who accept it as a reality (the “globalists”) (Held and McGrew 2000).

Globaliststake the position that there is such a thing as globalization and it encompasses virtually the entirety of the globe. The skepticscontend that there is no such thing as globalization because vast portions of the globe, and a significant portion of the world’s population, are wholly, or in significant part, outside of, and even actively excluded, from the processes generally associated with it. It is argued that since the term globalization implies a truly global phenomenon, the exclusion of such a large proportion of the globe serves to deny the existence of globalization. Furthermore, to the skeptics, there are various barriers, especially those created by the nation-state and regional groups of such states, that greatly restrict, if not prevent, global flows.

Globalists respond that just because some parts of the world are relatively uninvolved does not mean that the vast majority of them are not enmeshed, often deeply, in a series of relationships that meet the definition of globalization. The globalists further argue that it is impossible, or at least nearly so, to find any part of the world totally unaffected by globalization.

The globalists tend to see a broad process of globalization, but to the skeptics there is no one process of globalization, but rather many globalizations (Therborn 2000) (there is a scholarly journal entitled Globalizations ). In fact, there are even several different ways of thinking about globalizations including multiple general processes (e.g. economic, political, etc.), multiple dimensions of globalization (Gopinath 2018), as well as differences between globalization as experienced by the haves and have-nots (de Sousa Santos 2006). Thus, to the skeptics the term globalization is an oversimplification and obscures a wide array of processes that are affecting the world in many different ways.

The globalists respond by agreeing that there is much to support the argument of multiple globalization processes and hence the use of the term globalizations has much merit. However, in their view, this is simply a terminological difference and both concepts (globalization and globalizations) acknowledge the importance of globalization. Indeed, the use of the term globalization in this book generally covers both a general process as well as a multitude of sub-processes that are encompassed by it (see below).