George Ritzer - Globalization

The antithetical point of view takes seriously the idea that people construct their social realities, including globalization, and therefore makes it clear that globalization can be affected by their actions. Indeed, it is possible, in this view, not only to slow or alter globalization, but also to stop the process completely. This extreme view seems as unrealistic as its polar opposite. For one thing, globalization has been going on for some time, in some eyes for centuries, if not millennia. For another, there are many different people, groups, organizations, technologies, and nation-states involved in globalization and while some may want to dismantle the process, there are many others deeply involved in, and highly committed to, it. And they will fight hard to resist any efforts to alter the process in any significant way. Furthermore, the latter are often the most powerful of the agents involved in globalization (again, MNCs and nation-states, among others, that benefit greatly from it) and they likely constitute powerful opposition to any effort to change the process, let alone dismantle it. It would seem that those who wish to put an end to globalization would need to deal also with far wider political (e.g. democracy) and economic systems (e.g. capitalism), as well as other systems (e.g. cultural) that are key components of globalization and have deep and vested interests in it and its continuation.

This is the view that whatever problems exist in globalization are already being addressed not only by major players like the UN, IGOs (e.g. the IMF), nation-states, and MNCs, but also by a variety of INGOs that seem to be growing in importance and power in a global world. It is hard to take the actions of the UN, IGOs, nation-states, and MNCs too seriously in this context because they have such vested interests in globalization that they are only likely to undertake and support changes on the margins of the process. Throughout the 2010s, widespread uprisings in Greece, Turkey, Egypt, Tunisia, and Algeria, and elsewhere sought to shape their countries in reaction to impending global forces 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.

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.

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.