Having followed the "globalization" phenomenon for more than ten years, and TA'd a course on the topic, I've started to form an opinion... (yes, just one) that "globalization" should be renamed. Am I asking too much? Here's the trouble, the descriptor "globalization" is simply too general. It could apply equally to any number of global trends, from arts to culture to micro-finance, and yes, to the insidious creep of Western-style capitalism.I'd suggest a different label, something like "global homogenization and cross-cultural exploitation" as a more accurate label for the cultural and economic trends currently encompassed by "globalization". Not as catchy, but also not prone to linking greater global interconnectedness with the exclusively negative outcomes associated with economic and cultural hegemony.
The danger I see is that if "globalization" is the problem, then "localization" pops out as the apparent solution. Trends towards increased global awareness and interconnectedness are not inherently a problem. However, the superficial concept of "globalization" leads to an apparently obvious panacea of "going local". Yes, re-localizing is part of the solution to global homogenization and foreign exploitation, but so equally is global awareness and interconnectedness. Peter Dicken has written an excellent text book on globally-integrated economies. I highly recommend it as a complement to the No-Nonsense Guide.
No comments:
Post a Comment