Political Globalization - Dong-IL Kim

Introduction

The authors of this article Gerard Delanty and Chris Rumford are explaining the political globalization as the multifaced nature of globalization. They wanted to see this as a relational dynamic rather than a reality. Authors nominate that political globalization can be understood as a tension between three process(global geopolitics, global normative culture and polycentric network.)

Author mention that based on parliamentary nation state, democracy have been spread in worldwide. And the spread of liberal democracy led to the proliferation of more and different kinds of ideology.

As an example of the global geopolitics, author used the United States that won’t be able to establish global supremacy and challenged by state power.

Global normative culture is beyond the global geopolitics, human rights, feminist movements are example of global normative culture. This cannot be restricted by regional matters.

Polycentric network forms nonterritorial politics and it cannot be sum as one single governed. It is associated with networks and flow, new sources of mobility and communication, and denote new relationships between the individual, state, and society. An example of polycentric network can be the United Nation. Traits of globalization make nation-states impossible to be independent. Also, states are more flexible in responding to globalization than nations, therefore, nationality and citizenship can be less meaningful. Many nations are now more shaped by globalization and the nation-state has become dislocated from the state. The political community of the nation does not exercise sovereignty over the state and the state has lost much of its sovereignty.

Author takes Habermas(1989)’s idea that like a public sphere, it can also be a global sphere that people can argue and discuss in wider view. He also said the global normative culture may be leading part of shaping political communication.

Conclusion

Author questioning that which the fragmentation of the social world lead to a loss of political autonomy. He told that democracy is both desired and distrusted as we can the result of democracy. Global normative culture works in global norms and create global form. Polycentric networks create new opportunities for autonomy which the author think this is the best. While global civil society can be used in good ways but also this has a possibility to be controlled by ‘dark-side’.

Interesting points:

It was interesting that authors uses Weber and Habermas's idea and tried to explain it such as public sphere and global sphere. he told that in different level, global sphere will be created where people can discuss and argue in wider point of view.

Discussion :

However, I do not think global sphere is the potential idea. they can not keep neutrality and will think of own nation or its profits. even though they are getting used to see people's difference and accept the difference in global sphere, i believe there is limits to understand others. , people will rather be fragmented then autonomous.