Summary:
The authors, Gerard Delanty and Chris Rumfors, start their
paer ‘Political Globalization’ of by explaining what globalization is and then
move on to how this article about political globalization will look at the multifaced
nature of globalization. Furthermore, they explain that political globalization
can be understood by looking at the tension between these three processes:
global geopolitics, global normative culture and polycentric networks.
The authors argue that a democratic nation-state was
worldwide accepted as geopolitics and is one of the most pervasive forms of
political globalization. They contradict that to some beliefs the globalization
of democratic politics is a bid for worldwide supremacy by the western world.
Moving on to the rise of a global normative culture, the
authors argue that the global diffusion of democracy and political
communication, such as human rights and environmental concerns, has become the
basis of a global normative culture. They discuss that the state once determined
the global norms, but now that a global normative culture has come up, the
global normative culture gives a good reference point for states. Through this,
political struggles are more than ever connected to global issues, which will
shape states.
Next, Delanty and Rumfors talk about polycentric networks. They
explain how polycentric networks are not related to states and cannot be
reduced to a global normative culture. Polycentric networks are forms of
nonterritorial politics which spread out from multiple places, for example
networks, flows, new sources of mobility and communication, which create new
relationships between individuals, the state and society. A good example of
this is the concept of civil society, which came into existence around nongovernmental
organizations and/or social movements. Again, an important aspect of this is
that it is polycentric, it does not operate form one space.
Delante and Rumfors stress that these three dimensions of
political globalization do not exist separately form each other.
Further in the article, Delanty and Rumfors examine the
three dimensions of globalization by looking at four examples of social
transformation: The transformation of the nation-state, nationality and
citizenship, the transformation the public sphere and communication, the
centrality of civil society and the transformation of spaces and borders.
The transformation of the nation-state, nationality and
citizenship
The authors argue the transformation from the world economy dominated
by national economies to a world dominated by a global economy. States are
rarely trying to gain territorial power anymore, instead they have struggles
controlling big firms that have become their rivals.
The transformation the public sphere and communication
The authors discuss that the public sphere, where all the
communication happens, has shifted from being a divided sphere of the upper and
the lower class, to global public sphere influenced by the global civil society
and cosmopolitan trends.
The centrality of civil society
Delanty and Rumfors discuss how civil societalization is a
recent development related to civil society. It makes for the spread of
governance practices and also makes for a shift in the scale of the local,
resulting in social movements and politics going across borders. There has been
an increasing connectivity between global and local political forms.
The transformation of spaces and border
Lastly, Delanty and
Rumfors argue how globalization has changed the nature and meaning of political
spaces and borders which influences the construction of polities. Globalization
accounts for fading borders and makes new political spaces and borders. The realization
of this has led to a conscious state where we see that space is constitutive of
social and political relations, it is a man-made construction and not as simple
as territory.
What was
interesting/what did you learn:
It was Interesting to see that environmental concerns are being
interfered with geopolitics and has now become a basis of the new global
normative culture, providing for and influencing the, much needed, development of
nation-states and therefor the whole world.
Furthermore, what I learned, and thought was very
interesting, was that how the rise of polycentric and transnational networks accounts
for distribution and growth of terrorist networks. Of course, I knew about this
already, in a way, but to look at it from a globalization point of view is
quite interesting. To know there is a so called ‘dark-side’ of civil society is
also quite a revelation and makes for deeper thoughts about the negative
consequences globalization can have.
Discussion Point:
My discussion point regards a big question of mine, being:
Is the public sphere or the global communication being influenced by a more than
just cosmopolitan trends or the global civil society?
No comments:
Post a Comment