Summary:
The article “What Is Globalization” by Roland Robertson and
Kathleen E. White in general senses discusses the topic of globalization. It
tries to characterize this topic into different sections or dimensions by
reflecting on what other sociologists and scholars have said about globalization
and also gives its own stand of view.
Robertson and White start off with discussing how general
and specific globalization can be. Explaining how globalization can be general
because it can cover multiple disciplinary viewpoints and specific because of human
nature trying to categorize all aspects of life. They then state that finding a
specific definition of globalization can never really be achieved. Either that
is because of academic or political agendas or because of general differences
in perspectives across the world. Nonetheless, they try to get a grasp of the
concept in a plural form through different opinions of scholars.
The authors start off with reflecting on the words of Velho (1997),
whom has spoken of globalization something that is owned by a group of people
as a thing, it is inter-subjective. It at the same time is something that is
made of perspectives and it is something that could indicate the natural flow
of which the world is moving in.
The authors argue that it is important to keep these various
indicators in mind, as well as looking at the definition of globalization as a
viewpoint from various disciplines. It can either be viewed at from an economic
position or from a broad view of the concept. They then give an example of how
during the 1990s anti-globalization movement have in fact started the evolution
of the concept and at the same time the fusion of the views of globalization.
Since then, there has also been an upswing in policies, also known as neoliberalism,
regarding the economic side of globalization such as open markets, free trade
and deregulations. This side saw globalization as an unidimensional concept and
led to questioning in different parts of science. On one side sociological
science questioning the world as a singular society, on the another side political
science questioning territory and hegemony, and in anthropology they switched
from looking at one isolated society towards looking at a variety of different
societies.
Continuing, the authors go into the different parameters of globalization.
They discuss the process of interconnectedness as a key factor of globalization.
Reflected on, they talk about how globalization is only considered to be of
relevance for the formation of the understanding of globalization by certain
groups, such as political scientists and economics. Globalization also covers
the growth of consciousness, according to anthropologists and sociologists.
Later on, Robertson and White discuss the different
dimensions of globalization which can be divided into: cultural, social, political
and economic dimensions. The social dimension implies the social interactions
and communication between cultures that have been of great significance for globalization.
As an example, the authors state long distance interactions via the internet.
The authors argue how certain brands contribute to the homogenization
of culture, but then dispute that for the globalization of brands to work there
need to be slight changes in the product to fit the designated cultures. For example,
how McDonalds has had to change their burgers to fit in India, as an non beef
eating society. The authors discuss how economic and cultural dimensions overlap
and that there needs to be consideration about multidimensional thinking in globalization.
None of the dimensions are of greater significance than the
other, as it all comes down to the perception on the subject.
The authors continue by talking about which forms globalization
can take on. First, they address the singularity that globalization can cause
or in certain ways already has caused. Now also known as the world capitalist
system. This reflects in the imperialistic view that the world has, that is
also directly connected to the unidimensional, economic view of globalization.
They stress that globalization can be seen in three patterns
stated as: the international-systemic aspect, the concept of humanity and the
individual selves.
The, the authors proceed to the process of glocalization. This
concept, as another form of globalization, was only introduced into the
discussion relatively recently. It goes in on the relationship of the global
and the local, while on first sight these might seem contrary to each other. They
stress the global and the local as “being
different sides of the same coin”. Glocalisation can be directly linked to
grobalization, which is the view of producers of goods to see the global and
the local as a business opportunity.
Robertson and White lastly talk about the fuse of
globalistion and global history. As where the world can now understand that the
change of the concept of globalization is directly linked tour our advances in
the history of the world. It is a constantly growing and evolving concept with
the change of aspects of space and time.
What was
interesting/what did you learn:
The things I found were most interesting, after reading this
article, were the different dimensions from which globalization could be explained.
Or, at least from which you could try to understand the concept of globalization
from. What interests me the most was the overlooked dimension, which was the social
dimension. Personally, this dimension was natural in the way of looking at globalization
as I see communication as one of the key factors of the concept. To me, without
communication there cannot be a transfer of information. And to then find out
that sociologists, out of all people/scientists, don’t include this dimension
in their studies is actually quite hilarious.
Discussion Point:
My discussion point for this article goes on to the thing I
found most interesting in the article, and that is the social dimension. I
would like to ask the question “Why do you think that sociologists, that study
the matter of globalization, would forget the social dimension to address in
their papers/studies?” Maybe it is because most people think that the social could
be included in the cultural side of the dimensions? As culture could be defined by language and
communication or vice versa.
