The term âGlobalization has been in vogue since the 80s; however, it did not get fame till the rise of last decade. It has threaded continents, economies, and cultures as they have become the same thing. It is regarded as a centuryâs long process. It has unleashed astounding influence on cultures, especially local cultures throughout the globe. Globalization has also been characterized as something that has engendered widespread, rapid, and economic linkages. Reduction or minimization of tariffs has been a hallmark of globalization. Elimination of subsidies of all types has also been its major economic feature. It has also been demanding in the form of reduced transportation costs.
Critics have noticed that the termsâ current usage has shades of meanings and interpretations. “The term “globalization,” like most terms of public discourse, has two meanings: its literal meaning, and a technical sense used for doctrinal purposes. In its literal sense, “globalization” means international integration. Its strongest proponents since its origins have been the worker’s movements and the left (which is why unions are called “internationals”), and the strongest proponents today are those who meet annually in the World Social Forum and its many regional offshoots. In the technical sense defined by the powerful, they are described as “anti-globalization,” which means that they favor globalization directed to the needs and concerns of people, not investors, financial institutions and other sectors of power, with the interests of people incidental. That’s “globalization” in the technical doctrinal sense”(Noam Chomsky, The Washington post).
Globalization can be evaluated well in economic terms. Goods and services that become exports and imports are a significant amount of national wealth. There is also an abundance of labor immigration. Foreign direct investments are also an index of globalization. Technological inflows and outflows are significant too. The rise of worldwide manufacturing markets and unhindered access to a variety of foreign products for all customers has a strong global tinge. Financial markets have come to surface in the whole of the world serving the notice that globalization has been able to entrench itself in this form.
There have been phenomenal cross-cultural contacts, the arrival of new types of consciousness, and marks like globalism, which is a symbolization of cultural diffusion. The aspiration to spend and enjoy foreign products and notions, assimilate innovations and customs and contribute to world culture, depletion in languages and the relevant loss of ideas are all prominent attributes of cultural globalization. Expansion of multiculturalism and easy to approach cultural diversity by all and sundry is the high point of international cultural exchange. As a matter of illustration, we can refer here to the filtration of Hollywood and Bollywood movies in other cultures. Cultural aspects of globalization have also come under severe criticism. It has been taken s hegemonic onslaught of the western world to plow the soil for economic exploitation. Furthermore, it is within reach of few people to afford tourism and traveling. However, it is been hypothesized that globalization will ultimately spawn one global culture.
Globalization has tremendously affected ethnic nationalism. Ethnic nationalism is at variance with state nationalism and they are also both reinforcing forces. They vary from each other that state nationalism is a traditional one steeped in a nation-state that seeks to provide a binding force for all nationalities. Ethnic nationalism thrives in stateless ambiance and aspires to mobilize communities that do not possess a state for the objective of making a state of their own. It has reduced the strength of the state and provided the impetus to the dynamism of the ethnic nations. It has resulted in the apportionment of the existing states or the secessions. Globalization is often considered as a process, which glues, and in fact, several artifacts and symbols have been spread in many parts of the world.
It is the cherished ambition of Al-Qaeda to make the contemporary global conflict into a war between Muslims and non-Muslims and therefore bringing about Huntington’s grotesque conditions of clash of civilization true. After 9/11, the war on terror has more and more religious undercurrents. Globalization has pitted first world and third world countries against each other that are fighting in the name of religion and by becoming religiously motivated the muslin fanatics to think that they can be able to compete with the exploitive nature of globalization. There has been a considerable rise in the wave of extremism and fundamentalism benefiting from the facilities provided by globalization. On the other hand, neo-liberal economic integration and the resultant economic marginalization of the poor countries have also been instrumental in giving impetus to religious fanaticism.
Culture is not stagnant and it develops out of well-thought-out veneration for chosen customs and habits. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defined culture as the “total pattern of human behavior and its products embodied in speech, action, and artifacts and dependent upon man’s capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations.” Language, faith, politics, legal canons, and social norms are the policies of the conquerors and exhibit the evaluation of the marketplace of notions throughout the known history. They might be regarded as animate artifacts, pieces pushed forward by doctrinal transportation and poplar assimilation and unconscious alliance with the conventional methods. Globalization has an impact on the solidification of regionalism and it has classified the world into economic block systems. To name a few are Nafta, Eu, Asean, and others. The people of these regions belong to one group and their cultural identities are being organized in the form of major world grouping. Huntington thinks that it would lead to a clash and in the future this would be the primary basis of all wars. “I hypothesize that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation-states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future”(Huntington, Clash Of Civilization). His supposition merits attention cultural differences are sanctioned by their associations with magical roots of culture and they may be both spiritual and historical. “Many societies, particularly indigenous peoples, view culture as their richest heritage, without which they have no roots, history, or soul. Its value is other than monetary. To commodity, it is to destroy it” (Maude Barlow, “The Global Monoculture,). Therefore, danger to ones; culture jeopardizes the existence and commandments of God. It is where religion is infused with culture religious wars begin. “Cultural conflicts that spring from ethnic (and in some cases religious) differences include those between Chinese and Vietnamese, Chinese and Japanese, Chinese and Malays, Normans and Saxons, Slavs and Turks, Armenians and Azerbaijanis, Armenians and Turks, Turks and Greeks, Russians and Chechens, Serbs and Bosnians, Hutus and Tutsis, blacks and Afrikaners, blacks and whites, and Persians and Arabs” (By David Rothkop, In Praise of Cultural Imperialism? Effects of Globalization on Culture). After the 9/11 attacks, Huntington is being taken as the foremost scholar whose predictions have been fulfilled in the form of the American invasion of Afghanistan, Bali bombings, invasion of Iraq, madras train disaster, cartoon controversy, ongoing tensions with Iran and the Israel Lebanon war. It all bucked up the idea that his work is attention grabbing.
Reference
Maude Barlow 2001, “The Global Monoculture,” Earth Island Journal.
Noam Chomsky, 2006. The Washington post. Web.
By David Rothkop, 1997. In Praise of Cultural Imperialism? Effects of Globalization on Culture. Foreogn plocily. 2008.
Huntington, 1996 Clash Of Civilization. Foreign Affairs.