1.Media, Culture and Globalization Theories: Globalization (1)
What is globalization? What are defining characteristics/features of globalization? When did
globalization start? What is (qualitatively) new/a significant change since this turning point?
Many would argue it is a term that is rather difficult to grasp/to conceptualise. Also, its wrought
with controversies according to some authors. In any case, globalisation is difficult to define although
intuitively we feel something is probably happening. But there is still a lot of controversies in
terms of different views/different takes on what globalisation exactly is. And the exercise
that you have been doing, there is a common ground, let's say. But also differences in emphasis in
pinpointing what is the fundamentally new aspect, and so forth. Also returning in your definitions,
both the economic aspect is emphasised and at the same time there's a reference to a process
leading more to a multidimensional take on globalisation. Here again, authors when talking about
globalisation, some will be referring mostly to economic dynamics and processes. Others take a
broader, more realistic view and try to connect different societal spheres, the economy, culture and
politics, the role of the state and so forth. They question how globalisation is impacting all these
different dimensions and their interrelationships. As is also coming to the floor in your discussion.
You can look at it as a very recent process if you emphasise new technologies, Internet based
applications and so forth. If your focus is more on the dispersal of species. It goes way back, of
course thousands of years. There's even discussion on ‘Does it exist?’. Paulina's group already
referred to the sceptics. Some scholars argue it does not exist. They argue that we could better
apply existing concepts such as capitalism, accelerated capitalism, some would argue casino
capitalism, to talk about contemporary times. Globalisation is rather unhelpfully this way. A lot of
discussions also, on whether globalization is the same as neoliberal capitalism and debates on ‘Is
this an inevitable process?’. Or is it something that actors from institutions in politics to the
individuals can somehow have a grasp on is it manageable or not? Is it kind of a driving force that
is unstoppable? So, lots of controversies when talking about globalisation, something that we should
be aware of.
I would like to turn to an interesting text, in the past times this was also an obligatory text by Scholte
(a well-known name regarding globalisation debates). We chose not to include that text anymore,
but it's easily retrievable. What we take out here is that Scholte starts with the definitional issue. He
says we're talking about globalization, we should be able to do what you have been doing to pinpoint
what is exactly new. In his build up to a definition, he ends up with a definition from a more spatial
approach. You can also criticise that definition Scholte puts forward. But he sets out his discussion
from we must make clear what is fundamentally new and what is kind of the new element that
requires a new word, globalization. It was in the beginning of the 21st century, he’s looking back
into the 10/20 years before when globalisation started to appear continually in academic debate.
And he says the discussion, or the debate is very much cluttered, let's say. With talking about
globalisation, when in fact people/academics are referring to other things that we already have
words for (like internationalisation, liberalisation, universalization and westernisation). And so, he
argues when talking about globalisation, but in fact referring to one of those four (and he considers
them cul de sacs/dead ends and they are redundant concepts) this is not increasing our
understanding of what is happening. So, let's take a view at those code cul de sacs.
First, sometimes Scholte argues people are using the concept of globalisation and they refer in their
definition/in their emphasis/in their take on the growth of transactions and increasing
interdependence between countries usually based on measuring. There's an increase of products
crossing borders between countries and of people too (migration streams, tourism etc.). There's also
an increase in the flow of foreign direct investment, of ideas to some extent also. And so, the idea
there is that the world is becoming more globalised. In fact, internationalised Scholte would argue
because the main idea here is just establishing that there is a growth of transactions and
interdependence among countries. Like for example, this graph is measuring globalisation, but in
fact below we see this is done very much in national terms still. Singapore is apparently the most
globalised country, and Canada and Denmark are also high in the global top 20. So, the idea here
is that it requires only minimal intellectual and political adjustments. There's more of something,
more internationalisation Scholte would argue. Still a very familiar story, and it's outlining whatever
has happened before is reoccurring but only on a bigger scale. But then he asked the question ‘Why
do we need then globalisation as a term?’ ‘Why not use internationalisation or increased
internationalisation?’ This approach and looking at globalisation as just the growth of
,interdependence is not helping us forward analytically. So why bother? Using the term globalisation
when in fact you were talking about internationalisation, he argues. He also argues, and you could
say that I don't know what is, it may trade flows 1400 to 1800s already a few centuries ago. We
have examples of increased transactions, an interdependence between countries. And so internalised
internationalisation has been around for a long time. What requires us to use the word globalisation?
This take, he says, is not helping us much forward to cul de sacs. It's a dead end.
Next you also see globalization being used when in fact referring to the process of removing official
restrictions on cross border and transactions of resources, of people etc. Development towards a
borderless world economy. This is usually when globalisation is a debate about contemporary
liberalism, liberalisation and neoliberal macroeconomic policies. With a lot of debate about this, some
look at it in a positive way. Fukuyama talking about liberalisation moving, really the driving force on
a global scale leading to the end of history and the demise of other grand narratives. The movement
towards a borderless world which brings global civil society, cosmopolitan people etc. At the same
time, in these debates, a lot of negative assessments also. Globalisation needs to be stopped and
we need to deglobalize even or have an alternative globalisation. Scholte argues in fact the word
globalisation is often used, but in reality these debates focus mostly on a process we already know,
which is that of liberalisation. So, this is also not helping us much forward when talking about
globalisation when you're in fact referring to perhaps an accelerated process of liberalisation or neo
liberalisation if you will. So that's also not helping us much forward. Again, it didn't in dispute. You
could argue that at the end of the 19 century this process of removing officially imposed restrictions
was also happening very much, the end of the 19th century period of large-scale liberalisation and
to some extent maybe not on the same scale already developments toward a borderless world
economy. So again, we need to find something that is distinct from what happened before and
understanding globalisation this way is not helping us much forward. You could also argue by the
way, and that specially in recent times with Trump but also others drive towards borderless world
economy. A condition of global governance also is very much under stress, by the way.
Next, he argues the term universalisation. Globalisation is often being used and referred to another
type of process, namely the process of disbursement of various objects, experiences and people all
over the world and the fact that you can buy products in the supermarket from almost everywhere
in the world. Clearly globalisation, or that food culture is very much globalised, let's say. Or that
people specially pre corona, if you have a little bit of money can travel to all parts of the world
relatively easily. This is often associated with discussions of again at the development words kind of
global culture, increasing homogenisation also and convergence of different cultures. But again,
Scholte argues if you understand globalisation this way, there's already a concept available;
universalisation refers to this process of dispersing various objects etc. And we have seen it occurring
before and like, for example, and centuries of activity on the Silk Road for example, you could argue
that is a process of... From one part in the world to another people and experiences as well. We
have that term, it's universalisation when we use globalisation, we need to pinpoint something else,
something fundamentally new in his few.
And then finally the 4th cul de sacs in his few is westernisation which is very much associated with
universalization where the idea is that Western structures, Western ideas, Western products as well
and the structures of modernity are spread all over the world. This is very much associated with
some of the concepts you have been referring to as well. Colonisation, imperialism, Americanization,
and so forth, and often also associated with other concepts that return often in media studies, and
the idea that Western ideas, Western content also leads to certain hegemony. The spread of a
particular western oriented ideological discourse all over the world. Scholte argues that we have
seen in the time of the height of the British Empire, and that is the process of westernisation where
structures of British modernity are spread to the rest of the Commonwealth. We have seen this
happening before already. These kinds of things, Americanisation is maybe accelerated end of the
20th century but happening before as well. So again, here he argues we need to find something
new, westernisation we already have a concept for this process. Let's not use globalisation.
Then we move on to the next issue: problematizing globalisation as you have indicated before. We
can maybe pinpoint different starting points. There exists also in literature, in these debates
several periodization. Some returning to prehistoric times taking the global dispersion of species
for example. So, the flow of genes around the globe already starting thousands of years ago. But
also, migration and not necessarily only a 20th century process model, of course. If you go back to
,the European/Irish diaspora to the USA etc. Decennia before current times and many other migration
routes already established thousands of years ago. Even the species itself. You could argue, and
that has been the starting point of globalisation. Or an increasing, maybe not as is now the case, an
increasing interconnectedness between people and places all over the world.
Some would argue that globalisation is more starting in premodern times, in the age of empires.
Also being the Greek Empire, Roman Empire, different empires related to the Chinese dynasties.
Also, the Persian Empire and so forth. Increasing interconnectedness on a vast scale, and maybe
not an entirely global one, but still. If you understand globalisation as increasing interconnectedness
of people between different places in the world, then you could argue that already then there were
instances of globalisation as such as also for example in the case of the Silk Road. Others would
argue that it's more an early modern process. Let's say starting maybe with the discovery of
America and Christopher Columbus. In the couple of centuries afterwards: development of large
cities, metropolitan systems etc. Early drives and tendencies of capitalist organisations throughout
the world. So early modern time, then globalisation started. Till today we still have growth. The idea
is that there wasn’t much globalisation or interconnectedness, but with the discovery of America and
some economic developments (pre capitalism too) and the modern weight of globalisation (starts in
the 18th century), we see significant increase.
Many others, especially with a more Marxist oriented sceptical position would argue fundamental in
what we call globalisation. Maybe they prefer another term, which is the industrial revolution and
what came afterwards. So, starting point of the globalisation process is that we're interested in
investigating. This can be traced back to the end of the 18th century and developing further,
especially in the 19th and in the 20th century. So, referring to modern times mostly. Starting out
from the Industrial Revolution, the French American Revolution, the English revolution, increases in
World Trade, the development of multinationals. Think also international global, maybe news
agencies in the 19th century. The importance of money and money transfers all over the world.
Colonialism, as you have mentioned. And of course, technological and communications innovations.
You remember if you have followed introduction to communications studies that we have been
experiencing end of the 20th century and now possibly according to some, a fundamental
technological revolution. But in terms of technological changes, development of media, the 19th
century has been maybe equally or indefinitely very important. Then remember the 19th century
telegraphy connecting different parts in the world. The end of the 19th century development of film.
Before that, pictures, sound recordings and so forth. A concentration in modern times in the 19 th
century. Because of these developments, also that you can associate with the industrial revolution.
And so, some would argue what we are seeing now and what we are experiencing now has a history
and can be traced back to those modern times. It should also be analysed with reference to the
dynamics that have been set in motion since then. Again, many others would argue no, it's much
more not that important. A contemporary condition let's say.
Some would argue there have been trends before, but it is accelerated amongst other things, like
new technologies, internet-based services and so forth. And so, globalisation as a largely recent
phenomenon according to some. So different timings of globalisation we would argue.
The timing of globalization depends on how you define globalisation. If you define
globalisation more in the direction of universalization and maybe something new, then you trace the
start of the globalisation process. Probably much earlier than when your definition depends very
much on ICT for example. Then you will time globalisation differently. Different periodization can
also exist alongside one another, but it makes it difficult sometimes to debate when we're setting
out from different definitions of globalisation and maybe also different timings of globalisation of
course. Periodization is always artificially neat. These processes span years, decades, perhaps
even centuries. The idea was to get the debate started. When we asked you ‘When did globalisation
started?’, you cannot pinpoint an exact year of course. More interesting with debating the timing of
globalisation is that this process is not necessarily linear. You might argue that with Trump and
with different regimes, more inward looking maybe, in the beginning of the 20th/21st century
indicates again a decrease in globalisation. Whichever way you want to understand. Important here
is it's not necessarily linear, and of course, as already indicated by Scholte, measuring it is very
difficult. There is no such thing as global statistics. It's being done, it's being catered by some
international institutions, but still. We mostly used national or international data where this idea of
borders of countries is still very much important. Kind of globalisation Index is often built up based
, on national or international data, not global data. Again, according to Scholte. And so, the timing
of globalisation can be done very differently. Also, whether you emphasise him or quantitative
and the growth of things elements. Or whether you consider more qualitative assessments and
fundamental changes below the surface. More deeply let’s say, and of course the time is also
dependant on the argument one aims to make. If you see it as a much more long-term process
or as something very recent. But the point here is when using the concept of globalisation, often
there is also a certain political agenda behind. In terms of whether it is manageable or whether it's
an inevitable process and we cannot impact it as citizens, as policymakers and so forth.
Defining globalisation is in a sense very important because it indicates the definition of globalisation
someone puts forward, what their emphasis is. But also, what is the agenda behind this, what will
be emphasised in the issuing analysis? At the same time, it is so difficult. There's so much
controversy, so many different angles that may be going into the definitional issue. It is not that
helpful. It is very open to different perspectives and focal points, often economic, but
increasingly also other dimensions are being included. Some argue that the spatial approach is
important. Some are more interested in cultural consequences of globalisation, there's many, many
different perspectives. Some count growths, increase in quantitative numbers. Others favour an
investigation of more qualitative shifts. Some globalisation studies are presented as something
objective, an empirical process usually unrelated to the more quantitative approach. Again, many
others aim more and try to investigate these fundamental changes, possibly in terms of
consciousness into terms of awareness. Some are very general, open ended and more economic
ones are specific somewhere abroad and narrow. We would argue there is no single definition.
It's important to make clear what you are talking about, but it might be more productive, more
interesting to kind of leaf globalisation, although this is still the general context of our class.
Entering the text by the scholars, we've debated a little bit whether to use it still because this is
from kind of a teacher's perspective. Always handy to use material where globalisation debates are
boxed, let's say in different approaches. But this comes with consequences in the sense that these
boxes (the three broad schools of thought) … It's not that whoever is talking about globalisation
can easily be boxed in one or the other school of thought. It may be a starting point for an interesting
discussion. We will deal with the three broad schools of thought, as mentioned: hyperglobalist
thesis, sceptical thesis and transformationalist thesis. But it's not that the scholars would be
one or the other. Not at all, but it could be an interesting starting point for an exam question. Is, in
your view Appadurai a hyperglobalist, a sceptic or a transformationalist? We have asked this question
and we have received all kinds of possible answers, and they are not necessarily wrong. For example,
Appadurai is very difficult to place because his analysis is also quite rich in nature. But just to give
an idea of the kind of broad schools of thought with respect to globalisation, we still think it is helpful
in kind of categorising this swamp regarding globalisation. But Held, Mcgrew and Goldblatt also
acknowledged this clearly, they argued their distinctive accounts of globalisation. It's not
necessarily that a Marxist is immediately into sceptical position. He could also be a hyperglobalist or
a transformationalist. They include different ideological positions or world views within the
different schools of thought. Sometimes very optimistic others within stressing similar things
but more evaluating those key processes on a more negative way. So, they’re big boxes. These
three broad schools of thought that we're about to discuss. Nonetheless, Held and others say that
they provide a distinctive account of globalisation. Fundamental differences in terms of how
globalisation is seen, is defined, is conceptualised. What it causes, what the consequences are.
Important element, quite different views on the role of the state which is reappearing sub issue
let's say of any globalisation debate. Who's in charge? Still states? Other governance institutions?
The individual? And also, fundamental differences in terms of the historical trajectory, the timing
of globalisation?
So, the three broad schools of thought introduce on the first instance, the hyperglobalist thesis
where globalisation is presented as a fact, as the current condition. Let's say that we are in
an increasingly global world. Next you have those that criticise mostly the hyperglobalist
thesis, which is the sceptical thesis where globalisation is considered global only and it's
considered a myth. Let's look back at other concepts also other driving forces and we have the
analytical and conceptual instruments already available. Sub structure, superstructure and inequality
class as key concepts. So, globalisation is obscuring more than it is revealing in their view. And
finally, the transformationalist thesis where globalisation is presented as a much more
open-ended process.
