Globalization

Globalization refers to the worldwide diffusion of practices, expansion of relations across continents, organization of social life on a global scale, and growth of a shared global consciousness. As new forms of communication and transportation enable individuals and groups to overcome spatial constraints and cross nation-state boundaries in their activities, “supraterritorial” relations increase (Scholte 2000). Conventionally associated with economic integration in a world market, globalization more broadly comprises many such forms of connectedness. Together, these mark the drawing together of the world as a single society. This is experienced as the “compression” of the world, which gives rise to a widespread intensification of “consciousness of the world as a whole” (Robertson 1992). Since it transforms the context of human experience, globalization ushers in a “global age,” the interpretation of which will require new ideas and concepts (Albrow 1997).

Reflecting a perception that Cold War conflict would give way to consolidation of a new world order through greater integration, the term globalization came into regular use at the end of the twentieth century. Yet it is a contested concept. Scholars have debated the meaning, origins, causes, extent, and consequences of globalization. For [Page 331]example, while some treat globalization as a post-World War II phenomenon, others seek its origin in the European explorations of the sixteenth century. Some explanations of globalization stress particular causes, such as technological advances or the interests and ideology of economically dominant groups, while others portray globalization as the outcome of multiple, intertwined forces. Some theories argue that globalization entails increasing homogeneity of institutions, worldviews and lifestyles, but others predict greater diversity. Influential accounts of globalization vary along such lines, thus far precluding the rise of a single integrative view.

In public debate, globalization has come to be associated with the liberalization of markets, the privatization of assets, the growing power of multinational corporations, and the intensification of competition, summarized under the common, often pejorative, label “neoliberalism.” Current debate centers on the costs and benefits of the changes captured by this label, with some presenting a defense focusing on benefits such as increased liberty and individual choice (Micklethwait and Wooldridge 2000), while larger groups focus on costs such as increases in poverty, environmental degradation, and destruction of local cultures (Broad 2002). One strand of work in academic social theory converges with negative public responses to globalization insofar as it systematically critiques the neoliberal form of globalization as an ideological project, from an egalitarian moral and political standpoint (Falk 1999). A particular focus of such academic responses has been the cultural imperialism commonly associated with globalization defined in this critical fashion, more specifically, the homogenizing effects of the structural dominance of Western media corporations and the substantive similarity of Western-produced media content. Critics of such diagnoses, in turn, have raised questions both about the actual extent of Western dominance in global media and about the implied view of globalization as a single ideological thrust, unilaterally imposed by a dominant center, with uniform results among passive recipients. In this way, particular analyses of media in globalization reflect the larger disagreements about the meaning and direction of globalization.

...