The Discourse of Globalization and the Globalization of Discourse

The Discourse of Globalization and the Globalization of Discourse

Globalization has been described as an idea whose time has come (Held et al, 1999). It has been pored over by economists, social scientists, geographers and business analysts, and many, often imprecise, definitions of the phenomenon have been offered. It has generated fierce debate between adherents to at least three standpoints, and the meaning to be derived from empirical data has been argued over to such a degree that what the term ‘globalization’ actually describes of the world around us is far from clear and very much further from consensus. The term has been used somewhat glibly at times, but also has been wielded as a heavyweight rhetorical resource, both in the context of scholarly work and in the wider practices and events of day-to-day life.

In this chapter we examine globalization from the perspective of discourse, with particular reference to the process of organizing, looking in turn at what we shall call the ‘discourse of globalization’ and the ‘globalization of discourse’. Held, McGrew, Goldblatt and Perraton (1999) usefully outline the main standpoints in the debate about what globalization is, identifying three broad schools of thought: hyperglobalists, sceptics and transformationists. The hyperglobalist thesis sees globalization as a new epoch of human history characterized by significant changes in trade, finance and governance (Ohmae, 1990, 1995; Greider, 1997). Economic factors linked to global competition in a single global marketplace are seen as driving changes in social and political organization. The school sub-divides into a discourse that celebrates these developments as a neoliberal utopia of autonomy and free market principles, and a neo-Marxist discourse of opposition that highlights issues of oppression. It might be argued that hyperglobalist discourse, both pro and anti, is the loudest discourse as it is that which tends to reach the widest number of people via the media. This in itself is an important point and will be returned to later.

The sceptical thesis rests on an interpretation of evidence that suggests current developments are by no means new (Hirst & Thompson, 1996). Again, taking a largely economistic view, sceptics argue that globalization is exaggerated and is a contemporary myth. From a discourse point of view, what seems of interest here is why there is a need for such a myth at this point in time and, more specifically, what is it that the myth makers hope to achieve? The transformationalist thesis sees globalization as the transformative force that is behind social, economic, political and cultural changes (Giddens, 1990). This force is a long-term historical process born out of the coming together of many different phenomena. The grand view of the hyperglobalists is tempered, but the sceptical standpoint is seen as understating the transformations involved; changes of great magnitude are evident but the trajectories of those changes are uncertain.

Both the hyperglobalist and sceptic arguments tend to be unacceptably teleological and empiricist (Held et al, 1999). They suggest conceptualizations of globalization that present current events as part of a linear progression towards a given end-state, and see statistical evidence of global trends as unproblematically confirming or disproving the globalization thesis. The transformationist approach acknowledges the contingency and open-endedness of the process or flow of events that we have come to call globalization, and in this respect comes closer to a dialectical understanding of the phenomenon that we believe is a more fruitful way of thinking about it. However, even authors within this school of thought find it tempting or necessary to propose definitions and outline typologies of ‘possible’ globalizations. For example, Held et al, construct their own definition of globalization

...