For the world to become a one or a single entity it has to pass through a process of economic, and technological integration. The consequence of this unification is the aim of this research, positive and negative, although the negative aspects will be the dominating part. The friction's that arise due to the process of globalization are enormous, the burden of this process falls upon the countries, governments, and the actual citizens. The latter is the hardest to fall or we may say the one that will carry most of the burden no matter how the leaders justify this movement. The upraise of the global market lead to the division of the world in to three categories: first world country -developed -, second world country -communist-, and thirdly the third world country -developing-.
I believe that globalization, rather then harming the nation state is actually facilitating it; the existence of domestic associations can reject or accept any notion of globalization. Globalization has surely made an impact to both developing and developed nations, only causing them to adapt to these circumstances. In “The political economy of Globalization”, Layna Mosely exemplifies the various change and influences made by globalization. Globalization has lifted political boundaries; this is a result of “deliberate decisions by poli... ... middle of paper ... ...balization increases political associations among a wide mixture of corporations and nations. Mosely and Klien discuss the repercussions of globalization and its influence on the nation state; they figuratively agree on the pressure it inflicts.
But what about culture, identity, and traditions? True, if globalization is viewed strictly from economic terms, then the debate delves into trade barriers, protectionism and tariffs. Powerful countries demand that smaller countries break down all trade barriers, while maintaining a level of protectionism over their own. Smaller countries, knowing that they cannot do much to hide from the hegemonic nature of globalization, form their own economic clubs, hoping to negotiate fairer deals. But between diplomacy and threats, dialogue and arm twisting, the side of globalization with which most of the people are familiar; there is another side of globalization: cultural globalization.
Globalisation has led to the blurring of national boundaries, which allows nations around the world to communicate its ideas conveniently, at an unprecedented scale (Christou 2003). These global interactions allow for diverse cultural forms to disperse around the world, to be consumed by a wide array of people (Adams 2008). Despite the large, global impact of this phenomenon, it can be problematic to comprehend the nature of globalisation to a full extent, because of its vast nature and endless complexities (Mythen 2012). How is it that some nations have embraced the full extent of globalisation, and others are more closed off? Is it possible for cultures to maintain their traditional identities despite the influx of foreign influence?
“Cultures, economies and politics appear to merge across the globe through the rapid exchange of information, ideas and knowledge, and the investment strategies of global corporations” People nevertheless agree that culture and economy are consequences of globalization however; it is questionable as to what drives globalization. I believe it is an intertwined concept, however it is the economy that drives globalization more. “Technology has now created the possibility and even the likelihood of a global culture. The Internet, fax machines, satellites, and cable TV are sweeping away cultural boundaries. Global entertainment companies shape the perceptions and dreams of ordinary citizens, wherever they live.
Nevertheless, despite the range of explanations for nationalism, one concept is reoccurring. Humans, either in their local, state or international societies, are driven by power, and those who have the ability to force their decisions upon others yield power. Regardless of the fact that colonialism and imperialism are no longer recognized as current practices, international society still exists under the umbrella of neo-colonial influences, of which globalization is a product of. In this essay, I will explore the status of the nation and nationalism as it currently exists under neo-colonial influences. For long-term survival, human cultures, and therefore nations, have had to adapt to different environments and shifting conditions.
A concern here is that media companies export their products to all parts of the world and therefore displace local media cultures. In conclusion the internet and related technologies have shaped the way we manage our daily lives. It influences our work, how we learn, and how we communicate. It also influences our personal lives, for example, the way we portray ourselves in society in terms of image and personally. In terms of globalisation, globalisation is fuelled by cultural industries and capitalism whereby profit-making media companies operate on the global stage.
Rosenau puts it as "a transformation of practices and norms". So globalization is more of a process than a "prevailing condition or a desirable end state". The aspirations for a particular state is something different, it is globalism. Localization is a term used to describe those factors that cause a nation, an ... ... middle of paper ... ...things but secondary to the positive gains of globalization. The things gained by globalization help keep a nation economically and politically stable or more so than if localization was practiced.
But, keep in mind that it does not only effect economic development itself, but our physical well being and quality of life and society around it. What does globalization mean to the United States (Pro and Con): There has been many political and economic consequences to globalization with many pro and cons to hold within it and they be of two different signs. One sign or view could be a sign of a hopeful future, but the other sign or view could be of a disaster to our worlds economy. For example, today corporations have become agents to globalism or what they would call "cultural imperialism". This new form of both political and economic domination have made many critics argue that any business enterprise capable of manipulating personal tastes will thrive, but state authorities everywhere will lose control over the distribution of both goods and services.
This essay will seek to examine and differentiate the different perspectives in understanding communications and culture. In the liberal-democratic theoretical paradigm, mass communication, mass media and mass culture are by-products of gradual evolvement thence communication is one of the factors assisting positive cultural liberation. Through mass communication, a mass culture follows as the media the world consumes shares similar attributes, a result of capitalism. Fukuyama promoted the idea of linkage between capitalism and liberal-democracy as the continuous more of being, ‘the final form of human government’ (Barker, 2008:170). The liberal perspective demonstrates the individual’s freedom from dominion through power restraint, whereas the democratic perspective promotes the individual’s rights to determine their ‘collective fate’ hence amplifying the power of the people (Purcell, 2008:40).