Author Michael Schuman said it best, “Globalization is very much alive and well.” He would be correct in this assumption, as many countries are accepting the western cultural influence as their own. As the authors, Foer and Appaih, strive to identify globalization with single references, as they lacks the overall annotation; globalism, and its unstoppable force. Appiah’s meaning for globalization is more specific than Schumans and on a personal, family, and religious level with acceptance and how others perceive them. Appiah’s approach to globalism is perception based, outside of what his family beliefs are and what is dissimilar by other cultures with no appeal to influence. Foer on the other hand, perceives globalization culture as it is observed through sports, specifically soccer, family influence, and other means to preserve globalization change as Americans and non Americans in the United states, with no mention of outside countries original or future influence. As each author sees the world of globalization in their own way, they actually compliment each other on there reasonings to sustain from globalization, more so by Foer. Each author relates on a personal and culture opinion, as they have clearly defined there theories on globalization and the approach. Seeing the world as these authors do, much is lost in regards to originality and freedom, more-so, with ones desires to change without external influence. In as much as the majority of the jobs are leaving America, and our economy is in shambles, it does not mean that the western influence of globalization has stalled or in decline; this just goes to she that it is stronger than ever, by means of expansion outside of America to more sparsely populated areas of undevelop...
... middle of paper ...
...to the point, where merging back would almost lead to genocide, as each faith, sect, religion, would fight for there way of life, independence from conforming to others, the end game in inevitable; conform to globalism, or become an undeveloped country.
Works Cited
Foer, Franklin. "From How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization." From Inquiry to Academic Writing: A Practical Guide. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martins, 2012. 639-648. Print.
Appiah, Kwame A.”Moral Disagreement." From Inquiry to Academic Writing: A Practical Guide. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Bedford/ St. Martins, 2012. 656-666. Print.
Lunsford, Andrea A., and Paul Kei Matsuda. Easywriter. 5th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2014. Print.
Schuman, Michael."Globalization Isn't Dead, It's Only Just Beginning."Time Magazine 1.1 2013, Middle Search Plus. Web. 21 Apr. 2014.
Globalization is nothing new and will continue to manifest itself in non-western societies and cultures throughout the world. Some cultures accept the changes that come with globalization. Most cultures bring and find both economic and cultural growth to be the outcome of accepting globalization. However, there is always the risk that globalization comes with the possibility of destroying rituals and unique cultural practices bringing about a decline or stoppage in the progress that a society was achieving. Globalization is an unstoppable force; while we are powerless to stop it, we must be responsible when introducing change, and strive to preserve the heart of the culture being effected by globalization. (Kim, 2009)
The world is not a large and strange place anymore. The world is a place that is interconnected and intertwined. The world has become from a place that each country and their peoples are separate and isolated to a place that each country and their peoples are part of a global network. Thanks to globalization this is occurring. Globalization is the ‘international integration” or ‘de-bordering’ – “a number of highly disparate observations whose regular common denominator is the determination of a profound transformation of the traditional nation-state” (Von Bogdandy 2). Globalization is connecting different people from different cultures and backgrounds together. More and more corporations are entering new foreign markets to sell their products to the native populations. But at the same time globalization is negatively hurting people and countries. Globalization is hurting workers and small countries. Workers are forced to work for low wages and small countries are being manipulated by large countries. Globalization is having a negative impact on this world and it outweighs any positive it produces.
The question is to what extent should we embrace historical and contemporary perspectives with globalization and how cultural relations have suffered because of it. The source clearly acknowledges how globalization is “essential to creating growth and prosperity” which has helped the world change and grow. Also there are downfalls with globalization with cultural relations suffering from the cause and effect of nationalism and with how different cultures want to globalize. Globalization is positive movement to grow and prosper, but issues can and do develop while countries are aiming for change.
Parenti, M, (1995) Against Empire, City Light Books, Ch. 1 ~ A concise account of the conversion to a global economy and the history of imperialism
Globalization, the acceleration and strengthening of worldwide interactions among people, companies and governments, has taken a huge toll on the world, both culturally and economically. It’s generating a fast-paced, increasingly tied world and also praising individualism. It has been a massive subject of matter amongst scientists, politicians, government bureaucrats and the normal, average human population. Globalization promoted the independence of nations and people, relying on organizations such as the World Bank and also regional organizations such as the BRICs that encourage “a world free of poverty” (World Bank). Despite the fact that critics can argue that globalization is an overall positive trend, globalization has had a rather negative cultural and economic effect such as the gigantic wealth gaps and the widespread of American culture, “Americanization”; globalization had good intentions but bad results.
The term globalization is relatively new, but its definition runs deep. Globalization can refer to the integration of cultures, international business practices and economy, or even politics; it is a word of all trades. Never has one word managed to cut across so many different sections of everyday life. That is why it is so significant. But does it really affect who “we” are --- who “they” are?
To fully understand globalisation it is necessary to differentiate it from globalism. It is described as the ‘subjective realm’, unlike globalisation which refers to a series of ‘objective changes in the world that are partly outside us’ (Cohan and Kennedy 2000:34). To simplify, this describes the collective way in which the world views itself as a result of globalisation. Globalism is seen as a result of globalisation and as such quite a new phenomenon (Cohan and Kennedy 2000:34). It is quite important to make this differentiation as many times when writers are referring to globalisation as new phenomenon they are using examples that are in fact forms of globalism, a distinctly different concept.
"Globalization, both as an ideology and process, has become the dominant political, economical and cultural force in the 21st century." Quote from "Globalism: The New Market Ideology" by Manfred D.Steger Two powerful scenarios dominate the public discourse about the cultural consequences of globalization. The one very common scenario represents globalization as cultural homogenization (for example Benjamin Barbers McWorld vs. Jihad). In this scenario the culturally distinct societies of the world are being overrun by globally available goods, media, ideas and institutions. In a world where people from Vienna to Sidney eat BigMacs, drink Starbucks coffee, talk about human rights and work on their Apple computers, cultural characteristics are endangered. As these commodities and ideas are mostly of western origin, globalization is perceived as westernization in disguise. The other scenario is that of cultural fragmentation and intercultural conflict (encapsulated in Huntington's Clash of civilizations and most recently "confirmed" by the ethnocides in Africa).
When the term “Globalization” is discussed, most academics, scholars, professionals and intellectuals attempt to define and interpret it in a summarized fashion. My main concern with this approach is that one cannot and should not define a process that altered decades of history and continues to, in less than 30 words. Global Shift is a book with remarkable insight. Peter Dicken rather than attempting to define the commonly misused word, explains Globalization in a clear and logical fashion, which interconnects numerous views. Dicken takes full advantage of his position to write and identify the imperative changes of political, economic, social, and technological dimensions of globalization.
Globalization can briefly be defined as ‘something’ that affects and changes the traditional arrangements of the state system. It is a term that directly implies change and therefore is a continuos process over a long period of time as compared to quickly changing into a wanted or desir...
...the American dream and western way of life is being forced upon cultures all around the world. These large communications companies hold the power over information and culture and act as the catalyst in the process of the homogenization of global cultures thus creating a one-world culture. This movement towards cultural homogeneity does not come without the elimination or eradication of heterogeneity (Zhang, 48). The amalgamation of cultures into one western Americanized culture does not allow for the celebration of cultural differences or promote the uniqueness of traditional cultures. Globalization and development is based on the idea that in order for countries to prosper they must become like the western world, more specifically America, and this ideology has destroyed cultures globally and created a McWorld where faster, cheaper, bigger and western is better.
Globalization is not a process that started ‘‘overnight’’. It has a long history dating back from the High Middle Ages (Osterhammel& Petersson 2005: viii), but it is probably felt now more than ever before.
Globalization refers to the absence of barriers that every country had. Yes, it has helped to demolish the walls that separated us .Globalization, which is the process of growing interdependence among every country in this planet, can be seen as a sign of hopeful and better future by some, but for others it represents a huge disaster for the whole world. That’s why we are going to see the negative effect that globalization has on culture then focus on the ethical disadvantage it brought, to finally talk about the damage it did to skilled workers.
Globalization has taken place in the past when state and empires expanded their influence far outside their border. However, one of the distinctions of globalization today is the speed with which it is transforming local culture as they took part in a worldwide system of interconnectedness. Through globalization, many cultures in the world have changed dramatically.
According to the information mentioned above, the word of ‘Globalization’ is not an easy and simple phenomenon to describe. It contains various meanings that in respect of different aspects. The influences that the globalization has brought to our current world are not only about the world’s economy situations, but also it is about the political and social affects.