Reaction to "Globalization: A Necessary Myth?" Article
Hello my cupcakes! Let me know your commentary. Before reading this essay, I highly recommend you read the article "Globalization: A Necessary Myth" by Paul Hirstand Grahame Thompson first.
After reading the article "Globalization: A Necessary Myth?" by Paul Hirstand Grahame Thompson, there were some notions that I agreed or disagreed with. For instance, I disagreed with the assertion that "we live in an era in which the greater part of social life is determined by global processes, in which national cultures, national economies, and national borders are dissolving" (page 71). I don't believe that the national cultures or the national borders are dissolving because they are still preserved alive in the native land. For instance, the native tribes gather annually for a festival to reflect on their heritage and traditions.Moreover, cultures are an essential part of globalization because many peoples have established their common identity and language that evolved into their unique culture and the way they present themselves in the world. Cultures are not that easy to be dissolved. On page 72, the writers urged the importance of maintaining radical reforming national strategies in terms of politics. I was wondering why are these strategies important in a nation and what kind of strategies did they mean. Then, the writers go on to theorize that the globalization, even if it is not a myth, has eradicated the Western Democracy and Soviet Socialism. The writers believe that since the global markets and transnational corporations are dominant, they don't face any threat from political representatives.
Next, I understand the perspective of why the writers argued that there is a lack of historical depth and the tendency to portray current change as unique and without precedent. I agree that one should review the past for any similarities or connections to the current changes because one should learn how to find patterns in the long run. Still, it does not necessarily mean that all current changes are not unique. The world is full of change and continuity so there ought to be some unique and unexpected changes (page 72).
Additionally, the writers argue that there should be a commonly accepted model of the new global economy so as to measure trends. That got me thinking how can you measure intangible entities such as power? Unless they want to measure GDPs and reported statistics connected to the economy. And what kind of model are they looking for? A hierarchy model or a structural model?
I really like the examples the writers provided about why globalization is a myth because they were ethical and convincing although I disagree with #4 on page 3. It stated as follows "As some of the extreme advocates of globalization recognize, the world economy is far from being genuinely 'global'. Rather trade, investment and financial flows are concentrated in the Triad of Europe, Japan, and North America and this dominance seems set to continue." I understand why they mentioned this because United States has been heavily involved in global matters since 1990's. Before that, it was Britain with its imperialistic empire. However, the writers only mentioned Japan even though it is true that Japan has second best economy in the world. However, the rankings annually change based on the measurable assets (capital) of each nation's economy. Therefore, I disagree because now the transnational corporations has enhanced power and are becoming a challenge to the government despite that they do not replace states. I disagree with the writers' argument because it is not just the Triad of Europe or the dominant nations involved in the interactions of trade because there are many less renowned states such as Honduras and its bananas importation or Indonesia's factories making of Nike sportswear. Those smaller nations are involved in the growth of economy. Therefore, globalization is real and present in our everyday lives.
Good opinions! I read this article years ago and other chapters associated with this particular piece. I will add some of my thoughts and analysis.
ReplyDelete"The writers believe that since the global markets and transnational corporations are dominant, they don't face any threat from political representatives." In previous chapters, they do recognize the importance of national governance. These 'transnational or supranational organizations definitely do benefit from the internationalization of the world economy. However, this internationalization is heavily contingent upon the coherence of sub-national governance. The authors use the example of European Union, which is undoubtedly a contemporary example of a supranational agency. They claim that the "Union could not conceivably create central institutions fast enough and with enough legitimacy to achieve and effective federal-regional division of labor, marginalizing national governments in most economic regulatory functions." As a result, "Europe will be divided into successful and failing regions." Now keep in mind, they created this argument decades ago and it seems very persuasive based on my perspective on current discourse of the EU.
You are completely right about your assumptions about Nationalism. Nationalism is the only concept that seems to explain why globalization seems to be only beneficial to the nations with access to capital. It's almost socialistic to think this way but globalization is almost imperialistic in a way that privilege is given to nations which already have access to large amount of capital and technology. You mentioned about the "less renowned states such as Honduras...Indonesia." If immigrants from these respective countries came to benefit themselves of the SAME globalization they think they are part of, they are going to be abused and ostracized. This is strictly due to the concept of 'national identity,' which is a consolidation of many apprehensions of time and cultural roots. (I recommend Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson if national identity, patriotism, and race intrigues you). Also, i disagree with the sentiment that "smaller nations are involved with the growth of economy." Hirst and Thompson both agree that "newly industrializing countries or NICs, will not last because of the exhaustion of the benefits from converting from agricultural to industrial pursuits...and that the growing protectionism in the industrialized countries reduces the likelihood of future success in export-led growth strategies." Yes, these NICs are involved but are rather exploited. Unfortunately, I feel like globalization is a facade and almost identical to imperialism that it is strictly a beneficiary of a Capitalist economy.