Decentering Globalization (by Abdelaziz El Amrani) (original) (raw)
Related papers
Globalization and Identity: reassessing power, hybridism and plurality
2014
Globalization has been a disputed concept among social theorists who diverge in defining the time-line, the contents or even the consequences of global processes, whether they refer to transnational capitalism, to liberal democracy, to cultural encounters, mass-media, fashion or the internet. Traditionally, globalization has been either viewed as the spread of western modernity, as an eroding force against the nation-state or, perhaps more importantly, as an uneven and contradictory system of fluxes between centre and periphery, which is often associated with the historicallybounded dichotomy between the west and the rest. Rather than a reified substance, contemporary globalization is broadly the heuristic device which connects the global and the local supporting the continued relations between old colonizers and postcolonized societies. From imperialist days to nowadays, globalization brings into play a history of violence and domination, but also of resistance, change and creativi...
Globalization vs. Cultural Identity
Language Individual Society, 2014
Globalization, today, is marked as a relatively new discourse although it refers to some old processes that in the previous years had been interpreted a little bit differently. In that sense the universalization and internationalization are just synonyms for globalization of which there are controversial arguments in scientific academic circles and the international public. Globalists and anti-globalists are divided in their attitudes on the effects that it causes nationally and globally. Issues in terms of the theoretical reorganization of space and time that it defines in terms of economical, political and cultural context of an unspecified geographical area, with undefined borders and undefined global governments are disputable. That is why it cannot be regarded neither as Americanization, nor Europeanization, and each attempt at a simple regional gathering of national governments in their joined actions is solely a reduced understanding of the growing global interdependency that simultaneously produces cultural diversity and is nurturing cultural identities at a local level. Their proportional dependency revives in practice the new amalgam of Robertson-glocalization.
The Conceptual Framework of Globalization
2018
Globalization is perhaps one of the most salient features of modern societies. It is also one of the hardest to grasp, considering its allembracing content and the local particularities it acquires. The aim of the present paper is to capture its dynamics in the Middle Eastern context before and after the Arab Spring. The choice of this region as a study case was not at all coincidental. Middle East offers a unique reply to the challenges of globalization, according to its particular cultural and geopolitical infrastructure. Although it is still too early to predict to what extent the Arab Spring will influence the region’s exposure to globalization, an overview of the phenomenon’s interaction with the Middle Eastern culture, economy and politics will hopefully prove to be useful, in a time when acknowledging the market-driven forces is compulsory.
Globalization's Contradictions: Geopraphies of Discipline, Destruction and Transformation
2006
. ISBN 0-415-77062-9. Globalization's Contradictions is a political and scholarly intervention in the discussions about globalisation that attempts to demonstrate not just how globalisation is constituted and operates, but how it might be resisted and transformed. Each of the authors has been asked to analyse some aspect of globalisation-e.g., finance, technology, labour, culture, fear, the environment-and to identify both the "problems" of globalisation and "opportunities" for resistance. As such, the book makes a welcome contribution to the literature on globalisation that traces its spread, its effects, and its changing nature. More than just tracing these, however, the book has an explicit politics to it. Individually and as a set, the chapters in the book use their analyses of specific facets of globalisation to help imagine a different kind of globalisation and, thereby, a different world. The tendency with such a broad remit-description of the spread of globalisation, analysis, and reimagination-is that chapters will remain general and to some extent vague discussions of globalisation. As with any edited collection, there is unevenness in the ability of authors to be successful in avoiding generalities and vagueness. Some of the chapters, however, provide insightful and innovative analyses that provide the basis for moving the discussion of globalisation forward. Given the way that globalisation seems to have become a cloak in which all discussions of international trends are draped, the identification and development of these new approaches is much appreciated. Every reader would probably name different chapters, but I found the chapters by John Agnew on geopolitics, Christian Allen on transnational criminal economies, Bryon Miller on the mobilisation of fear, and Nanda Shrestha and Dennis Conway on the homogenisation and hybridity of identity to be particularly good analyses of changes associated with globalisation and their implications. These are not uncontroversial analyses by any means; a book with such explicit political aims would not be expected to be otherwise. I believe, however, they provide interesting analyses that help us understand the ways in which globalisation works, the contradictions at its base, the implications of those contradictions, and a glimmer of how they might be exploited to enact change. Most of the analyses in the book-including the ones mentioned above-operate at the structural or macro level, identifying broad transitions and processes. This is understandable, given the remit of the book, but there is also a sense that emerges of a globalisation without people, except perhaps as pawns-labourers, trafficked women, and unwitting consumers of industrially produced culture. Similarly, there are no case studies (beyond a few pages on China's industrial and technology parks) that trace how the broad processes described play out "on the ground." Understanding the effects of globalisation on people-or really, broad classes or groups of people-and places is important, and it is
Globalization and its political, economic and cultural impacts on modern nation-state
From being an economic strategy to being the buzz word of the time, Globalization has grown and emerged in a speed almost as that of a social trend. But as ironic as it may sound, the term is more often than not associated with a diverse array of things making it an extremely contested concept, and essentially so. Academicians perceive globalization in various different ways depicting it as an ideology, a condition, a system of processes, a policy, a market strategy, a predicament and even an age or an era. With such diverse lenses breeds diverse nomenclature and hence, those referring to it as a social condition term it as 'globality', characterized by the existence of global economic, political, cultural and environmental interconnections and flows that make many of the existing territorial boundaries seem futile. Sticking strictly with the etymology of globalization brings forth the idea of it being a set of social processes that are thought to transform the prevailing societal condition into one of globality. Globalization, then, almost explicitly suggests some sort of dynamism best captured by the notion of development or unfolding along discernible patterns. Yet another term is 'Globalism' opted by those who view the concept as that of an ideology of globalization going by the age-old tradition of employing-ism suffix to signify the theories, values and assumptions working behind driving the process. Hence, scholars exploring the dynamics of globalization have rightly come up with characterizing it as a complex, multidimensional and multifaceted concept which, at any cost, cannot be boiled down to a single-simple phenomenon or theme. As Andrew Heywood rightly puts it-"the problem with globalization is that it is not so much an 'it' as a 'them': it is not a single process but a complex of processes, sometimes overlapping and interlocking but also, at times, contradictory and oppositional ones." Perhaps the best way one can try unraveling the complexity, then, is to look at how these scholars have defined globalization in their own ways and consequently work out some attributes that appear persistently even when viewed through varied lenses. "Globalization can thus be defined as the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa." ~ Anthony Giddens, "The concept of globalization reflects the sense of an immense enlargement of world communication, as well as of the horizon of a world market, both of which seem far more tangible and immediate than in earlier stages of modernity." ~ Fredric Jameson
2011
Suggesting cultural analysis of the phenomenon of globalization needs to take into account more than studies of subjectivity and communications technology, the author suggests a deconstructive methodology that seeks reconciliation of postmodernism with structuralism and idealism with materialism. Demonstrating points of contact between various social actors in the globalization arena, a sketch is made of the state as a pluralist agent articulating the process of globalizing capital. Motivations to globalize are said to point to a real social by which the political structure of the state is revealed. Subversion of the dominant discourse through self-determined practices of liberty are suggested as a means of constructing alternativesto global capital. Keywords: culture; state; globalization; resistance; social change An opportunity exists for communications and cultural scholars to contribute more poignant critiques to the discourse of globalization of capital and suggest
Suggesting cultural analysis of the phenomenon of globalization needs to take into account more than studies of subjectivity and communications technology, the author suggests a deconstructive methodology that seeks reconciliation of postmodernism with structuralism and idealism with materialism. Demonstrating points of contact between various social actors in the globalization arena, a sketch is made of the state as a pluralist agent articulating the process of globalizing capital. Motivations to globalize are said to point to a real social by which the political structure of the state is revealed. Subversion of the dominant discourse through self-determined practices of liberty are suggested as a means of constructing alternatives to global capital.