Globalization has many faces, which present a multitude of intertwined concepts, ideologies, and perspectives. Often, globalization is primarily affiliated with the field of
economics, bringing the topics such as free trade and foreign investments to the table. However, globalization transcends the border of economics and extends further, crossing multiple
boundaries of various fields. From political and economic perspectives, the various pacts among nations in our borderless society influence local policies. From a cultural aspect, the free flow of ideas shape people’s identities and values and create hybrid cultures.
Globalization is a complex concept, mostly because of its composition of multifarious forms. One of the most widely disseminated and ingrained forms of globalization is the “top-down globalization,” also known as “globalization from above” (Sousa Santos, 2002). This vertical form of globalization has long served the interests of winners, who often become the
narrators of the discourse on globalization. Sousa Santos analyzes and evaluates globalization 5 more in depth by acknowledging different forms of globalization. He discusses “globalized localism,” which consists of the “process by which a given local phenomenon is successfully globalized” (Sousa Santos, 2002, p. 42). The universal acceptance of the English language as lingua franca, the popular spread of Western ideologies underscoring individualism and independence, and the ubiquity of American franchises such as Starbucks and McDonald’s around the globe are some of the examples of globalized localism.
Another form of globalization Sousa Santos points out is “localized globalism,” which includes free-trade enclaves, touristic use of historical treasures, and massive depletion of natural resources to pay for foreign debt. As Sousa Santos proposes, globalization has taken a form as
“globalized localism,” representing “globalization from above,” through which neoliberals attempt to “privatize public goods and service, under the premise that markets are superior to government as mediators of social relations” (Torres & Van Heertum, 2009).
Not only has the phenomenon of globalization been led by the Western nations, but also, the study of globalization has been performed unilaterally by the Global North. The nature of globalization, which has long been framed within the context of the current U.S. and European foreign policy, has been criticized by the scholars of these Western regions (Torres & Van Heertum, 2009). Scholars have produced prolific in-depth studies on the issue of globalization, mainly discussing its impacts on foreign countries and cultures; unfortunately, the discussion on
However, even “top-down globalization” and “globalization from above” are not comprehensive and thorough
5
enough to frame the overall picture of globalization. It is neither “globalization from above” nor “globalization from below” that will equilibrate the existing power relations between countries. Rather, the only way to palliate this crisis is through “globalization from inside,” which can be achieved by the nations through educating their local citizens to become global citizens who can define globalization on their own terms and apply their local politics, economy, and culture in the global community rather than passively being assimilated to the Western-philiac global ideologies.
the significance of solving the problem within the local and national borders has not yet received much attention. 6
More often than not, the term globalization is oversimplified and overgeneralized as it is predominantly viewed from an economic perspective. It is an inevitable truth that the spread of globalization was triggered by the economic expansion. However, one of the aspects that is often undermined in the public discourse is the spreading homogeneity of the global culture. While it is true that globalization has brought benefits and positive outcomes in multilateral ways, it has also widened the gap between the more privileged and the less privileged, thus creating more inequalities and failing to bring about social justice.
The dominant form of the 21st-century globalization, in all contexts, including economy, politics, and culture, is neoliberalism. Since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, neoliberal capitalism has marked dominance globally, leading “aspirations to economic development based on capitalist profit making and private enterprise” to reflect in the aspirations and the economic plans of most nations (Knauft, 2007, p. 791). The proponents of neoliberalism describe that neoliberal economic models and practices encourage deregulation of markets, less government intervention, and privatization and standardization of public services, and argue that free markets and unrestricted flow of capital produce the greatest social, political, and economic good. The concept of neoliberalism, just like globalization, is a complex idea:
What is also worth noting about the term and the concept of globalization is that there is actually no “genuine
6
globalization” in the Western capitalist world system. Sousa Santos (2002) argues that what we call globalization is always the “successful globalization of a given localism” and “there is no global condition for which we cannot find a local root, a specific cultural embeddedness.” Globalization entails “localization.” The author once again points out that the reason we prefer the term globalization even when there is no “genuine globalization” is that
“hegemonic scientific discourse tends to prefer the story of the world as told by the winners” (Sousa Santos, 2002, p.
41).
Neoliberalism is not a neutral, technical, economic discourse that can be measured with the precision of a mathematical formula or defended through an appeal to the rules of a presumptively unassailable science that conveniently leaves its own history behind. Nor is it a paragon of economic rationality that offers the best “route to optimum efficiency, rapid economic growth and innovation, and rising prosperity for all who are willing to work hard and take advantage of available opportunities” (Kotz, 2003, p. 16).
Neoliberalism has failed in many ways. Under neoliberalism, while governments are becoming less involved, private corporations are taking their economic freedom to the maximum level. The deregulation of the economy has led to the increase in extreme neoliberal measures such as privatization, standardization, and commodification. The one goal that is shared by the majority of corporations today is generating and accumulating revenues. Corporate social responsibility, while the practice of this concept has become more visible today, is not a major concern for many companies. 7
Moreover, neoliberal policies are used to pursue “rapacious free-trade agreements and expand Western financial and commercial interests” on a global level through the heavy-handed policies of the World Bank, the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), all of which are supported and organized by the United States, “to
manage and transfer resources and wealth from the poor and less developed nations to the richest and most powerful nation-states and to the wealthy corporate defenders of capitalism” by
imposing restrictions and conditions for granting loans, “euphemistically referred to as a
program of structural adjustment,” not only subjecting to capitalist values, but also, undermining the possibility of an “inclusive and substantive democracy” (Giroux, 2005, p. 6).
The Harvard Kennedy School of Government’s definition of “corporate social responsibility” is as follows:
7
“Throughout the industrialized world and in many developing countries there has been a sharp escalation in the social roles corporations are expected to play. Companies are facing new demands to engage in public-private partnerships and are under growing pressure to be accountable not only to shareholders, but also to stakeholders such as employees, consumers, suppliers, local communities, policymakers, and society-at-large.”
Although its epistemology lies within economic terms, neoliberalism is a broad ideology that crosses the borders of economics, politics, and culture. Neoliberalism is an ideology, which at times becomes “a fanaticism that subordinates the art of democratic politics to the rapacious laws of a market economy that expands in reach to include all aspects of social life within the dictates and values of a market-driven theory” (Giroux, 2005, p.12). It also serves as a cultural theory, which becomes “a historical and socially constructed ideology that need to be made visible, critically engaged, and shaken from the stranglehold of power… [exercising] over most of the commanding institutions of national and global life” (Giroux, 2005, p. 12). In a neoliberal society, democracy is defined in the context of free markets while the issues of equality and justice are used to disparate those who suffer systemic deprivation and chronic punishment.
Although Giroux makes keen critiques on the negative consequences and immoral nature of neoliberalism, his definition of globalization is, again, not comprehensive and complete enough to draw a conclusion on globalization. Globalization, after all, is a contested terrain.
Without a single definite theory on globalization, we are still in search of more comprehensive, universal definition of this global phenomenon. Further study is needed
especially since most theories of globalization are “reductive, undialective, and one-sided, either failing to see the interaction between technological features of globalization and the global restructuring of capitalism or failing to articulate the complex relations between capitalism and democracy” (Kellner, 2002, p. 289). Thus, we must continue to question, observe, and critique how globalization is affecting the organized solidarity, how market forces are affecting both local and global citizenship, and how education, in the crisis of neoliberalism, can save the global citizenship (Torres, 2002).