Ever since the past decade or so when globalisation started becoming a popular topic of discussion, there has been various arguments and debates particularly on aspects relating to its concept, its basis and significance to societies and nations. A distinguished sociologist, Roland Robertson proclaims that the novelty and significance of the globalisation process is the consciousness of the new globality (Robertson, 1992). By this , he means that there is a realization that the economy of a country relies heavily on the global market as a guiding force to run the country’s financial system. The effect of this situation is that the government plays a secondary role because globalisation results in the increase in privatization and deregulation.
However, another eminent social scientist, Leslie Sklair (2001) believes that the term globalisation must be conceptualised beyond the nation-states since it not only involves the nation’s economy but also its socio-cultural and political aspects which differ from one nation to another.
Then again, Anthony Giddens who has contributed massive writings and literature on this subject has famously described globalisation as entailing an intense “time and space distanciation” in social life (Giddens, 1990: 14). By this phrase, he is denoting that the world we live in is one place because we can actually interact and communicate as if we are in the same locality although we may be thousands of miles apart. Because it has an impact on most people’s everyday life, Giddens deems globalisation as one of the most observable consequences of modernity. Specifically, he is referring to the efficient global network of media technology that transmits new messages and images that have taken grips on people’s life. In the globalisation process, local practices and cultures are linked globally. Giddens view is similar to Sklair’s (2001) who espouses the idea that modern media technology plays a dominant role in globalisation processes.
On this subject, Harvey (1989) tries to elaborate by amplifying that in this era of fast-paced technology, one need not be in the same location to communicate face-to-face (ibid: 18). He affirms that with the speedy pace of globalisation today, it is normal for changes in social life to occur very quickly such that important happenings in history become obsolete and forgotten after a short while of commemoration. In
fact, Harvey’s elucidation becomes convincing when he relates to the launch of new products or fashion designs in the market which keep changing within a short time span. While their approach on the globalisation issue may vary slightly, they share similar viewpoints on the foundation that the globalisation process involves the free flow of goods and capital between nations by way of transnational practices (see Sklair, 2001). However, despite the opening up of boundaries, globalisation and liberalisation do not remove the nation state, instead it essentially redefines its role and its function (Castells, 1999).
In addition to the debate on the globalisation model, scholars also have divergent views when deliberating on the source or foundation of globalisation. Rosenau’s (1990) argument centres on technology as a major cause of globalisation. According to him, the capabilities and potential of technology have made it possible for nation states to be interdependent with one another. Although he does describe today’s epoch as the age of “post-international politics” where international organisations, transnational corporations and movements have turned into a conglomerate of nations, Rosenau’s explanation stops short of delving into the world political systems at work.
In contrast, another scholar Wallerstein (1974) who expounds that the Western economic capitalist system is the primary source of globalisation, convincingly elaborates that this new economic system has transformed the world into one huge economic space. In effect, Wallerstein’s long established work is about the growth of globalisation as a world system since the dawn of capitalism. His thesis delves on the inequalities in power and wealth among the nation-states which are forced to embrace the capitalist system to survive economically although he believes that the developing societies and nations are actually at the losing end. Wallerstein argues that since the capitalist system is always rife with crises, it is always at risk with global economic restructuring which would normally benefit only the developed countries. On the contrary, Sklair (2001) refutes this argument by claiming that multinational and transnational corporations (TNCs) from either America, Europe or even Japan see themselves as extending strategies for the local businesses to globalise and their interests are conceptualised based on markets, which may or may not suit a nation-state. He rejects the notion that these TNCs are in one way or another interested in dominating the nation’s economy.
Additionally, Gilpin’s (1987) argument on the primary source of globalisation relies on the fact that globalisation is a product of international politics that allow linkages between nation-states. He opines that the globalisation process is actually a conditional course of action in that the developed and powerful nations are taking leadership roles to the developing and less powerful states in areas like communications, ingenuity, collaborations and interdependence.
Thus far, we have seen that although Rosenau, Wallerstein and Gilpin have differing opinions on the major cause of globalisation, they seem to agree on the perspective relating to the capitalist system. However, looking at the varied and wide ranging scale of globality, Giddens’ (1990) multi-causal logic of globalisation seems quite concrete and credible. In his study of the dimensions of globalisation, Giddens notes four essential elements. Besides capitalism, the other three factors are inter-state system, militarism and industrialism (ibid: 70). Taking a close scrutiny of his thesis, Giddens actually ties together arguments from the other theorists. He reaffirms that the capitalist world economy is impacting economic globalisation. As for the inter-state system as another basis for globalisation, he reiterates the universality of the nation-states which leads to the formation of a single global world (Giddens, 1987:
283). The same can be said for his argument on the globalisation of military power (Giddens, 1990: 75) wherein the nation-states join hands as one force to fight a common enemy. With regards to industrialism as another important factor responsible for globalisation, Giddens points to the shift in global division of labour as its consequence.
In his later work. Giddens (1996) conceptualises the globalisation process beyond the idea of large-scale world systems but draws attention to the idea of globality as the removal of the boundary between the “out there” and the “in-here”. For him, today’s globalisation has an intense cultural dimension wherein people around the world are interconnected in their daily life because of the intensification and expansion of cultural flows across the globe.
In his discussion of the global movement of culture, Appadurai identifies five aspects of global cultural flow: ethnoscapes, mediascapes, technoscapes, financescapes, and ideoscapes (1996: 33-6). Ethnoscopes involve the movement of people from one
locality to another. The second aspect, Technoscapes mean the high-speed movement of technology across boundaries. The third aspect, Financescapes portray the character of global financing such as currency markets, national stock exchanges, and commodity speculations which keep shifting from one “financial hub” to another.
The fourth aspect, Mediascapes are both the sharing of electronic capacities to construct and disseminate information, and the delivery of the world’s images
“created” by the media. The final aspect, Ideoscapes are political thoughts of the countries and the counter-ideologies of movements, which challenge countries themselves. Aligned with Appadurai’s thesis on global cultural flow, Lash and Urry (1994) deduce that due to globalisation, people realize that it is possible for them to create imagined worlds where culture and meaning are based on global communication. Sklair’s (2000) opinion on the continuous flow of homogenised local cultures via global mass media channels, further supports this argument.
Cultural globalisation assumes special significance because it is concerned with symbolic construction, articulation and dissemination of meaning. According to Robertson (1992: 27), these cultural elements, primarily the symbolic expressions of language, music and images which stretch across boundaries intensely affect every aspect of the nation’s social life including its civilization, societies, regions and individuals. Robertson theorises that the global cultural flows often reinvigorate local cultural niches. He argues that cultural globalisation always takes place in local contexts and he rejects the concept of cultural homogenisation. Instead, he speaks of
“glocalisation” – a complex interaction of the global and local characterised by cultural borrowing (ibid). To him, the resulting expressions of cultural “hybridity”
cannot be reduced to clear-cut manifestations of “sameness” or “difference” (ibid).
In all, globalisation is a complex process constituting the consciousness of the world as a single space. Although there may be some divergent viewpoints, the current conjectures and models recognize that globality is unavoidable as nation-states have to co-exist within the new global order to survive economically, if not culturally.