Ejss 95 globalization and its impact on the third world by The Explorer-Islamabad

The Explorer Islamabad: Journal of Social Sciences ISSN: 2411-0132(E), 2411-5487(P) Vol-1, Issue (12): 470-474 www.theexplorerpak.org

GLOBALIZATION AND ITS IMPACT ON THE THIRD WORLD ANTHROPLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES 1

Lubna Sausan Bajwa , Shaheer Ellahi Khan M.Phil Student, Bahria University Islamabad 2 Lecturer, Department of Humanities & Social Sciences, Bahria University Islamabad 1

Abstract Globalization has mushroomed a host of complex issues which are relatively new; the erosion of the nation-state, the decaying morality of people, the subjugation of weaker cultures by powerful ones, the increasing commoditization of cultures, the increasing gap between the rich and poor, and the creation of ‘others’ living in the same locality. At the same time, many scholars conceive it to be a magical force characterized by progression, development, and the coming together of the world in strange ways that strangles time, space and distance. Some regard it to be something which should be welcomed and celebrated. This essay seeks to describe the various scholarly voices within the globalization debate and examines how these voices explain the varied and differential impact of this phenomenon on the Third World. Key words: Globalization, Third World, Development, Neo-Colonialism, Global Village, Exploitation, Underdevelopment, Capitalism.

INTRODUCTION Globalization is not a straightforward or unidimensional concept that can comfortably be defined in an empirically sound way. It is in fact multi-dimensional and penetrates through various disciplinary surfaces on which it operates. It is linked with economists, sociologists, anthropologists, and stirs debate on global political aspects as well. Hence the term is of interest to various disciplines and is defined by each in their own way. Politically grounded definitions of Globalization comment upon the irrelevance and decline of sovereign nationstates, while highlighting the issues of governance that occur as a consequence. Economists conceptualize ‘Globalization’ as expansion of free-market economy and forced capitalism encapsulating the entire world. For critical sociologists like Schirato and Webb, it is an ideological blanket used by the powerful to order and influence the lives of people by imposing a set of norms and values, “a discursive regime which eats anything in its path” (El-Ojeili and Hayden 2006). For McLuhan, it represents the remarkable advancement of technology, the compression of time and space, and the speed at which communications across the globe take place. METHODOLOGY The essay is a qualitative analysis of literature produced on the Globalization discourse and is

based on an analysis of secondary data sources. The literature covered includes the multiplicity of voices that offer their own respective criticisms as well as virtues of the phenomenon of Globalization. The researcher has studied various dimensions – social, political, and cultural aspects of the debate. The analysis has yielded a rich commentary on the debate within the Globalization discourse. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION A reasonable way to approach Globalization must take into account that it essentially represents a process, a phenomenon that can’t be located on a distinctive timeline and at best can said to have been observed tangibly since the collapse of communism representing the victory of Global Capitalism (Jameson 1998).This view discusses Capitalism, Imperialism and Globalization as interchangeable concepts, in a manner that fails to register the distinction amongst them. This negativity is most pronounced in Wallerstein’s theorizations of Globalization, the argumentative dynamics of whom considers Globalization as a cause of Neo-colonialism, and something which uses Capitalism and it’s structure as a tool to exploit and impoverish the peripheral countries. For Wallerstein then, Globalization is something essentially negative, a disruptive force which has resulted in further deterioration of the developing world.

470

In stark opposition to Wallersteinian conceptions stands McLuhan’s definition of Globalization which talks about the mass movement and circulation of people, ideas, objects, capital etc across geographical territories. This kind of definition allows one to conceptualize today’s world as a ‘Global Village’ whose characteristics according to McLuhan are essentially positive. Marshall McLuhan was the first amongst these to talk about globalization, and gave the concept of 'Global Village' which is created due to increased social, political and economic interactions. He was of the view that these technological advancements, like communication networks, transportation etc would result in the coming together of the world in a way where difference and distance would be minimized. He explained that these increased interactions would result in awareness of each other's cultures and way of life whereby people will mutually respect each other by developing insight and understanding. This concept of Globalization implies a sense of unison underlying the shrinking of the world, which would cause international enmities and hatred to be eliminated. In McLuhan's hypothesized global village, violence was supposed to be an antiquated concept. He assumed that this new global structure would be supportive of peace and harmony and therefore the need to invest in extensive peace-keeping activities would no longer exist. The resources of the world were to be cumulatively used for constructive purposes only and war would have become redundant and unnecessary. McLuhan thought that the growing movement of ideas will create 'global knowledge' that will inform the conduct of people. Anyone who lived to see the 21st century would understand how and why McLuhan's utopia that he theorized in 1962 was naively informed and hence failed in its predictions. Building on McLuhan’s optimism, we have David Harvey who explains how Globalization has actually resulted in humans coming together and collectivizing their efforts and resources to help each other. He stresses on the fact that how grief, suffering and happiness are now common and shared across diverse cultures and places. Resonating McLuhan’s concept of Global Village, he mentions how new and creative avenues of learning have emerged all over the globe which

has resulted in intellectual progression and better use of global resources for the greater benefit of the society. Global circulation of knowledge and ideas has led to a mutual understanding of cultural differences where people are coming up with shared problems and creative strategies to address these problems (Oke 2004). The pessimistic view of Globalization is deeply rooted in the theorizations of Dependency School with Immanuel Wallerstein outlining the evils of this phenomenon which have severely inflicted the Third World. His first argument rests on the issue of environmental degradation where he talks about how Globalization has horrendously destroyed the global environment through a grave loss of bio-diversity, a loss that periphery has been made to bear because of the activities of the core. He explains with reference to his World System Theory how the First World or core countries are the pioneers and front-players of Industrialization. These highly industrialized nations produce in large amounts, toxic waste and chlorofluorocarbons causing Ozone depletion which further exposes the periphery to a host of other problems including dumping of this waste into their seas, extinction of species and marine life, skin cancer etc. He further problematizes the issue of concretization or urbanization, a process that is very much the result of Capitalist economy and Globalization. He explains that as a consequence of this ‘Development’, many lifeforms have been deprived of their natural habitat and the land has been used to build large metropolitan centers. His second argument is centered around the sociological impact of Globalization where he explains how people all over the world have been trained and programmed to become consumption-oriented, a phenomenon that takes its root in the ethos of Capitalist forces. He also talks about people becoming increasingly machine-oriented with the spread of technology. This has raised several environmental and health issues as well where extended use of machinery, e.g. cars, motorbikes have produced several types of pollutions, and negatively affect a person’s well-being by fostering in him a culture of reliance on technology. Finally, the argument that Wallerstein presents while critiquing Globalization is that of ‘commoditization of cultures’. He explains that how smaller cultural

471

identities with their language, cuisines, dress, festivals etc have been destroyed and mostly eaten up by more powerful cultures. His argument is essentially based on the discursive effect of Globalization which has divided the world into two groups: the civilized world (which unquestionably is the core) and the uncivilized world (the periphery), through which the periphery has been classified as something which is not normal. This very difference from normalcy has been labeled as the ‘other’-which has resulted in objectification of cultural artifacts which are now celebrated and observed as ‘objects’ of an exotic culture devoid of their original value and robbed off of their meaning, something which results in a loss of symbolic capital of that particular culture. Wallerstein’s objection to this commoditization lies in loss of context and cultural richness that results from Globalization. Building on the cultural aspect of Globalization, we have Frederic Jameson who explains that how this export and import of culture is not an equal relationship that McLuhan had assumed. In fact at the core of it lies the essential inequality and dissymmetry of relationships between powerful and weak cultures. In this context, Jameson says that apparent diversity and pluralism of cultures assumed by McLuhan really isn’t pluralism in its true sense, instead there is one powerful marketoriented culture with a superior language, which blinds us to all other cultures whose existence pale in comparison with that of America’s. Hence, Americanization over the years has presented itself as the only desirable culture worth adopting, wiping out other cultures materially and socially in the process. Free movement of American films, literature and other forms of art has slaughtered domestic production and homegrown local film industry elsewhere and no other country or culture has been able to present itself as a competitive alternative to Americanization. The pessimistic view of Globalization also features Anthony Giddens, a development sociologist who gives the concept of time and space being ‘stretched’ due to Globalization. He explains how globalization through its technological exploitation has caused ‘presence’ of one to interact with ‘absence’ of the other, therefore the world hasn’t essentially shrunk the

way McLuhan thought, but has actually expanded. Gidden’s view of globalization isn’t a geographical concept, in fact he conceives the globe as made up of social, economic and political processes taking place within the globe. Gidden’s pessimism lies in the disconnection that has occurred due to connection of presence with absence. He explains how people living in the same locality have stopped to interact and connect with each other, and have formed linkages with people across continents living in faraway places. While McLuhan would say that is a good thing, according to Giddens when people connect with those abroad whose economic and political interests differ greatly from their own, their connection with their own people suffers, leading to a sense of alienation. This also results in feeling of insufficiency at home where people tend to under-value their own resources. Furthermore, human interactions are transformed from personal to impersonal where social groups and activities exist is space, on the internet obscured through the element of anonymity (Giddens 1990). Moreover, Giddens talks about how globalization leads to opening up of new avenues for foreign adventurism and exploitation. Building on this, he explains how it allows others to have a gaze 1 into your life, thereby completely damaging one’s own privacy. This also allows the others and the dominant discourse to construct the reality for you. Aside from these two views of pessimism and optimism, there is a third group of scholars who approach Globalization from a middle standpoint. These differ from the two discussed above in two ways. Firstly, they stress on the element of human agency which causes humans to behave in unpredictable and diverse ways. They oppose the deterministic ways in which Wallerstein and McLuhan had talked about the impact of globalization, in manner that fails to realize that humans are not machines and they have freethinking capacity. Therefore the way Globalization will affect the people living in the 1

This concept was first given by MichealFacault who explains it as a political tool used by the powerful to subjugate the masses and keep the society under surveillance. Giddens uses this concept to explain how Globalization has opened up new ways of exploitation and appropriation of reality through this foreign gaze.

472

periphery depends on the individuals and their agency. Secondly, they point out that humans are not only economically driven, but are culturally and socially oriented. Therefore the effects of globalization must be observed and grounded in their socio-cultural realities. Most importantly, this group with James Ferguson and Akhil Gupta as it’s pioneers emphasizes the phenomenon of Localization that has been occurring simultaneously in reaction to Globalization. They postulate that when world becomes one and when messages are received from a powerful culture by peripheral societies, they may be received differentially. These messages might be rejected or resisted. In this context, they talk about a range of effects that globalization has caused on the periphery. Firstly, there are the revivalist movements, a return to origin or roots of oneself and one’s identity. Instead of developing mutual respect as hypothesized by McLuhan, many in the periphery have grown increasingly more intolerant towards others, giving the so called ‘Global Village’ a strong resemblance to a battle field. Secondly, they argue that the encroachment of global culture has divided the peripheral population into diametrically opposing poles, so within periphery, a schism has taken place between the fundamentalists (those who reject the messages of the West conveyed through Globalization) and Liberals (who accept or assimilate these messages). This has lead to a deep sense of alienation seeping through once culturally united populations. This also resulted in ‘otherization’ of each other within people who live in the same locality, same neighborhood, belonging to the same cultural and religious groups as noted by Marcus and Fischer (Gupta and Ferguson 1992). Furthermore they talk about the intellectual renaissance that has taken place in the periphery where local parties and groups have come up with opposing and revivalist interpretations of their respective scriptures, leading to a debate about authenticity of interpretations. In some local spaces, hybridization has occurred where assimilation of foreign elements into local cultures have given birth to hyphenated identities. This group of scholars also acknowledges the good that has resulted from globalization. They highlight the fact that globalization has led to an economic boost in the

economies of numerous countries which are on the path of development and modernization. It has also provided the initially backward people within the periphery with higher standards of living and have provided them the access to global knowledge. Migration other such forward global avenues have been created where people can choose from a range of economically lucrative job market. In the same bracket, we have Benedict Anderson and John Hemit talking about Diasporic Studies and Regionalization respectively. Regionalization is a concept that sprouted from Localization in 1990s and explains the connecting and coming together of regional communities which share similar cultural roots to repel the foreign influence coming from Anglo-Saxon Protestant whites which is eroding their cultural values. The creation of Diaspora resulting from migrants has led to the concept of Imagined Communities which has resulted in de-terrotorilization of identities and cultures and a condition of homelessness blurring the lines between center and periphery. At the same time where cultural distinctiveness and actual localities are becoming more and more blurred, the ‘ideas’ of culturally distinct places have become more pronounced. REFERENCES El-Ojeili, Chamsy, and Patrick Hayden 2006 Critical Theories of Globalization. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Giddens, Anthony 1990 The Consequences of Modernity. United Kingdom: Polity Press. Gupta, Akhil., and James Ferguson 1992 Beyond Culture: Space, Identity and the Politics of Difference. Cultural Anthropology 7(1):6-23. Jameson, Fredric 1998 Notes on Globalization as a Philosophical Issue. In Masao Miyoshi, Fredric Jameson, The Cultures of Globalization. Durham: Duke University Press. Oke, N. 2004 Globalization Theory and the West: The Integration of Temporal and

473

474