Читать книгу Globalization - George Ritzer - Страница 32

The “great globalization debate” is between those who are skeptical about the process (the “skeptics”) and those who accept it as a reality (the “globalists”) (Held and McGrew 2000).

Globalists take the position that there is such a thing as globalization and it encompasses virtually the entirety of the globe. The skeptics contend that there is no such thing as globalization because vast portions of the globe, and a significant portion of the world’s population, are wholly, or in significant part, outside of, and even actively excluded, from the processes generally associated with it. It is argued that since the term globalization implies a truly global phenomenon, the exclusion of such a large proportion of the globe serves to deny the existence of globalization. Furthermore, to the skeptics, there are various barriers, especially those created by the nation-state and regional groups of such states, that greatly restrict, if not prevent, global flows.

Globalists respond that just because some parts of the world are relatively uninvolved does not mean that the vast majority of them are not enmeshed, often deeply, in a series of relationships that meet the definition of globalization. The globalists further argue that it is impossible, or at least nearly so, to find any part of the world totally unaffected by globalization.

The globalists tend to see a broad process of globalization, but to the skeptics there is no one process of globalization, but rather many globalizations (Therborn 2000) (there is a scholarly journal entitled Globalizations). In fact, there are even several different ways of thinking about globalizations including multiple general processes (e.g. economic, political, etc.), multiple dimensions of globalization (Gopinath 2018), as well as differences between globalization as experienced by the haves and have-nots (de Sousa Santos 2006). Thus, to the skeptics the term globalization is an oversimplification and obscures a wide array of processes that are affecting the world in many different ways.

The globalists respond by agreeing that there is much to support the argument of multiple globalization processes and hence the use of the term globalizations has much merit. However, in their view, this is simply a terminological difference and both concepts (globalization and globalizations) acknowledge the importance of globalization. Indeed, the use of the term globalization in this book generally covers both a general process as well as a multitude of sub-processes that are encompassed by it (see below).

The globalists see globalization as not only in existence today, but as growing ever more powerful and pervasive. In this view, globalization involves a set of processes that led, among many other things, to the supplanting of the nation-state as the preeminent actor in the world. In Yergin and Stanislaw’s terms, the nation-state lost (primarily to the market) the “commanding heights” it had, until recently, occupied; that loss “marks a great divide between the twentieth and twenty-first centuries” (Yergin and Stanislaw 1998: xiii). Thus, for example, once a structure is able to control its borders, the nation-state has been supplanted in importance, at least in this realm, by global flows of all sorts (Dasgupta 2018). It is those flows that are of key importance and the nation-state has grown unable (or unwilling) to stop them. While the nation-state has declined in importance in the global age, “this era is not the end of the nation-state, even less the end of government” (Yergin and Stanislaw 1998: 396).

To the skeptics, at one time there may have been a process that could have been called globalization, but it is now coming to an end (Rugman 2012) with the world entering a period of de-globalization (Link 2018). They argue that in recent years the nation-state has reasserted itself and has regained, or is regaining, its historic role as the key world player. This is reflected, for example, in recent US actions involving its Mexican border with increased border patrols, backed-up by military units, use of more high-tech surveillance equipment (including drones), and the border wall. The globalists tend to see globalization as a relatively new phenomenon, but to the skeptics globalization is simply a new term for an old, even ancient, process through which various parts of the world relate to one another.

The spread of COVID-19 has exacerbated de-globalization and even converted some globalists to skeptics. As nations grappled with the pandemic, they closed borders, restricted air travel, and global trade came to a screeching halt. Headlines such as “The Post-Coronavirus World May be the End of Globalization” (Rapoza 2020) and “Coronavirus Shutdown: The End of Globalization and Planned Obsolescence” (Flores 2020) were commonplace. For many of these skeptics, it was globalization and its excesses that even made something like a global pandemic possible and worsened its effects. Reliance on global supply chains for food and medical equipment meant that some countries, even wealthy countries, had a difficult time securing protective gear or adequate food staples to meet demand.

Economically, the globalists emphasize such structures as multinational corporations (MNCs [Bonanno and Antonio 2012]), the transnational economy, and the emergence of a new global division of labor. Even amidst something as devastating as the global pandemic, multinational corporations continued operations, albeit on a smaller scale and expect to resume their global role as the pandemic fades. The skeptics counter that within the economy, there are few genuine MNCs – most continue to be based in their original national locations (e.g. Daimler in Germany and Toyota in Japan). Further, as mentioned above, the skeptics retain a focus on the nation-state and national economies. It is regional blocs of nations as well as specific nations – not MNCs – that engage in new forms of economic imperialism. In addition, the nation-state, especially powerful conglomerations of them (G-8, etc.), continue to regulate and exert great control over the global economy.

The response of the globalists is that while it is true that most MNCs retain their associations with the nation-states from which they emanated originally, that association has grown less important over time. For example, while General Motors’ vehicles were once produced exclusively in the US, its parts now come from all over the world and are assembled in markets across several continents.

The globalists also argue that the power or the weakness of the nation-state has nothing to do with the reality of globalization. Indeed, the nation-state, powerful or weak, is a key part of globalization. For example, the ability of the nation-state to control global flows of migrants – as well as drugs or human trafficking – ebbs and flows, but that has no bearing on the continued existence and reality of globalization or the fact that the nation-state is a player of note in it. The globalists also contend that while the continuing power of nation-states, singly and collectively, is undeniable, their ability to control economic markets is steadily declining and in some markets (e.g. financial markets) their control is already minimal.

Politically, the globalists emphasize multilateralism whereas the skeptics continue to focus on the roles of nationalism and intergovernmentalism. That is, the globalists see all sorts of relationships possible in a global world, such as the World Health Organization’s vital role in disseminating information about COVID-19 and curtailing its spread. Furthermore, many global relationships do not involve governments, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s involvement in fighting the pandemic. The skeptics argue, however, that the world continues to be dominated by relations within and between national governments. The rise of nationalist populism (see Chapter 5) has only served to reinforce the role of the state and its defense against globalization.

In terms of global order, the skeptics continue to emphasize the role of the international order of nation-states and international governance, while the globalists see a multi-layered global governance involving much more than simply nation-states (e.g. NGOs and INGOs). Further, the globalists see the increasing importance in this domain of the growth of global civil society, a global polity, and a cosmopolitan orientation to the world. All of these, as we will see, serve to reduce the role of nation-states and international governance.

Culturally, the globalists give great importance to the rise of a global popular culture, a culture that is common to large numbers of people and most, if not all, areas of the world. Skeptics reject the idea of a common global popular culture, including and especially one dominated by the US. To them, the whole idea of such a culture has been exaggerated. To whatever extent a common global popular culture existed, it has declined in recent years with the reassertion of national and regional cultural independence, and culture in general has grown increasingly varied and is shaped by many different sources with many different effects. For example, the Internet has been nationalized to a large degree and one could speak of a German, a Japanese, or – especially – a Chinese Internet.

In a related point, the globalists emphasize the decline of people who rigidly adhere to fixed political identities. Such a decline leaves people much more open to global popular culture. In contrast, the skeptics point, once again, to the more recent resurgence of nationalism and national identities. This is not only important in itself from the point of view of globalization, but strong national identities would serve to restrict the influence of a global popular culture.

We will have occasion to return to many of the issues debated by the globalists and the skeptics in the course of this book. However, it is important to state unequivocally at this point that, in the end, and in spite of the merit of some of the positions and criticisms of the skeptics, we conclude, unsurprisingly, that there is a set of processes and structures that can legitimately be labeled globalization. In that sense, this book, as mentioned in Chapter 1, adopts a globalist position on globalization, albeit one that is not insensitive to at least some of the arguments of the skeptics. A nuanced view, which avoids overly simplified caricatures, is required.