Читать книгу Globalization - George Ritzer - Страница 50

To the degree that globalization exists, does it flow or hop? In spite of occasional conflicts, it can be comforting to conceive of globalization in terms of flows. That is, it seems to suggest a kind of global equality with all parts of the globe being penetrated, at least theoretically, by these flows to more or less the same degree. However, as we all know, the world is characterized by great inequality (see Chapter 13 and 14). Therefore, all flows do not go everywhere in the world and, even when they do, they affect various areas to varying degrees and in very different ways. However, it is also possible that the idea of flows communicates the wrong, or at least a distorted, sense of globalization and that another metaphor might be more appropriate, at least for some parts of the world.

This is exactly what James Ferguson suggests in his work on Africa. He argues, rather, that at least in the case of Africa (and this idea applies elsewhere, as well), globalization “hops” from place to place rather than flowing evenly through the entire continent:

We have grown accustomed to a language of global “flows” in thinking about “globalization,” but flow is a particularly poor metaphor for the point-to-point connectivity and networking of enclaves … as the contemporary African material shows so vividly, the “global” does not “flow,” thereby connecting and watering contiguous spaces; it hops instead, efficiently connecting the enclaved points in the network while excluding (with equal efficiency) the spaces that lie between the points. (Ferguson 2006: 47, italics added)

The idea that globalization hops, rather than flows, at least in some parts of the world (such as Africa), implies that while some areas are strongly, often positively, affected by it, others are not.

This relates to the “enclaves” discussed by Ferguson. While some areas – enclaves in Africa (and elsewhere) – are deeply implicated in global processes, those processes simply hop over most other areas of that continent. Among those enclaves are the national parks that are such highly desirable destinations for well-heeled tourists from the North. (Note: throughout this book the terms “North” and “South” will be used to refer the two major parts of world – the highly developed North [especially the US and the EU] and the less developed South [especially Africa, South America, and some parts of Southeast Asia]). Highly desirable locales have been partitioned off so that Northern tourists can “hop” into them, experience a highly sanitized bit of Africa, and then hop out. In doing so, the areas may be cordoned off (perhaps with barbed wire) and patrolled by the military or private guards who may operate with “shoot-to-kill” orders if any “poachers” are found in the enclaves. The problem is that many of the so-called “poachers” are, in fact, locals who have been excluded from areas that may be, for example, their traditional hunting grounds. The more general point here is that globalization hops into these enclaves (in the form of tourists and their money) but it jumps over most other areas in Africa, including those in which the “poachers” now live. Not only are the latter not helped by global flows, but they are adversely affected by the barriers that exclude them from areas that were once part of their domain.

This all points to a very different image of globalization than the one we are accustomed to:

The “global” we see … in Africa has sharp, jagged edges; rich and dangerous traffic amid zones of generalized abjection; razor-wired enclaves next to abandoned hinterlands. It features entire countries with estimated life expectancies in the mid-thirties and dropping; warfare seemingly without end; and the steepest economic inequalities seen in human history to date. It is a global where capital flows are at once lightning fast and patchy and incomplete; where the globally networked enclave sits right beside the ungovernable humanitarian disaster zone. It is a global not of planetary communion, but of disconnection, segmentation and segregation – not a seamless world without borders, but a patchwork of discontinuous and hierarchically ranked spaces, whose edges are carefully delimited, guarded, and enforced. (Ferguson 2006: 48–9)

It may well be that we need to think of globalization both in terms of flows and in terms of processes that hop from place to place. As a general rule, globalization flows more easily through the developed world (although even there it flows around many areas inhabited by the poor), whereas it bypasses many locales in the less developed world, or even skirts them completely. The metaphors of “flows” and “hops” obviously exist uncomfortably with one another; it is difficult to think of flows as hopping. Rather, to be consistent with the idea of flows, we need to think in terms of some of the “heavy structures,” that block or redirect those flows, especially in less developed parts of the world. That is, because of those barriers many positive flows are forced to bypass less developed areas.