What is Globalisation?

Noam Chomsky defines globalization as a particular form of international economic integration. His discussion of globalization brings to light how far reaching the tentacles of this integration spread into other aspects of society. Despite the fairly well publicized existence of sweat shops in developing countries, his discussion made me pause and wonder what the actual price of my “made in Malawi” jeans is. He hints on the uneven distribution of wealth and social classes that inevitably arise from the capitalistic nature of globalization and manages to apply some humor as he enunciates the gloomy fate of the ‘rational peasants’; the farmers that populate urban slums and provide cheap labor to the factories and industries (Chomsky ''YouTube'').

One of the salient features of globalization is the ability to trade across previously inaccessible boundaries. This has the grave disadvantage of stifling local production for the domestic market in favor of cheap foreign labor. Not to mention the eminent exploitation of the rational peasants whose human rights don’t seem to count for much. The concept of a capitalistic global economy only implies that the risk and potential benefits are of a global nature too. This is exemplified by the contagion that quickly spread throughout Asia and eventually reached America and Brazil; causing urban riots, toppling the Indonesian government and leaving few economies unscathed in its wake(Commanding Heights "online documentary").

Globalization is also characterized by an unprecedented flow of ideas and information from different parts of the world. However, the different degrees of access to communication undeniably pose quite a handicap to those with a lesser ability to harness information on the rapidly changing global trends of capitalism. According to Hernando de Soto (Commanding Heights "online documentary"), this is one of the reasons why the largely rural populations of developing countries are not reaping from this wave of capitalism sweeping the globe like a wild fire. The elite in the developing countries however are the few in a different position. They have more access to information about the potential gains of capitalism and are better placed to take out loans for investment. This emerging class of the extremely wealthy amidst a largely poor population sets up more distinct social classes and increases the potential for riots and uprisings by the less “fortunate”. As president Clinton predicted, “you can’t have a global economy without a global social response, environmental response and a security response” (Commanding Heights "online documentary"). This need to strike a crucial balance between these complementary aspects of globalization is manifested in tribal violence and class clashes around the world as the glaring disparities due to globalization becomes harder to contain.

One of the notions raised in the PBS documentary: “Commanding Heights” is the fear that globalization perhaps might be perceived as a movement towards “Americanization” of the rest of the world. The case in point was the reference to the French culture. This is a largely blanket statement but it isn’t absolutely without supporting evidence, however subliminal. Although America’s history especially in the 19^th century is heavily punctuated with evidence of her belief in capitalism; capitalism is by no means synonymous with “Americanization”. Capitalism however thrives in America and along with it comes a culture that is now being exported around the world on the freight train of globalization. Contrary to the views on cultural globalization as expressed by Curran and Park (7-8), this is a heavily skewed exchange of information and cultural influences because of the unmatched inability of those that find themselves largely on the “receiving end” to have a similar influence. According to Curran and Park (11-12), there is no evidence to support the notion that most people watch American television programs for example. I find myself questioning how accurate that assertion is today, given the explosion in access to radios, televisions and cell phones in sub-Saharan Africa since the late 90s’( "Africa's Cell Phone Boom" 27 Aug. 2010 Newsweek ).

The progressive erosion of the Karamajong tribes’ culture in northern Uganda, following the influx of relief workers from mostly American and European based agency corroborates the argument about cultures being dissolved as the developing countries embrace globalization. Before the war that necessitated aid from the international relief agencies, the Karamajong tribe didn’t wear clothes and they never saw the need to do so. I can only imagine the reaction of the WFP regional boss the first time he met tribal chiefs “baring it all” , just like everyone else in their village. Over the two decade duration of the war in Northern Uganda, the Karamajong were constantly made aware of their nakedness by every foreigner that was made uncomfortable by their ways of life. Needless to say, they now wear button down shirts, shorts and dresses. Since I am not from the Karamajong tribe or an authority on anthropology or sociology, I can only speculate about how far reaching the introduction of shirts, blouses, shorts or underwear for that matter, has changed this tribe’s identity, culture and social fiber.

I can’t help but wonder if perhaps the nudists’ movement in America for example could suggest a multi-directional exchange of cultural influences like the “mexicanization” of southern California or the export of Brazilian soaps to Portugal(Curran and Park 6).

Chomsky, Noam. “What is Globalisation?” YouTube. 26 March 2007.Web. 06 Jan.2011

Curran,J.& Park, M.J.(2000). Beyond Globalisation. In De-Westernizing Media Studies.New York: Routledge.

"Africa's Cell Phone Boom" .Newsweek, International issue. 27 Aug. 2010.

Web. 06 Jan.2011 http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-77305669.html

Commanding Heights: The new Rules of the Game(2003). Height’s Production, Inc.