The traditional economic definition of globalization holds that it is “the trans-national increase in trade and capital.” [1] While this is true in the broadened sense of the term, globalization covers a phenomenon that reaches out to the world as a whole. Its working “transfer across national boundaries” [2] in attempts to modernize the world by massive amounts of communication. While serving as a simple model that reaching out to the world will convey a message, it creates the building blocks for any actual advancement. Globalization allows for individuals to be more informed and in essence create their own opinions. Curran explains how a global media reach for example encourages “Turks and Iranians to be more ambitious, to build a nation with a sense of cohesion and social purpose, willing to make collective sacrifices for the sake of progress.” [2] By displaying a lifestyle for those who are developing a desire for more is created. There is a newfound yearning to want more out of life that is characterized by an urgency for a rise in class and stature. Global communication eventually serves as a “trust-building exercise between leaders and led, rather than as an open-ended system of collective dialogue.” [2] It becomes a system for how a greater force wants to transform the whole, rather than the whole transforming itself.
Within this global reach there becomes the presence of a regional bias and thwarting of what is considered continued development. Curran explains how American television holds its own unique meaning for viewers all over the world. There is the homebound interpretation as well as the interpretation by those viewing in Europe and in the rest of the world. There is a resistance to western dominated features in the media. “Rapidly expanding regional or geo-linguistic markets are giving rise to major centers of television production in Mexico, Brazil, India, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, each catering for different language groups.” [2] The continuing increase in technology and communication create a more decentralized message that is displayed for the entire world. This allows for “opportunities of new forms on boding and solidarity, new ways of fording cultural communities.” [2]
There is a clear difference in the defining of globalization by cultural theorists and political economists. As displayed by Curran and Park, globalization creates a newfound mentality for further development and progress. The desire for headway into further ventures allows for cultural development as a whole. This differs from the interpretation of globalization from political economist Noam Chomsky. He views globalization as something that all experience and accept, yet hold their own definitions. He considers globalization to be an “international integration” and for further development of nations to occur, they must be open to imports. This will remove the domestication of a country and open it to the global market. [3] Chomsky finds that everyone is in favor for globalization yet it is not a universal benefactor to all as everyone holds their own definition. [4]
[1] What is Economic Globalization?. UCC.org. http://www.ucc.org/justice/advocacy_resources/pdfs/economic-justice/what-is-economic-globalization.pdf. 6 January, 2011. Internet
[2] Curran, James. De-Westernizing Media Studies: Beyong globalization theory. London, England. Routledge, 2000. Book
[3] Chomsky, Noam. What is Globalization?. Youtube. 26 March, 2007. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdYwAXZh0ME. 6 January, 2011. Internet.
[4] Chomsky, Noam. Discussion on Globalization. Youtube. 30 October, 2006. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHJPSLgHemM&NR=1. 6 January, 2011. Internet.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I thought that you're views on globalization were very interesting. However, I was wondering if you had considered some of the social affects of globalizaton. One affect that I feel very strongly about is the fact that other countries see Americans as ignorant and fat, due to the fact that, because of our arrogance, we have fell behind other countries advances. For example, one of our biggest objects we are known for is McDonalds. In addition, our education program is inferior to many other countries around the world. I just thought that this was something else to think about.
ReplyDeleteI agree to some extent with that assessment, more so your views on our education system. I am not as sure as to how much the McDonald's stereotype holds globally but there is a level of improvement that our education system must obtain to eventually catch up with other nations that boast exceptional programs. Finland, for example, holds one of the most prolific systems. That is not something that is being ignored, but something to build off of for self improvement. Education improvement is not a simple task and is something that takes a great deal of time and planning for actual results to be recognized.
ReplyDelete