1.summary
One simple way of defining globalization, without giving precedence or causal primacy to any one of these dimensions, is to say that it is a complex, accelerating, integrating process of global connectivity. Understood in this rather abstract, general way, globalization refers to the rapidly developing and ever-densening network of interconnections and interdependencies that characterize material, social, economic and cultural life in the modern world.
So understanding globalization as a generalized process of increasing connectedness helps us to keep in mind the multidimensional complexity of the process.
There is no escaping the global dominance of the capitalist system and there is little to be gained by cultural analysts from understating its huge significance.
But, having said this, we must resist the temptation to attribute it with causal primacy in the globalization process. There are several reasons for this
the first reason to resist the temptation to economic reductionism is that it operates on an unrealistically narrow conception of the economic
The second reason is that it distorts our understanding of the sphere of culture.
Common expressions like ‘the impact of globalization on culture’ or ‘the cultural consequences of globalization’ contain a tacit assumption that globalization is a process which somehow has its sources and its terrain of operation outside of culture.
One common speculation about the globalization process is that it will lead to a single global culture. This is only a speculation, but the reason it seems possible is that we can see the ‘unifying’ effects of connectivity in other spheres – particularly in the economic sphere where the tightly integrated system of the global market provides the model.
And indeed, globalization in some of its aspects does have this general unifying character.
hereas it was in the past possible to understand social and economic processes and practices as a set of local, relatively ‘independent’ phenomena, globalization makes the world in many respects, to quote Roland Robertson (1992), a ‘single place’. Obvious examples of this are the way in which nation-states are locked into a complex global capitalistic system which restricts their autonomy independently to order their economic affairs, or the now evident tendency for environmental
effects of local industrial processes – for instance CFC emissions – rapidly to become global problems.
However, increasing global connectivity by no means necessarily implies that the world is becoming, in the widest sense,One clear implication of the discussion in the previous section is that both utopian and dystopian speculations about a single integrated global culture are not only
generally ethnocentric in their origins, they are – in part because of this – rather poor predictions of actual cultural development. But there is another, more promising, way of approaching cultural globalization. This is not via the macro analysis of ‘globality’, but precisely in the opposite way, by understanding the effects of globalization as they are felt within particular localities.
In fact the idea of deterritorialization has fairly radical theoretical implications for traditional ways of understanding culture. Culture has long held connotations tying it to the idea of a fixed locality.
The idea of ‘a culture’ implicitly connects meaning
If globalization, in its rawest description, is the spread of complex socialeconomic connections across distance, then deterritorialization refers to the reach of this connectivity into the localities in which everyday life is conducted and experienced. This is at the same time a perplexing and disruptive, and an exhilarating and empowering phenomenon, involving the simultaneous penetration of our local worlds by distant forces, and the dislodging of everyday meanings from their ‘anchors’ in the local
environment.
Despite the historical tendency for cultures and nations to claim universality as their possession, the appeal to the universal can perhaps be made to work in a cosmopolitan world order as a construct: as one way, amongst others, of understanding our human condition and of relating in dialogue with others.
2.interesting
One of the interesting interpretations of the impact of globalization is that it is far from destroying it.
Those who view globalization as a threat to cultural identity tend to imagine their identities differently.Rather than recognizing institutional features, we tend to see identities as existential 'possessions'.
Inheritance, benefits of traditional long-term residence, persistence with the past. According to this common view, More than an explanation of cultural affiliation experience, it is a kind of community treasure.
Ensuring long lasting cultural connections between geographical locations and the human experience,
According to this view, identity is suddenly fragile, requires protection and preservation, and is a treasure.
3.disccusion
Is it just good to share culture globally? Could one-sided globalization be a cultural invasion?
For example, if it is forced to inject Islam and Christian culture into a country where Confucian culture is extremely developed, or if it is implemented in reverse, does that also become global?
However, I think that globalization is being carried out smoothly by having knowledge of cultures of the world. Does globalization have to be shared directly?
One simple way of defining globalization, without giving precedence or causal primacy to any one of these dimensions, is to say that it is a complex, accelerating, integrating process of global connectivity. Understood in this rather abstract, general way, globalization refers to the rapidly developing and ever-densening network of interconnections and interdependencies that characterize material, social, economic and cultural life in the modern world.
So understanding globalization as a generalized process of increasing connectedness helps us to keep in mind the multidimensional complexity of the process.
There is no escaping the global dominance of the capitalist system and there is little to be gained by cultural analysts from understating its huge significance.
But, having said this, we must resist the temptation to attribute it with causal primacy in the globalization process. There are several reasons for this
the first reason to resist the temptation to economic reductionism is that it operates on an unrealistically narrow conception of the economic
The second reason is that it distorts our understanding of the sphere of culture.
Common expressions like ‘the impact of globalization on culture’ or ‘the cultural consequences of globalization’ contain a tacit assumption that globalization is a process which somehow has its sources and its terrain of operation outside of culture.
One common speculation about the globalization process is that it will lead to a single global culture. This is only a speculation, but the reason it seems possible is that we can see the ‘unifying’ effects of connectivity in other spheres – particularly in the economic sphere where the tightly integrated system of the global market provides the model.
And indeed, globalization in some of its aspects does have this general unifying character.
hereas it was in the past possible to understand social and economic processes and practices as a set of local, relatively ‘independent’ phenomena, globalization makes the world in many respects, to quote Roland Robertson (1992), a ‘single place’. Obvious examples of this are the way in which nation-states are locked into a complex global capitalistic system which restricts their autonomy independently to order their economic affairs, or the now evident tendency for environmental
effects of local industrial processes – for instance CFC emissions – rapidly to become global problems.
However, increasing global connectivity by no means necessarily implies that the world is becoming, in the widest sense,One clear implication of the discussion in the previous section is that both utopian and dystopian speculations about a single integrated global culture are not only
generally ethnocentric in their origins, they are – in part because of this – rather poor predictions of actual cultural development. But there is another, more promising, way of approaching cultural globalization. This is not via the macro analysis of ‘globality’, but precisely in the opposite way, by understanding the effects of globalization as they are felt within particular localities.
In fact the idea of deterritorialization has fairly radical theoretical implications for traditional ways of understanding culture. Culture has long held connotations tying it to the idea of a fixed locality.
The idea of ‘a culture’ implicitly connects meaning
If globalization, in its rawest description, is the spread of complex socialeconomic connections across distance, then deterritorialization refers to the reach of this connectivity into the localities in which everyday life is conducted and experienced. This is at the same time a perplexing and disruptive, and an exhilarating and empowering phenomenon, involving the simultaneous penetration of our local worlds by distant forces, and the dislodging of everyday meanings from their ‘anchors’ in the local
environment.
Despite the historical tendency for cultures and nations to claim universality as their possession, the appeal to the universal can perhaps be made to work in a cosmopolitan world order as a construct: as one way, amongst others, of understanding our human condition and of relating in dialogue with others.
2.interesting
One of the interesting interpretations of the impact of globalization is that it is far from destroying it.
Those who view globalization as a threat to cultural identity tend to imagine their identities differently.Rather than recognizing institutional features, we tend to see identities as existential 'possessions'.
Inheritance, benefits of traditional long-term residence, persistence with the past. According to this common view, More than an explanation of cultural affiliation experience, it is a kind of community treasure.
Ensuring long lasting cultural connections between geographical locations and the human experience,
According to this view, identity is suddenly fragile, requires protection and preservation, and is a treasure.
3.disccusion
Is it just good to share culture globally? Could one-sided globalization be a cultural invasion?
For example, if it is forced to inject Islam and Christian culture into a country where Confucian culture is extremely developed, or if it is implemented in reverse, does that also become global?
However, I think that globalization is being carried out smoothly by having knowledge of cultures of the world. Does globalization have to be shared directly?
Comments
Post a Comment