Beyond Intractability
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionSend by emailSend by email
Globalization
 
By
Eric Brahm


July 2005
 
PowerPoint PowerPoint
Format
 
Shockwave/Flash Shockwave/
Flash Format

Globalization is perhaps the central concept of our age. Yet, a single definition of globalization does not exist either among academics[1] or in everyday conversation. There is also a lack of consensus as to whether or not globalization is a useful concept to portray current events.[2] While most conceptions focus on different aspects of growing interdependence be it economic, cultural, technological, and the like, at a basic level globalization refers to growing interconnectedness.

Some certainly do reject the notion that we have entered a fundamentally new era.[3] There are many, however, who see globalization as a genuine restructuring of social organization. Most definitions incorporate a notion of a growing magnitude of global flows such that one can truly speak of A global society. They find evidence that human activity has become interregional or intercontinental in scale.[4] Although the globalization process is a long, historically rooted one, it is not without fits and starts and is not teleological.[5] In short, globalization is a highly complex interaction of forces producing integration and disintegration, cooperation and conflict, order and disorder.[6]

There is much debate and little consensus on whether globalization is a positive development. Recent popular titles on globalization, "Lexus and the Olive Tree" and "Jihad Vs. McWorld," attest to the seemingly contradictory unifying and divisive forces inherent in globalization. For some, globalization processes, on balance, represent a tremendous opportunity for prosperity, peace, and democracy.[7] Others, by contrast, see greater potential for conflict, extreme self-interest, unbridled corporate power, and disregard for people and entire civilizations.[8] The attacks of September 11 are perhaps the most dramatic evidence that people feel great unease about the forces of globalization and modernity.[9] As a microcosm of the complexity of globalization, the motivation of the attackers may have been anti-modern and anti-globalization, the preparation and the attack itself were facilitated by globalizing processes. In reality, globalization has sparked unease and discontentment in a range of groups from all parts of the world.[10]

This essay will provide a brief, and necessarily incomplete, overview of debates surrounding globalization as a source of and an antidote for conflict. The discussion will focus on economics, political authority, cultural impacts, and discontentment. These categorizations are clearly arbitrary, but given the interconnectedness central to globalization, fully disentangling different forces and processes is impossible.

Economic Globalization

For many, globalization is equated with economic interdependence. At the dawn of the 21st century, the scale and magnitude of global economic interaction appears to be unprecedented.[11] The volume of capital flows far exceeds that of the past. The developing world, too, have increasingly become a part of global trade and capital flows.[12] Contemporary patterns of economic globalization suggest the emergence of a new international division of labor.[13] In short, the world has reached a stage in which one can meaningfully refer to one global economy.[14]

Others present a more limited view. Current trends suggest economic and financial integration has proceeded only in a limited manner.[15] Economic flows remain highly concentrated amongst the wealthiest countries.[16] Within North America, Europe, and East Asia, contrary to the thesis that unfettered global capital will induce homogenization in policy, important differences in the structuring of economic life persist.[17] Even multinational corporations, seen by many as the prime agents of globalization, remain tied in significant ways to their country of origin.[18]

Debate has waged as to whether economic globalization will exacerbate economic inequalities and conflict or contribute to advancing the lot of the poorest relative to others. Studies have examined whether globalization processes have reduced or exacerbated wealth inequalities within developed countries and developing ones.[19] While markets will produce winners and losers, liberals argue that the openness accompanying globalization will benefit all.[20] Others see the potential to produce widening disparities.[21] The short answer is that the effect of globalization has been both positive and negative and is dependent on a range of domestic and international factors. Extensive evidence also exists to support the claim that economic interdependence is related to more peaceful relations. States, for example, that trade more with each other are less likely to go to war.[22] The direction of causation is less clear, however. In other words, does greater trade lead to peace or does peace lead to greater trade? The greater ties from interdependence have been argued to lead to both greater cooperation and conflict. The relationship is, in fact, most likely nonlinear.[23]

Nation-states bypassed by globalization may resent the advancement of others. At the same time, many critics argue engagement in the global economy is exploitation in itself. For those who believe the nation-state is in retreat, the growing power of unaccountable market forces and international organizations provokes calls for change.[24] Many NGOs (and global civil society more broadly) resist at least some aspects of globalization. Many social movements and NGOs seek to give ideas of human rights, environmental protection and the like equal footing with economic efficiency. One might divide them into those who seek a fundamental restructuring of the global system and those who want to reform the existing system. Reformers seek a more equitable distribution of wealth, attention to the plight to women, and addressing the global environmental crisis.[25] More radical solutions would severely curtail market forces to prevent the unwanted effects of the global free market. However, the free-marketers, who see the benefits of greater interconnectedness, particularly economic openness, say anti-globalization protestors have misplaced their anger.[26] Acording to globalization advocates, the problems identified by the anti-globalization movement arise from relying too little on markets and individualism, not too much.

The Nature of Political Authority

One important discussion surrounds whether the nation-state is obsolete as the best form of political organization. Economic and social processes increasingly cross borders making it increasingly difficult for states to control their territory, a central component of sovereignty. With respect to many contemporary issues, the nation-state no longer appears to be the most suitable level of decision making. As governance structures are established at the global level to deal with the growing number of global problems, conflicts have also emerged as to how to make international organizations more accountable and democratic.

Future of the Nation-State

Regardless of how historically fleeting[27] or fictitious in much of the world[28], the model of the Westphalian nation-state is increasingly called into question. In economic affairs, with states reluctant to cede authority to international actors, some see economic processes out of control [29], leaving little option but to accommodate the forces of globalization.[30] Mobile capital puts pressure on states to pursue neo-liberal policies[31] and government spending is constrained to be more competitive.[32] Transportation and communication advances make it easier for diaspora groups or others to organize and challenge state authority. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or the technology and expertise to construct them are a growing concern. Where states have collapsed and human rights violations rampant, the "CNN effect" has resulted in public pressure on other governments to intervene via peacekeeping operations. To deal with such developments, states have found it useful to construct international organizations and grant them significant decision-making authority. These organizations can at times provide a venue in which disputes can be peacefully adjudicated. What is more, a host of nonstate actors, whether al-Qaeda or Amnesty International or Microsoft, appear to have significant ability to shape state behavior.

Global Governance

For many, it is increasingly clear that real authority has been transferred to international organizations and other non-state actors. As such, this raises questions about how they may be made more democratically accountable. Intergovernmental organizations are increasingly important sites in which economic globalization is contested.[33] Civil society groups have had a growing, yet uneven, effect on nation-states and international organizations.[34] Non-governmental organizations make the claim that they should have a greater voice to put a check on national self-interest, dominance of the global North, and corporate greed they perceive to dominate the decision-making of most international organizations. [35] Many have pointed out, however, that civil society itself does not have strong claims to democratic authority.[36] Speaking of a global civil society also masks significant differences between groups, such as whether they come from the global North or South.

Technology and Governance

Given the close relationship between globalization and technological innovation, research has also examined how new technologies will effect our notions of democracy and citizenship. On the surface, it may seem that these technologies would allow for greater information availability allowing the oppressed to rise up against authoritarian governments as well as allowing the disadvantaged to participate on a more equal footing in advanced industrial democracies. Recent scholarship, however, has taken issue with the assumption that these technologies are liberating. Some have pointed out that technologies make surveillance and control easier.[37] What is more, even within the global North, access to digital technology remains highly uneven, and is becoming more so.[38] In addition, the use of technology may run the risk of destroying social capital, which many see as a vital component of a vibrant democracy.[39] Some argue that democracy requires shared experiences and, as the Internet allows us to become increasingly atomized, this will be lost. In fact, the Internet, and the proliferation of media in general, stifles debate by making it easy to customize the information we receive to our tastes, thereby making it easier to avoid views in opposition to our own.[40]

Cultural Globalization

Through the global media and communications technologies, virtually everyone on earth is exposed to foreign ideas and practices. Some argue that the scale of global communication and migration has begun to break down national identities.[41] The emergence of NGOs and global social movements as important political actors provide further evidence for a new culture of global civil society.[42]

For many, cultural globalization means Westernization or Americanization. An important distinction concerning today's cultural globalization is that it is largely driven by corporations, rather than countries. As such, one of the central concerns is the spread of consumer culture.[43] For many critics, non-Western culture and practices are at risk of being overwhelmed by homogenizing "McDonaldization".

Skeptics contend that the erosion of culture has been overstated. They point to evidence that local culture remains strong.[44] Cultural interactions have taken place for centuries so to argue non-Western cultures are somehow pristine is naive. In a normative sense, the cultural degradation argument dismisses the ability of non-Western people to control their destiny and incorporate those attributes they may find useful. What is more, some argue that national identities are founded on real differences that have continued salience.[45]

Other skeptics point to the growth of ethnic and nationalist movements in the post-Cold War world as evidence that these sources of identity remain strong. Intense interaction may make people more cognizant of difference and lead to conflict.[46] Information technology may, in fact, intensify traditional identities.[47] Cultural globalization involves processes of unequal power, which brings traditions and identities into question. Where ethnic and religious groups feel threatened by globalization, there is the potential for conflict.[48]

This discontent has gained renewed attention as some see globalization and modernity as a motivation for September 11.[49] Since then, there has been increasing attention to Islamic fundamentalism. For some, the conflict is a long historical one between Muslim and Christian civilizations.[50] As such, cultural differences are deemed to be highly resistant to change and increased interaction will produce conflict. Others see a more complex phenomenon. In the last twenty-five years, fundamentalist movements have emerged within virtually all of the world's major religions indicating a broader unease with the forces of globalization and modernity.[51]

Migration is a significant aspect of globalization that has not only economic but also social and cultural effects. While migration is not unique to the present age, communication and transportation technologies allow migrants a greater opportunity to maintain links with their homelands. More porous borders raise questions about notions of citizenship and identity. While challenges to national identity may come from supranational entities such as the European Union, globalization at the same time may facilitate the triggering of more local, particularistic identities.

There is some disagreement on where this is all going and whether globalization could come to an end. Clearly the openness and interconnectedness that emerged in the late 1800s was not permanent. The 1930s saw the major powers carving out spheres of influence and blocking out others. From a broader historical perspective, however, that may have been a hiccup. Whereas before the end of the American Civil War it took months to go by ship from one coast of the US to the other, the transcontinental railroad cut the trip to a week by 1870 and today it is a matter of a few hours by plane. There was some discussion after 9/11 whether the need for security would bring an end to the era of globalization. In some areas, such as educational exchanges, there has been an impact. Overall, however, the flow of goods, people, and messages of peace and war continue unabated some four years later. In many respects, therefore, globalization is not going away. The challenge for humanity, then, is to direct these forces in peaceful and beneficial ways.

Updated Additional Resources


[1] For a range of characterizations, see Giddens, A. 2000. Runaway World: How Globalization is Reshaping Our Lives. New York.; Rosenau, J.N. 1990. Turbulence in World Politics. Brighton: Harvester Wheatsheaf.; Robertson, R. 1992. Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. London: Sage.; Scholte, J.A. 2005. Globalization: A Critical Introduction. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.; Z?rn, M. 1995. The Challenge of Globalization and Individualization. In H.H. Holm and G. Sorensen. eds. Whose World Order? Boulder: Westview Press.; Albrow, M. 1996. The Global Age. Stanford: Stanford University Press.; Kofman, E. and Youngs, G. eds. 1996. Globalization: Theory and Practice. London: Pinter.; Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D., and Perraton, J. 1999. Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.

[2] See, for example Held, D. and McGrew, A. 2000. The Great Globalization Debate. In D. Held and A. McGrew. The Global Transformations Reader: An Introduction to the Globalization Debate. Cambridge: Polity Press.; Mittelman, J.H. 2002. Globalization as an Ascendant Paradigm? International Studies Perspectives. 3(1) (February).

[3] On economic interconnectedness in historical perspective, see Jones, R.J.B. 1995. Globalization and Interdependence in the International Political Economy. London: Frances Pinter.; Hirst, P. 1997. The Global Economy: Myths and Realities. International Affairs. 73(3) (July).

[4] Geyer, M. and Bright, C. 1995. World History in a Global Age. American Historical Review. 100(4).; Castells, M. 1996. The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell.; Dicken, P. 1998. Global Shift 3rd edition. New York: The Guilford Press.

[5] Fernandez-Armesto, F. 1995. Millennium. London: Bantam.; Geyer, M. and Bright, C. 1995. World History in a Global Age. American Historical Review. 100(4).; Zeiler, T. W. 2001. Just Do It! Globalization for Diplomatic Historians. Diplomatic History 25(4): 529-551.

[6] Harvey, D. 1989. The Condition of Postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell.; Robertson, R. 1992. Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. London: Sage.; Barber, B. 1995. Jihad vs. MacWorld: How Globalism and Tribalism are Reshaping the World. New York.

[7] Fukuyama, F. 1989. The End of History? The National Interest. 16(Summer).; Friedman, T. 1999. The Lexus and the Olive Tree. New York, Anchor.; Giddens, A. 2000. Runaway World: How Globalization is Reshaping Our Lives. New York.

[8] Huntington, S. P. 1996. The Clash of Civilizations: Remaking of World Order. New York: Touchstone.; Kaplan, R.D. 2001. The Coming Anarchy: Shattering the Dreams of the Post Cold War. New York: Vintage Books.; Rodrik, D. 1997. Has Globalization Gone Too Far? Washington DC: Institute for International Economics.; Gray, J. 1998. False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism. New York: The New Press.; Herod, A., Tuathail, G.O. and Roberts, S.M. eds. 1998. Unruly World? Globalization, Governance and Geography. London: Routledge.; Hurrell, A and Woods, N. eds. 1999. Inequality, Globalization, and World Politics. Oxford University Press.; Mittelman, J. H. 2000. The Globalization Syndrome: Transformations and Resistance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

[9] Social Science Research Council. 2001. Essays in Response to September 11.http://www.ssrc.org/sept11/essays/; Friedman, T. and Kaplan, R. 2002. States of Discord: A Globalization Debate. Foreign Policy. March/April. pp. 64-70.; Held, D. and Hirst, P. 2002. Globalisation After 11 September: The Argument of Our Time. Open Democracy Dialogue. http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-vision_reflections/article_637.jsp

[10] Kothari, R. 1997. Globalization: A World Adrift. Alternatives. 22: 227-267.; Rodrik, D. 1997. Has Globalization Gone Too Far? Washington DC: Institute for International Economics.; Sassen, S. 1998. Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: The New Press.; Mittelman, J. H. 2000. The Globalization Syndrome: Transformations and Resistance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

[11] O'Brien, R. 1992. The End of Geography: Global Financial Integration. London: Pinter.; Altvater, E. and Mahnkopf, B. 1997. The World Market Unbound. Review of International Political Economy. 4(3).; Greider, W. 1997. One World, Ready or Not: The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism. New York: Simon and Schuster.; Rodrik, D. 1997. Has Globalization Gone Too Far? Washington DC: Institute for International Economics.; Dicken, P. 1998. Global Shift 3rd edition. New York: The Guilford Press.

[12] Castells, M. 1996. The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell.; Dicken, P. 1998. Global Shift 3rd edition. New York: The Guilford Press.; Dicken, P. 1998. Global Shift 3rd edition. New York: The Guilford Press.

[13] Amin, S. 1997. Capitalism in the Age of Globalization. London: Zed Press.; Castells, M. 1996. The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell.; Dicken, P. 1998. Global Shift 3rd edition. New York: The Guilford Press.; Hoogvelt, A. 1997. Globalization and the Postcolonial World: The New Political Economy of Development. London: Macmillan.; Johnston, R.J., Taylor, P.J. and Watts, M.J. eds. 1995. Geographies of Global Change. Oxford: Blackwell.; Mittelman, J. H. 2000. The Globalization Syndrome: Transformations and Resistance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.; Rodrik, D. 1997. Has Globalization Gone Too Far? Washington DC: Institute for International Economics.

[14] Dicken, P. 1998. Global Shift 3rd edition. New York: The Guilford Press.; Dickson, A. 1997. Development and International Relations. Cambridge: Polity Press.; Frank, A.G. 1998. Re-Orient: Global Economy in the Asian Age. New York: University of California Press.; Geyer, M. and Bright, C. 1995. World History in a Global Age. American Historical Review. 100(4).

[15] Jones, R.J.B. 1995. Globalization and Interdependence in the International Political Economy. London: Frances Pinter.; Garrett, G. 1998. Global Markets and National Politics: Collision Course or Virtuous Circle? International Organization. 52(4): 787-824.

[16] Jones, R.J.B. 1995. Globalization and Interdependence in the International Political Economy. London: Frances Pinter.; Dicken, P. 1998. Global Shift 3rd edition. New York: The Guilford Press.

[17] Callinicos, A. et al. 1994. Marxism and the New Imperialism. London: Blackwell.; Ruidrok, W. and Tulder, R.V. 1995. The Logic of International Restructuring. London: Routledge.; Boyer, R. and Drache, D. eds. 1996. States against Markets: The Limits of Globalization. London: Routledge.; Hirst, P. and Thompson, G. 1999. Globalization in Question, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Polity Press.; Chan, S. and Scarritt, J.R. 2002. Globalization, Soft Hegemony, and Democratization: Their Sources and Effects. In S. Chan and J.R. Scarritt. eds. Coping with Globalization. London: Frank Cass.

[18] Ruidrok, W. and Tulder, R.V. 1995. The Logic of International Restructuring. London: Routledge.; Doremus, P.N. et. al. 1998 The Myth of the Global Corporation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

[19] Krugman, P. and Venables, A. 1995. Globalization and the Inequality of Nations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 110(4).; Rodrik, D. 1997. Has Globalization Gone Too Far? Washington DC: Institute for International Economics.; Burtless, R., Lawrence, R. Litan, R and Shapiro, R. 1998. Globaphobia. Washington DC: Brookings.; Dicken, P. 1998. Global Shift 3rd edition. New York: The Guilford Press.; Mahler, V., Jesuit, D.K. and Roscoe, D.D. 1999. Exploring the Impact of Trade and Investment on Income Inequality. Comparative Political Studies. 32(3).

[20] Ohmae, K. 1990. The Borderless World. London: Collins.; Ohmae, K. 1995. The End of the Nation State. New York: Free Press.; Dollar, D., and Kraay, A. n.d. Growth Is Good for the Poor. Manuscript. World Bank. http://rru.worldbank.org/Documents/PapersLinks/440.pdf

[21] Beetham, D. 1995. What Future for Economic and Social Rights? Political Studies. 48 (special issue).; Commission on Global Governance. 1995. Our Global Neighborhood. Oxford: Oxford University Press.; Bradshaw, Y. W. and Wallace, M. 1996. Global Inequalities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.; Hoogvelt, A. 1997. Globalization and the Postcolonial World: The New Political Economy of Development. London: Macmillan.; UNDP. 1999. Globalization With a Human Face: Human Development Report 1999. New York: Oxford University Press.

[22] Gowa, J., and E. D. Mansfield. 1993. Power-Politics and International-Trade. American Political Science Review 87 (2):408-420.; Mansfield, E. D., and J. C. Pevehouse. 2000. Trade blocs, trade flows, and international conflict. International Organization 54 (4):775-808.; Oneal, J. R., and B. M. Russett. 1997. The classical liberals were right: Democracy, interdependence, and conflict, 1950-1985. International Studies Quarterly 41 (2):267-293.

[23] Barbieri, K. 1996. Economic interdependence: A path to peace or a source of interstate conflict? Journal of Peace Research 33 (1):29-49.

[24] Korten, D. 1996. When Corporations Rule the World. Bloomfield CT: Kumarian Press.; Khor, M. 1999. Rethinking Globalization: Critical Issues and Policy Choices. New York: Zed Books.

[25] Mittelman, J. H. 2000. The Globalization Syndrome: Transformations and Resistance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

[26] Bhagwati, J. 2002. Coping with Antiglobalization. Foreign Affairs. 81(1) (January/February): 2-7.; Graham, E. M. 2000. Fighting the Wrong Enemy: Antiglobal Activists and MultinationalEnterprises. Washington: Institute for International Economics.

[27] Poggi, G. 1978. The Development of the Modern State: A Sociological Introduction. Stanford: Stanford University Press.; Held, D. 1995. Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

[28] Krasner, S. 1995. Compromising Westphalia. International Security. 20(3): 472-96.

[29] Giddens, A. 2000. Runaway World: How Globalization is Reshaping Our Lives. New York.; Z?rn, M. 1995. The Challenge of Globalization and Individualization. In H.H. Holm and G. Sorensen. eds. Whose World Order? Boulder: Westview Press.

[30] Amin, S. 1996. The Challenge of Globalization. Review of International Political Economy. 2.

[31] Gill, S. 1995. Globalization, Market Civilization and Disciplinary Neoliberalism. Millennium. 24(3).; Strange, S. 1996. The Retreat of the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.; Amin, S. 1997. Capitalism in the Age of Globalization. London: Zed Press.; Luttwak, E. 1999. Turbo-Capitalism. New York: Basic Books.

[32] Frieden, J. 1991. Invested Interests: The Politics of National Economic Policies in a World of Global Finance. International Organization. 45(4).; Garrett, G. and Lange, P. 1991. Political Responses to Interdependence: What's "Left" for the Left? International Organization. 45(4).; Scholte, J.A. 1997. Global Capitalism and the State. International Affairs. 73(3): 427-452.; Gray, J. 1998. False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism. New York: The New Press.

[33] Rosenau, J.N. 1990. Turbulence in World Politics. Brighton: Harvester Wheatsheaf.; Shaw, M. 1994. Global Society and International Relations. Cambridge: Polity Press.; Cortell, A.P. and Davies, J.W. 1996. How Do International Institutions Matter? The Domestic Impact of International Rules and Norms. International Studies Quarterly. 40.; Milner, H.V. 1997. Interests, Institutions and Information: Domestic Politics and International Relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.; Herod, A., Tuathail, G.O. and Roberts, S.M. eds. 1998. Unruly World? Globalization, Governance and Geography. London: Routledge.

[34] Meyer, J.W., Boli, J., Thomas, G.M., and Ramirez, F.O. 1997. World Society and the Nation-State. American Journal of Sociology. 103(1): 144-81.; O'Brien, R., Goetz, A.M., Scholte, J.A., and Williams, M. 2000. Contesting Global Governance: Multilateral Institutions and Global Social Movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[35] Ekins, P. 1992. A New World Order: Grassroots Movements for Global Change. London: Routledge.; Burbach, R., N?Zez, O. and Kagarlitsky, B. 1997. Globalization and Its Discontents. London: Pluto Press.

[36] Bohman, J. 1999. International Regimes and Democratic Governance: Political Equality and Influence in Global Institutions. International Affairs. 75(3):499-513.; G?rg, C., and Hirsch, J. 1998. Is International Democracy Possible? Review of International Political Economy. 5(4): 585-615.

[37] Barney, D. 2000. Prometheus Wired: The Hope for Democracy in the Age of Network Technology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

[38] Wilhelm, A. G. 2000. Democracy in the Digital Age: Challenges to Political Life in Cyberspace. New York: Routledge.

[39] Putnam, R. 1994. Making Democracy Work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

[40] Sunstein, C. 2001. Republic.com. Princeton: Princeton University Press.; Wilhelm, A. G. 2000. Democracy in the Digital Age: Challenges to Political Life in Cyberspace. New York: Routledge.

[41] Rheingold, H. 1995. The Virtual Community. London: Mandarin.

[42] Ekins, P. 1992. A New World Order: Grassroots Movements for Global Change. London: Routledge.; Falk, R. 1995. On Humane Governance: Toward a new Global Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.; Kaldor, M. 1998. New and Old Wars. Cambridge: Polity Press.; Boli, J. and Thomas, G.M. eds. 1999. Constructing World Culture: International Nongovernmental Organizations Since 1875. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

[43] Klein, N. 1999. No Logo: Money, Marketing, and the Growing Anti-Corporate Movement. New York: Picador USA.

[44] Appadurai, A. 1990. Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy. Theory, Culture & Society. 7: 295-310.; Liebes, T. and Katz, E. 1993. The Export of Meaning: Cross-Cultural Readings of Dallas. Cambridge: Polity Press.; Thompson, J.B. 1995. The Media and Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

[45] Smith, A.D. 1990. Towards a Global Culture? In M. Featherstone. ed. Global Culture: Nationalism, Globalization, and Modernity. London: Sage.; Hall, S. 1992. The Question of Cultural Identity. In S. Hall, D. Held, and A. McGrew. eds. Modernity and its Futures. Cambridge: Polity Press.

[46] Robins, K. 1991. Tradition and Translation. In J. Corner and S. Harvey. eds. Enterprise and Heritage: Crosscurrents of National Politics. London: Routledge.; Massey, D. and Jess, P. eds. 1995. A Place in the World? Culture, Places and Globalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[47] Smith, A.D. 1990. Towards a Global Culture? In M. Featherstone. ed. Global Culture: Nationalism, Globalization, and Modernity. London: Sage.

[48] Thompson, J.B. 1995. The Media and Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.; Robins, K. 1997. What in the World's Going On? In P. du Gay. ed. Production of Culture/Cultures of Production. London: Sage.;[xlviii] Kepel, G. 1994. The Revenge of God : the Resurgence of Islam, Christianity and Judaism in the modern world. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.; Mittelman, J.H. ed. 1996. Globalization: Critical Reflections. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.; Castells, M. 1997. The Power of Identity. Oxford: Blackwell.; Tibi, B. 1998. The Challenge of Fundamentalism: Political Islam and the New World Disorder. Berkeley: University of California Press.

[49] Fukuyama, F. 2001. Their Target: The Modern World. Newsweek. 138(25) (Dec 17): 42-48.; Lewis, B. 2002. What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response. New York: Oxford University Press.

[50] Huntington, S. P. 1996. The Clash of Civilizations: Remaking of World Order. New York: Touchstone.; Lewis, B. 2001. The Revolt of Islam. The New Yorker. November 19: 50-62.; Lewis, B. 2002. What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response. New York: Oxford University Press.

[51] Kepel, G. 1994. The Revenge of God : the Resurgence of Islam, Christianity and Judaism in the modern world. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.; Naipaul, V. S. 1998. Beyond Belief: Islamic Excursions Among the Converted Peoples. New York: Vintage Book.; Said, E. W. 2001. The Clash of Ignorance. The Nation. October 22.; Willis, E. 2001. Bringing the Holy War Home. The Nation. December 17.


Use the following to cite this article:
Brahm, Eric. "Globalization." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: July 2005 <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/globalization>.

Post a comment or suggestion about this page or topic...
(If you have a comment or suggestion about the system in general, please post it on our Comments and Suggestions page instead.)

 

Beyond Intractability
Copyright © 2003-2012 The Beyond Intractability Project, The Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado;
All rights reserved. Content may not be reproduced without prior written permission.
Inquire about affordable reprint/republication rights.

Beyond Intractability is a Registered Trademark of the University of Colorado
Contact Beyond Intractability
Privacy Policy

The Beyond Intractability Knowledge Base Project
Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess, Co-Directors and Editors

c/o Conflict Information Consortium (Formerly Conflict Research Consortium), University of Colorado
580 UCB, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, USA -- Phone: (303) 492-1635 -- Contact
University of Colorado Boulder