Globalization is What We Make of It: Contemporary Globalization Theory and the Future Construction of Global Interconnection

Conceptualizing Globalization

As was alluded to above, it might be best to think of globalization as a pluralistic phenomenon with multifarious complexities and, in many cases, indeterminate idiosyncrasies. Conceptualizing globalization in this fashion is a departure from many prominent globalization theories. This is because most globalization theories have been primarily focused on trying to define its specific properties and to determine whether or not these specific elements represent anything new about the world. These studies tend to focus on discovering a dominant trend in global exchange and either to hail this trend as a sign of greater global interdependence and prosperity or to dismiss it outright as radically overblown, insignificant or as being downright dangerous. For scholars like Susan Strange, globalization represents a falsehood, because it represents nothing more than ‘a term used by a lot of wooly thinkers who lump together all sorts of superficially converging trends’ (Strange, 1995, p. 293). To other more radical thinkers, globalization and its promotion of a liberal ideology marked an ‘end of history’ and the ushering in of a new human epoch of liberal interdependence (Fukuyama, 1993). Many early globalization theorists defined it in purely economic terms, in that globalization is seen as a process of increased global capital trends associated with an expanding global marketplace and an exponential growth in global economic transactions (Greider, 1997). For theorists like Kinichi Ohmae, global capitalism holds the promise of creating global interdependence to the point where traditional territorial boundaries and notions of absolute state sovereignty are being weakened in favor of a more politically interconnected and economically unified world (Ohmae, 2005). However, the debate about globalization has remained a mainstay in the study of global economics, with scholars such as Paul Hirst and Grahame Thompson suggesting that the world economy is actually less ‘globalized’ today than it was in the late 1800s (Hirst and Thompson, 1996). According to Hirst and Thompson, economic interconnection is largely restricted to the three trading blocks of North America, Europe and Japan. It is therefore better, according to them, to discuss global economic processes as ‘triadization’ rather than globalization. Implicit in this understanding of globalization is a leftist critique of global capitalism with the intent of representing the global economy as exploitative and beneficial only to a core group of countries (Thompson, 2005). Lastly, there are some ‘post-globalists’ who believe that the era of globalization is ‘unexpectedly over’ (Ferguson, 2005), that it is so conceptually impoverished as to ‘not even have existed’ (Rosenberg, 2005) and that the forces of globalization have been reversed since 9/11 because of rising nationalism and fundamentalist geopolitics (Saul, 2005).

The immediate problem with these globalization theories is that they focus too much on highlighting a single trend or element associated with globalization in order to come to a definitive judgement as to whether globalization represents a good thing, a bad thing or a mythical aberration. The problem is that globalization reflects all three of these judgements. This is because the processes of globalization are dialectic, in that they often have two contradictory sides: one side that promotes more interconnectedness, resulting in greater economic markets, democracy and peace between democratic states, while on the other side it simultaneously promotes the possibility for greater economic inequality, ideological ethnic conflict and a failure to secure human development. In addition, globalization makes promises for human progress and development which, depending upon its context, is either something that is fulfilling one's expectation or, as in the case of Mr Ndlovo, something that is perceived as leaving one behind. Therefore, the question as to what globalization is and whether it is a good thing or a bad thing is perhaps best answered by suggesting that globalization can be many things and how it is conceptualized as being a negative or positive phenomenon often depends on one's perception of it. In globalization's simplest form, it encompasses a growing interconnection between peoples, nations, cultures, governments, environments, economies and indeterminate global networks that are ultimately bound by the spherical shape of the earth. Nevertheless, the direction in which globalization is moving is neither simply positive nor negative, for it is both, and as will be argued later, it is only through normative theorizing that we can hope to give it some clearer direction in the future.

In Paul Hopper's recent book, Living with Globalization, he suggests that the study of globalization should move away from singular focused definitions of globalization, opting instead for a more pluralistic understanding which better captures its multidimensional processes. Although Hopper acknowledges that capitalism is one of globalization's primary engines, he forcefully illustrates that ‘globalization means global interconnectedness constituted by numerous flows and processes, and not just the economic’ (Hopper, 2006, p. 10). He goes on to add that ‘when thinking about globalization we need to pay closer attention to how its numerous flows and processes are encountered and informed by different actors and agencies in a range of cultural, political and social contexts’ (Hopper, 2006, p. 1). As was argued above, how globalization is conceptualized often depends on the relationship one has with its processes and how these processes impact upon our lives.

In many ways, Hopper provides a refreshing approach to globalization theory, for he focuses less on generalizations about globalization's inherent goodness or badness and focuses more on localized understandings which give rise to perceptions of both. As Hopper states, ‘we must take a differentiating approach and examine how its multiple processes and dimensions are encountered and informed by different social groups … within particular contexts’ (Hopper, 2006, p. 139, emphasis in original). The primary benefit of this approach is that it recognizes the dialectic character of globalization in that each point of connection between peoples, corporations, governments, ethnic groups and ideologies can have both positive and negative effects, or in the case of Mr Ndlovo, the perception of having no effect at all. To illustrate the multidimensional character of globalization, Hopper examines how conceptions of global interconnection are socially constructed and reaffirmed by various actors engaged with, or seeking exclusion from, increased global contact and interdependence. To do this, Hopper examines how perceptions in Britain, Europe, America, China, Islamic countries, and by global terror networks, have been informed, or had beliefs reconfirmed, by the various processes of globalization. By examining particular views about globalization, Hopper is able to analyze what implications these views may have in perpetuating various contradictory aspects of globalization and how these in turn reinforce movement towards or away from greater global interconnectedness.

However, as with many globalization theories, Hopper's work seems to lack a distinct normative component. This is because it is not exactly clear whether Hopper is portraying globalization as a phenomenon that we must simply ‘live with’ or if globalization should also be understood as a term that reflects the prospect for greater human involvement in shaping its future direction. If globalization is the former, then what is disturbing about portraying globalization in this fashion is that it limits human agency to having a merely reactionary role. A concern then arises from the fact that whatever globalization is, its processes have been entirely of human doing and it is therefore much more reflective of actual human decisions and aspirations then might usually be acknowledged by globalization theorists. If Hopper also means the latter (which I think he does), then it is as important to know ‘what it means to be living with globalization’ as it is to think normatively about how to live with globalization, so that globalization can better maintain our positive expectations while also limiting the negative consequences which seem to be resulting from globalization's current course. In other words, although Hopper is correct to suggest that globalization is often what people cognitively make of it, globalization can also be what people wish to make of it. Thus, it is as important to know what people think about globalization and how this reinforces its dialectic behavior as it is to know what should be done to help change future perceptions and experiences.

Ageless Movements of Globalization(s)

For those who believe that globalization is a real phenomenon, there remains considerable debate between scholars as to when globalization may have begun and how it has changed the human experience. For many, globalization is as old as human history and it began once the first humanoid stepped off the African continent (Pieterse, 2004). For others, a necessary requirement for a condition of ‘real globalization’ is the existence of an institutional component and since global institutions did not exist prior to the 1900s, globalization is therefore to be understood as a primarily twentieth-century phenomenon (Bull, 2000). For theorists who wish to expand the boundaries of its definition, in order to include political, technological, sociological and cultural elements, as well as economic, then the idea of globalization has been replaced by something resembling Hopper's notion of globalizations. These globalizations are seen to be represented by various global movements and interconnections which took the form of exploration, the expansion of trade, military conquest, migration, colonialism, the global movement of disease, the cross-pollination of ideas and the development of global politics.

Daniel Cohen in his recent book Globalization and Its Enemies suggests that ‘globalization has always been a part of human history’ and outlines three clear periods that best represent advancing human interconnectedness (Cohen, 2005, p. 15). According to Cohen, the first substantial period of globalization can be understood as taking place during the sixteenth century and the age of global exploration and expansion. Cohen suggests that the Spanish conquistadors largely spearheaded this movement and that the world soon became locked into interconnected spheres of influence between European powers and various indigenous peoples of the world. The second form of globalization was marked by the expansion of Britain's trading empire in the nineteenth century. According to Cohen, this period was marked by a significant increase in trade between countries and the transfer of technological and cultural goods between peoples across the globe. Lastly, Cohen argues that the current form of globalization is represented by an information age marked by an explosion of high-speed communication and financial transactions. Although Cohen agrees with Hirst and Thompson that the nineteenth century was more ‘globalized’ in terms of international trade in relation to percentages of gross domestic product (GDP), he also believes that recent technological, cultural and ideological transfers between peoples have changed the nature of global exchange and that this marks a new period of multidimensional globalization.

However, what is most interesting about Cohen's argument is not his determination that there have been many global movements throughout human history, but the idea that unlike past globalizations, the newest era of globalization holds certain promises that have failed to materialize for many people of the world. Whereas prior globalizations were characterized by the obvious exploitative elements of military expansion and colonialism, the current era of globalization has been brimming with promises for human development and global advancement. According to Cohen, the problem with the current age of globalization is not that it is necessarily exploitative, but that it offers promises that it has failed to deliver. As Cohen states, ‘for the majority of poor inhabitants of our planet, globalization is only a fleeting image. What we too often ignore is how strong this image is, how pregnant with promises yet to be fulfilled’ (Cohen, 2005, p. 6).

There are two interrelated points of interest in Cohen's argument. First, his argument is able to capture the dialectic dimension of globalization without dogmatically praising or admonishing it. As Cohen states, ‘globalization creates a strange world where … it has altered people's expectations more than it has increased their ability to act’ (Cohen, 2005, p. 166). The reality, according to Cohen, is that ‘for the majority of the poor inhabitants of our planet, globalization remains an inaccessible idea’ (Cohen, 2005, p. 166). In this regard, globalization is not something exclusively good or bad, it is a phenomenon that holds promises and expectations which for some remain undelivered, which has in turn led to frustration and diffidence. As Mr Ndlovo's comment at the beginning of this article highlights, globalization is often perceived as something only certain members of the world currently ‘have the privilege to enjoy’. Nevertheless, this does not also mean that Mr Ndlovo would not like to enjoy the benefits of globalization, for the fact of the matter is that he very much would. Second, Cohen's argument suggests that globalization is as much a normative concern as it is an empirical one. As Cohen suggests, ‘the tragedy of the poorest countries is that they want to participate, without losing themselves, in a world that essentially ignores them’ (Cohen, 2005, p. 164). To facilitate this participation, Cohen concludes by arguing that we must think normatively about making the processes of globalization more just and inclusive, and that this will require a future generation of globalization theorists to think constructively about what institutions we should create and what normative principles we should employ to underwrite those institutions.

The Benefits and Burdens of Globalization

As was mentioned above, globalization theory has tended to focus on particular aspects of global interconnectedness in order to determine whether globalization is ultimately a good thing or a bad thing. This has often led to some very polarized opinions regarding the benefits and burdens associated with globalization and what, if anything, we should do about it. For some, the processes of globalization, under a neoliberal model, are largely beneficial and there is an existing capacity to create solutions to the negative externalities involved (Wolf, 2004). Since this picture of globalization is not as apocalyptic as is often argued, we should therefore maintain a ‘realistic optimism’ about globalization and the future opportunities it will provide (Wolf, 2005). For others, globalization poses some serious burdens for humanity to try and resolve, such as increasing environmental destruction (Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 2005), a massive growth in global inequality (Pogge, 2002), security issues resulting from resource depletion and a resulting clash of civilizations (Huntington, 2005). As David Held has recently argued, if globalization is left to continue on its unbridled course then there is a real possibility that it could seriously affect the ability of the human race to coexist peacefully, or to continue to exist at all (Held, 2005; 2007).

In response to the benefit or burden debate, Jan-Erik Lane's recent book Globalization and Politics defends the argument that the world is facing monumental challenges and seeks to explore whether our global responses are sufficient to counteract the problems associated with globalization. To do this, Lane divides his examination into two parts. First, his project seeks to demonstrate empirically that increased globalization offers critical coordination problems for humanity to resolve. Second, Lane examines what coordinated responses are being offered (or could be offered) to reduce and/or to counter the negative effects associated with globalization.

According to Lane, the major problems with globalization are in relation to concerns about energy renewal, the sustainability of the world's ecosystem, the inequalities associated with the global market and with the continued maintenance of peaceful relations between polarized ethnic and religious societies under a condition of inescapable global cohabitation and scarce resources. Lane argues that the current course of global economic development is absolutely dependent on a depleting source of fossil fuels. This presents global society with difficult options regarding sustainable development and the possible economic downturns that will inevitably happen unless sustainable fuel alternatives are found. In addition, the tide of global warming and possible ecological disaster has already reached the point of no return and even if humanity were able to cut carbon emissions totally tomorrow, the damage could only be lessened and not reversed. These global issues pose difficult hardships for the peaceful coexistence of future generations, which will have to compete for scarce global resources and struggle to survive in areas affected by rising temperatures. After providing a detailed analysis of each of these concerns, Lane concludes that these global problems pose serious consequences for human progress and that they threaten to place mankind in direct conflict with both Mother Nature and itself. As Lane suggests, ‘the continents of this planet are from now on interlinked in one common walk of life, which ultimately concerns not the emergence of this or that country as developed, nor the time span of the hegemony of this or that state, but the possible extinction of the human race’ (Lane, 2006, p. 2, emphasis in original).

Lane responds to those who dismiss the argument that globalization poses as many serious burdens as it does benefits by demonstrating that the global responses to these concerns are often insufficient and/or totally non-existent. To prove this point, Lane examines what coordinated efforts are being made to counter global warming and the depletion of fossil fuels. The problem, according to Lane, is that there exists ‘a heavy institutional deficit’ at the global level with very little cooperation or agreement between peoples, corporations and governments in relation to these potential calamities. The reason for this lack of coordination, according to Lane, is the fact that globalization remains a contested concept without consensus as to what dangers and benefits it creates. This confusion results from the fact that: Globalization is a contested set of phenomena because the countries participating in the process benefit differently. When groups believe that they stand more to gain than to lose, then they endorse globalization. However, when they fear the consequences of globalization, then they oppose it (Lane, 2006, p. 4).

Although not stated directly, Lane's argument seems to support the thesis that globalization can mean many things to many people and that our opinions about whether it is a benefit or burden are determined largely by the context in which people interact with its processes. In this regard, Lane's project helps to demonstrate the dialectic nature of how we cognitively understand and react to globalization, in that globalization can provide positive opportunities as much as it poses negative consequences. For Lane, the only way to alter the critical burdens facing human global coexistence is to attempt to foster greater cooperation and coordination in regard to how the processes of future globalization(s) are to be managed. This in turn will not only help to reduce the negative side-effects of globalization, but will also help to change individual perceptions about what positive roles globalization can play in their own lives. However, Lane leaves us with only a rough sketch of what normative solutions we should adopt in directing a future globalization, adding that we must begin to think in universal terms, focusing on common human needs that are anchored to universal notions of justice and global community (Lane, 2006, pp. 187–8). Lane ultimately remains reservedly hopeful for these advancements, but warns that if we cannot coordinate an appropriate system to manage globalization universally, ‘then the dangers of globalization will probably come to outweigh its promises’ (Lane, 2006, p. 14).

Globalization as a Normative Concern

As has been argued, the problem with most globalization theories in the past is that they have often been too narrowly concerned with determining whether globalization is primarily a good thing, a bad thing or a thing worth mentioning at all. However, as the above survey of recent literature has illustrated, this traditional mode of analysis has given way to a reformulated approach, which understands globalization as containing many interlinked, multitudinous and paradoxical components. In doing so, there seems to be a growing consensus that the processes of globalization are often dialectic and contradictory, with the existence of many indeterminable links which limit our ability conclusively to define globalization and its impacts.

Nevertheless, this should not be interpreted as a call to abandon empirical investigation and the attempt to understand better the processes of globalization. For both empirical and normative analysis are codependent necessities in coming to terms with globalization. This is because despite the fact that globalization is multifarious, complex, often indeterminable, constantly in flux and operating on a scale which often seems impossible to measure, we have been able to measure many connections, effects, modes of connection and perceptions involving its nature. In many ways, a continued push to discover the workings of globalization is needed in order to inform a meaningful normative response. This is because it will only be through understanding the various experiences of globalization that we will be able to highlight the various empirical considerations which normative thinking must take into account. However, unlike the past, this search for empirical understanding does not mean that we should postpone the need to think normatively about globalization. Although the processes of globalization are complex, there exists enough empirical knowledge to understand the major considerations that need to be addressed immediately. It would seem that the question is no longer exclusively, ‘what is globalization and is it good or bad?’ but also, ‘what should we do about what we already know is bad about globalization?’.

As Hopper points out, this will require those who study globalization to look more closely at the various local intersections and contexts which help to inform our understandings of globalization and its effects. However, as Cohen also argued, this will require new and innovative thinking about what we should do to correct what we already know is creating many of the negative responses to globalization. In many ways, where most contemporary globalization theories fail is in providing coherent and consistent ideas about what normative principles should be adopted to underpin and transform future global interconnectedness. In other words, there is a general lack of normative thinking in current globalization debates about how to improve human interconnection and future globalizations. This is because most globalization theorists are still preoccupied with classifying themselves as being globalists, hyper-globalists, sceptics, transformationalists or post-globalists, while only exploring why a particular research niche is more tenable than another. Nevertheless, once we are willing to accept that globalization is made up of many dialectical components, then the question becomes less about which approach provides a definitive conclusion about what globalization is, and more about how each approach is able to capture specific elements involved with the various processes of global interconnection.

To a small degree some globalization theorists have made progress towards thinking normatively about how global cohabitation and interconnection ought to be organized. The increase of alternative ideas about cosmopolitanism, global civil society and global governance over the last ten years highlights a movement towards renewed thinking about global cohabitation and towards discussions about how we might manage the negative aspects of globalization. However, these efforts are still not enough and require increased reinvigoration and imaginative thinking. In the case of cosmopolitanism, its moral foundations of individualism, equality and global universality beyond the nation state remain largely underdeveloped in regard to how these principles are to underpin and motivate any global institutional framework. It is because of inadequate movement from theory to practice that cosmopolitanism remains unconvincing to many sceptics. Although cosmopolitanism is one of the few theories to provide anything near a coherent global normative political theory, it is still in need of renewed innovation, a reformulation in light of a more complex understanding of globalization and a need to better develop plausible transitions from theory to practice.

In the case of global civil society, there has been promising work on the idea of a global ethic formulated through increased global dialogue and a ‘bottom-up approach’ (Eade and O'Byrne, 2005). However, the study of global civil society often rests on a premise of open dialogue and deliberation that needs to be better formulated in response to processes of globalization that open as many opportunities for communication as they close off deliberation and restrict meaningful dialogue. Although the bottom-up approach of civil society is compatible with and complementary to cosmopolitan ethics (O'Byrne, 2005), both are anchored to similar principles of human worth (Hayden, 2002; Jones, 1999; Marchetti, 2005), a sense of global justice (Caney, 2005; Pogge, 2001), cosmopolitan law (Brown, 2006; Buchanan, 2004; Waldron, 1999) and cosmopolitan democracy (Held, 1996; 2003; McGrew, 2002). The problem that cosmopolitans and advocates of global civil society face is that given the current condition of contradictory globalization(s), many of these baseline principles remain undeveloped globally and thus do not provide the foundational structure that these theories often demand.

The fact that globalization has not delivered the unifying cosmopolitanism that was often hoped for could explain why there has been a renewed enthusiasm in creating links between cosmopolitan principles, civil society and global governance. In response to the monumental collective action problems associated with globalization, it is becoming increasingly apparent that radical changes to global governance are needed and that robust normative principles are also needed to ground these new institutions toward a more just and participatory system of global cohabitation. In this regard, it is through the practical realities of having to govern globalization that many normative theorists hope to create a link between theory and practice.

It is due to the need to create stronger links between theory and practice that the study of globalization is as much of a normative concern as an empirical one. This is due to the fact that whatever globalization is, it is many things, and globalization has become what we have made it, both in how we cognitively come to make sense of it, but also in how we decide to shape its future. For globalization seems to be a good thing, a bad thing and a dialectically polarizing phenomenon creating opportunities for it to be both. This leaves globalization theorists with the responsibility of moving beyond the traditional impulse to discover the one trend that captures the true nature of globalization and move toward genuine ideas of what should be done about what we already know to be wrong with it. In this regard the quote by Mr Ndlovo at the beginning of the article becomes relevant. For not only should we seek to understand why Mr Ndlovo feels that globalization is something only some people ‘have the privilege to enjoy’, but we should also be asking what we should do to make sure this will no longer be the case.