**First off, apologies everyone for the late post, had a bit of a migraine last night that kept me off the computer**
Globalization was something I was first introduced to as a formal concept in my first international affairs class years and years ago. Obviously it was a phenomenon I'd been familiar with - I think it's impossible to grow up in the United States these days without acknowledging the corporations, NGOs, and supranational organizations that have major cross-border influences.
In my past blog posts I've focused generally on the trends about which we've been reading or discussing in class, but this week I want to focus on Colin Sparks's article. Sparks approaches globalization from a perspective that neither champions globalization nor is 100% cynical about it. Sparks harshly critiques globalization as it's studied - throwing all existing paradigms out the window, noting that the intricacies of a massive issue cannot be narrowly categorized. He thinks that the US isn't the current hegemonic power, and that it is just a node amongst other actors in the world as far as media production, though it still reaps most of the profits. While it is true that local media is on the rise, particularly in the area of television, the US has the largest film industry which does have heavy global influence in terms of pop culture.
Controversial as some of his statements may be, I fully agree with Sparks when he says the the report of the nation-state's death has been greatly exaggerated. If anything, I think globalization has the potential to enhance the experience as being part of a nation - it can make someone feel more connected to their group, and make those experiences even more special and important to preserve and promote. Media globalization makes it even easier for nations to spread their culture and ties to diasporas, and unite nations in ways previously unheard of.
Globalization is good until it's not. A universal consensus on when "enough is enough" is unlikely, and different scholars, different leaders, and different average civilians have their own opinions on whether or not they feel an increasingly globalized world is beneficial or not. To the person who lost his manufacturing job due to outsourcing, globalization has more likely than not served a damaging role in his life. To the children living in an impoverished village, the arrival of an NGO that's established itself as an educational organization can completely change their futures in a positive way. I can't say whether globalization is good or bad, to me it's an entirely subjective matter.
I would have to agree with you (and I'm sure many people would) that yes Sparks is extremely controversial in that he critiques (and disapproves of) existing approaches to studying globalization. I also agree with you, however because I'm not completely against what he has to say.
ReplyDeleteI think that Spark's approach to critically assess the current literature and paradigms is important; all too often people fail to look at concepts from new perspectives, and instead follow alongside other existing beliefs. Methodology is a key component in supporting ones' conclusions, and there are definitely some weaknesses in this area. For example, I agree with you and Sparks that the nation-state is not going to die.
I still align myself though with the idea that Sparks is controversial. I think that he frames his arguments in a way that don't necessarily reflect the conclusions that many writers have come to in the first place.
I feel like he takes a lot of people's conclusions out of context so that his conclusions will be obvious and difficult to argue against.
I think overall that Spark's article has more cons than pros because of the arguments he makes in the first place. I appreciate his methodology by which he disproves paradigms, but I think he has interpreted the paradigms wrong to begin with (even if his writing was refreshing).