 |
|
“The problem with most discussion of globalization is that too many experts treat it as a binary outcome: Either it is great and sweeping the planet, or it is horrid and failing humanity everywhere. Neither view really works, because globalization as a historical process is simply too big and too complex for such summary judgments. Instead, this new world must be defined by where globalization has truly taken root and where it has not. Show me where globalization is thick with network connectivity, financial transactions, liberal media flows, and collective security, and I will show you regions featuring stable governments, rising standards of living, and more deaths by suicide than murder.
June 12th, 2003 at 1:53 pm
I must say I find this deeply ironic. “where globalization is thick with network connectivity, financial transactions” of course would apply to US, but “liberal media flows”?, in a place where the media is controlled by a few corporations? “stable government”? (definitions of stability being debatable). “rising standards of living”?! a lot of Americans would beg to differ. “more deaths by suicide than murder”? Perhaps, if you don’t include that the US goes elsewhere to commit murder. A critical mass of people moving around with laptops and cell phones isn’t equal to success. I’d suggest the Globalis/Zation equation is far more complex than this. Even in US now it depends on where you sit… There’s a comprehensive look at the “narratives of globalisation” at http://www.opendemocracy.net/themes/article.jsp?articleId=1003&id=6