VERY interesting topic, we hear so much about it, but seldom do
we consider the different effects of it.
Firstly, there is economic globalisation, this includes stuff like
companies diversifying overseas, 24hr trading of shares through
having trading across continents, etc.
Then there is political globalisation, which involves a spread of
political ideas, such as what the US is doing with democracy now,
trying to 'globalise' democracy and introduce it to other
countries.
Thirdly, on there is social globalisation, which includes the
integration of peoples and cultures, in this case, we've seen
English sort of globalise the world.
I've been very broad in the definition of globalisation and sort of
blended the idea of domination with globalisation, as in, english
dominates in most places, and can thus be said to have been part of
globalisation. Obviously, viewing globalisation from the viewpoint
of a CEO of some multi-national corp. would be very different. The
CEO would view globalisation as a chance to expand his
manufacturing base and open up new markets.
As with have seen in other areas in modern times, anything to do
with money generally develops the fastest. The same can be said of
globalisation. science and technology, otherwise known as 'applied
science', provided the necessary tool to enable people to carry out
globalisation. But without economic benefits, there would have been
no globalisation.
And because economic globalisation necessary transcends political
boundaries, politicians must also do their best to enable companies
from their own country to expand into other countries effectively,
thus bringing with it political globalisation. Social globalisation
is the result of poltical and economic globalisation, since the
things that are viewed as better generally come from the more
developed country, thus the culture from the developed country will
eventually dominate (note the word again) the culture of the weaker
one.
however, globalisation can be viewed in a positive light as well.
since the system of government being globalised, 'democracy', is
currently the only way known to run a large country in a way that
the masses can have at least a part to play, perhaps globalising
democracy isn't such a bad idea.
the advent of technology necessary for globalisation also means
that aid organisations like the red cross have more access to parts
of the world that need help.
globalisation screws up when large companies eventually erode away
the agricultural base of many developing countries. too much of
such 'erosion' will lead to food shortage in the long run. also,
who will ensure that workers in poorer nations are not exploited?
the corrupt system present in many third world nations today mean
that if there were only economic globalisation, only the people in
charge in the third world nations will benefit, rather than the
masses themselves.
social globalisation cannot come about without political
globalisation. however, without political globalisation, workers in
countries run by strict dictatorships will continue to be exploited
even with economic globalisation. yet with social globalisation,
there is the obvious potential for disappearance of many native
cultures, dialects and even languages.
theres also a religious dimension to globalisation, where religion
will be a barrier to globalisation in pretty much the same way that
different cultures will be
basically, if u can't be bothered to read everything above,
globalisation is about making the world 'as one'. differences will
be greatly reduced. that reduction in differences (of whatever
sort) is perhaps the main concern.
hmmm, globalisation is too big to think about in one shot, need to
organise some stuff out, whatever i typed is too disorganised...
and anyway, its just my opinion, and my way of classifying
globalisation.