George Ritzer – The Blackwell Companion to Globalization

Описание

While this essay constitutes an introduction to this volume, it is being written after
all the chapters have been submitted (and revised, sometimes several times) and the
introductions to each of the three parts of the book have been completed. It is actually
more of an epilogue than an introduction; a refl ection on the chapters in the
volume and, more importantly, on what they have to tell us about the state and
quality of our knowledge and understanding of one of the most important phenomena
of our times – globalization.
One of the points that is almost always made about the study of globalization is
how contested almost everything is, including the defi nition of globalization itself.
In terms of the latter, it is interesting how many authors of the chapters to follow
found it necessary to defi ne globalization, often in the fi rst paragraph or so of the
chapter. That act indicates, I think, that there is no consensus on the defi nition and
each of the authors who offered one wanted to make something clear that they felt
was not clear or agreed-upon.
If the need to defi ne globalization indicated a lack of consensus, most of the
defi nitions proffered used similar ideas and demonstrated more consensus than is
usually assumed (including by the authors represented here). Among the terms
usually included in the defi nitions offered were, in order of frequency, speed and
time (accelerating, rapidly developing etc.), processes and fl ows, space (encompassing
ever greater amounts of it), and increasing integration and interconnectivity.
A composite defi nition, therefore, might be: Globalization is an accelerating set of
processes involving fl ows that encompass ever-greater numbers of the world’s spaces
and that lead to increasing integration and interconnectivity among those spaces.
A basic distinction among positions taken on globalization, one made several
times in this book, is globophilia versus globophobia. In fact, the chapters in this
volume, indeed in much of the social science literature on globalization (contrary
to what Turner argues in the concluding chapter), are much more informed by globophobia
than globophilia. While most of the authors here lean toward the former,
it is almost always from the political left (rather than the right), and involves a wide range of criticisms of globalization in general, as well as the specifi c aspects of it of
concern to them.
Globophilia is generally associated with a view, the mainstream neoliberal,
‘Washington Consensus’, that tends to be disliked, if not despised, by most of the
authors represented here (see, especially, Antonio and his critique of a well-known
cheerleader for this position, Thomas Friedman; neoliberalism has pride of place in
Steger’s delineation of the elements of ‘globalism’ as the hegemonic ideology in the
epoch of globalization). It is generally associated by its critics with economic domination,
exploitation and growing global inequality. McMichael focuses, specifi cally,
on neoliberal agricultural policies such as the ‘law of comparative advantage’ which
has had a variety of devastating effects (for example, de-agrarianization and depeasantization)
on the agriculture of the South. And, it has led, among many other
things, to the growth of rural industrialization (e.g. maquiladores) and to the underpaid
jobs associated with it that force workers to supplement their wages in various
ways. Yearley suggests that neo-liberal policies have led to many of the devastating
environmental problems that have faced, are facing and are increasingly likely to
face much, if not all, of the globe.
Relatedly, in an analysis of a key economic aspect of globalization – outsourcing
– Ritzer and Lair take on a favourite theoretical perspective of the neoliberals,
Schumpeter’s (1950) ‘creative destruction’, and argue (at least in the case of outsourcing),
contrary to the theory and its adherents, that destruction is not always
creative (for a similar use of creative destruction, see Korzeniewicz and Moran).
Thus, in terms of issues discussed above, it may well be that the destruction of
Southern peasants and agriculture is just destructive, at least for them; there is little
or no construction (save the highly exploitative macquiladores) taking place at least
in the South to compensate for the losses. More clearly, the destruction of the environment
is certainly not accompanied by any constructive ecological developments.
At a more general level, many of the inadequacies of the theory of creative destruction,
at least as Schumpeter envisioned it, are traceable to the fact that it was created
to deal with an economic world that existed long before the current boom in globalization
and it is ill-suited to dealing with new global realities where destruction
is at least as prevalent in many domains as creation.
Before we leave globophilia in general and Friedman (2005) in particular, it is
worth mentioning, and casting a critical eye on, his recent and highly positive view
that globalization is leading to a fl at world. Among many other things, this means
that barriers to participation are coming down throughout the world and, as a
result, involvement is growing more democratic and the world less unequal (see
below; Firebaugh and Goesling). While a laudable view, and one with at least some
merit, the fact remains that it fl ies in the face of not only the considerable (although
debatable, see below) evidence on increasing inequality, but virtually the entirety of
the fi eld of sociology and its study of innumerable structures and institutions that
are erected, and often serve as barriers (sometimes insuperable mountains), on the
global landscape. From a sociological view, the world is, and is likely to remain,
at least hilly, if not downright mountainous, impeding the development of easy
participation, greater democracy and less inequality. Among those hills, if not
mountains, are cities (Timberlake and Ma), nation-states (Delanty and Rumford),
transnational corporations (Dicken), educational (especially higher education) systems (Manicas), systems of healthcare (Hashemian and Yach), organized corruption
(Warner) and so on. Were the fl at world envisioned by Friedman ever to come
about, we would either need to abandon sociology (an act that would be welcomed
by many) or so alter it to make it unrecognizable.
This view on the continuation of barriers in the world is supported by
Guhathakurta, Jacobson and DelSordi who take on the issue of the idea of the ‘end
of globalization’ in the context of migration. Some argue that globalization has
ended because we have achieved free and easy movement of people through and
across borders. Guhathakurta et al. contend, however, that creating borders is
‘natural’ (an essentializing view that is questionable in light of postmodern theory)
and the continued creation of such barriers means that we are unlikely ever to see
the free movement of people and therefore the end of globalization (at least in the
sense they are using that idea here).
In spite of the predominance of globophobia in this volume, none of the authors
rejects globalization outright and in its entirety. Rather, their view is that the
problem lies not in globalization per se, but in the way globalization currently operates.
There is a widespread sense that globalization is with us for the foreseeable
future, if not forever (it is often portrayed here as ‘inevitable or ‘inexorable’; see,
for example, Steger), so the issue is one of what is needed in order to create a ‘better’
form of globalization. For example, the problems of globalization are often associated
with its economic1 aspects (usually accorded pride of place in the process) and,
more specifi cally, its domination by capitalism. Capitalism, by its very nature, is
seen as leading to various problems such as global inequality and exploitation. Thus,
for some, the answer lies in the creation of a different kind of economic globalization
that leads to greater equality, and less exploitation, in the world (e.g. Antonio;
more below).
This, of course, bears on the normative aspects of globalization and, as with all
aspects of this phenomenon, there are great differences and important disputes. For
example, there are those more radical than Antonio who would reject a role for all
forms of capitalism in globalization, while there are others, more to the right, who
would fi nd his ideas on the sources of a reformed type of globalization far too
radical.
But much more is in dispute in the study of globalization including fundamental
images of the nature of the subject matter in globalization studies (McGrew), as
well as basic theories (Robinson) and methods (Babones). One way of looking at
this is to say that there is great richness in globalization studies with a wide range
of perspectives, normative orientations, theories and methods to choose from. But
another is to suggest that these profound differences, this near-total lack of agreement,
are representative of a ‘crisis’ that can only be resolved through a paradigmatic
revolution and the creation of a new paradigm not only for the study of
globalization, but for the social sciences in general. Such a new paradigm – cosmopolitanism
– is suggested in this volume (and in many other works) by Ulrich Beck
who argues that the social sciences (e.g. sociology, political science, international
relations) are still locked into older paradigms which, among other commonalities,
take the nation-state as their basic unit of analysis (this is also criticized by
Korzeniewicz and Moran). Suggested in Beck’s position is a paradigmatic revolution
in which the globe becomes the basic unit of analysis (for Korzeniewicz and Moran it is the world-system) and new normative orientations, overarching perspectives,
theories and methods are created to fi t better with such a revolutionary
new focus.
While we await such a paradigmatic revolution, which of course may never come,
we are left with all sorts of intellectual differences in the study of globalization.
However, those differences pale in comparison to those to be found in work on a
wide range of substantive issues that relate to globalization. These include whether
there is any such thing as globalization and, if there is, when it began and how is
it different from prior stages in the history of the globe. Obviously, by its very
existence, this volume indicates support for the view that there is such a thing as
globalization, but that is not terribly helpful because under that heading there exist
a bewildering array of players (Thomas) and every conceivable social structure and
social institution (Boli and Petrova, as well as at least all of the chapters in Part II
of this book). In addition, there are all sorts of new players (learning the names of,
and the difference between, international governmental organizations [IGOs] and
international non-governmental organizations [INGOs] is a necessity) and more are
coming into existence all the time. Furthermore, virtually every aspect of the social
world, including all social structures and institutions, is undergoing dramatic changes
because, at least in part, of globalization. As a result, the global is a near-impossible
world to master both because our intellectual tools are inadequate, in dispute and
perhaps out of date and because we are trying to deal with so much and everything
we seek to analyze is changing, coming into existence and disappearing. Paraphrasing
Marx in his analysis of capitalism, in globalization all that has seemed to be
solid is melting into thin air and that which is to be re-formed or newly created
seems likely to melt away very soon.
The result of all of this is that everything in globalization studies seems to be
up-for-grabs. Much of the fi eld appears to be dominated by debates of all sorts. Let
us enumerate at least some of those debates that are dealt with, or touched on, in
these pages.
Perhaps the most important substantive debate is whether globalization brings
with it more (Korzeniewicz and Moran; relatedly, Blackman wonders whether globalization
is causing greater inequality) or less (Firebaugh and Goesling) inequality.
(Babones both casts light on this issue and seems to suggest that at least from a
methodological ground the former are on the stronger footing.)
At a scholarly level, Beck makes the point that the tendency to take the state as
the unit of analysis leads to a focus on, and concern for, the relatively small inequalities
within nation-states. More importantly, this leads to a tendency to ignore the
glaring and enormous inequalities that exist at a global level. This is a key reason
why he argues for a paradigmatic shift involving, among other things, a change in
the unit of analysis from the nation-state to the globe.