Arguing that our current globalisation is indeed something unparalleled in history, Santos discusses the unequal economic and political realities between North and South which globalisation enforces.Globalisation is to be understood as a non-linear process marked by contradictory yet parallel discourses and varying levels of intensity and speed.However, over and above all its internal divisions, the hegemonic camp acts on the basis of the consensus of its most influential members.
Arguing that our current globalisation is indeed something unparalleled in history, Santos discusses the unequal economic and political realities between North and South which globalisation enforces.Tags: Online Database Phd DissertationsThesis Statement In A Research PaperPoem London By William Blake EssayNetwork Security Research PaperEssay On CirculationSetting Out A Persuasive EssayLiterary Analysis Essay On The Scarlet LetterCadbury Value Chain EssaysIphone Assign RingtoneUsing Brackets In Formal Essays
Single cause explanations and monolithic interpretations of the phenomenon therefore appear inadequate.
In addition, the globalisation of the last three decades, instead of conforming to the modern Western model of globalisation – that is, to a homogeneous and uniform globalisation – so keenly upheld by Leibniz as well as Marx, as much in theories of modernization as in theories of dependent development, seems to combine universality and the elimination of national borders, on the one hand, with particularity, local diversity, ethnic identity and a return to communitarian values, on the other.
In the last three decades transnational interactions have intensified dramatically, from the globalisation of production systems and financial transfers to the worldwide dissemination of information and images through the media, or the mass movements of people, whether as tourists or migrant workers or refugees.
The extraordinary range and depth of these transnational interactions have led some authors to view them as a rupture with previous forms of cross-border interactions, a new phenomena termed “globalisation” (Featherstone, 1990; Giddens, 1990; Albrow and King, 1990), “global formation” (Chase-Dunn, 1991), “global culture” (Appadurai, 1990, 1997; Robertson, 1992), “global system” (Sklair, 1991), “global modernity” (Featherstone et al., 1995), “global process” (Friedman, 1994), “globalisation cultures” (Jameson and Miyoshi, 1998) or “global cities” (Sassen, 1991, 1994; Fortuna, 1997).
This is obviously false, as will be demonstrated later. And, although false, it nonetheless contains a grain of truth.
Globalisation, far from being consensual, is, as we shall see, a vast and intense area of conflict for various social groups, states and hegemonic interests, on the one hand, and social groups, states and subordinate interests on the other and even within the hegemonic camp there are greater or lesser divisions of this.
Even states however have to adopt as the supremacy of the nation state is eroded, giving way to new transnational alliances and the convergence of the judicial systems as the supreme regulator of a globalised economy.
Will all these processes usher into a new model of social development, or will this lead to the crisis of the world system as others fear?
Giddens defines globalisation as “the intensification of worlwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa” and accuses sociologists of an undue attachment to the idea of “society” as a closed system (1990: 64).
Similarly, Featherstone challenges sociology to “both theorize and work out modes of systematic investigation which can clarify these globalizing processes and destructive forms of social life which render problematic what has long been regarded as the basic subject matter for sociology: society conceived almost exclusively as the bounded nation-state” (1990: 2).