The Three Perspectives on Globalization

The Hyper-Globalist/ Optimist View of Globalization

Hyper-globalists (sometimes referred to as global optimists) believe that globalization is happening and that local
cultures are being eroded primarily because of the expansion of international capitalism and the emergence of a
homogeneous global culture; they (as the ‘optimist’ part of the label implies) believe that globalization is a positive
process characterised by economic growth, increasing prosperity and the spread of democracy.

Thomas Friedman (2000) argues that globalization has occurred because of the global adoption of neoliberal economic
policies. Neoliberalism insists that governments in developing countries need to remove obstacles to free trade and free
market capitalism in order to generate development. Governments should limit their role to providing a business-
friendly environment that enables businesses (both inside and outside the country) to make a profit.

The theory is that if governments allow businesses the freedom to ‘do business’, wealth will be generated which will
trickle down to everyone.

Friedman identifies a neoliberal economic set of principles that he calls the ‘golden straight jacket’ that countries need
to fit into if they are to achieve success in the global economy: deregulation, fewer protections for workers and the
environment, privatisation and cutting taxes.

Friedman argues that the golden straitjacket is “pretty much one size fits all… it is not always pretty or gentle or
comfortable. But it’s here and it’s the only model on the rack this historical season’.

Friedman attributes economic globalization to the fact that most developing countries have adopted neoliberal policies
since the 1980s. Neoliberalism has effectively restricted the power of nation states, making trade between nations
easier. It has resulted in the freer movement of goods, resources and enterprises, and ultimately more jobs, cheaper
products and increasing economic growth, prosperity and wealth for the majority of people on the planet.

These countries were often shepherded onto the ‘right’ economic path by the ‘good Samaritans’ of Western
governments, especially the ‘three sisters’ of free trade: the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO, global institutions which
have played a central role in shaping globalization according to hyper globalists.

The Pessimist View of Globalization

Pessimist globalists argue that globalization is a form of Western, American Imperialism. They see globalization as a
process in which Western institutions and ideas are imposed on the rest of the world. Transnational corporations are the
backbone of this new global order and these are the institutions that benefit from especially economic globalization.
Two examples of pessimist globalists are Ha-Joon Chang and Jeremy Seabrook.

Chang argues that neoliberals paint a false picture of the benefits of economic globalization through the spread of
neoliberal economic policy, suggesting that neo-liberal policies actually benefit rich countries and corporations more
than poor countries. Neoliberal policies simply make it easier for western companies to move into a poorer country,
take over local businesses, extract natural resources, pay local people low wages, and leave behind a trail of pollution
because there are fewer national regulations which prevent them from doing so.

Chang refers to the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO as the ‘Unholy Alliance’ and claims they exist to force developing
countries down the free-trade road. For example, the IMF and the World Bank will only lend money to developing
countries on the condition that they adopt free-trade policies. Change points out that, as a result, the neoliberal world
economy is dominated by the developed-world – rich countries conduct 70% of world trade for example, while Sub-
Saharan Africa still (even in 2017) accounts for much less than 10% of global trade.

Seabrook argues that, by definition, globalization makes all other cultures local, and, by implication, inferior. He suggests
that globalization implies a superior, civilised mode of living – it implicitly promises that it is the sole pathway to
universal prosperity and security – consequently diminishing and marginalisation local cultures. Seabrook suggests that
globalization sweeps aside the multiple meanings human societies and cultures have derived from their environments.
He argues that integration into a single global economy is a ‘declaration of cultural war’ upon other cultures and
societies and that it often results in profound and painful social and religious disruption.

Pessimists are further concerned about the concentration of the media in the hands of a few, powerful media
corporations. Media conglomerates, mainly American (such as Disney, Microsoft, Time Warner and AOL) and Japanese
(Sony) have achieved near monopolistic control of newspapers, film, advertising and satellites. It is suggested that media
moguls are able to influence business, international agencies and governments and, consequently, to threaten
democracy and freedom of expression.

It is also argued that such companies are likely to disseminate primarily Western mainly American, forms of culture. For
example, most films releases by these organisations are produced in Hollywood and of a formulaic (predictable) plot.
There have been concerns that these Western forms of culture reflect a cultural imperialism that results in the
marginalisation of local culture.

Steven argues that ‘for the past century, US political and economic influence has been aided immensely by US film and
music. Where the marines, missionaries and bureaucrats failed, Charlie Chaplin, Mickey Mouse and the Beach Boys have
succeeded effortlessly in attracting the world to the American Way’.

Finally, mass advertising of Western cultural icons like McDonald’s and Coca-Cola has resulted in their logos becoming
powerful symbols to people in the developing world (especially children) of the need to adopt western consumerist
lifestyles in order to modernise.

Cultural globalization may therefor eventually undermine and even destroy rich local cultures and identities. Barber and
Schulz (1995) fear the globalized world is turning into a monoculture, or McWorld in which cultures and consumption
will be standardised, while other commentators have expressed concern about the coca-colonisation of the developing
world.

The Transformationalist View of Globalization

Transformationalists and postmodernists agree that the impact of globalization has been exaggerated byglobalists but
argue that it is foolish to reject the concept out of hand. This theoretical position argues that globalization should be
understood as a complex set of interconnecting relationships through which power, for the most part, is exercised
indirectly. They suggest that the globalization process can be reversed, especially where it is negative or, at the very
least, that it can be controlled.

Transformationalists argue that the flow of culture is not one way, from the west to the developing world; it is a two-
way exchange in which Western culture is also influenced, changed and enriched by cultures in the developing world.

Against global pessimists, Transformationalists argue that local cultures are not simply swallowed up by western cultures
– rather people in developing countries select aspects of western culture and adapt them to their particular needs, a
process which he calls ‘glocalisation’. A good example of this is the Bollywood film industry in India, or the various
‘glocal’ manifestations of McDonald’s burgers.

Transformationlists and postmodernists also see the global media as beneficial because it is primarily responsible for
diffusing different cultural styles around the world and creating new global hybrid styles in fashion, food, music,
consumption and lifestyle. It is argued that in the global, postmodern world, such cultural diversity and pluralism will
become the norm. Postmodernists thus see globalization as a positive phenomenon because it has created a new class
of global consumers, in both the developed and the developing world, with a greater range of choice from which they
can construct a hybridised global identity.

There is also evidence that global communications systems and social networks can assist local cultures to rid
themselves of repressive political systems such as dictatorships. Kassim (2012) argues that the ‘Arab Spring’ movement
that occurred between 2010 and 2013 succeeded in removing totalitarian dictators in Tunisa and Egypt, partly because
of the information supplied through social networking sites such as Facebook, which was used to bypass government
censorship. Kassim suggests that social networks broke down a psychological barrier of fear by helping people to
connect and unite against repressive leaders, providing a catalyst for positive change.

Two further sociologists who might be described as ‘transformationalist’ globalists are Anthony Giddens and
Ulrich Beck:

In his classic 1999 text, Runaway World, Anthony Giddens argues that one consequence of globalization is
detraditionalisation – where people question their traditional beliefs about religion, marriage, and gender roles and so
on. Giddens uses the concept of ‘detraditionalisation’ rather than ‘decline of tradition’ to reflect the fact that in many
cases people continue with their traditional ways of life, rather than actually changing them, but the very fact that they
are now actively questioning aspects of their lives means cultures are much less stable and less predictable than before
globalization, because more people are aware of the fact that there are alternative ways of doing things and that they
can change traditions if they want to.

Ulrich Beck (1992) argues that a fundamental feature of globalization is the development of a global risk consciousness,
which emerges due to shared global problems which threaten people in multiple countries – examples include the
threat of terrorism, international nuclear war, the threat of global pandemics, the rise of organised crime funded
primarily through international drug trafficking, and the threat of planetary melt-down due to global warming.

On the downside, the constant media focus on such global problems has led to a widespread culture of fear and
increasing anxiety across the globe, which has arguably contributed to things such as Paranoid Parenting and Brexit, but
on the plus side, new global international movements and agencies have emerged through which people come together
across borders to tackle such problems.

Sources:

The hyper-globalist/optimist view of globalization. (2015). Retrieved from

https://revisesociology.com/2015/09/19/optimist-globalization-hyper-globalism-neoliberalism/
The pessimist view of globalization. (2015). Retrieved from https://revisesociology.com/2015/09/21/pessimist-view-
globalization/
The transformationalist view of globalization. (2015). Retrieved from
https://revisesociology.com/2015/09/24/transformationalist-globalization/