(ML) Thinking About The World: Is Globalization Good Or Bad?

Is Globalization Good or Bad?

Well, that's really a very dependent question. It, of course, depends on your perception of what is truly part of globalization. For me, I suppose, there are two possibilities. It's either good -- if we focus on the variety we gain as well as the healthy exchange of goods as well as cultures -- or bad -- if we focus on the fact that some cultures seem to be disappearing into what is called neo-colonialism. The reason why I can still see-saw between the two is because I have not decided on a definite view of globalization. I know and have experienced far too little to be unforgiving in my answer.

But I suppose, I'd like to see globalization in a good light, given that it is about sharing cultures, rather than adapting the dominant one. It is as significant as one aspect of language. English, American English of course, is basically considered the global language, one that most could use to communicate in any part of the globe. I think that this is acceptable. I mean, that English is something that shares cultures, it helps people express things, for the most part, for other people from different countries to understand. As long as it is used in this capacity, I think it is a good thing, especially since it helps people communicate and expand their experiences and learnings. But it becomes bad when English becomes the sole language of countries that have other native languages, that they wind up disusing and invalidating their languages and, perhaps later on, cultures.

As long as I think globalization is done in the capacity that I just labelled as "good" then I think that everybody winds up winners. In the other case though, well... it remains to be seen, but there are sure to be many losers.


In what ways does a history of globalization differ from a history of the world? Are the two separate from each other?

Well, in my opinion, the two are separate. The history of the world is basically the history of the whole human race. It can be in small parts, like the history of a certain country at distinct points in time, or in rather larger parts, like the history of the World Wars.

On the other hand, the history of globalization begins much later in the Gregorian calendar because it's much later on that states were established. I suppose you could consider the time of empires and colonizations as something of connected cultures, but it wasn't so much as sharing and development as it is now, because the connectedness involved a certain wiping out of local history, culture, and language, to be replace by that of the invading and dominant force.


Is globalization a new way of looking at the world or simply another term for imperialism, colonialism, modernism, or capitalism?


In the way that I've been defining it so far, is is a new way of looking at the world. Given that the definition that I've been expressing so far is idealistic, my answer still stands in accordance to it.

Of course, realistically speaking, it could just be another term. I suppose this would be true if the definition of globalization would fall under the categorization that I had defined as "bad" earlier in this post.


Who is behind globalization? Is it really an American phenomenon?

Well, my research shows that globalization could've started as far back as the Hellenistic age, years ago. So from simply that point, it couldn't have been American.

What I found regarding the Greek culture at this time was that there was widespread trade over places in India to Athens to Spain and back. It was also, apparently, the first time the idea of "cosmopolitan culture" came into play. Fittingly so, it is from the Greek word "kosmopoltēs" or citizen of the world, the pol in it equivalent to city or state. (source: http://dictionary.reference.com/)

There is also speculation that globalization began with the trade links at the time of the Roman Empire and the Han Dynasty, which created the Silk Road, a trade route from Western China until Rome.

At the very latest, I think that modern globalization is not simply an American phenomenon, but one that also pervades Europe, since the time of the World Wars.


How far has globalization progressed? Will it reach a "tipping point" when the world is fully globalized? If so, when?


I think what could be considered as the "tipping point" of globalization is when culture is so shared across bordered that there is nothing left to share anymore. When states are knowledgeable of and perhaps adapt part of other cultures to their own, so that different cultures co-exist similarly on each state in the world.

But for that matter, I don't think the world would ever reach the point of being fully globalized. There's just such a constant of change and persistence to change of humanity, that I don't think there will ever be a time that so many cultures could mesh so easily.

As for the present progress of globalization, I can't say I could be accurate with a guess. I suppose I could approximate perhaps a 30-40% globalization with the way that humanity is sharing and helping each other right now. But I don't think that we are anywhere past half, or close to progressing past half, simply because the human race isn't ready to go that far yet.

There's still too much that people need to learn about acceptance and letting go of the innate superiority complex that most have (where my culture is better than yours, or worse, your culture is wrong because...), before globalization can progress without being oppressive and destructive to cultures that are not as aggressive as others.