Blog Response on Globalization

What are your views? Will globalization create a more peaceful or conflict laden world?
Globalization is a process of global economical, political and cultural integration. Yet as one may logically deduce its motive to be one that is altruistic, – to create a more homogenized and thereby peaceful world – what is apparent in the modern paradigm is one that is far from its original intention. On its way to creating a more peaceful world, globalization has instead engendered more conflicts than ever, an irony in itself.
The concept of globalization is not just confined to the economic or political realm, but it has also pervaded the sphere of cultures. True enough, globalization has opened doors for the exchange of cultures and traditions between nations. But what this brings with it is also the repercussion of culture and identity dilution. All thanks to globalization, nations around the world have been increasingly homogenized and their traditional rituals and practices have also been gradually eroded, or else tainted by the influences of other cultures. While homogeneity amongst people may serve to promote equality or at least equity, it may also breed conflicts sparked off by people who are hungry for a sense of identity. To these people, the paramount need to break out of the homogeneity could give rise to conflicts in order to show their dissatisfaction for the wearing away of their local cultures.


What are your views? Can we be part of the global economy and still retain our own unique cultures and traditions, or would we end up being mini-Americas?
If we pay close attention to the world’s most active markets, they are mostly economies that are globalized and in some way or another, westernized and Americanized. Being part of the global economy requires us to advance towards the next stage of development, and that implies in part that we have to adopt the ways and cultures of America. However, it must be understood that nations in the global economy may be mistaken to end up being ‘mini-Americas’ for the simple reason that America is the modern epitome of a nation in its most mature stage of development. Hence, in trying to align themselves closer to the Americans’ ways of life in hope that economic success comes their way too, nations aspiring to have a bigger share of the global market tend to mimic Americans in all their endeavours, and in the process, trade off their own cultures and traditions. Having said this, it is not impossible to retain the unique cultures and traditions a country has. Albeit the corroding effects of globalization on local cultures and traditions, something can be done by the locals in a bid to retain the cultures in the country, and this hinges on the extent of the willingness of people to carry out such course of actions and inadvertently, it also pivots on the level of acceptance on the part of the rest of the nation. Governments should take the lead in the preservation of unique local cultures and traditions. Already, many schemes have been piloted for this purpose. For instance, in Singapore, the National Heritage Board has been set up to help champion the development of heritage and cultures in the local context, and in recent years, annual national heritage week has been celebrated by an increasing numbe people. The abovementioned shows us that while we cannot entirely shun away from being influenced by America’s cultures if we want to be part of the global economy, we still have some deciding power over the preservation of local cultures and traditions.

Is Globalization Imperialism repackaged?
Because of the increased interconnectedness of the world due to globalization, with the transfer of manpower and knowledge, comes the exchange of cultures as well. However, the appeal of certain cultures, especially that of American popular culture, stands out more than that of others. Thus, globalization could be argued to be a new form of cultural imperialism, particular by the West.
This is because in many countries, such as in the third world, the effects of globalization can be best seen from the Westernization of the locals. For example in the case of Bangalore, the newfound financial and domestic independence that young women experience has been influenced by Wilsonian idealism on self-determination. Furthermore, consumerism in such countries has soared, and demand for American brands and modes of entertainment has soared. Thus, with American culture seeping into such countries at such rapid rates, it seems as if it is a new form of imperialism.
However, the extent of these influences is determined by the people in that country – how Westernized Asia has become depends on how much its people subscribe to these foreign ideas. Thus, it cannot be said that globalization is a new form of imperialism, as the adoption of new culture are not being forced onto people; rather, people in increasingly cosmopolitan cities have decided to embrace these cultures for themselves. Thus, even though there is a form of cultural supremacy, it is one that has been created by the choice of the people being captivated by it.