Is Globalisation a Myth or a Fact?
The term globalisation describes the process of becoming worldwide in scope or application, and the increasing interdependency of nation-sates. At least - that gives us one loose definition for globalisation, but as Scholte (2000) realises, globalisation is a thoroughly contested subject, with arguments extend across the issue of definition as well as measurement, chronology, explanation and normative judgement. In fact, Scholte identifies five contrasting definitions for the word 'globalisation ' as used by a number of the subject 's commentators and critics - internationalisation, liberalisation, universalisation, western/modernisation and deterrioralisation are (2000: 13).
In choosing a definition of globalisation, one is also selecting how they wish to interpret it, and what points they wish to convey. For example, the choice of western/modernisation leads to a view that globlisation sees the economically and politically powerful west globalising the rest of the world, whilst universalisation leads to a more neutral stance, taking it 's root from the dictionary definition of the word 'gloalise ', meaning to universalise.
To judge whether or not globalisation is a myth or fact therefore requires the full understanding of what the term means to it 's critics and advocates, and in which ways they believe it to be myth of fact. Giddens simplifies the debate into two main schools - the sceptics and the radicals. A radical himself, he writes that "According to the sceptics, all the talk about globalisation is only that - just talk" whilst "The radicals argue that not only is globalisation very real, but that its consequences can be seen everywhere" . Sceptics are seen by Giddens to hold a politicially left view, with their argument that globlaisation is "put about by free-marketeers who wish to dismantle welfare systems and cut back on state expenditure" (1999: 7-8). Key to his own argument, Giddens realises that globlisation is not just economic, but also
In choosing a definition of globalisation, one is also selecting how they wish to interpret it, and what points they wish to convey. For example, the choice of western/modernisation leads to a view that globlisation sees the economically and politically powerful west globalising the rest of the world, whilst universalisation leads to a more neutral stance, taking it 's root from the dictionary definition of the word 'gloalise ', meaning to universalise.
To judge whether or not globalisation is a myth or fact therefore requires the full understanding of what the term means to it 's critics and advocates, and in which ways they believe it to be myth of fact. Giddens simplifies the debate into two main schools - the sceptics and the radicals. A radical himself, he writes that "According to the sceptics, all the talk about globalisation is only that - just talk" whilst "The radicals argue that not only is globalisation very real, but that its consequences can be seen everywhere" . Sceptics are seen by Giddens to hold a politicially left view, with their argument that globlaisation is "put about by free-marketeers who wish to dismantle welfare systems and cut back on state expenditure" (1999: 7-8). Key to his own argument, Giddens realises that globlisation is not just economic, but also
Bibliography: =============== Cohen & Kennedy (2000) Global Sociology, MacMillan: Basingstoke Germain, R (2000) Globalisation and its Critics, MacMillan: Basingstoke Giddens (1999) Runaway World, Profile Books: London Helt et al (1999) Global Transformations, Polity Press: Cambridge Rosenberg (2000) The Follies of Globalisation Theory, Verso: London Schulte (2000) Globalisation: a Critical Introduction, MacMillan: Basingstoke