Does Globalization Require a New Type of Social Theory?
Introduction
Contemporary globalization and social theories help to offer useful tools in order to understand the processes of organizing in an increasingly interconnected world (Grushna 2008). Thus, in the past, experts believed that social sciences have a more vital role to play in the process of understanding the environmental crisis. However, on the other hand, experts believe that in some instances, social sciences are not equipped to play the said imaginative and practical role without radical re-think of the inherited assumptions (Redclift & Benton 1994, p. 2).
Thus, as McNall & Agger noted, there is no irrefutable mode of social conceiving and taking forward independently of what is to be theorized. Devotion in the social sciences to a mode of theory that was proposed to apply equally at different levels of modernization, rationalization and organization must impound the capability to grasp the nature and scope of present changes. As a result, it calls for reconceptualizing the social change-social theory nexus by recognizing that saying goodbye to the standard social theory is not to propose that a quasi-anarchical multiplicity of theoretical modes should reinstate those views. As an alternative, the opportunity, in principle, that holding on to a traditional mode of theory might stop us from distinguishing the key changes and transformations that are ought to be cause for concern (McNall & Agger 1993, p. 300).
Globalization and Social Theories
Globalization varies in different aspects. In terms of definition, globality allocates something distinguishing and vital that other vocabulary of social analysis does not capture; chronologically, globalization has mostly extended since the third quarter of the 20th century; in terms of causes, globalization has resulted from structuration process, in which forces of rationalism, capitalism, technological innovation and regulatory facilitation have figured centrally; in social change, globalization has brought outstanding change within the structures of production, governance, community and knowledge; in impacts, modern globalization has, next to some advantages, also shows aspects that are connected in various ways challenge and weaken human security, social equity and democracy; and in terms of policy responses, a programme of determined reform can counteract many possible harms, and help boost many possible gains of globalization (Scholte 2000, p. 315).
Thus, the said factors have great impact for the social thoughts and different practices. Regarding the social analysis, contemporary globalization has rendered methodological territorialism obsolete. Thus, people can no longer understand and grasp the world geography in terms of territorial spaces only, and reorientation in this subject will also changes the way people appreciate and comprehend the other dimensions of the social relations which include culture, ecology, economics, politics and psychology. As a result, globalization requires people to significantly rethink about the social theory. Therefore, it can be said that globalization has brought shifts and changes within rather than substitutions for underlying social structures. Furthermore, there is little sign that expanding supraterritoriality is in predictable future which takes us towards the post-capitalist, post-bureaucratic, post-communitarian, post-rationalist social order (Scholte 2000, p. 315).
The said scalar dynamic that has extensive global manifestations is also connected to the relationship between nations and states, and how these forces can also be taken advantage by nation-states with connection to the minorities, by posturing global capitalism as more real than the risk of its own hegemonic strategies. The said new global cultural economy has to be recognized as a multifaceted, overlapping, disjunctive order. Thus, it cannot be understood by using the existing center-periphery models and it is not vulnerable or at risk to the simple models of push and pull or even of surpluses and deficits of consumers and producers (Appadurai n.d.).
Even the most composite and flexible theories about the global development that have emerged of the Marxist tradition are insufficiently unusual, and they have not come to terms with what Lash & Urry (1987) have lately called as the ‘disorganized capitalism’. Thus, the complication of the current global economy has something to do with definite primary disjuncture between the economy, culture and politics (Appadurai n.d.).
The discussion of the global economy and the different advantages and disadvantages does not touch on the issues about the personal lives of the people during the age of globalization. As a result, the said situation is a task for social theory and one that many during the past decade have taken on. Different authors and experts are debating regarding the need to change social theories. According to the neo-Marxist world system theory of Wallerstein (1990), the economic policies of globalization as fitting into what he sees as a capitalist system in order to exploit weaker nations and then keep them in a subordinated position. Thus, he argues that culture is considered as the ideological battleground between globalization and non-capitalist alternatives. However, the said theory was attack by Boyne (1990) because he believes that Wallerstein’s theory has a limited and on-dimensional view regarding the culture, which shows how deterministic his thinking is. Furthermore, Smith (1990) strong argues against the idea that there will be a global culture that was created by the globalization process because he does not believe that culture that appropriated from the media can substitute for the culture experience that people derive from their belonging to groups, whether there be local, ethnic or national. The said idea was agued by Robertson (1992) which focuses on the idea that the emergence of material structures which make the world more interconnected, are connected to, but not the cases of the emergence of a consciousness of the oneness or even unicity of the world. The author also focuses on the vital role for the global media in the process of raising the awareness of the progressively more interconnected world (McAnany 2002).
All of the said theory was argued and supplemented by Giddens (2000) on his theory of modern consciousness which talk about different ways that different forces or globalization has changed the modern life. However, Giddens (2000) stated that the process will not be easy. According to him, the battleground of the 21st century will ditch fundamentalism next to international acceptance. In a globalizing world, where in information and images are regularly broadcasted across the world, people are all regularly in contact with others who think in a different way, and live differently, from ourselves. Cosmopolitans receive and hold this cultural complication. Different fundamentalists find it worrying and hazardous. Thus, it is important to hope that an international outlook will win out (McAnany 2002). Therefore, Giddens had been able to focus on media as vital agents of change which affect everyone; however, it needs to be considered that Giddens speaks only from the perspective of West and middle class (McAnany 2002).
On the other hand, Tomlinson also write two important studies which try to theorized globalization. Cultural Imperialism (1991) was considered as a sharp critique of the cultural imperialism thesis which focus or emphasis towards the work of Herber Schiller. Tomlinson (1991) tries to define and outline his position regarding the impact of Western media on the consciousness of people; however he pertains on the modern world of the World and does not focus regarding what is happening in other parts of the globe. The second book, Globalization and Culture (1999), he begins with the process of defining the culture, which he believe that culture is the mundane practices which openly contribute to the ongoing life-narratives of the people. Aside from that, the author also focus on the different stores by which people, regularly understand and construe the existence of people, or what Heidegger calls the throwness of the human situation (p. 20). This means that even though the media are important, they are not the only factor or aspect which pressures or affects the lives of people. Here and in his earlier book it becomes obvious and apparent that there can not be an understandable and lucid definition of impact of media and that consequently no experimental result can, in some logic, be observed. Furthermore, the author also focuses on the idea of global modernity, which pertains on the concept that appears to have a great connection with the idea of Giddens (McAnany 2002).
However, the main problem is that even though the author disapproved of the cultural imperialism proponents because of their deficiency or lack of experimental data in order to show different ideological impacts. As a result, the author suggests and recommends no evidence from the real world in order to strengthen the claims regarding the modern consciousness and how it is created in the globalizing world. However, even though most of the researchers had been able to offer some vital empirical information about the spread of Western media in some parts of the globe, however the influence of the said media on the audience is still left about the abstract alone (McAnany 2002).
To conclude, in terms of globalization and culture, the organization of the individual as higher to the powerful compare to the influence of media, thus it is being affected by the ongoing consciousness of the people towards the oneness or unicity of the world (McAnany 2002).
Conclusion
Based on the information that have been gathered and discussed in this paper, it can be said that there is a great need for new social theories due to globalization. This is because globalization had affected almost every aspect of individual lives including culture and tradition, which is considered as an important factor is social theories. Furthermore, globalization had been able to overlap some of the past social theories which include the geographic factors. Because globalization had been able to connect different nations in the world, and with the further help of technology, particularly the Internet, it can be said that people are no longer separated by space or geographic factor. Another important factor to consider is the ongoing changes and mixtures of cultures and traditions because of interconnections of different countries.
References
Appadurai, A, Disjuncture and Differences in the Global Cultural Economy, viewed 9 May 2009, <http://www.intcul.tohoku.ac.jp/~holden/MediatedSociety/Readings/2003_04/Appadurai.html>
Grushina, S V 2008, ‘Globalization and Social Theory: Relevant Perspectives for Understanding Processes of Organizing in an Interconnected World’ Paper presented at the annual meeting of the NCA 94th Annual Convention, TBA, San Diego, CA Online <PDF>. 2009-02-02, <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p257873_index.html>
McAnany, E G 2002, ’3. Social theories of globalization: from culture to consciousness.(Globalization and the media: the debate continues)’ Communication Research Trends. Centre for the Study of Communication and Culture, viewed 9 May 2009 from HighBeam Research: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-130975421.html
McNall, S G, Agger, B, Howe, G & Wilson, J 1993, Current Perspective in Social Theory, Emerald Group Publishing
Redclift, M & Benton, T (eds) 1994, Social Theory and the Global Environment, Routledge, New York
Scholte, J A 2000, Globalization: A Critical Introduction, Palgrave Macmillan
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment