JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for CRIT-GEOG-FORUM Archives


CRIT-GEOG-FORUM Archives

CRIT-GEOG-FORUM Archives


CRIT-GEOG-FORUM@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CRIT-GEOG-FORUM Home

CRIT-GEOG-FORUM Home

CRIT-GEOG-FORUM  February 2005

CRIT-GEOG-FORUM February 2005

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Resisting the Globalizing Spirit

From:

Akinbola Akinwumi <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Akinbola Akinwumi <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 10 Feb 2005 09:40:42 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (63 lines)

Resisting the Globalizing Spirit

By Akinbola E. Akinwumi
  

Karl Marx once made a vigilant observation that global capital "creates a world after its own image." Although his submission is as startling today as it was when originally delivered over a century ago, the phrase is even more instructive when we consider it in the light of two important facts. One: that hardly anyone now denies the dominance, authority and importance ascribed to globalization. Two: that globalization (à la capitalism) is an unrelentingly unevening force. Indeed, many aspects of globalization have been questioned &#8211; and rightly so &#8211; around the world: its sweeping reach, the structures it assumes, as well as its "meaning," and even its "authenticity" in a broad and complex global system. Some of these will be considered below. 

Even the strongest adherents and theorists of globalization can find themselves smoothly outsmarted by the extensiveness of this phenomenon that has many faces, and ridiculed by the largely ineffective tools developed for studying it. 

No wonder Joseph Stiglitz of the World Bank, once a forceful cheerleader of capitalism, took a speedy detour not too long ago and began questioning the reigning ideology of neo-liberal-powered globalization and its penchant for undemocratic action. Though many doubt there is benefit to be derived from a deep skepticism of the globalizing "McWorldist" experience, a new type of argument is being touted by sharp and obdurate pundits. 

There&#8217;s no problem with globalization as it has created opportunities, these voices say. In fact, the inequalities, injustices and inhumane conditions that move in tow with capitalist globalization are really not real. However, rather than act blissfully ignorant of the sufferings brought about by social injustice, a truly humane economic system must shift its focus from growth to development, from economy to society. 

Beneath its cool demeanor, globalization has wrecked much havoc. Obviously representing far more than technological breakthroughs in communication, it has fostered a separation between an imaginary "us" and an equally imaginary "them." It assumes everything can be explained under the rubric of the market. 

Globalization is largely and implicitly hegemonic. It has been instrumental in the imposition of power relations that have brought misfortune to the world&#8217;s most vulnerable. 

From one dimension globalization brings with it the feminization of poverty, as its economic orientation is grossly in favor of men. Worth considering is the fact that in the global economy women make up less than one percent of the 4,000 top executives of Fortune 500 companies; are marginalized in the area of strategic assignments traditionally dominated by men and are assigned lesser roles for being "weak," and "ignorant." Whoever labeled it a man&#8217;s world? The forces of global capital? It is uncontestable. No doubt the angst expressed by most women around the world is justifiable, and this reflected by the desperate call to break out into the light. Not a few women presently grope in the murk of oppressive gender relationships championed and backed up by globalized masculinist theories. It is worth heeding Suzanne LaFollette&#8217;s point that "it is impossible for a sex or a class to have economic freedom until everybody has it, and until economic freedom is attained for everybody, there can be no real freedom for anybody." 

Similarly, multinational corporations have gained enormous power across global space. The rise in free trade areas (FTAs) and export processing zones (EPZs) has continued to perpetuate inequalities even in poor but resource-rich countries &#8211; from Mexico to Malaysia and the Philippines. Further, women, who constitute a huge chunk of workers in the new international economy, have to endure extreme working conditions in maquiladora-style factories to receive wages of less than $1 per hour. In the same vein, the global age of the internet has allowed the exploitation of the bodies of women in as far apart places as Latvia, Moldova or Peru by a thriving multi-billion dollar porn industry. 

In an important book titled More Equal than Others: America from Nixon to the New Century Godfrey Hodgson makes an important point that in the US inequality &#8211; of income, health care, education, etc. &#8211; has consistently overrun equality over the last two decades. Conservatism, he says, has made a shipwreck of all that was achieved during the New Deal. More money goes to those who have had more than their fair share of it while even more is taken from those who rightfully need it. The 1990s were particularly significant, as free market capitalism took the economy by the horns and solidified America&#8217;s status as a society of spurious equality &#8211; all talk little action. How else could it be that whilst the total net worth of the 400 richest persons is put at about $995 billion by Forbes magazine many have no place to lay their heads? 

Yet, there are some patterns. Firstly, while economic globalization may be a dominant aspect, its impact on the socio-cultural realm is characteristically geographically intense, hence no part of the globe is spared. Secondly, a priority seems to be associated with techno-scientific modernization. 

In any case, it is not this prioritization that is the culprit. Whether we know it, like it or agree with it or not, we are products of systematic but ingrained processes of a strong and wicked bourgeois culture. And this is how it works: get them, con them (in not too obvious ways), then push them into the training room of the brainwashed, programmed to self-destruct, albeit at an appointed time, while smothered by coaxing toys that serve as an anesthetic to immediate pain. 

In an age of the magic wheels of "free" trade, liberalization, "McDonaldization," "CNN-ization," "Hollywoodization" we are pushed to ask: what is globalization? 

There are many possibilities: but none should be expected &#8211; at least in terms of a near-perfect answer &#8211; because globalization itself is tricky and slick and defies any easy packaging. In a certain sense globalization is what happens behind the "one world, global everyday life" facade, although like in the Marxian analysis there remains a class struggle and the stronger dog still eats the palatable dog. Its proponents would, however, not agree to such distasteful tagging for it reveals the reality only the counterfoil could unmask. 

There is a strong dimension of the globalization culture that must be resisted. This is not only for reasons of sustainability. Because, globalization has a sly way of stimulating ideological dissonance it is pretty easy, if not convenient, to turn the other cheek as a show of disgust with the growing clout of "anti-globalization" movements crisscrossing the globe &#8211; from Bangkok to Chicago, Doha to London, Melbourne to Wellington, and beyond. Clearly, unevenness is the defining character of economic globalization &#8211; convergence in one realm, however minuscule in its impact, usually means divergence in another. And this is the first basis of the global protests. 

If the truth be told, globalization&#8217;s seductive appeal certainly has another side. With its fast spreading wave of deterritorialization, heightened sense of alienation and depersonalization, this global force has brought with it many shivering ills. Affluence and inane pleasures is the watchword, the dicta of capitalist avarice. Even the corporate nature of the mass media and the way it treats human sensibilities as expendables is frightening. Chief of these are the gruesome realities of mechanical consumerism, changing household relations and broken social bonds, untamed desire, technological cruelties, environmental degradation, terrorism and political violence, ethnic conflicts, extreme concentrations of wealth and the corresponding polarization of opportunity in favor of the bourgeoisie class, national messiah complexes and complexities and non-participatory existence. The trend of global terrorism and political violence, for instance, is symptomatic of how tempestuous and sharpshooting the forces of globalization and belonging &#8211; when fused &#8211;could be. 

In light of this, it is important to assert that while globalization may have altered socio-cultural foundations, and tainted choices, there is a need more than ever to reenact within our value systems a thorough sense of "bounded rationality" in responding to the challenges posed by the new economic order. 

We should challenge the hegemony of the neo-liberal structure and the logic with which it operates. We also need to free ourselves from neutrality toward &#8211; and conformity with &#8211; an extreme globalist culture bent on allowing market values to continue shaping society and public institutions. However, this may require a dogged detachment from the alluring hold of material things now ubiquitous in our overtly prosperity-seeking world. To be sure, things have their rightful place and may not necessarily be evil, but the perverse cravings for them obviously violate the basic tenets of sustainable development and have deleterious effects on the worldwide crusade against greed, exploitation, and corruption. 

However, with the absence of a progressive financial architecture and with the globalizing economy fostering intolerable impoverishment in one society and high consumption in the other, there has to be a reawakening to development centered upon humans and their environment. 

A social-looking system has never been more apt a tool for aiding human freedom, and development and building a more inclusive, communitarian rather than individualistic world. 

As such our ethical objective should be to work from an outlook of re-education and awareness to engender a wise balance between economy and society, thinking and acting, one that will involve far-reaching control over the processes of change and the distribution of its gains thereof. This, certainly, is not an impossibility, but it would require firm resistance of the present approach. Clearly, the very foundations of globalization if not challenged cannot give way to alternative visions of the world order, politics, and global governance. The Zapatista movement has exemplified what it means to resist the globalizing spirit and its predilection for anti-people and anti-environment policies. Witness their reaction against NAFTA because of its inclination for creating wealth disparity and the victimization of indigenous people and exploitation of their resources. 

Can we accept the "sweet" fruit globalization and then gleefully spit out its sour pit afterwards? Truth is if we accept the theories of the capitalist world economy &#8211; the driving wheel of globalization &#8211; we simply cannot. Nevertheless, we must be prepared to face the possibilities of alternatives, even at the risk of being labeled myopic. Does every theory necessarily have to be a viewing mirror? Do we accept the contemporaneous and turn our backs against the truth of injustice as we become more indoctrinated with falsehood? The answers lie in the thinking. 

So, how globalized are you? Not surprisingly, the answer may not be comforting but this is not unexpected. However, whilst we grapple with the defects left in our minds by the simulations of capitalist power and the hegemonies of imperialist politics and economics bent on taking over society, we must find a way of washing ourselves under the plain but clean liquid of reality, however stagnated this may have become of late. If or when we do then we can begin to achieve some semblance of objectivity to redirect our steps out of this present mess. 

How do we resist the spirit of globalization and its contradictions without selling our souls in the process? Easy: Do not accept every fruit it offers you without questioning its motives. Surely, we cannot undo the past but we can begin to make decisions as to a future where there is an egalitarian culture, a neighborly fortitude, a live-and-let-live predisposition.


--Akinbola E. Akinwumi is an independent writer and researcher and he currently lives in Lagos, Nigeria where he writes from. He can be reached at [log in to unmask] This article originally appeared in the February 2005 print edition of Political Affairs. 



 

-- 
_______________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager