GE 319 – THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD

Lesson 2
Globalization and its Impact on Political and
Economic world
Learning Outcomes

Now let us move on to a closer examination on the theoretical paradigms

associated with globalization. By the end of this lesson you should be able to:

 Identify the underlying philosophies of the varying definitions of

globalization;
 Evaluate the impact of globalization on political and economic world;
 Equip students with 21st century learning and develop higher order
thinking skills that will lead towards a deeper understanding of
Globalization and its role in the world; in the Philippine society as well as
its role in the individual formation of the students in relation to their future
respective professions.

Time Frame: 1 Week

Introduction

The advent of globalization in the 1970s had affected greatly the academic world
as it immediately gained the interest and attention of most social scientists, who
were occupied with social phenomena related to globalization. The impact can be
seen in the surge of scholarly works about globalization. Over the years, the
literature on globalization has been enhanced with the inclusion of new research
areas and topics, such as studies on transnational sexualities, global tourism, and
evolution of state institutions, the restructuring of work and the improvement of
working conditions, transnational care-giving, and the global media to name a few.
Clearly, the wide array of globalization-related research topics that scholars can
choose from points to the ubiquity of the effects of globalization (Appelbaum and
Robinson, 2005).
By way of reiteration, the increasing literature on globalization reflects the enormity
of human activities that can be studied. Also, it shows the extent of globalization’s
impact on human lives; it shows how different we have become compared to our
predecessors in terms of the level of superiority, sophistication and
cosmopolitanism. The globalization literature suggests that there are two major
branches of research: (1) those studying specific problems or issues as they relate
to globalization; (2) those studying the concept of globalization itself – theorizing
the very nature of the process. Both areas entail a great deal of theorizing in order
to make sense of the various phenomena comprising globalization. How do we
theorize on this phenomenon that we call globalization? What types of theories
have been developed to explain social change in the 21 st century? Are the major
theories of the traditional social science disciplines adequate to explain the various
phenomena within globalization? Or, do we need new theoretical models?
22 | P a g e
 GE 319 – THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD

Activity (Let’s Get Started!)

Create an image showing your connections to the rest of the world based on the
music you listen to, using the following questions.
1. Is the core of the process economic, political or cultural? Is there an
underlying material or an ideational determinacy? Are there multiple
determinacy and how would they be ordered?
2. What is the relationship between globalization and the nation-state? Is the
nation-state being undermined or has it retained its primacy and relevance?
Or, has the nation-state experienced unprecedented transformation due to
globalization? Does globalization involved internationalization or
transnationalization?
3. Lastly, to what extent is the relationship between social structure and
territoriality being redefined by globalization? What is the relationship
between the local and the global?

Analysis (Let’s Think About it!)

 What are factors that are having a major impact on the environment?

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

 What impact are economic development and rapid population growth having

on the environment?

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

23 | P a g e
 GE 319 – THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD

Abstraction (Let’s Explore!)

The questions mentioned in the activity and analysis shall form the backbone of
the discussion on the theoretical paradigms associated with globalization.

1. World Systems Paradigm. As discussed by Immanuel Wallerstein,

globalization viewed not as a recent phenomenon but virtually synonymous
with the birth and spread of world capitalism. For him the appropriate unit of
analysis for macro-social inquiry in the modern world is neither class, nor
state/society, or country, but the larger historical system, in which these
categories are located. This paradigm adheres to the ideas that capitalism has
created a global enterprise that swept the 19th century leading to the present
time. That is why the followers of this paradigm argue that globalization is not
at all a new process but something that is just continuing and evolving.

A key structure of the capitalist world-system is the division of the world into
three great regions, or geographically based and hierarchical organized tiers.
The first is the core, or the powerful and developed centers of the system,
originally comprised of Western Europe and later expanded to include North
America and japan. The second is the periphery, those regions that have been
forcibly subordinated to the core through colonialism or other means, and in
the formative years of the capitalist world-system would include Latin America,
Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Eastern Europe. Third is the semi-periphery,
compromised of those states and regions that were previously in the periphery
and are moving up. Another key feature of this world-system is the centrality
and immanence of the inter-state system and inter-state rivalry to the
maintenance and reproduction of the world-system. The world-system
paradigm does not see any transcendence of the nation-state system or the
centrality of nation-states as the principal component units of a larger global
system.

2. Global Capitalism Paradigm. The theories under this school of thought treat
globalization as a novel stage in the evolving system of world capitalism. As
such, globalization has its own unique features that distinguish it from earlier
periods. They focus on new global production and financial system; both are
seen to have superseded earlier national forms of capitalism. They also
emphasize the rise of processes that cannot be framed within the nation-
state/inter-state system, which lies at the core of the world-system theory and
most traditional macro-social theories. The seminal studies of Sklair (2000,
2002) have showcased the theory of the global system which espoused the
transnational phenomena. His theory argues that the TCC has emerged as a
new class that brings together several social groups who see their own interest
in an expanding global capitalist system: the executives of transnational
corporations; globalizing bureaucrats, politicians, and professionals, and
consumerist elites in the media and the commercial sector (Sklair, 2000).

Meanwhile, the major students Robinson (2003, 2004) have advanced a

related theory of global capitalism involving three planks: transnational
production, transnational capitalists and a transnational state. For him,
globalization creates new forms of transnational class relations across borders

24 | P a g e
 GE 319 – THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD

and local communities, in ways quite distinct from the old national class
structures and international class conflicts and alliances.

3. The Network Society School of Thought. In its simplest explanation this

paradigm of globalization does not describe to the contention that capitalism
fuels globalization. Instead, it puts forth the premise that technology and
technological change are the underlying causes of the several processes
that comprise globalization. In fact, this idea is articulated in the important
works of Manuel Castells called “The Rise of the Network Society (1996,
1997, 1998), which features his technologistic approach to globalization. He
advanced the notion of the “new economy” as (1) informational, knowledge-
based; (2) global, in that production is organized on a global scale; and (3)
networked in that productivity is generated through global networks of
interaction. In Castells’ view, (1996:188), the concept of the network society
is closely associated with interpretation of the social implications of
globalization and the role of electronic communications technologies in
society. The definition of a network society given by Castells (2004 p. 3) is
that it is 'a society whose social structure is made up of networks powered
by micro-electronics-based information and communications technologies.'
As Castells shows in his book, historically, there have always been social
networks: the key factor that distinguishes the network society is that the
use of ICTs helps to create and sustain far-flung networks in which new
kinds of social relationships are created.

Castells' analysis provides three processes in a broad historical context for

the development paradigms. (1) The significance of economic restructuring
that created the conditions for the emergence of the open market
development paradigm; (2) weakening the nation state and deepening
processes of social inclusion, and; (3) exclusion between and within
countries. The cultural movements were significant because they created
the conditions for emergence of an opposing 'human-capabilities centred'
development paradigm that focuses on human rights. The values of
individual autonomy and freedom espoused by this cultural change shaped
the open network structure for communication. As Castells concludes, 'the
culture of freedom was decisive in inducing network technologies which, in
turn, were the essential infrastructure for business to operate its
restructuring in terms of globalization' (Castells 2004 p. 22).

4. Space, Time and Globalization. For Anthony Giddens, the conceptual

essence of globalization is ‘time-space distanciation’. Giddens (1990:64)
defines time-space distanciation ‘as the intensification of worldwide social
relations which occurring many miles away and vice versa’ – social relations
are ‘lifted out’ from local contexts of interaction and restructured across time
and space. For him, the debate is about the consequences of globalization,
not about the reality of globalization, thus, “globalization is fundamentally
social, cultural, (and) political, not just economic" (Giddens, 2000). Thus,
globalization is about macro-systemic changes in the global marketplace
and the nature of sovereignty, but it is also about the here and now, about
transformations that affect our daily and emotional lives.

25 | P a g e
 GE 319 – THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD

Giddens (2000) argued that the driving force behind globalization is the
information revolution. "Instantaneous communication changes almost
everything. It invades the texture of everyday life, but it also provides for the
restructuring of other institutions." The outcome is a highly complex set of
processes that often take contradictory shapes, but one can simplify the
concept with a three-fold image. Globalization pulls away from the nation-
state, removing control from national governments in such areas as
economic and trade policy. But globalization also pushes down from the
state, allocating new resources for local economies, facilitating the
emergence of local cultural identities, and strengthening sub-national units
of governance. Finally, globalization squeezes sideways, creating new
cultural, economic, and political regions that cut across national boundaries.

Another key figure in the globalization theories involving space and time is
Saskia Sassen’s The Global City (1991), which has had an exceptionally
broad impact across the disciplines and left an indelible mark on the
emergent field of globalization studies. His study is grounded in a larger
body of literature on world cities that view world-class cities as sites of a
major production, finances, or coordinating of the world economy within an
international division of labor, and more recent research on ‘globalizing
cities’. Sassen proposes that a new spatial order is emerging under
globalization based on a network of global cities. These cities are sites of
specialized services for transnationally mobile capital that is so central to
the global economy.

Another concept introduced and popularized by Roland Robertson is the

term ‘glocalization’. This catchy term means that the ideas about home,
locality and community have been extensively spread around the world for
the local be globalized. And, the stress upon the significance of the local
can be viewed as one ingredient of the overall globalization process
(Robertson, 1995). He suggests replacing the concept of globalization with
the concept of "glocalization". In using "glocalization" rather than
globalization, Robertson wishes to blur the boundaries between the local
and the global. Former views in sociology saw globalization as a contrast
between the local and the global as theorized it in terms of action-reaction
patterns (Robertson, 2014). Robertson offers instead to see the local itself
as one of the aspects of globalization. For example, the search for "home"
and "roots" are a counter reaction to globalization but rather a need
structured by it.

One of the ramifications of using the term glocalization instead of

globalization is that claims of homogeneity of culture under globalization
lose ground. Even though intercultural ties are increasingly fastened
throughout the world, Robertson believes that we are definitely not heading
for a united human culture. The reason is that in glocaliztion these ties and
influences are selected, processed and consumed according to the local
culture's needs, taste and social structure (Robertson 2014, 447-459).

26 | P a g e
 GE 319 – THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD

5. Transnationality and Transnationalism. In the globalization literature,

transnationalism generally refers to an umbrella concept encompassing a
wide variety of transformative processes, practices and developments that
take place simultaneously at the local level and global level. Transnational
processes and practices are defined broadly as the multiple ties and
interactions – economic, political, social and cultural – that link people,
communities and institutions across the borders of nation-states. As stated
by William Robinsons in his paper on the ‘Theory of Globalization’, scholars
such as Levitt (2001), Smith and Guarnizo (1998) and Portes and his
colleagues (1999) point to the novel character of transnational links in the
era of globalization. Transnational ties among recent immigrants are more
intense than those of their historical counterparts due to the spread and
relatively inexpensive character of travel and communications and that the
impact of these ties are increased by the local and national context in which
they occur (Levitt, 2001: Portes, 1995; Portes et al, 1999).

Robinson (1998) states that, just as “social structure is becoming

transnationalized; an epistemic shift is required in concurrence with this
ontological shift.” The major topics addressed by transnational studies
include: economic globalization, the transnationalization of the state,
classes, political processes, and culture, and the current integration
processes taking place around the world through formal organizations such
as NAFTA and the European Union (Robinson 1998).

Transnational perspectives provide deeper understanding into a number of

globally contingent social, economic, and political processes including
social movements, governance and politics, terrorism, political violence, and
organized crime among others.

Example: One of the most fruitful areas of study has been transnational
migration. Research in this area looks at issues such as the salient
interaction with the receiving society’s institutions, the migration
policies of states, the role of discrimination in limiting access to the
institutions of the receiving society’s civil society, access to computers
within the home and receiving societies, and the costs and other
hardships that affect groups of migrants (Kivisto 2001). A growing
research agenda concerns the emergence of civil society, state, and
non-state organizations, developed in order to respond to issues of
transnational immigration. Identity is continually challenged by the fluid
legal and social characterizations of migrants created and adapted to
local, national, and international organizations.

6. Global Culture paradigm. Stresses its definition as a group of human

beings whose members identify with each other, on the basis of
distinctiveness measured by combinations of cultural, linguistic, religious,
behavioral and/or biological traits. This definition borrows from the UNESCO
(2005) philosophy, which reaffirmed their famous ’15 points’, namely:
“National, religious, geographic, linguistic and cultural groups do not
necessarily coincide with racial groups: and the cultural traits of such groups
have no demonstrated genetic connection with racial traits.” (UNESCO,
1950, p. 6). Such theory emphasize the rapid growth of the mass media and

27 | P a g e
 GE 319 – THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD

resultant global cultural flows and images in recent decades, evoking the
image famously put forth by Marshall McLuhan of ‘the global village’.
Cultural theories of globalization have focused on such phenomena as
globalization and religion, nations and ethnicity, global consumerism, global
communications and the globalization of tourism. For instance, Ritzer (1993,
2002) coined the now popularized term ‘McDonalization’ to describe the
sociocultural processes by which the principle of the fast-food restaurant
came to dominate more and more sectors of US and later world society.
Ritzer, in this particular homogenization approach, suggest that Weber’s
process of rationalization became epitomized in the late 20th century in the
organization of McDonald’s restaurants along seemingly efficient,
predictable and standardized lines – an instrumental rationality (the most
efficient means to a given end) – yet results in an ever deeper substantive
irrationality, such as alienation, waste, low nutritional value and the risk of
health problems, and so forth.

These mentioned approaches are just some of the major theoretical underpinnings
that seek to provide a clear conceptualization of globalization. While it cannot be
denied that the formulation of these theories have resulted in seemingly endless
academic debates centered on the correct way of interpreting globalization, they
have also helped us in correcting some of the wrong notions and misconceptions
about globalization. The discussion that follows is focused on these
misconceptions.

NOTE: for theoretical paradigms please refer to the file attached (re: Theories of
Globalization.pdf)

Misconceptions about globalization

Scholte (2008) in his attempt to clarify the meaning of globalization, criticizes the
several flawed analyses of globalization pointing out that they end in failure to
produce new knowledge. In other words, he defines globalization by telling us what
it is not. Below are the misconceptions of globalization.

a. Globalization as internationalization

Although the terms internationalization and globalization are interchangeable there

is a big difference in their meanings. Internationalization includes activities by
entities such as corporation, states, international organizations, private
organizations and even individuals with reference to national borders and national
governments. Globalization, on the other hand, includes a gamut of human
activities that do not require reference to a state’s national borders. For instance,
exchanges of romantic words in social media platform such as Facebook between
a Filipino located in the Philippines and a German residing in the country fall within
globalization do not need their respective government’s permission to do so.

28 | P a g e
 GE 319 – THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD

Globalization occurs in this

“Facebook era”, where social
networking sites have drawn
people closer more than ever.
Facebook is a social
networking site with at over 2.7
billion active users in the
second quarter of 2020, and
there were 73 170 000
Facebook users in Philippines
in January 2020, which
accounted for 65.9% of its
entire population. The majority
of them were women - 53%.
Figure 3 Source: https://www.facebook.com/ People aged 18 to 24 were the
largest user group (24 000 000).
The highest difference between men and women occurs within people aged 18 to
24, where women lead by 2 000 000.

29 | P a g e
 GE 319 – THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD

Structurally, globalization is made both possible and necessary by the

development of two transforming technologies – transportation and communication
(Boyd & Mitchell, 2005). Simultaneously, communication technologies carrying
hundreds of simultaneous high-fidelity, real-time, voice and video channels by
satellites and over the internet are giving global reach to political ideas, competitive
price/value comparisons, instant news, social organization networks and dozens
of other innovations in the way people access events, ideas, information and
opinions. Transportation and communication technology innovations are no longer
optional attributes to be used primarily by cultural or political elites. Ordinary
citizens have nearly universal access to these technologies and are reaping
substantial social, political, cultural and economic benefits. Virtually all important
social institutions, as well as entrepreneurs, intellectual, political and cultural
leaders, ignore the global reach of ideas and material things now available to nearly
everyone at their peril.

Another example, from the social process transformation perspective, globalization

is having a transformative effect on the core functions of institutions of higher
education. Under the influence of social interaction globalization, higher
educational institutions are developing a consumerist mentality which transforms
education into a product exchangeable in an open market (Marginson & Considine,
2000; Altbach, 2004, Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004). Slaughter and Leslie argue that
“the academy has shifted from a liberal arts core to an entrepreneurial periphery,”
in which “marketization” of the academics leads to the rise of “research and
development with commercial purpose” (1997, p. 208). This commercial purpose
allows higher education institutions to compete for the monetary or human
resources available globally to benefit their institutions (Slaughter & Rhoades,
2004).

Economic globalization is also turning knowledge into a commodity; a commodity

whose value depends on the ease and security with which it is created, stored and
transferred from producers to users, as well on its utility in the production of other
goods and services. As knowledge is being commodified, however, social, political
and cultural globalization turn knowledge production and distribution into symbolic
status and power resources with significant consequences. Seeking the power and
prestige of symbolic knowledge, higher education institutions are encouraged to
pursue internationalization of recruitment faculty and students and to secure
recognition for knowledge production. Importantly, the Nielsen (2011) study shows,
however, that the faculty and administrators pursuing this internationalization
remain largely unconscious of how this activity is reinforcing the very globalization
forces that are reshaping their work force and productive processes.

Globalization in academy also constitutes of a wide variety of components

including higher education institutions, the academic fields, scholars, and students
as contributing factors. These components each hold a different position in the
identification of globalization in higher education. In sum, this brief analysis of
globalization reveals that wide-ranging interconnectedness trends are evident, and
they directly have an influence on higher education institutions (Altbach, 2004).
Many of these institutions, however, struggle as they have to respond to an ever-
increasing set of global challenges such as competition or handling increasing

30 | P a g e
 GE 319 – THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD

international populations while remaining confined by institutional structural

principles passed on from an earlier, more state-centered world.

On the other hand, as distinguished from globalization with its emphasis on

worldwide conditions that influence perceptions of space, mobility of actions, the
nature of communication and orientations to social interaction, internationalization
focuses attention on the intentional actions of individual, groups and social
institutions as they actively seek to cross national borders in pursuit of social,
economic, political or cultural benefits. Looking at higher education institutions,
Knight (1999) offers a working definition of internationalization in this domain. She
sees internationalization as a matter of integrating transnational elements into the,
“purpose, functions or delivery of post-secondary education” (p. 2). That is,
colleges and universities are internationalizing their behavior when they reshape
their purposes to attract international students, to deploy their programs across
national borders, concentrate on internationally advantageous educational
program niches, restructure work roles or compensation systems to recruit, retain
or manage employees, etc.

Internationalization has become more complex and comprehensive in recent

decades. As noted during Congressional hearings on the International Education
Act (IEA) there is now a broad consensus that internationalization of education
encompasses three major areas: a) movement of scholars and students seeking
training and research, b) convergence in curricular content, and c) structural
arrangements that provide cross-border technical assistance and educational
cooperation programs (IEA, 1966). In 1994, Kerr, Gate & Kawaoka gave less
emphasis to the structural components of international cooperation, but otherwise
reaffirmed these components of internationalization, In research reports prepared
for ACE (2002) and the International Association of Universities (IAU) (2003) the
mobility of students and faculty were seen as the primary mechanisms of
internationalization (Knight, 2003).

b. Globalization as liberalization

Another misconception in the analyses of globalization is treating it as

synonymous to liberalization. Liberalization is commonly understood as the
removal of barriers and restrictions imposed by national governments so as to
create an open and borderless world economy. In this sense, according to Scholte
(2008:1475) globalization is realized when national governments “reduce or
abolish” regulatory measures like trade barriers foreign exchange restrictions,
capital controls and visa requirements”.

Let us talk of the impact of trade on employment level and structure in the
Philippines as example of this analysis. While globalization is regarded as a key
to economic development, it is also argued that it increases concerns on poverty,
threatens employment and living standards of the poor. Similar to many other
developing countries, Philippines also attempted to integrate its economy in the
global economy through liberalizing its investment and trade regime within the
framework of the World Bank and the IMF. A review of literature specifies that
although a number of cross-country studies have shown a positive association

31 | P a g e
 GE 319 – THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD

between trade openness and economic growth, the recent work suggests that
openness has robust link with long-term growth from the 1990s to 2010s
globalization indicators. Thus, constructive effects of liberalization on growth
remain controversial. Evidence shows that numerous highly attractive incentives
offered to foreign investors, Philippines' performance in attracting the foreign
investment has been improved. Also, despite the intensive trade liberalization, the
trade performance has been sufficient, though the stabilization initially proved to
be short-lived due to the slippages in reform procedure transpired in the form of
range of tax exemption and concession leading to the execution and
implementation of further stabilization methods. The recurrent efforts to stabilize
the economy together with liberalization and persistent devaluation of domestic
currency pushed the economy in a good circle. These developments together with
liberalization contributed to higher per capita GDP growth in the Philippines,
reduction in income inequality, and lower unemployment, but has no significant
impact on the reduction of poverty during the period of liberalization. This outcome
is a consideration of the fact that Philippines was asked by the IMF to cut its tariff
rates quickly before adopting to a new system of domestic taxation. The structural
adjustment programs designed by the World Bank/IMF take the poverty as a
residual issue. Hence, existing anti-poverty programs in Philippines reached a
small fraction of the poor because of poor targeting. Thus, for future growth and
poverty reduction strategies, the issue of achieving higher growth must be mutual
with overall pattern of social progress and distribution.

Please check: https://www.bis.org/publ/bppdf/bispap100_q.pdf

The problem with this, Scholte explains that it confines the study of globalization
within the debate concerning the neoliberal macroeconomic policies. On the other
side of the discussion are the business executives, academics and policymakers
that have supported neoliberal policies of liberalization, privatization, deregulation,
and fiscal restraint would in time bring prosperity, freedom, peace and democracy
for all. And on one side, the critics in the so-called anti-globalization movement
have opposed neoliberal policies arguing that a laissez faire world economy
produces greater poverty, social conflict, inequality, cultural destruction,
democratic deficits and ecological damage (Ibid: 1475). In addition, this
misconception carries with it a political implication – that neoliberalism is the only
available policy framework for a truly global world. Finally, debates about the
advantages and disadvantages of laissez faire economics have gone on for
centuries without involving the language of globalization.

c. Globalization as universalization and westernization

In the case of international developments have different aspects in today’s world

so that some terms like “Universalization,” “Westernization” find interferences in
social sciences and humanities studies. But these terms can generally be
distinguished by two different categories of study as some experts have
emphasized that the above developments are in the process (Globalization) while
the others considered them on the project (To Globalize). The main problem is that
how we can find out the focal point of both studies through which the accuracy of
these claims to be verified to know whether contemporary changes and evolutions
are formed in a process or a project. It seems that the focal point in the sphere of

32 | P a g e
 GE 319 – THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD

both claims (processes and projects) is the issue of “identity” since both spheres
agree that the concept of “identity” has passed a series of changes and
developments, although each one renders the path and goal of “identity” changes
by its own specific interpretations.

While some thinkers like Giddens (1991), Wallerstein (1999), Bhawuk (2002),
Sklair (1994-1999), and others consider expanding communication and access to
information as a modern phenomenon, Robertson (1992), Waters (1995), and Held
(1999) believe that the history of this situation goes back to pre-modernity era. In
this regard, it can be traced that various definitions and conflicting views have been
insisted on massive expansion of communication along with the broad and rapid
access to information. Universalization denotes a process of spreading various
objects, practices, and experiences to the different parts of the planet. Hence, there
is globalization when things, values, and practices have spread worldwide. This
interpretation of globalization entails homogenization of culture, politics, economy,
and laws. As homogenization progresses, globalization destroys several
indigenous cultures and practices. If Western modernity spreads and destroys
local cultures, this variant of universalization is known as Westernization, neo-
colonialism, Americanization, or McDonalidazation.

Scholte (2008) notes that there are issues arising from these misconceptions. First,
universalization is not a new feature of world history. The migration of the human
species that took place a million years ago is one great example of globalization in
the ancient times. The continuous spread of the major religions like Christianity
and Islam since their foundation constitutes another instance of globalization which
is not confined to contemporary period.

This is how Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels described in 1909 the modernization
of industry, trade and consumption - in a word “civilization”, which they perceived
as an expression of the progressive role of bourgeoisie in history:

“The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the
bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere,
settle everywhere, and establish connections everywhere.

The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a
cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To
the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry
the national ground on which it stood. All old/established national industries
have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by
new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all
civilized nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw
material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose
products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe.
In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find
new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and
climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency,
we have intercourse in every direction, universal interdependence of
nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual
creations of individual nations become common property. National
one/sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible,
and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world
literature.

33 | P a g e
 GE 319 – THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD

The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production,

by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the
most barbarian, nations into civilization. The cheap prices of commodities
are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which
it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate.
It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of
production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their
midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world
after its own image”.

Second, westernization is not only path that can be taken by globalization as shown
by the studies on oriental globalization. From the fact that the term of
westernization was shaped by an American (the sociologist Daniel Lerner, from
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology), to the today’s explosion of Internet and
of all services afferent thereto (that are used in English language and convey the
values of the “American lifestyle”). The Westernization of the world unfolded in a
constant rhythm and in spite of the Soviet opposition; as a matter of fact, the very
denouement of the Cold War must be seen as a product of the “westernization of
the world”. But many people prefer to talk about the “Americanization of the world”,
leading to the anti-American reactions.

Please check:
Marx, Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, ed. a IX-a, Political Publishing
House, Bucharest,1969, p. 40-41.

34 | P a g e