Archives>GLOBALIZATION> GLOBALIZATION Week 2 . 12 sep 2002 . Class Notes

GLOBALIZATION Week 2 . Class Notes Major debates and historical context: In what ways are the trends associated with modern globalization different from the internationalization of previous periods? 09.12.02 Readings: GT: 1 "The Territorial State and Global Politics" Intro, Chapter 1 Janet Abu-Lughod, "All the Silks of China", Ch. 10 of Abu-Lughod, Before European Hegemony: The World System 1250-1350 Are we more integrated than previously? Is the system now established such that reversal is impossible? How does it affect the power of the nation-state? What causes globalization POLITICAL: reduced power of the nation-state increased power of financiers and capitalists TECHNOLOGICAL: communications revolution Is it good or bad? (wealth, health, quality-of-life, cultural diversity as standards of measurement) Does "globalization" = "Westernization"? If it is new, when did it start? - with the fall of the Soviet Empire? with the rise of the Internet? HYPERGLOBALISTS Neo-liberalist The world is one large market and is unified under Anglo-American values. The nation-state is an outdated paradigm, and its power has been reduced by the advent of a single global market with power residing in multinationals, transnational trade arrangements, and the global capital market. This view posits that we are now at "The End of History" - much like Hegel-Marx suggesting the end of history in their world view Neo-Marxist/radical This is the triumph of oppressive global capitalism, accompanied by the decline of social democracy, and the replacement of sovereignty with global market-based government Skeptics This is not unprecedented and is, in fact, nor more integrated than during the Colonial Era; national governments still play the defining role and regionalism is much more significant a model than globalism...maybe it even precludes it; examine, also, the increasing division between haves and have-nots Transformationalists Yes, there is "globalization", but we're not necessarily moving toward an endpoint; the realtionship between the components has changed, but the components are still the same (labor vs capital, national boundaries, merket integration, etc) What is different about globalization now? Let's look at China, circa 13th C AD we see evidence of the complexity and extensity of overlapping cultures none of these cultures were poised to "inevitably" assume premier position in the world arena - except for China China was poised because it connected the northern Silk Road with its southern seafaring ports, thereby enabling commerce far beyond its boundaries nonetheless, the trade was not intensive - it was confined to luxury items and, like subsequent historical events, this period of expansion was followed by contraction - probably greatly attributable to the Plague...China drew back into itself at a point in hostory when it could have conquered the world given the prevalence of Western ideology we tend to think of the "inevitability" of the rise to prominence of Western culture; a more thorough reading of history tells us that this is not a consequence of "divine inspiration" but more of cirumstance Because China removed itself from the world stage and because the Islamic culture did not have sufficient resources to assume primacy, so it was that within a power vacuum European culture was able to spread unimpeded...and in its spreading it changed the xourse of world history by way of its interaction and subjugation of the New World...truly a "new world" in that vast resources and labor supplies were there for the exploitation Global Transformation: Introduction What is an empire? this term is associated with rule, not necessarily with complex government indistinct boundaries in which military power does not necessarily translate into political power Medieval Europe was not "empire" - localized, non-sovereign states 15th-18th C we see the development of the modern nation-state fiscal rule centralization standing armies formalization of relatins between states TYPES: absolute monarchy v constitutional monarchy Imperialism pre-1830 - confined to search for luxury goods post-1830 - with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the search for raw materials caused the forcible opening of markets apogee: GB in 1914 controlled 20% of the world's markets 20th century - we begin to see the emergence of non-state players 1960's - revolutions in Africa - nonetheless they made use of the Europena-created "nation-state" paradigm More recently: unprecedented relationships in power distribution global politics - not so much "state politics" global government - transnational linkages addressing transnational problems international regimes - both implicit and explicit norms and procedures - e.g. United Nations, Internet, IMF, World Bank, Kyoto Protocol, World Court, International Human Rights Commission, etc global civil society - exisitng in between the level of the state and the individual, these entities are non-territorial, flexible Old globalism v New globalism reduced emphasis on nation-state political boundaries no longer defined by the nation-state intense interconnectedness, conflicting loyalties, conflicting interpretations new types of boundary problems diminished distinction between "foreign" and "domestic" Bush's speech today on Iraq Nation-state v international law Bush's attempt to justify the use of pre-emptive force couched in framework of international law Today's speech by Bush was an attempt to pull domestic opinion behind a unilateral action that usurps the domain of what is traditionally considered international law - not at all an attempt to change the character of international law