Globalization

Globalization is the process of transformation of local or regional phenomena into global ones. I certainly don’t understand what that means and I don’t think most people do either. In this argument I’m going to take the anti-globalization stance and try to shed some light on those so devoted to the idea of globalization. Some experts describe globalization as: Integration on the basis of a project pursuing "market rule on a global scale" (P. McMichael, Development and Social Change, 2000, p. xxiii, 149), and "The inexorable integration of markets, nation-states, and technologies to a degree never witnessed before-in a way that is enabling individuals, corporations and nation-states to reach around the world farther, faster, deeper and cheaper than ever before . . . . the spread of free-market capitalism to virtually every country in the world " (T.L. Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree, 1999, p. 7-8).  It is becoming popular to think that globalization is a negative aspect of the world, but there are reasons as to why globalization would promote growth and diversity. Just a few would be that interaction across boundaries leads to the mixing of cultures in particular places and practice, cultural flows occur differently in different spheres and may originate in many places, and integration and the spread of ideas and images provoke reactions and resistance. Click here to read more on this Globalization Website

First things first, while it is true that globalization does encourage free trade among all of the world’s countries; it leaves the poorer tier of countries at a disadvantage to the larger, more powerful ones. This is usually because of the systems these countries use. The larger countries have used globalization as growth, and they have power to spare. The smaller countries support themselves mostly with their agriculture. This is all well and good, but the countries with the bigger economies choose to subsidize their farmers, which actually lowers the market price for the poor country’s crops, at least comparatively with the free trade price. This leaves those farmers at a disadvantage.

                The farming problem indirectly leads to another issue; the one of cheap labor. Industrialized nations like the United States bring in labor from other, less industrialized countries for incredibly low wages, long hours, and unsafe working conditions. However, the salaries are high enough that the workers will have no choice but to work there because the subsidies in larger countries harm the farming in the smaller ones. This is the precise reason these countries subsidize the farming and choose not to rectify the problems of inequality. If they did, then the cheap labor would disappear and prices for their country would rise substantially. So what these governments have created is a very delicate balance between these countries that no one else sees. A strong percentage of the GDP in the lower tier economy countries comes from remittances from these workers. So now we’ve created a system where the poorer countries can’t work for themselves due to the unfairness of the market, and a part of their economies depends on their salaries which they receive here, which is more than they’d get in their own countries. So they either work here, or starve.

                Critiques of the current wave of economic globalization typically look at both the damage to the planet, in terms of the perceived unsustainable harm done to the biosphere, as well as the perceived human costs, such as poverty, inequality, miscegenation, injustice and the erosion of traditional culture which, the critics contend, all occur as a result of the economic transformations related to globalization. Globalization used to be widely celebrated as a new birth of freedom: better connections in a more open world would improve people's lives by making new products and ideas universally available, breaking down barriers to trade and democratic institutions, resolve tensions between old adversaries, and empower more and more people. Many leaders in the West supported the advent of a new world order through free trade and political cooperation. By the late 1990s, cheerleading turned into jeremiads, a banner became a bull's-eye. The term globalization was used increasingly to express concern about the consequences of global change for the well-being of various groups, the sovereignty and identity of countries, the disparities among peoples, and the health of the environment. Politicians opposed to America's global influence and activists opposed to the inequities of oppressive global capitalism now portray globalization as dangerous. Globalization has thus become an issue in a wide-ranging global debate.

There are well over 6,000 languages of the world, many of which currently face extinction at the hands epidemics, malnutrition, poverty, and tribal warfare. These are all human threats and globalization hasn’t even been mentioned yet. On top of this, there are probably tens of thousands more languages that have long become extinct for many of the same reasons as above well before the 19th century, when the modern trend of globalization found its footing. In this context, it is somewhat difficult to defend modern globalization being on the short list of menaces to linguistic preservation.

In the past, the languages in danger have been the ones that nobody knows about. The ones that get overlooked. When you go to school in another country and learn that language and you begin to speak that language alone. The native tongue will get overlooked and forgotten as they have no one to speak it with. And it continues to happen until the language becomes extinct. This is an argument for anti-globalization as well. Websites like ethnologue.com keep some vigilance over the 'health' of languages, documenting for the world just which languages are in trouble. Over this global network, a global research community works to identify, understand, and record the world's languages, providing some accountability for their continued preservation. This allows people to keep track of who’s in trouble and how it’s affecting that country. As English evolves into the world's de facto language of commerce and information exchange, progressively more places of the world will adopt it as a second language. It remains to be seen whether English will displace existing languages in these locales or supplement them (there has been evidence of both). About 75% of the world's mail, telexes, and cables are in English. Approximately 60% of the world's radio programs are in English, and about 90% of all Internet traffic is using English. It is clear how English is really becoming the language to know in the world today; since the US, Great Britain, and Australia are some of the largest contributors to the world economy, and the main language is English for all three.

Some feel that globalization is the same as communism. Some people feel that the idea of coming into a country and changing the language and the customs and the like will lead to a span of the same. If a country continues to do the same thing then the country will take over the world and there will be one language, one race, one economy, etc. Which is communism on a grander scale. It is a standard complaint about globalization saying that it leads to cultural homogeneity. Interaction and integration diminish difference; global norms, ideas or practices overtake local mores; many cultural flows, such as the provision of news, reflect exclusively Western interests and control; and the cultural imperialism of the United States leads to the global spread of American symbols and popular culture. The United States is definitely a scapegoat of the problems in the world. Especially now with the war in Iraq. The world feels that the United States is simply trying to impose their government, ideals, and money into Iraq and trying to change it to be an American front in the middle east. Both "right" and "left" opponents of globalization tend to regard the United States as a hegemonic power that influences globalization to its own advantage, harming the economic, cultural, and environmental interests of the rest of the world. While I think it is unfair that the United States gets this rep, you must try to see this from the other end of the spectrum. Apart from this progressive opposition, there is also a more conservative kind. Various religious groups, notably Islamic activists, oppose globalization because to them it represents a civilizational threat: the imposition of alien values, homogenization of the globe on secular terms. Their opposition, supported by some nonreligious groups, often takes the form of a particularist defense of communal tradition. This area of conflict will exist for decades to come.

The second sentence of the conclusion doesn't flow very well.  Overall the essay was very good, one thing I noticed was in your conclusion mentioned ideas that were not really talked about in your essay until the closing paragraph.  More info on american influence on the world and a reference of were you got your information would support your claim better.  But your other points and examples were excellent.

1. purpose and resonance 5

2. reasoning and content 5

3. structure/organization 9

4. expression 5

SCOTT 24/25