Global Perspective On Globalisation

Disaffection, animosity, and perhaps fear are the words that some would use to describe their emotions towards the phenomenon known as ‘globalisation’, for they theorize that it has led to a staggering increase in social inequality in nation-states, both internally and externally, increases unemployment, social exclusion and threatens the living standards of many, among other things (Shiva, 2005). Others argue that globalisation renders extensive opportunities and advancements to the whole world (Shiva, 2005). Globalisation is said to be instrumental in bridging the gap between the wealthy and the poor, the technologically-advanced and those lagging behind technologically, but most importantly, it is unifying the world into a “global village”

Held and his colleagues published a book titled Global Transformations in which they discuss three perspectives on globalisation – the hyperglobalisers, sceptics and transformationalists. The hyperglobalisers postulate that we occupy a rapidly growing global world in which nation-states are being subject to huge change both politically and economically. They put forward the theory that the sovereignty of nation-states is diminishing, including the power held by politicians. Globalisation can be identified everywhere, according to them. States are seen as decision-takers and not decision-makers. (Held in Giddens, 2005) Sceptics reject the view of the hyperglobalisers and argue that today’s globalisation is not unprecedented (not new). They argue that nation-states have supplemented and strengthened their sovereignty in numerous domains due to the escalation of international and social relations in recent times. The transformationalists argue that politics are no longer and can no longer be confined to national-states. They are not predicting the future, but they are merely stating that globalisation is generating innovative economical, political and social situations, which, however, are unevenly altering the sovereignty of nation-states and how they function in their respective countries (Held in Giddens, 1999). Debates between these schools of thought reflect the misunderstandings, contradictions, confusion on the concept of globalization and its consequences or

Cultural globalisation is multidimensional but the most of paradoxical dimension is that of “glocalisation” (Robertson, 1997). Culture refers to the way of living of certain persons (Giddens, 2002) and it is what makes people distinct from one another. Glocalisation (a portmanteau of globalisation and localisation) refers to the adaptation of a global product, service or idea which is then customised in accordance with a locality or a culture where it is sold in order to be successful (Rouse, 2014). It is two-folds and thus contradictory. On one hand, glocalisation implies “particularisation of the universal”, that is, universal ideas, goods and services are adapted and adjusted in order to accommodate certain cultures found in different localities. McDonald’s has glocalised its products in the sense that it offers different menus in different localities dominated by different cultures – e.g. in India, McDonald’s outlets proffer mutton burgers (due to the prohibition of beef-consumption) and outlets in France offer foir gas containing burgers. (SocProf, 2011) Contrary to this, glocalisation also leads to the universalisation of the particular, that is, the principles, values and products of a particular culture or locality have been propagated to the whole world and therefore have become global principles, values and goods. For example, Islam