Advocates of this camp would probably concede that globalization is exacerbating ethnic conflicts. Politically-speaking, Khor maintains that globalization is what, Third World referred to for many centuries as colonization (Alison 2012). Financially speaking, Gill condemns globalization for “Intensification of alienation, exploitation along with commodification of individual life and nature” (Alison 2012). Both Khor and Gill point out that globalization is an instrument steered by the Western hegemons to spread capitalistic and democratic
Globalization is the development of international influence in an organization. Reciprocity and globalization are important factors for purpose of trade. Nonetheless, if concepts much like these two are misunderstood or misused in our economy, it could lead to a negative impact. For example, In “Mr. Trump’s Trade War” written by Douglas
These determinants are as follows: 1. Domestic competitive pressures: refers to the increasing competition between rivals that are both domestic and foreign. When the competitive pressure is higher, the result will be a greater perceived benefit that is commenced with internationalization (Eroglu, 1992). 2. External change (agent) influences: are concerned with the degree of the impact from establishments that are outside the company, in terms of government agencies, banks, and industrial associations.
No matter how brutal or irrational such a movement might be, it nevertheless offered a sense of identity to those who had never sufficiently gained one or who had lost the one they had possessed. At this point, anti-Semitism could be seen as a catalyst that triggered the rise of totalitarianism, and all of them have their roots in imperialism. Also Arendt puts into perspective political and economic differences between Russia and Germany – private versus state property, an idea of superiority of a race versus domination of proletariat. Likewise points out that there are some similarities- such as brainwashing of the masses by means of propaganda and control by fear. The ‘’totalitarian man’’ could be
Cultural theories of globalization typically line up along one of three positions (Tomlinson, 1999; Nederveen & Pieterse, 2004). First, theories of homogenization see a global cultural rapprochement and tend to emphasize the rise of a world beat, world cuisines, world tourism, uniform consumption patterns, and cosmopolitanism. Second, heterogeneity approaches focus on continued cultural disparities and highlight local cultural autonomy, cultural resistance to homogenization, cultural clashes and polarization, and distinct subjective experiences of globalization (Esfahani, 2017: p.125). Finally, hybridization theory stresses new and ever-changing cultural forms and identities produced by numerous transnational processes and the merging of distinct cultural processes. In addition, hyperglobalists view globalization as a process, which has an internal logic and predictable outcome, and the global society as being based on a fully integrated market.
Conflicts which appear as a mere inter-ethnic differences consisted of multifaceted variables (Lubo, 2012). He mentioned a number of ethnic conflicts that occurred after 1991 and their causes and concludes: “In spite of the creation of ethnic federalism as an endeavor to address inter-ethnic conflictual problems with Ethiopia” (ibid, 2012:66). Thus, the ethnic federal arrangement has become major source of ethnic conflicts over identity, territory and claims to power and resources. Moreover, according to Mesfin (2006), ethnic conflicts are the results of deliberate manipulation of ethnic sentiments and identities by either leader of ethnic groups or government officers who want to use conflicts as a means of securing economic and political
It is a law of nature that those in power who fear or detest others will seek to have those ‘others’ silenced. The justification for these deplorable acts is that these attacks are for the betterment of the masses. Sacrifices are suggested only by those who seek to profit, unless it is their own life. In all examples of mass hysteria, superstition leads to prejudice. In Nazi Germany, the idea that Jews were responsible for the horrible reparations after the Great War was common.
Consequently, ethnic conflict arises among rational agents over scarce resources driven by the aims of political leaders for political or economic gains or a deliberate manipulation based on a rational decision to incite or encourage ethnic violence. Ethnic conflict is therefore the result of actor’s rational activity of widespread interest such as prosperity, power and security.5 c. Constructivism (If plagiarism matters, change the content as required) The constructivist theory perceives ethnic identity as a socially constructed and fluid entity that can be formed through various means including conquest, colonization or immigration. Ethnic groups are recognized to be social constructions with ‘identifiable origins and histories of expansion and contraction, amalgamation and division’. They are fluid and originate within a set of social, economic and political processes. Constructivists argue that each society has a historically constructed master cleavage and narrative
Grievance as conflict drivers Theories of Grievance: The following section looks into the evidence of grievance and social inequality as the source of violent conflict. In contrast to the theory of greed proposed by Collier and Hoefller (2004), many argue that the theory of grievance allows for the better explanation of the occurrence of the violent conflict. Central to grievance is identity and group formation (Murshed and Tadjoeddin, 2009). Theories of grievance can be divided into (i) relative deprivation, (ii) polarization and (iii) horizontal inequality (Murshed and Tadjoeddin, 2009). (i) Relative deprivation: As defined by Ted Gurr (1970), relative deprivation “is he discrepancy between what people think they deserve, and what
The "recognition of difference" becomes a major theme in the claims and social struggles of contemporaneity, taking the form of an identity politics that has aimed more at valorising the difference than promoting equality (FRASER, 2007: . 297) .. According to the author, the change from the redistribution to a cultural politics of recognition is part of a historical transformation of larger scale associated with the globalization and the neo-liberalism. In Fraser 's view (2007), this subordination of one policy relative to another masks the fundamentalism of free market advocated by neo-liberal economy, which can, nevertheless, perpetuate the social injustice, avoiding a basic redistributive policy and - we add - the very radical transformation of the State. In such a way, the demand