This picture portrays a satirical irony in that the man using the Internet is trying to start an "Anti-Globalization" movement by using one of the tools of globalization. When people discuss globalization, one of the key tools of globalization is unquestionably the Internet because it provides the ability for people all over the world to connect with one other nearly instantaneously. In the reading for class on Tuesday that was cancelled, Stephen Kobrin argues that globalization exists especially in cyberspace where geographic borders cannot prevent the spread of ideas, influence and culture. Though he uses this idea to argue that the state has become relatively less important and may continue to decline in an increasingly globalized world, his ideas still apply to this picture as the world is becoming increasingly connected through cyberspace. The picture shows the interconnectedness of the world through tools such as the Internet. In some ways the man can be seen as a state trying to argue against globalization to maintain sovereignty, while at the same time directly benefiting from it.
This picture, in essence, shows that, although some people may be against globalization for whatever reason, they ultimately still use its benefits. The man using the Internet to argue against globalization fails to recognize that without globalization, he would never have had the Internet in the first place and thus could not have reached all the people who he is trying to recruit to his movement. It is one of the great ironies of globalization that people who are against it generally directly benefit from it each and every day, assuming they live in one of the more powerful and wealthy countries.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that internet is a great tool for globalization. It allows ideas to spread quickly and to most places, assuming they have internet access and its not blocked or filtered by a government. I believe there are plenty of people who benefit from globalization but oppose it. It is ironic that they use globalized tools to spread their message, they could be even more ironic if they continue to buy clothing, coffee, etc from another country. When living in a developed country I think it is increasingly difficult to opt out of globalization. You only address how the developed world plays into this. While there are plenty of people in developed countries that use the tools of globalization to spread their message of anti-globalization, what about the people who don't have access? Do they support globalization or do they simply not have the tools to spread their message?
ReplyDelete^That's an interesting point that you make Julie, I guess even if they did support or oppose globalization the people who do not have access to the internet or other tools can't spread their message. However, just because of their inability to spread a message I'm sure they have an opinion. I believe that within such cultures it's probably divided where older generations are more against globalization and younger generations have a curiosity that inspires them to learn more.
ReplyDeleteThe same could be said for groups like al Qaeda and ISIS - anti-globalizers who depend upon globalizing technologies...
ReplyDeleteMight we want to think about globalization as a series of processes instead of jsut one? Is it possible to be anti-free trade (or at least anti-free trade deal that does not protect workers and the environment) and yet pro-internet? Anti-global terrorism yet be for bringing the world together? Clearly the guy in the cartoon isn't doing this, but should we? Can we pick and choose what we like about globalization or is it a single entity.
In other words - if we want to make the world a better place do we have to choose to globalize or not or can we work within globalization to bring about different outcomes?
This is quite similar to my comment on Valerie's post as well...
I think that Professor Shirk brings up a great point in the fact that we cannot pick and choose which aspects of globalization we want to benefit from. As Valerie said, many older generations may be against globalization, but still use the tools to spread their ideals. Globalization is a continuing process that states will need to adapt to if they do not want to become "fully invested" in globalizing. I believe that there are many means of slowing down the globalization processes, but no true means of stopping them without taking away tools that are necessary to the survival of today's state.
ReplyDeleteI think the point about people without access is very interesting. There are few, if any, places in the world where in some way or another the average person does not feel the effects of globalization. In some way, as Valerie said, I think they would have to have some opinion on it, but may not have direct access to specific tools. So while they may be anti-globalization in some respects, perhaps a lack of internet access or telecommunications would prevent them from spreading that message. I think Valerie said it best that there is probably a generational divide but that each individual probably has an opinion. I also agree with Professor Shirk that globalization is a series of processes and I would argue it is extremely difficult to be 100% anti-globalization. I think it is very possible to be against something like free trade, yet be all for greater communications and access to information from around the world. I believe that working within a general framework of globalization we can make the world a better place. I think as time goes on it will show which aspects work and are beneficial and which are actually hurting the majority of people and thus can be modified. Most importantly, however, I do not think globalization can work for the good of all people until each state is on an equal playing field when it comes to protecting the rights of citizens. Until that happens, globalization by its very nature will likely lead to the "haves" taking advantage of the "have-nots" for the foreseeable future.
ReplyDeleteI agree that globalization is making the state less important. The internet makes the facilitation of revolutions and various grass roots movements much easier to organize. There are benefits as well as negatives to globalization. It facilitates legitimate peace and humanitarian movements but there is also a dark side to it. Terrorist organizations such as ISIS and Al-Queda use the internet as a way to recruit new members and spread there message. ISIS can recruit members that are halfway across the world and stream horrible acts of violence and disregard for human life anywhere in the world using the internet.
ReplyDelete