http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_elite
Above is the link to a Wikipedia entry about the "Global elite". A lot of the points made in class regarding this global elite, as well as in articles like the LiPuma/Lee article, are echoed here. My reason for choosing this to incorporate into my blog post is because I believe it represents an aspect of Globalization that really has not been seen before. If Wikipedia were to have existed throughout history, this article would not have existed until this iteration of Globalization.
The article defines the global elite as the "richest and most powerful people who control the world" (Wikipedia), i.e. politicians, bankers, and even "lesser mortals". As a concept, the 'global elite' may have existed in the past. One might think back to the intermarrying of European royalty and point to this as an example of a group of people who control a dramatically disproportionate amount of power on the world stage. What's different, however, are two things: Transnationalism and the Internet. While there may have existed elites in the past, they were certainly not global, or not nearly as global as they are today; even intermarried European royalty held allegiances to their home country. Today's global elite do not hold such an allegiance. As LiPuma and Lee note, "global connections have changed the game" (LiPuma and Lee). These global connections allow the elites to operate across national boundaries, which allows their influence to transcend said boundaries. As a result of this, national allegiance no longer becomes necessary, or even desired, in the name of profits and market shares. That's what differentiates this edition, so to speak, of Globalization from ones in the past - the Internet and Transnationalism have combined to allow for the elites of the world to truly become global in nature, shedding their national allegiance for international business, essentially forming their own nation and economy.
I find the point you make very interesting how global elites of the world now truly become global in nature because they could shred thier national allegiances. I think a good example of such elite would be Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt. They are not what you think of elite if you are only factoring politics and economics however Jolie and Pitt have been extremely involved in international humanitarian aid and spreading awareness. Additionally their shed their national allegiance by having one of their children born in the south of France.
ReplyDeleteI think it is very compelling to compare the global elite of European Royalty in the past to what we think of as global elite today. I think that technology plays a huge factor. Sure back then, if your country were involved with one of these global elites in some sense, then you had at least some sort of connection. But a majority of the world had no idea who these people were. So I think that the global elite was relative in that sense that they were elite to the people connected to you. Thanks to technology and transnationalism, these "borders of connection" have been relatively eliminated and the global elite are truly global in nature.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I do concede though is the idea that technology is what you make of it. Some people do not care to be as involved so do not know of the global elite to the same sense as others do. This makes it similar to that of the global elite of old.
I find your post to be interesting in how it looks at global elites. I like the comparison to the old global elite, European royalty, compared to today's wealthy elite. Due to the spread of technology, the elite today look more like businessmen, bankers, celebrities etc. You mention the global elite are no longer attached to their one country, and appear to be transcending national boundaries. Are global elite a threat to the state? Will states cease to exist as we know it with an increase in globalization and global elites?
ReplyDeleteAs everyone else has said I think the connection to the European royalty is really profound and interesting. I would argue that the European royalty that intermarried may have been globalization back then because the known world was much smaller and thus, though today this would seem like a very regional thing, back then it truly had "global" consequences. In regards to the global elite of today, technology has definitely allowed them to increase their international power. I personally don't see the global elite as a threat to the future of the state, however I am curious to know how much power you think they hold over states? I think that states will push back and actually want the global elite to be based in their own country, even though the business is transnational and the global elite could empower the state instead of threaten it.
ReplyDeleteI also find it very interesting to compare the global elite of the past to the ones of today. It is interesting to see how that although they hold the same position in society the two are very different in the sense that the old global elite appeared more in their own country where as those of today are in fact known globally and are not solely attached to their own country.
ReplyDelete