Globalization, Globalism, and Globality

During lecture this week, professor King pointed out the difficulty of defining the commonly used word, "globalization". The overuse of this word in perhaps too many contexts without careful discrimination has virtually made this word devoid of any meaning--or perhaps rendered the word to mean anything. I hope to provide a useful set of definitions that might clear up the confusion regarding the word.

In Globalization of the "A Very Short Introduction" series (British Politics, you will remember, is also of the series), Manfred B. Steger attempts to define this multifaceted and multidimensional term. Steger, while acknowledging that "there exists no scholarly consensus" on the essence of globalization, outlines the "thematic overlap in various scholarly attempts" to define this term (Steger 9).

1. "Globalization involves the creation of new and the multiplication of existing social networks and activities that increasingly overcome traditional political, economic, cultural, and geographical boundaries."
2. "The second quality of globalization is reflected in the expansion and the stretching of social relations, activities, and interdependencies."
3. "Third, globalization involves the intensification and acceleration of social exchanges and activities."
4. Finally, globalization "[fosters] in people a growing awarenss of deepening connections between the local and the distant."
(9-13)

While this quick outline does not do justice to Steger's systematic attempt to define the term, one thing we should note is the fact that globalization refers to a set of processes, and shouldn't be confused with the terms globalism and globality.

Globalism: "an ideology that endows the concept of globalization with neoliberal values and meanings" (94)
Globality: "[signifies] a social condition characterized by the existence of global economic, political, cultural, and environmental interconnections and flows that make many of the currently existing borders and boundaries irrelevant." (7)

To sum it up, globalization is a SET OF PROCESSES, globalism is AN IDEOLOGY, and globality is a CONDITION. Steger's criticisms against the ideology of globalism is as follows:

1. Oversimplification of the term globalization by equating the multidimensional set of processes as a mere global integration of markets.
2. The idea that globalization is inevitable and irreversable: a teleological perspective.
3. The view that nobody but the 'invisible hand' and technology are responsible for globalization (and its negative effects), thereby demobilizing antiglobalist movements.
4. The view that globalization benefits everyone.

With these terms defined, I think an interesting discussion can follow regarding where Meredith stands. Can Meredith be accused of espousing globalism, the ideology? There is a good argument to be made for the affirmative, but I would say no. While her book heavily emphasizes the economic developments of India and China, i.e. the economic dimension of globalism, she is not writing on globalization per se, nor does she claim to do so. Second, she posits the future of the two countries' economies as more integrated and open, but she balances it with the prospects of political obstacles that may hinder this development. It may be somewhat more difficult to free Meredith from Steger's third criticism. Meredith's book gives the impression that the culprit behind the job destruction in the U.S. and low wages for Chinese factory workers is none other than the 'invisible hand', market forces over which individuals have no control. But maybe that is simply true, and we shouldn't be in the business of pointing fingers at economic participants; perhaps we should seek to remedy these negative effects through channels such as improving education in the U.S. Finally, Meredith balances the good effects of the economic dimension of globalization (e.g. creation of jobs, higher standards of living) with the bad effects (e.g. job losses, environmental issues).