Globalisation has been perceived by some observers to be a
recent phenomenon which has led to a more integrated world; as Hopkins points
out the term ‘globalisation’ is a fairly recent addition to the academic
lexicon.¹ However several of these academics
in question such as Clark point out that, ‘there is not a single globalisation;
only globalisations.’² Globalisation is by no means a recent occurrence but a
historical process to which a considerable amount of scholarly work has tried
to establish it in a historical framework. For example Hopkins separates
globalisations into four stages of advancement of Archaic Globalisation,
Proto-Globalisation, Modern Globalisation and Post-colonial Globalisation which
have been present for over a millennium.³
Within this discussion the diverse discourse of globalisation
will be analysed in order to establish what globalisation is and to what degree
it has developed throughout the stages which attempt to structure it. The initial
aim of this discussion will be to define what globalisation is by contemplating
the numerous theories that have been composed in the globalisation argument.
The arguments that globalisation has been a product of the opposing
philosophies of Liberalism and Realism will then be considered as a means of
seeing how globalisation has advanced which will help explain the issues of
globalisation where it is limited or harmful to a society. Then by using a
historical framework the issue of how advanced globalisation was during the
period before 1914 will be compared to contemporary globalisation.
Academics who define globalisation can be highly focused on a
particular process in order to classify it and then feel any other aspects
following on from it but are not necessarily part of the procedure. For example
Hobsbawn’s definition focuses on a globalisation of economics which is, ‘an
increasingly elaborate and intricate worldwide division of labour in a
increasingly dense network of flows and exchanges that bound every part of the
world economy to the global system.’⁴ McLuhan would instead point to a
process of advancement in transport, technology and communications that lead to
a compression of time-and-space which creates a more intimate worldwide
community which he terms a ‘Global Village’ which allows for development of
things like a world economy.⁵ Others however do not like to make
specific assumptions about what Globalisation involves preferring a ambiguous
term which can apply to a broad degree of subjects. McGrew for example feels
that globalisation is, ‘simply the widening, deepening and speeding up of
worldwide interconnectedness.’⁶ This definition does touch upon
exactly what globalisation is, it is not the progress of a single system or
entity but the advancement of everything that makes up human behaviour on a
global scale, however its minimalist nature does then raise the question of
what ‘worldwide interconnectedness’ means? Should it be employed as a word that
has to be applied to different systems and entities like economic and social
relations or can it exist independently? Baylis, Smith and Owens also provide
broad definition of Globalisation while establishing what fields of worldwide
human activity it interconnects when they say, ‘A globalised world is one in
which political, economic, cultural and social events become more and more
interconnected and also one in which they have more impact.’⁷ Although not the most elegant definition it does identify
what events are affected by the process of globalisation and provide a
classification of what globalisation involves. It may ignore some activities
such as the importance of technology, which McLuhan’s ‘Global Village’ emphasises,
but in reality technology is only a tool created by human activity which may
allow for tighter interconnectedness but it is not a reason for it. This definition will therefore apply to the
rest of this discussion as the fixed classification of what globalisation is.
To provide this article with a historical framework for
Globalisation, Robertson’s three waves of globalisation theory will be
acknowledged. Robertson’s analyse states that Globalisation has been an evolving
process over the previous five centuries; beginning with the first wave between
1500 and 1800 which saw the globalisation of regional trade, followed by the
second wave between 1800 and the early twentieth-century in which
industrialisation provided an impetus for further globalisation and finally the
third wave which accounts for the years of following 1945 which lead up to the
present day.⁸ This theory differs from Hopkins’ account by stressing that
Globalisation during the second wave collapsed which helps explain how
contemporary globalisation has been perceived to be unique, because while it
has developed from previous waves of Globalisation it is not a direct
descendant.⁹ This also implies that between the
second and third waves there has not been a stable advancement in
globalisation, which means that the assumption that the contemporary world is
more globalised is idle speculation.
Liberalism
has been one of the core principles of the modern era’s economy, society and
politics. Its core philosophy rests on the ideal of progress in fields of human
undertaking such a working towards democratic government and providing an
unrestricted economy which in turn helps the progress of a society or
individual in terms such as wealth, freedom or happiness.¹⁰ While Liberalism is
not opposed to the ideas of states, in fact it encourages the sovereignty of
states, it does aspire to the idea of internationalisation and greater global
interconnections by everyone whether they be states or individuals.¹¹ Realism
on the other hand feels that humanity is not so enlightened or innovative,
especially in regards to States. Realists believe the State is the most
powerful actor in an international scene of anarchy, in which there is no
global institution which can effectively control or regulate the activities of
the States on the international arena, unlike a national government on a
domestic stage.¹² States are motivated by a central desire to survive and in
order to accomplish such a thing a strong national framework will be created in
order for it to effectively pursue and react to policies which put national
interests first.¹³ This means that a State may avoid seeking policies which
establish a more internationalised world and may work against other States in
order to pursue their own benefits even if they go against ideals of human
progress. It may seem that Liberalism is a theme that fits in most with
Globalisation because it seeks interconnectedness; but Realism can create a
globalised world too. States may have to interact with other states in order to
secure themselves; this maybe done in a hostile manner by conquest or by trying
to preserve the balance of power between states in order to prevent being
intimidated. Alternatively states may cooperate in order to pursue mutual
interests which affect them or that are part of their concern such as defence
or prosperity. Both Liberalism and Realism have been ideals present during the
last two waves of Globalisation and have both been significant in its progress.
The
first wave of Globalisation between the sixteenth and eighteenth-century was
based upon trade links throughout the world, especially those in the maritime
ports of Eurasia and Africa.¹⁴ While its
extent was limited it provided the basis for future development because it was
an era dominated by competitive trade and enterprising in which there was a wealth
of capital, ideas from across the globe and resources being amassed, especially
in Europe yet not exclusively.¹⁵ In Britain there was a general desire to rise
above the competition, therefore several innovative manufactures were
encouraged to utilize the capital, resources and technological ideas available
to them in order to revolutionise industry.¹⁶
Industrialised manufacturing spread providing
further impulsion to be innovative and was able to revolutionise technology by
producing original manufactured products like the steam-engine and the
telegraph which improved the mobility and communicative ability of
industrialised society which widened its scope and intensity.¹⁷
Industrialisation was a defining feature of first world countries by 1914 as it
granted states with the ability to produce items necessary for
self-sufficiency, modernisation and security for the state against rivals.¹⁸
Industrialisation also led to an increase of output and demand for raw
materials which encouraged economic actors to look globally for sources of
materials and markets to sustain growths of production and trade.¹⁹ The initial
method of providing such opportunity was the increasing adoption of liberal
economics in which free or freer trade encouraged imports and exports to flow
more easily and rapidly on a global scale and provided an increasingly mutual
economic understanding of prosperity amongst industrialised states.²⁰ Desire of
prosperity encouraged trading and investment even between economic rivals due
to the mutual desire of economic progress, for example before 1914 the City of
London had investments in the USA worth a potential £1billion.²¹ While
colonisation was nothing new there was an increasing aspiration in the second
half of the nineteenth-century to colonise and exert stronger influence over
non-industrialised countries like South Africa and China amongst the
industrialised powers which led to over half the globe being under the formal
or informal influence of a few Great Powers by 1914.²² There were multiple
reasons for imperialism, partially it was still a way of finding new markets
and sources of raw materials but also the idea they could and wanted to
dominate territories so their trade would remain secure and could be conducted
on their terms so they could sell manufactured goods for as high as possible
and either bought resources for as little as possible or controlled the source
itself, essentially they exploited the undeveloped world as it lacked the
powers of reisistance.²³ The capitalist economy of industrialised countries of
the nineteenth-century at first persuaded and then dragged countries into a global
economic network which was to touch and transform every country by 1914.²⁴
In
political terms the principal of liberalism was becoming increasingly accepted
as a necessary component of government in the industrialised world with every
country, including autocracies like Turkey and Russia, granting liberal
concessions by 1914.²⁵ However political relations between states were largely
still based on realist ethics such as balance of power or imperialism; the
Concert of Europe from 1814 onwards provided the Great Powers with a framework
for conducting diplomatic relations which helped decide things like debates
over territorial possessions such as during the Conference of Berlin in 1885
which established order to imperial expansion in Africa.²⁶ Imperialism coerced
a quarter of the globe into obeying their authority which forced them into a
global political system led by the Great Powers which would erupt in 1914 with
the outset of world war. Global politics did exist before 1914 but it was far
from harmonious or even voluntary.
Society
was becoming more aware of its globalised nature; the chief indicator of an
increasingly globalised society would be the rates of migration before 1914
which brought more people from different backgrounds together, for example over
15 million emigrated to the USA between 1899 and 1914.²⁷ However while improved
communications and transport such as the telephone made it easier for social
interactions between countries, international social movements were still in
their infancy as only those who could afford the means for regular
correspondence between states could do so, there was for example no popular international
working-class movement.²⁸ Culture was beginning to spread too, a global
consumer culture was beginning to emerge and ideas such as Christianity, race
and liberalism were becoming known throughout the world; however with the
exception to Christianity this cultural extension could only be enjoyed by
those who could afford it.²⁹
Every
human activity was becoming increasingly globalised but this was a trend that
was to be impeded by the outbreak of two world wars and economic collapse after
1914 which led to less faith in economic, social, cultural and political
interconnectedness and an increasing feel that states could only rely on
themselves which led to a breakdown in globalisation.³⁰
The
third wave of globalisation accounts for the contemporary world, one in which
several historians regard as less globalised economically as opposed to the
1870 to 1914 period.³¹ In terms of flows of capital and labour it does appear
that contemporary globalisation is less expansive than its predecessor.³²
However economically globalisation appears to be more intense with improved
communications and transport, led by revolutions in software and aviation,
making financial and material transactions easier, cheaper and more frequent.³³
There has also been a shift in actors since 1914; the USA is now the centre of
financial interactions, several third world countries are now the primary
suppliers of manufactured goods due to the availability of cheap labour,
trans-national corporations oversee the vast majority of international trade
and investment as opposed to the national corporations of the nineteenth-century
and now economic production is primarily focused on providing material for
consumption by the masses.³⁴ These economic connections do not heavily rely on
imperialism, and while the USA is the only world superpower and can deploy
coercive measures like manipulating decisions by the International Monetary
Fund about where money should be distributed, economic liberalism is the
primary reason for such connections.³⁵
In
political terms liberalism has also advanced as a basis of domestic politics
and is providing a global framework for relations in multiple fields such as
economics and diplomacy with the United Nations, which helps intensify
interconnectedness still further.³⁶ However states have by no means reached
completely mutual understandings and can pursue their own policies like the
USA’s ‘war on terror’ which shows division still exists in international interests
even if it is less intense.³⁷
While
rates of migration may not have advanced beyond its pre-1914 levels, the world
is becoming more socially interconnected, with more international social
interactions and organisations.³⁸ Alongside this there has been the massive
advancement since 1914 of a global culture, due to a economic focus in
providing consumer products for the masses leading to a spread in a cultural
demand and availability of things like film, music and sport which are
principally western in their orientation.³⁹ In combination with improved
technology that provided the ease and ability for such advancements, the
improved liberal interconnectedness of politics and economics provided the
increasingly harmonious and expansive will to encourage this social and cultural advance.
The
world was highly globalised by 1914; in fact in some areas like the global
economy the contemporary world has only recent surpassed the levels of
interconnectedness experienced before 1914. The nature of it has certainly changed
though, the cultural and social interconnections before 1914 have advanced due
to innovations in technology, transport and communications which made such
things more readily available to the masses. Also despite tags like
Americanisation being applied to contemporary global politics and economics,
the increased emphasis on liberalism throughout the globe has made contemporary
interconnections more voluntary unlike the system before 1914, even if they
have not alleviated disparity. The period before 1914 saw the whole world
globalised for the first time, its collapse in the inter-war years meant that
it has to have been reconstructed which has enabled globalisation to advance
beyond its 1914 levels in a different yet uneven manner.
Endnotes
1. A.G.Hopkins,
Globalization in World History (Pimlico,
2002), p.13
2. I.Clark,
Globalization and International Relations
(Oxford, 1999),p.35
3. Hopkins, World History, pp.3-9
5. M.McLuhan,
Understanding Media (London, 1964),
p.6
6. A.McGrew,
‘Globalization and Global Politics’, in John
Baylis, Steve Smith, & Patricia Owens (eds),The Globalization of World Politics, (New York, 2004), pp.16-32
7. J.Bayliss,
S.Smith, and P.Owens, The Globalization
of World Politics (New York, 2004), p.8
8. R.Robertson,
The Three Waves of Globalization: A
History of a developing global consciousness’ (London, 2003),p.9
9. Ibid., pp.151-167
10. Baylis,
World Politics, pp.4-8
11. Ibid., pp.4-8
12. T.Dunne,
and B.C.Schmidt, ‘Realism’, in John Baylis, Steve Smith, & Patricia Owens
(eds), The Globalization of World
Politics, (New York, 2004), pp.92-105
13. Ibid., pp.92-105
14. Robertson,
Three Waves, pp.105-106
15. Ibid., pp.105-106
16. Ibid., p.106
17. Ibid., pp.130-148
18. Ibid., pp.130-148
19. Ibid., pp.130-148
20. T.Dunne,
‘Liberalism’, in John Baylis, Steve Smith, & Patricia Owens (eds), The Globalization of World Politics, (New
York, 2004), pp.110-121
21. D.Peter, War and Progress: Britain 1914-1945 (London,
1997),p.43-46
22. E.J.Hobsbawm,
The age of empire, 1875-1914 (London,1987), pp.56-65
23. Robertson,
Three Waves, pp.117-167
24. Hobsbawn,
Extremes, p.204
25. Ibid., p.110
26. D.Armstrong,
D., ‘The Evolution of International Society’, in John Baylis, Steve Smith,
& Patricia Owens (eds), The
Globalization of World Politics, (New York, 2004), pp.38-51
27. Hobsbawn,
Extremes, p.88
28. Hobsbawn,
Empire, pp.112-142
29. Hopkins,
World History, pp.38-40
30. Hobsbawn,
Extremes, pp.88-111
31. P.Hirst,
and G.Thompson, Globalization in Question
(2nd edn, Cambridge, 1999), pp.19-96
32. D.Cohen,
Globalization and its Enemies (The
MIT Press, 2006), p.27
33. D.Reynolds,
‘American globalism: mass, motion and the multiplier effect’, in A.G.Hopkins
(ed),Globalization in world history
(Pimlico, 2002), pp.243-257
34. Ibid., p.245
35. N.Lowe,
Mastering Modern World History (4th edn, London, 2005), pp.583-602
36. McGrew,
‘Global Politics’, pp.16-32
37. Dunne,
‘Realism’, pp.92-105
38. Clark,
International Relations, pp.35-47
39. Hobsbawn,
Extreme, pp.190-198
No comments:
Post a Comment