What/Where is Globalization?

June 10, 2004 11:50 AM

Where is this globalization one hears so much about? [More inside.]

Most people in the world will find it difficult or impossible to accompany the Euro 2004 football tournament. European, American, Asian and African products - including everything from easily transmissible stuff like TV programmes to popular products such as foodstuffs and clothes - continue to be limited to their own markets, often strictly national.

A very tiny amount of imported goods are available - but at outrageously high prices and only to cosmopolitan minorities. Even the Internet is mostly hamstrung by national strictures and provisos. Even wiithin the E.U. or the U.S.A. the availability of enormous amounts of products is still antiquely limited by location. Prices vary tremendously. Disparities reign. You have to travel. Or arrange postal exchanges, the old-fashioned way. Inner knowledge is still uppermost.

Do Americans in general, even New Yorkers, feel somehow connected to the rest of the world? Do Europeans feel connected to the American countries? Is the world really "at our fingertips"?

Is this globalization? What a load of utter bollocks!

posted by MiguelCardoso to grab bag (19 comments total)

Try looking at it on the industrial level, not the consumer level, and you'll see more going on. Labor, lending, materials, imports/exports... Try the manufacturing industry for starters. Huge shifts in recent decades. Perhaps we're not at the point where one country makes the potato chips for the entire world yet. But it is getting more and more expensive to manufacture cars in America, and had you ever heard of a Korean car brand 20 years ago? Now there are 3 widely available where I live. Look deeper, Migs.
posted by scarabic at 12:00 PM on June 10, 2004

Globalisation: the things you consume are not made anywhere near you.

Globalisation: some dude in Portugal posting stuff all over a site in the USA.

etc.
posted by mookieproof at 12:00 PM on June 10, 2004

Do Americans in general, even New Yorkers, feel somehow connected to the rest of the world?

I feel more connected every time I read your words, Miguel! At some level the globalization you are hearing so much about has more to do with globalization of capital. That means that businesses are free to invest in other countries and create goods and services with few legal or financial hurdles to overcome. You can see this locally [and less controversially] in the US. Why are all banks incorporated in the state of Delaware? Because they find the most favorable economic climate to maximize their profits while continuing to be able to do business.

At the international level you see this in the outsourcing that goes on in America, the shifting of jobs overseas [to unskilled workers in Chinese prisons perhaps or more skilled tech workers in Bangalore, all working for less than Americans legally need to be paid. Much much less in some cases] and the importing of goods into the US.

Poor people don't see much or any of this, but there are indications by the World Bank and IMF that the baseline standard of living in most of the "third" world is increasing [not as much as the profits of companies like Nike, but you get the idea] so that, for example, people die of typhoid and diarrhea and other preventable diseases much less than they did before. More people have access to health care. More people can afford the basic necessities of life. Fewer people starve to death. There are other bad things that the IMF and World Bank do to countries to make them open to Western markets, but these facts are hard to deny.

At an activist level, it's important to make the distinction between being against globalization per se, and being against some of the free market tactics of big corporations that want to maintain the benefits for them of being American companies but would still like to take advantage of the more lenient environmental and wage regulations of "less developed" nations. For example, Wal-Mart benefits from many American laws and infrastructure, yet makes large profits selling many products [mostly?] made in China. That's globalization.

So, to be brief, globalization is more of an economic term than an "it's a small world after all" reality to schlubs like you and I.
posted by jessamyn at 12:10 PM on June 10, 2004

including everything from easily transmissible stuff like TV programmes to popular products such as foodstuffs and clothes - continue to be limited to their own markets, often strictly national.
Seems like you have described a limit issue by not sharing.
posted by thomcatspike at 12:17 PM on June 10, 2004

scarabic is right, especially when it comes to raw materials. Really, Migs, look at your largest expenditures: Your home was probably constructed locally out of materials made or harvested in faraway places; your car (even if its Portugese, assuming the Portugese make cars) is probably made of steel and rubber from the Pacific Rim, with brake components made by Scandanavian metallurgists, an Israeli fuel filter, English bushings, and a Japanese radio; your beef may be locally raised but fed by American grain; your booze both domestic and imported; your telephone and internet controlled by Canadian equipment, et cetera.
posted by trharlan at 12:19 PM on June 10, 2004

Sitting at my desk in the UK I see before me: my keyboard made in China, my monitor in Korea, my diary in Italy, pen in Germany, mobile phone in China, printer cartridge in the UK, wallet in Spain, sunglasses in Italy, bottle of wine in Spain, camera film in France, lightbulb in Poland. The trousers I'm wearing are made in Turkey, my shoes in Spain, and my T-shirt in the UK. I can't find any other 'made in' labels within reach, but I know that my desklamp was purchased from a Swedish multinational, and the entire contents of my room are insured by a German Insurance company.
posted by gravelshoes at 12:34 PM on June 10, 2004

Also bear in mind that the word is "globalization" not "gloablity."

In other words, it is a process which is underway, developing. It began with traderoutes that saw spices and textiles pass on the backs of camels. Today, it's manifest in all kinds of new ways that reflect the technology of our times and the geopolitical climates around the world.

I've dealt with teams of data-miners in India, and with another contractor in Switzerland who managed his own team in Russia. Our American company was eventually bought out by an Israeli competitor who operates a UK office too. The website is still online, literally at your fingertips right now. Call it like you see it.

Are there still membranes at borders? Yes. Is everything maximally "gloablized," such that nothing around you is produced locally? No, of course not. Is the trend toward shorter distances and thinner membranes increasing? Absolutely. The whole process only has a word because some people believe it's at the tipping point.

You like to chit chat about how people in different countries think of and feel toward each other. I have no idea what place that has in this discussion, really. But consider that, thanks to the cheap airfare we all enjoy, I've travelled to a couple dozen countries in the world in my day, so I probably feel differently toward the peoples of the world than my grandfather, who only got to travel when the Army sent him around the world for war, and wayyy differently than his father, who probably never left the country once.
posted by scarabic at 12:45 PM on June 10, 2004

I just got back from a trip to Tokyo. Met some clients I had worked for before but hadn't actually met (or even spoken with over the phone).

Strolling through Yoyogi Park, I encountered two groups of people practicing the same obscure pastime as I do, hung out with them, and talked shop for a while.

During this trip, I took a side-trip to the resort area of Hakone, and went hiking in the nearby mountains. On the trail, I met a guy from the nearest large town, who had lived for four years in Houston (the nearest major city to me).

So, yeah, in my world at least, I'm seeing the "it's a small world after all" effect.
posted by adamrice at 12:46 PM on June 10, 2004

I'm interested in my family's genealogy. On my pedigree chart, which contains hundreds of individuals for whom I have dates and places of birth and death, down to my grandparents' generation 95% of the time people died in the same small Dutch towns in which they were born, and with the exception of my grandparents, very few of them ever traveled outside the Netherlands or spoke a foreign language.

In my generation, in the cohort consisting of me, my siblings and my cousins, about 40 individuals in total, about 75% of us have moved away from our places of birth; 15% have moved out of the country, 90% of us have traveled internationally and speak a language other than Dutch fluently.

That's globalization.
posted by beagle at 2:04 PM on June 10, 2004

Even the Internet is mostly hamstrung by national strictures and provisos.

Really? That hasn't been my experience. Admittedly, here in the US I can find 99% of what I'm looking to buy online at US sites, but I haven't had any problems going outside the US. I once wanted a book that had been published in the UK, but was a month or two away from publication in the US and not available from any of the usual US sites. I ordered it from a UK bookstore with no more difficulty than I have ordering from a US site. For music, I often go to the Canadian mymusic.com, which tends to have better prices than the better-known online stores. I've bought stuff on eBay from outside the US with no problem.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:06 PM on June 10, 2004

There is a(n academic) definition of globalisation that suggests that it is about increasing the number of international connections, that I will try to find tomorrow when I am more sober (MC - hoist onyour own petard?). I would suggest this is not about how you feel but about your actual level of connectivity.
posted by biffa at 3:13 PM on June 10, 2004

I will say that postal services have done nothing to globalize this world (except steal a lot of shit and lose a lot of postcards and letters). Damn.
posted by scarabic at 4:03 PM on June 10, 2004

I live in Southern California and am currently unemployed.

On my desk are:
1. Apple Powerbook ("designed in California", built in Taiwan)
2. Revo Sunglasses (Italy?)
3. Sony Clie PDA (Japan)
4. Rotring pen (Germany)
5. Lamy ink (Germany)

under the desk are:
6. Nintendo Gamecube (Japan)
7. Western Digital hard drive (US/Malaysia?)
8. Clarks shoes (UK)
posted by Kwantsar at 4:10 PM on June 10, 2004

Many thanks! Was I deeply misinformed on this subject or what? This'll teach me to pay at least a little more attention to "the dismal science".

Thanks also for the patient, as-if-explained-to-a-child tone: it really is the only way of teaching the ignorant without alienating them. :)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:19 PM on June 10, 2004

"Strolling through Yoyogi Park, I encountered two groups of people practicing the same obscure pastime as I do, hung out with them,"

---> insert bukkake joke here
posted by matteo at 4:53 AM on June 11, 2004

so how is globalization different to imperialism? a wealthy englishman 70 years ago could have made a similar list to kwantsar's (noting that he owns a lot of expensive things even though he's not actually working). isn't globalization just a new word for the rich screwing the poor as normal? if you read kwantsar's post (not picking on them, just using a simple example) could anyone not have guessed the nationality of the writer (or small set of possible nationalities)?
posted by andrew cooke at 4:31 PM on June 11, 2004

isn't globalization just a new word for the rich screwing the poor as normal?

No. Screwing the poor would be if companies in wealthy nations didn't give jobs to people in developing nations.
posted by kindall at 6:51 PM on June 11, 2004

Why are all banks incorporated in the state of Delaware? Because they find the most favorable economic climate to maximize their profits while continuing to be able to do business.

Something funny about that that relates to globalization: The state of delaware is famous in the US for presenting an attractive environment in which to incorporate. Delaware makes a lot of money off this. Other states, naturally, have decided to compete, some (Nevada) going so far as to literally adopt Delaware's relevant legal frameworks (so i've been told by people who's business it is to tell me these things). But, lawyers will still advise new companies to incorporate in Delaware, because investors expect to see "Cardoso.com, a Delaware Corporation" on the front page of legal docs.

Basically, Delaware has a brand built totally around a bunch of laws. Other states have the exact same laws, but Delaware is able to charge a premium for doing business there because of this brand. It's like something Bruce Sterling would make up.

I wonder if this will happen more in the future. An entity, primarily defined by it's geographic extents, creates value by creating...what, intellectual property? conditions, something ephemeral, then becomes a recognized brand relating to this totally ephemeral concept. Maybe something to do with Singapore and healthcare. Maybe that's just Holy Fire talking.
posted by jeb at 8:45 PM on June 11, 2004

Oh yeah, one more thing Miguel:

In April, I was in India for a while (I live in the US). I arrived in my hotel room on the calendar day +2 from when I left the US to find a 'western' toilet (accompanied by the bucket) and a cable tv. Airports, planes, and hotels and their relationship to Globalization would probably be sufficient fodder for a million PhDs at College on the Hill from White Noise, but moving on...

It was 2am and my body clock was probably mad at evolution. So I did what everyone does in that situation: watch MTV. MTV India, at that time of night, shows mainly indian videos, which are 10X more homogeneous than any european or north american music channel I've ever encountered: every single one starts with a boy pleading in front of a girl, the girl rebuffs him, is revealed to have a huge crew of dancers behind her, then the boy steps up his plea and is revealed to have a huge crew of dancers behind him. Thriller-style. The craziest part is, the melody and instrumentation generally sound like Indian music (sorry Indian music fans for lumping Karnatic music in with bangra, I'm willfully ignorant), and 85% of the dancing is what Americans would think of as "Indian" (eg there are a lot of hands raised to faces on the part of females and then flipped flirtily/dismissively, pelvic gyration is more Hula than hip-hop).

But that last 15%, that last 15% is straight Thriller moves, copied right out of the original MJ video. They don't make sense, because the dancers aren't pretending to be zombies, but they are instantly recognizable, just like they are when Justin Timberlake and Britney Spears rehash them during super-bowl half-time shows in the US.

That's crazy! My friend, from Houston, TX, recently moved to Cairo, after living in Spain for a year, and after I told him this, he told me that in his travels, he's never met a guitarist who can't play a fragment of Hotel California.

During the day, MTV India plays more international (ie US- and UK-born) music. That's arguably more insane, but less striking. If you're a hip-hop producer sitting in front of your powerbook in Brooklyn, you could realistically put together a track (presumably made of samples from old Bollywood movies, Blaxploitation soundtracks, and Kung-Fu movie quotes (sorry Miguel, fado will have it's day)) that would be greeted with hands in the air cheering in clubs as far away as India days from finishing it. The Indian club kids will know all the words, or at least some reasonable imitation of them. At the bars in Bangalore, you hear Bon-Jovi, but at the clubs, you hear the DJs spinning the same Murder, Inc. releases you hear in B&T bars in NYC.
posted by jeb at 9:09 PM on June 11, 2004