Globalization is a word we have been hearing on and on for the last years and a concept that will persist in years to come. Nowadays, we live in a world where people are more connected and related to each other than ever before; we live in a world easy to travel through, a world in which one person can live in Canada and have a business in India. Communication, travel, and commerce have all joined become ???international??? issues. All of these are effects of the globalization phenomenon.
Within the four texts that were assigned for this task I found several things in common and several issues with which I agree. The first one is the fact that globalization is a concept that lacks a precise definition. In his article, David Held suggested that to really know the impact of globalization we are in the need of knowing what in means and what its implications are. I agree with this idea since the whole globalizing concept began with a merely economical integration or economical interrelation among nations but it soon transformed into a much more complex concept difficult to define and understand; a concept involving so many features but in particular and most importantly one that Samuel Huntington predicts to be the source of future conflicts: culture.
Among the many elements I came to agree with, one that I personally find interesting and very complicated is the idea that globalization puts at stake the fate of nation-state??™s identities and power. In his book The Lexus and the Olive Tree, Thomas L. Friedman states that the defining perspective of globalization is integration and it ranges from trade, the economy in general to telecommunications and culture. This integration demands each nation to nation to worry more and first about international issues, especially in the economic sphere, rather than by certain national issues. By the presence of globalization, as Benjamin R. Barber said ???all national economies are now vulnerable to the inroads of larger, transnational markets???, these national markets are losing its autonomy and are giving it international entities such as banks or trade associations.
In Jihad vs. McWorld, Barber describes globalization and retribalization as two forces acting ???with equal strength in opposite directions???. I agree with the opposite directions part since the second one acts towards global failure. But I do not agree with the idea that they are forces operating with the same strength since globalization has become an inevitable phenomenon that has been constructed by the huge westernization of the world and is far more ???viable??? than retribalization. The problem here would be the non-Western countries because at one time or another globalization is going to reach them and they will have to adjust to avoid the cultural clashes that Huntington spoke of.
In my opinion, each of the four texts have clear ideas that are valid today due to the popularity and increasing the issue of globalization. As I mentioned at the beginning, today the world is more homogenized, increasingly we are witnessing the integration of regional economic blocs, each time we see how the world is influenced by the dominant country in the issue of globalization: United States; “but it is not alone in Influencing the moves on that gameboard “(Thomas L. Friedman. The Lexus and the Olive Tree). Maybe the fate of this world will not be as it has been predicted by the many authors that have stated an opinion on the subject, but the truth is that the world as we know it will not be the same in years to come. The first and most important step, in my opinion, is to know the true meaning of the word globalization because none will be able to fully understand and analize an undefined concept.