Rethinking Globalization: Glocalization/Grobalization and Something/Nothing

While there are good reasons for the interest in, and preference for, glocalization among globalization theorists,²⁴ it is clearly overdone. For one thing, grobalization (especially of nothing) is far more prevalent and powerful than glocalization (especially of something). For another, glocalization itself is a significant source of nothing.

One of the best examples of the glocalization of nothing is to be found in the realm of tourism (Wahab and Cooper, 2001), especially where the grobal tourist meets the local manufacturer and retailer (where they still exist) in the production and sale of glocal goods and services (this is illustrated in quadrant two of Figure 2). There are certainly instances, perhaps even many of them, where tourism stimulates the production of something- well-made, high-quality craft products made for discerning tourists; meals lovingly prepared by local chefs using traditional recipes and the best of local ingredients. However, far more often, and increasingly as time goes by, grobal tourism leads to the glocalization of nothing. Souvenir shops are likely to be bursting at the seams with trinkets reflecting a bit of the local culture. Such souvenirs are increasingly likely to be mass-manufactured, perhaps using components from other parts of the world, in local factories. If demand grows great enough and the possibilities of profitability high enough, low-priced souvenirs may be manufactured by the thousands or millions elsewhere in the world and then shipped back to the local area to be sold to tourists (who may not notice, or care about, the “made in China” label embossed on their souvenir replicas of the Eiffel Tower). The clerks in these souvenir shops are likely to act like non-people and tourists are highly likely to serve themselves. Similarly, large numbers of meals slapped together by semi-skilled chefs to suggest vaguely local cooking are far more likely than authentic meals that are true to the region, or that truly integrate local elements. They are likely to be offered in “touristy” restaurants that are close to the non-place end of the continuum and to be served by non-people who offer little in the way of service.

Another major example involves the production of native shows- often involving traditional costumes, dances, and music- for grobal tourists. While these could be something, there is a very strong tendency for them to be transformed into nothing to satisfy grobal tour operators and their clientele. Hence these shows are examples of the glocalization of nothing because they become centrally conceived and controlled empty forms. They are often watered down, if not eviscerated, with esoteric or possibly offensive elements removed. The performances are designed to please the throngs of tourists and to put off as few of them as possible. They take place with great frequency and interchangeable performers often seem as if they are going through the motions in a desultory fashion. For their part, this is about all the grobal tourists want in their rush (and that of the tour operator) to see a performance, to eat an ersatz local meal, and then to move on to the next stop on the tour. Thus, in the area of tourism- in souvenirs, performances and meals- we are far more likely to see the glocalization of nothing than of something.
The Glocalization of Something
The example of the glocalization of something in Figure 2 (quadrant 1) is in the realm of indigenous crafts like pottery or weaving. Such craft products are things and they are likely to be displayed and sold in places like craft barns. The craftperson who makes and demonstrates his or her wares is a person and customers are apt to be offered a great deal of service.

Such glocal products are likely to remain something, although there are certainly innumerable examples of glocal forms of something (see below for a discussion of kokopelli figures and matryoshka dolls) that have been transformed into glocal, and in some cases grobal, forms of nothing. In fact, there is often a kind of progression here from glocal something to glocal nothing as demand grows and then to grobal nothing²⁵ if some entrepreneur believes that there might be a global market for such products. However, some glocal forms of something are able to resist this process.

Glocal forms of something tend to remain as such for various reasons. For one thing, they tend to be costly, at least in comparison to mass-manufactured competitors. High price tends to keep demand down locally, let alone globally. Secondly, glocal forms of nothing are loaded with distinctive content. Among other things, this means that they are harder and more expensive to produce and consumers, especially in other cultures, find them harder to understand and appreciate. Furthermore, their idiosyncratic and complex character make it more likely that those in other cultures will find something about them they do not like or even find offensive. Third, those who create glocal forms of something are not, unlike larger manufacturers of nothing, pushed to expand their business and increase profits to satisfy stockholders and the stock market. While craftspeople are not immune to the desire to earn more money, the pressure to do so is more internal than external and it is not nearly as great or inexorable. In any case, the desire to earn more money is tempered by the fact that the production of each craft product is time-consuming and there are just so many of them that can be produced in a given time. Further, craft products are even less likely to lend themselves to mass-marketing and advertising than they are to mass manufacture.
Which Comes First: Nothing or Its Grobalization?
At this point we need to deal with a difficult issue: Is it possible to determine which comes first- nothing or its grobalization? The key components of the definition of nothing- central conception and control, lack of distinctive content- tend to lead us to associate nothing with the modern era of mass production. After all, it is the system of mass production that is characterized by centralized conception and control and it is uniquely able to turn out large numbers of products lacking in distinctive content. While there undoubtedly were isolated examples of nothing prior to the Industrial Revolution, it is hard to find many that fit our basic definition of nothing.

Thus, as a general rule, nothing requires the prior existence of mass production. However, that which emanates from mass-production systems need not necessarily be distributed and sold globally. Nevertheless, as we have discussed, there are great pressures on those who mass produce nothing to market it globally. Thus, there is now a very close relationship between mass production and grobalization; the view here is that both precede nothing and are prerequisites to it.

Take, for example, such historic examples of something in the realm of folk art as kokopellis from the Southwestern United States and matryoshka dolls from Russia. At their points of origin long ago in local cultures, these were clearly hand-made products that one would have had to put close to the something end of the continuum. For example, the kokopelli, usually depicted as a archbacked flute player, can be traced back to at least 800 A.D. and to rock art in the mountains and deserts of the Southwestern United States (Malotki, 2000; www.acaciart.com/stories/archive 10.html). Such rock art is clearly something, but in recent years, kokopellis have become popular among tourists to the area and come to be produced in huge numbers in innumerable forms (figurines, lamps, key chains, light switch covers, Christmas ornaments, and so on) with increasingly less attention to the craftsmanship involved in producing them; indeed, they are increasingly likely to be mass-produced in large factories. Furthermore, offending elements are removed in order not to put off potential consumers anywhere in the world. For example, the exposed genitals, that usually accompanied the arched back and the flute, have been removed. More recently, kokopellis have moved out of their locales of origin in the Southwest and come to be sold globally. In order to be marketed globally at a low price, much of the distinctive character and craftsmanship involved in producing the kokopelli is removed. That is, the grobalization of kokopellis has moved them even closer to the nothing end of the continuum.

A similar scenario has occurred in the case of the matryoshka doll (from five to as many as thirty dolls of increasingly small size nested within one another) (www.giftogive.com/doll.htm), although its roots in Russian culture are not nearly as deep (little more than a century) as that of the kokopelli in the culture of the Southwestern United States. Originally, hand-made and hand-painted by skilled craftspeople, and made from seasoned birch (or lime), the traditional matryoshka doll was (and is) rich in detail. With the fall of communism and the Soviet Union, Russia has grown as a tourist destination and the matryoshka doll has become a popular souvenir. In order to supply the increasing demand of tourists, and even to distribute matryoshka dolls around the world, they are now far more likely to be machine-made; automatically painted; made of poor quality, unseasoned wood; and greatly reduced in detail. In many cases, the matryoshka doll has been reduced to the lowest level of schlock and kitsch in order to enhance sales. For example, the traditional designs depicting pre-communist nobles and merchants have been supplemented with caricatures of global celebrities like Bill Clinton, Mikhail Gorbachev, and post September 11^th- Osama bin Laden (Korchagina, 2002). Such mass-produced and -distributed matryoshka dolls bear little resemblance to the folk art that is at their root. The mass production and grobalization of these dolls has transformed that which was something into nothing. Many other products have followed that course and still more will do so in the future.

While we have focused here on non-things (that were at one time things), much the same argument can be made about places, people and services. That is, they too, especially in the realm of consumption, have come to be mass manufactured and grobalized. This is most obvious in virtually all franchises where settings are much the same throughout the world (using many mass-manufactured components), people are trained and scripted to work in much the same way, and the same “services” are offered in much the same way. They have all been centrally conceived, are centrally controlled, and are lacking in distinctive content.

Grobalization and Loss

Grobalization has brought with it a proliferation of nothing around the world and while it carries with it many advantages (as does the grobalization of something), it has also led to a loss as local (and glocal) forms of something are progressively threatened and replaced by grobalized (and glocalized) forms of nothing.

This reality and a sense of loss are far greater in much of the rest of the world than they are in the United States. As the center and source of much nothingness, the United States has also progressed furthest in the direction of nothing and away from something. Thus, Americans are long accustomed to nothing and have fewer and fewer forms of something with which to compare it. Each new form of, or advance in, nothing barely creates a ripple in American society.

However, the situation is different in much of the rest of the world. Myriad forms of something remain well-entrenched and actively supported. The various forms of nothing, often, at least initially, imports from the United States, are quickly and easily perceived as nothing since alternative forms of something, and the standards they provide, are alive and well.²⁶ Certainly large numbers of people in these countries demand and flock to nothing in its various forms, but many others are critical of it and on guard against it. The various forms of something thriving in these countries give supporters places, things, people and services to rally around in the face of the onslaught of nothing. Thus, it is not surprising that the Slow Food Movement, oriented to the defense of “slow food” against the incursion of fast food, began in Italy (in fact, the origin of this movement was a battle to prevent McDonald’s from opening a restaurant at the foot of the Spanish Steps in Rome) and has its greatest support throughout Europe (Cummer, 2002).
The Increase in Nothing! The Decline in Something?
A basic idea, even a grand narrative, in this essay is the idea that there is a long-term trend in the social world in general, and in the realm of consumption in particular, in the direction of nothing. More specifically, there is an historic movement from something to nothing. Recall, that this is simply an argument about the increase in forms that are centrally conceived and controlled and are largely devoid of distinctive content. In other words, we have witnessed a long-term trend from a world in which indigenously conceived and controlled forms laden with distinctive content predominated to one where centrally conceived and controlled forms that are largely lacking in distinctive content are increasingly predominant.

There is no question that there has been an increase in nothing and a relative decline in something, but many forms of something have not experienced a decline in any absolute sense. In fact, in many cases forms of something have increased, but they have simply not increased at anything like the pace of the increase in nothing. For example while the number of fast food restaurants (non-places) has increased astronomically since the founding of the McDonald’s chain in 1955,²⁷ the number of independent gourmet and ethnic restaurants (places) has also increased, although at not nearly the pace of fast food restaurants (Nelson, 2001). This helps to account for the fact that a city like, to take an example I know well, Washington, D.C. has, over the last half century, witnessed a massive increase in fast food restaurants at the same time that there has been a substantial expansion of gourmet and ethnic restaurants. In fact, it could be argued that there is a dialectic here and the absolute increase in nothing sometimes serves to spur at least some increase in something. That is, as people are increasingly surrounded by nothing, at least some are driven to search out, or create, something. However, the grand narrative presented here is more about the relative ascendancy of nothing and the relative decline in something, and not about absolute change.

Nonetheless, at least some forms of something (e.g., local groceries, cafeterias) have suffered absolute declines and may have disappeared or be on the verge of disappearance.

It could be argued that all of these have been victims of what Joseph Schumpeter (1950) called “creative destruction”. That is, while they have largely disappeared, in their place has arisen successors like the fast food restaurant, the supermarket, and the “dinnerhouse” (e.g. Cheesecake Factory) (Jones, 2002). While there is no question that extensive destruction of older forms has occurred, and that considerable creativity has gone into the new forms, one must question Schumpeter’s one-sidedly positive view of this process. Perhaps some things have been lost, even some measure of creativity, with the passing of these older forms. It may be that the destruction has not always been so creative.

However, no overall value judgment needs to be made here- forms laden with content are not inherently better than those devoid of content, or vice versa. In fact, there were and are many forms rich in content that are among the most heinous of the world’s creations. We could think, for example, of the pogroms that were so common in Russia, Poland and elsewhere (Klier and Lambroza, 1992). These were largely locally conceived and controlled and were awash in distinctive content (anti-Semitism, nationalism, and so on). Conversely, forms largely devoid of content are not necessarily harmful. For example, the bureaucracy, as Max Weber (1921/1968) pointed out, is a form (and ideal type) that is largely lacking in content. As such, it is able to operate in a way that other, more content-laden, forms of organization- those associated with traditional and charismatic forms of organization- could not. That is, it was set up to be impartial, to not, at least theoretically, discriminate against anyone.

There is very strong support for the argument, especially in the realm of consumption, that we are in the midst of a long-term trend away from something and in the direction of nothing. By the way, this implies a forecast for the future- we will see further increases in nothing; further erosions of something, in the years to come.

The Economics of Nothingness

Several points can be made about the economics of nothing. First, it is clear that, in general, there is an inverse relationship between income and nothing. That is, those with money can still afford to acquire various forms of something, whereas those with little money are largely restricted to nothing.²⁸ Thus, only the affluent can afford expensive bottles of complex wine, or gourmet French meals with truffles. Those with little means are largely restricted to Coca Cola, Lunchables, microwave meals, and McDonald’s fries.

Second, there is an economic floor to this and those below a certain income level cannot even afford much of that which is categorized here as nothing. Thus, there are those near or below the poverty line in America who often cannot afford a meal at McDonald’s or a six-pack of Coca Cola. More importantly, there are many more people in the less developed parts of the world who do not have access to, and cannot afford, such forms of nothing. Interestingly, extreme poverty relegates people to something- home-made meals and -brews made from whatever is available. However, in this case it is hard to make the argument for something. These forms of something are often meager and those who are restricted to them would love to have access to that which has been defined here, as well as by many people throughout the world, as nothing.

Third, thinking of society as a whole, some minimum level of affluence and prosperity must be reached before it can afford nothing. That is, there are few ATMs, fast food restaurants, and Victoria’s Secrets in the truly impoverished nations of the world. There simply is not enough income and wealth for people to be able to afford nothing; people in these societies are, ironically, doomed- at least for the time being- to something. Thus, they are more oriented to barter, preparing food at home from scratch, and making their own nightgowns. It is not that they would not readily trade their something for the forms of nothing described above, but they are unable to do so. It seems clear that as soon as the level of wealth in such a country reaches some minimal level, the various forms of nothing will be welcomed and, for their part, the companies that produce them will enter eagerly.

Fourth, even the wealthiest of people often consume nothing.²⁹ For one thing, as has been pointed out previously, nothing is not restricted to inexpensive (non-)places, (non-)things, (non-) people and (non-services). Some forms of nothing- a Four Seasons hotel room, a Dolce and Gabbana frock, the salesperson at Gucci, and the service of a waiter at a Morton’s steakhouse- are very costly, but they still qualify as nothing- relatively empty forms that are centrally conceived and controlled- as that term is used here. The consumption of these very expensive forms of nothing are obviously restricted to the uppermost reaches of the economic ladder.

Fifth, the wealthy are drawn to many of the same low-priced forms of nothing that cater to the mass of the population, even those who would be considered poor, or very close to it. Thus, a credit card knows no income barriers, at least at the high end of the spectrum, and the same is true of ATMs. The wealthy, especially wealthy teenagers, are just as likely to be attracted to fast food restaurants as are those from virtually every other income group.

There is no simple relationship between wealth and nothingness.

Grobalization vs. Glocalization

Returning to the issue with which we began this discussion, one of the key contributions here is the argument that the/a key dynamic under the broad heading of globalization is the conflict between grobalization and glocalization. This is a very different view than any of the conventional perspectives on global conflict. For example, I think a large number of observers have tended to see the defining conflict, where one is seen to exist, as that between globalization and the local. However, the perspective offered here differs from that perspective on several crucial points.

First, globalization does not represent one side in the central conflict. It is far too broad a concept encompassing, as it does, all transnational processes. It needs further refinement to be useful in this context, such as the distinction between grobalization and glocalization. When that differentiation is made, it is clear that the broad process of globalization already encompasses important conflicting processes. Since globalization contains the key poles in the conflict, it therefore is not, and cannot be, one position in that conflict.

Second, the other side of the traditional view of that conflict- the local- is relegated to secondary importance in this conceptualization. That is, the local, to the degree that it continues to exist, is seen as increasingly insignificant and a marginal player in the dynamics of globalization. Little of the local remains that has been untouched by the global. Thus, much of what we often think of as the local is, in reality, the glocal. As the grobal increasingly penetrates the local, less and less of the latter will remain free of grobal influences. That which does will be relegated to the peripheries and interstices of the local community. The bulk of that which remains is much better described as glocal than local. In community after community, the real struggle is between the more purely grobal versus the glocal. One absolutely crucial implication of this that it is increasingly difficult to find anything in the world untouched by globalization. Ironically, then, the hope for those opposed to globalization, especially the grobalization, of nothing, seems to lie in an alternative form of globalization- glocalization. This is hardly a stirring hope as far as most opponents of grobalization are concerned, but it is the most realistic and viable one available. The implication is that those who wish to oppose globalization, specifically grobalization, must support and align themselves with the other major form of globalization- glocalization.

Yet, glocalization does represent some measure of hope. For one thing, it is the last outpost of most lingering, if already adulterated (by grobalization), forms of the local. That is, important vestiges of the local remain in the glocal. For another, the interaction of the grobal and the local produces unique phenomena that are not reducible to either the grobal or the local. If the local alone is no longer the source that it once was of uniqueness, at least some of the slack has been picked up by the glocal. It is even conceivable that the glocal, and the interaction among various glocalities, is, or at least can be, a significant source of uniqueness and innovation.

REFERENCES

Abate, Tom. 2002. “Biotrends.” San Francisco Chronicle June 10: E1.

Antonio, Robert J. and Alessandro Bonanno. 2000. “A New Global Capitalism? From`Americanism’ and `Fordism’ to `Americanization-Globalization’” American Studies 41: 33-77.

Appadurai, Arjun. 1996. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Auge, Marc. 1995. Non-Places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity. London: Verso.