Rethinking Globalization: Glocalization/Grobalization and Something/Nothing



Yüklə 92,87 Kb.
səhifə1/3
tarix06.05.2018
ölçüsü92,87 Kb.
#42995
  1   2   3

1

Rethinking Globalization:

Glocalization/Grobalization and Something/Nothing

George Ritzer

Distinguished University Professor

University of Maryland


This essay1 seeks to offer a unique theoretical perspective by reflecting on, and integrating, some well-known ideas in sociology (and the social sciences) on globalization and a body of thinking, virtually unknown in sociology, on the concept of nothing (and, implicitly, something).2 The substantive focus will be on consumption and all of the examples will be drawn from it.3 However, the implications of this analysis extend far beyond that realm, or even the economy more generally.4

It is beyond the scope of this discussion to deal fully with globalization,5 but two centrally important processes- glocalization and grobalization- will be of focal concern. Glocalization (and related ideas such as hybridity and creolization) gets to the heart of what many, perhaps most, contemporary globalization theorists think about the nature of transnational processes (Appadurai, 1996; Garcia Canclini, 1995; Hannerz, 1987; Pieterse, 1995; Robertson, 1992; 1995; 2001; Tomlinson, 1999).6 Glocalization can be defined as the interpenetration of the global and the local resulting in unique outcomes in different geographic areas. This view emphasizes global heterogeneity and tends to reject the idea that forces emanating from the West in general, and the United States in particular (Featherstone, 1995: 8-9), are leading to economic, political, institutional, and most importantly, cultural homogeneity.7

One of the reasons for the popularity of theories of glocalization is that they stand in stark contrast to the much hated and maligned modernization theory that had such a wide following in sociology and the social sciences for many years (Rostow, 1960). Among the defining characteristics of this theory were its orientation to issues of central concern in the West, the preeminence it accorded to developments there, and the idea that the rest of the world had little choice but to become increasingly like it (more democratic, more capitalistic, more consumption-oriented, and so on). While there were good reasons to question and to reject modernization theory, and to develop the notion of glocalization, there are elements of that approach that remain relevant to thinking about globalization today.

In fact, some of those associated with globalization theory have adhered to, and further developed, perspectives that, while rejecting most of modernization theory, retain an emphasis on the role of Westernization and Americanization in global processes (Giddens, 2000; Kuisel, 1993; Ritzer, 1995). Such concerns point to the need for a concept- grobalization 8 - coined here for the first time as a much-needed companion to the notion of glocalization. While it does not deny the importance of glocalization and, in fact, complements it, grobalization focuses on the imperialistic ambitions of nations, corporations, organizations, and other entities and their desire, indeed need, to impose themselves on various geographic areas.9 Their main interest is in seeing their power, influence, and in some cases profits grow (hence the term grobalization) throughout the world.10 It will be argued that grobalization tends to be associated with the proliferation of nothing, while glocalization tends to be tied more to something and therefore stands opposed, at least partially (and along with the local itself), to the spread of nothing. Globalization as a whole is not uni-directional because these two processes co-exist under that broad heading and because they are, at least to some degree, in conflict in terms of their implications for the spread of nothingness around the world.

Having already begun to use the concepts of nothing and something11 we need to define them as they will be used here. Actually, it is the concept of nothing that is of central interest here (as well as to earlier scholars); the idea of something enters the discussion mainly because nothing is meaningless without a sense of something. However, nothing is a notoriously obscure concept: “Nothing is an awe-inspiring yet essentially undigested concept, highly esteemed by writers of a mystical or existentialist tendency, but by most others regarded with anxiety, nausea, or panic” (Heath, 1967: 524).

While the idea of nothing was of concern to ancient (Paremenides and Zeno) and medieval philosophers (St. Augustine), and early scientists (Galileo and Pascal) who were interested in the physical vacuum, the best-known pre-modern work was done by Shakespeare, most notably in Much Ado About Nothing (Barrow, 2000). Of more direct interest is the work of some of the leading philosophers of the last several centuries including Immanuel Kant (2001), Georg G. W. F. Hegel (1998), Martin Heidegger (1923/1996; 1977), and Jean-Paul Sartre (1943/1958). However, this is neither a work in philosophy nor the place to offer a detailed exposition of the recondite thoughts of these thinkers.12 Overall, the following generalizations can be offered about the contributions of the philosophical literature on nothing. First, it confirms a widespread and enduring interest in the topic, at least outside of sociology. Second, it fails to create a sense of nothing (and something) that applies well to, and is useable in, this analysis. Third, especially in the work of Kant and later Simmel (1907/1978), it leads us in the direction of thinking about form and content as central to conceptualizing nothing/something. Finally, it suggests issues like loss as related to any consideration of nothing and its spread.


Conceptualizing Nothing (and Something)
Nothing is defined here as a social form that is generally13 centrally conceived, controlled and comparatively devoid of distinctive substantive content. This leads to a definition of something as a social form that is generally14 indigenously conceived, controlled and comparatively rich in distinctive substantive content. This definition of nothing’s companion term makes it clear that neither nothing nor something exists independently of the other, each makes sense only when paired with, and contrasted to, the other. While presented as a dichotomy,15 this implies a continuum from something to nothing and that is precisely the way the concepts will be employed here- as the two poles of that continuum.16

A major and far more specific source of the interest here in nothing, especially conceptually, is the work in social geography by the anthropologist Marc Auge (1995) on the concept of non-places (see also Morse [1990] on “non spaces”; Relph, 1976). To Auge (1995: 79), non-places are “the real measure of our time.” This can be generalized to say that nothing is, in many ways, the true measure of our time! This work extends the idea of non-places to non-things, non-people, and non-services and, following the logic used above, none of these make sense without their polar opposites- places, things, people and services. In addition, they need to be seen as the poles of four sub-types that are subsumed under the broader heading of the something-nothing continuum. Figure 1 offers an overview of the overarching something-nothing continuum, these four sub-types, as well as an example of each.

SOMETHING.........................................NOTHING
Place (community bank)......................... Non-Place (credit card company)
Thing (personal loan)................................Non-Thing (credit card loan)
Person (personal banker)...........................Non-Person (telemarketer)
Service (individualized assistance)............Non-Service (automated, dial-up aid)
Figure 1.The Four Major Sub-Types of Something-Nothing (with Examples) Presented as Sub-Continua Under the Broad Something-Nothing Continuum.

Following the definition of nothing, it can be argued that a credit card is nothing (or at least lies toward that end of the something-nothing continuum) because it is centrally conceived and controlled by the credit card company and there is little to distinguish one credit card (except a few numbers and a name) from any other (they all do just about the same things). Extending this logic, a contemporary credit card company- one that may be little more than a telephone center- is a non-place, the highly programmed and scripted individuals who work there are non-people, and the often automated functions can be thought of as non-services. Those entities that are to be found at the something end of each continuum are locally conceived and controlled forms that are rich in distinctive substance. Thus, a traditional line of credit negotiated by local bankers and personal clients is a thing, a place17 is the community bank to which people can go and deal with bank employees in person and obtain from them individualized services.

Nothing/Something and Grobalization/Glocalization
We turn now to a discussion of the relationship between grobalization/glocalization and something/nothing. Figure 2 offers the four basic possibilities that emerge when we cross-cut the grobalization-glocalization and something-nothing continua (along with representative examples of places--non-places; things--non-things; people--non-people and services--non-services for each of the four possibilities and quadrants). It should be noted that while this yields four “ideal types”, there are no hard-and-fast lines between them. This is reflected in the use of both dotted lines and of multi-directional arrows in Figure 2.

(Figure 2 Here)

Quadrants one and four in Figure 2 are of greatest importance, at least for the purposes of this analysis. They represent a key point of tension and conflict in the world today. Clearly, there is great pressure to grobalize nothing and often all that stands in its way in terms of achieving global hegemony is the glocalization of something. We will return to this conflict and its implications below.

While the other two quadrants (two and three) are clearly residual in nature and of secondary importance, it is necessary to recognize that there is, at least to some degree, a glocalization of nothing (quadrant two) and a grobalization of something (quadrant three). Whatever tensions may exist between them are of far less significance than that between the grobalization of nothing and the glocalization of something. However, a discussion of the glocalization of nothing and the grobalization of something makes it clear that grobalization is not an unmitigated source of nothing (it can involve something) and glocalization is not to be seen solely as a source of something (it can involve nothing).

The close and centrally important relationship between (1) grobalization and nothing and (2) glocalization and something leads to the view that there is an elective affinity between the two elements of each of these pairs.18 The idea of elective affinity, derived from the historical comparative sociology of Max Weber, is meant to imply that there is not a necessary, law-like causal relationship between these elements.19 That is, neither in the case of grobalization and nothing nor of glocalization and something do one of these elements “cause” the other to come into existence. Rather, the development and diffusion of one tends to go hand-in-hand with the other. Other ways of putting this is that grobalization/nothing and glocalization/something tend to mutually favor one another; they are inclined to combine with one another (Howe, 1978). Thus, it is far easier to grobalize nothing than something; the development of grobalization creates a favorable ground for the development and spread of nothing (and nothing is easily grobalized). Similarly, it is far easier to glocalize something than nothing; the development of glocalization creates a favorable ground for the development and proliferation of something (and something is easily glocalized).

However, the situation is more complex than this since we can also see support for the argument that grobalization can, at times, involve something (e.g., art exhibits that move among art galleries throughout the world; Italian exports of food like Parmiagiano Reggiano and Culatella ham; touring symphony orchestras and rock bands that perform in venues throughout the world) and that glocalization can sometimes involve nothing (e.g., the production of local souvenirs and trinkets for tourists from around the world). However, we would not argue that there is an elective affinity between grobalization-something and glocalization-nothing. The existence of examples of the grobalization of something and the glocalization of nothing makes it clear why we need to think in terms of elective affinities and not law-like relationships.

The Grobalization of Something
Some types of something have been grobalized to a considerable degree. For example, gourmet foods, handmade crafts, custom-made clothes, Rolling Stones concerts are now much more available throughout the world, and more likely to move trans-nationally, than ever in history. In a very specific example in the arts, a touring series of “Silk Road” concerts recently brought together Persian artists and music, an American symphony orchestra, and Rimsky-Korsakov’s (Russian) “Scheherezade” (Delacoma, 2002).20

Returning to Figure 2, we have used as examples of the grobalization of something touring art exhibitions (things) of the works of Vincent Van Gogh, the museums throughout the world in which such exhibitions occur (place), the knowledgeable guides who show visitors the highlights of the exhibition (person),21 and the detailed information and insights they are able to impart in response to questions from gallery visitors (service).

In spite of the existence of examples like these, why is there comparatively little affinity between grobalization and something? First, there is simply far less demand throughout the world for most forms of something, at least in comparison to the demand for nothing. One reason for this is that the distinctiveness of something tends to appeal to far more limited tastes than nothing, be it gourmet foods, handmade crafts, or Rolling Stones or Silk Road concerts. Second, the complexity of something, especially the fact that it is likely to have many different elements, means that it is more likely that it will have at least some characteristics that will be off-putting, or even offend, large numbers of people in many different cultures. For example, a Russian audience at a Silk Road concert might be bothered by the juxtaposition of Persian music with that of Rimsky-Korsakov. Third, the various forms of something are usually more expensive, frequently much more expensive, than competing forms of nothing (gourmet food is much more costly than fast food). Higher cost means, of course, that far fewer people can afford something. As a result, the global demand for expensive forms of something is minuscule in comparison to that for the inexpensive varieties of nothing. Fourth, because the prices are high and the demand is comparatively low, far less can be spent on the advertising and marketing of something and this serves to keep demand low. Fifth, something is far more difficult to mass manufacture and, in some cases (Silk Road concerts; van Gogh exhibitions), impossible to produce in this way. Sixth, since the demand for something is less price-sensitive than nothing (the relatively small number of people who can afford it are willing, and often able, to pay almost any price), there is less need to mass-manufacture it (assuming it could be produced in this way) in order to lower prices. Seventh, the costs of shipping (insurance, careful packing and packaging, special transports) of something (gourmet foods, the Van Gogh paintings) are usually very high adding to the price and thereby reducing the demand.

It could also be argued that the fact that the grobalization of something (compared to nothing) occurs to a lesser degree helps to distinguish something from nothing. Because it is relatively scarce, something retains its status and its distinction from nothing. If something came to be mass-produced and grobalized, it is likely that it would move toward the nothing end of the continuum. This raises the intriguing question of what comes first- nothing or grobalization and the associated mass production. That is, does a phenomenon start out as nothing? Or, is it transformed into nothing by mass production and grobalization? We will return to this issue below.

The Grobalization of Nothing
The example of the grobalization of nothing in Figure 2 is a trip to one of Disney’s worlds. Any of Disney’s worlds is a non-place, awash with a wide range of non-things (such as mouse-ear hats), staffed largely by non-people (the “cast members”, in costume or out), who offer non-services (what is offered is often dictated by rules, regulations, and the scripts followed by employees).

The main reasons for the strong elective affinity between grobalization and nothing are basically the inverse of the reasons for the lack of such affinity between grobalization and something. Above all, there is a far greater demand throughout the world for nothing than something. This is the case because nothing tends (although not always22) to be less expensive than something with the result that more people can afford the former than the latter. Large numbers of people are also far more likely to want the various forms of nothing because their comparative simplicity and lack of distinctiveness appeals to a wide range of tastes. In addition, as pointed out earlier, that which is nothing, largely devoid of distinctive content, is far less likely to bother or offend those in other cultures. Finally, because of the far greater potential sales, much more money can be, and is, devoted to the advertising and marketing of nothing thereby creating a still greater demand for it than for something.

Given the great demand, it is far easier to mass-produce and -distribute the empty forms of nothing than the substantively rich forms of something. Indeed, many forms of something lend themselves best to limited, if not one-of-a-kind, production. A skilled potter may produce a few dozen pieces of a pottery and an artist a painting or two in, perhaps, a week, a month, or even a year(s). While these craft and art works may, over time, move from owner to owner in various parts of the world, this traffic barely registers in the total of global trade and commerce. Of course, there are the rare masterpieces that may bring millions of dollars, but in the main these are small-ticket items. In contrast, thousands, even many millions, and sometimes billions of varieties of nothing are mass-produced and sold throughout the globe. Thus, the global sale of Coca-Cola, Whoppers, Benetton sweaters, Gucci bags and even Rolex watches is a far greater factor in grobalization than the international sale of pieces of high art or of tickets to the Rolling Stones most recent world tour. Furthermore, the various forms of nothing can range in cost from a dollar or two to thousands, even tens of thousands, of dollars. The cumulative total is enormous and infinitely greater than the global trade in something.

Furthermore, the economics of the marketplace demands that the massive amount of nothing that is produced be marketed and sold on a grobal basis. For one thing, the economies of scale mean that the more that is produced and sold, the lower the price. This means that, almost inevitably, American producers of nothing (and they are, by far, the world leaders in this) must become dissatisfied with the American market, no matter how vast it is, and aggressively pursue a world market for its consumer products. The greater the grobal market, the lower the price that can be charged and this, in turn, means that even greater numbers of nothing can be sold and farther reaches of the globe in less-developed countries can be reached. Another economic factor stems from the demand of the stock market that corporations that produce and sell nothing (indeed all corporations) increase sales and profits from one year to the next. The stocks of those corporations that simply meet the previous year’s profitability, or experience a decline, are likely to be punished in the stock market and see their stock prices fall, sometimes precipitously. In order to increase profits continually, the corporation is forced, as Marx understood long ago, to continue to search out new markets. One way of doing that is to constantly expand globally. In contrast, since something is less likely to be produced by corporations, certainly the large corporations listed in the stock market, there is far less pressure to expand the market for it. In any case, as we saw above, given the limited number of these things that can be produced by artisans, skilled chefs, artists, and so on, there are profound limits on such expansion. This, in turn, brings us back to the pricing issue and relates to the price advantage that nothing ordinarily has over something. As a general rule, the various types of nothing cost far less than something. The result, obviously, is that nothing can be marketed globally far more aggressively than something.

Also, nothing has an advantage in terms of transportation around the world. These are things that generally can be easily and efficiently packaged and moved, often over vast areas. Lunchables, for example, are compact, pre-packaged lunch foods, largely for schoolchildren, that require no refrigeration and have a long shelf life. Furthermore, because the unit cost of such items is low, it is of no great consequence if they go awry, are lost, or are stolen. In contrast, it is more difficult and expensive to package something- say a piece of handmade pottery or an antique vase- and losing such things, having them stolen, or being broken is a disaster. As a result, it is far more expensive to insure something than nothing and this difference is another reason for the cost advantage that nothing has over something. It is these sorts of things that serve to greatly limit the global trade in items that can be included under the heading of something.

It is important to remember that while most of our examples in this section are non-things, non-places (franchises), non-people (counterpeople in fast food chains), and non-services (ATMs) are also being grobalized.

While the grobalization of nothing dominates in the arena of consumption as it is generally defined, we find domains- medicine, science, pharmaceuticals (Financial Times, 2001), biotechnology (Abate, 2002), education, and others- in which the grobalization of something is of far greater importance. While these areas have experienced their share of the grobalization of nothing, they are also characterized by a high degree of the grobalization of something. For example, the worldwide scientific community benefits from the almost instantaneous distribution of important scientific findings, often these days via new journals on the Internet. Thus, our focus on the grobalization of nothing should not blind us to the existence and importance, especially in areas such as these, of the grobalization of something.

The Glocalization of Nothing


Just as there has historically been a tendency to romanticize and glorify the local, there has been a similar trend in recent years among globalization theorists to overestimate the glocal (Tam, Dissanayake, and Siu-huan Yip, 2002). It is seen by many as not only the alternative to the evils of grobalization, but also a key source of much that is worthwhile in the world today. They often privilege the glocal something over the grobal nothing23 (as well as over the glocal nothing which rarely appears in their analyses). For example, Friedman (1994) associates cultural pluralism with “a dehegemonizing, dehomogenizing world incapable of a formerly enforced politics of assimilation or cultural hierarchy”. Later he links the “decline of hegemony” to “a liberation of the world arena to the free play of already extant but suppressed projects and potential new projects” (Friedman, 1994: 252). Then there are the essays in Watson’s (1997) McDonald’s in East Asia which, in the main, focus on glocal adaptations (and generally downplay grobal impositions) and tend to describe them positive terms.

While most globalization theorists are not postmodernists (Featherstone, 1995 is one exception), the wide-scale acceptance of various postmodern ideas (and rejection of many modern positions) has helped lead to positive attitudes toward glocalization among many globalization theorists. Friedman (1994: 100) is one who explicitly links “cultural pluralism” and the “postmodernization of the world”. The postmodern perspective is linked to glocalization theory in a number of ways. For example, the work of de Certeau and others on the power of the agent in the face of larger powers (like grobalization) fits with the view that indigenous actors can create unique phenomena out of the interaction of the global and the local. De Certeau (1984: 34), for example, talks of actors as “unrecognized producers, poets of their own affairs, trailblazers in the jungles of functionalist rationality.” A similar focus on the local community (Seidman, 1991) gives it the power to create unique glocal realities. More generally, a postmodern perspective is tied to hybridity which, in turn, is “subversive” of such modern perspectives as “essentialism and homogeneity”.


Yüklə 92,87 Kb.

Dostları ilə paylaş:
  1   2   3




Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©genderi.org 2024
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə