Q.3:What about the “Dark Side” of globalization?

The challenges posed by increased communication between cultures are not the only problems intensified by globalization. There are also issues regarding how to more equitably distribute the economic benefits and costs of globalization. In America and around the world, some people have more to gain, others more to lose in the near term.

A third issue has to do with the increasing power of non-democratic international economic institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The stated purpose of such organizations is to work in conjunction with national governments to foster economic development and growth around the world. Some critics argue, however, that some of the policies of these institutions have worked to the disadvantage of middle and lower class citizens in favor of international investors.

In a new book, "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism", Naomi Klein presents a vigorous attack on the economic policies that these international institutions have imposed on countries as conditions for economic assistance. She argues that these policies have undermined the social safety net and increased unemployment in many countries. She also criticizes the push to privatize public services and to deregulate every sector of an economy. Some of us may remember Enron and the terrible consequences here at home of feckless deregulation.

My purpose here is not to endorse her conclusions but to share this alternate resource.
One may disagree with her viewpoint, but for those interested in an alternate, more pessimistic view of this aspect of globalization, her book is an important resource.

More information about Ms. Klein and her book may be found at: http://www.naomiklein.org/main

Question 2 - Intercultural dialogue and tensions

Can a constructive intercultural dialogue be developed before the tensions caused by globalization inflame intercultural tensions?

Friedman acknowledges that one of the greatest threats posed by globalization is that it intensifies intercultural tensions. These tensions derive from economic competition and the way it creates new winners and losers, but this is only one part of the problem. Significant differences in cultural values that were easier to ignore in a less connected world have become more pronounced, generating irritation, jealousy, and, in some cases, acts of violence. Cultural differences are not easy to navigate under the best of circumstances, and increased economic competition only makes this more problematic. One can see in our own society how a globalized economy has generated feelings of animosity towards other cultures that are perceived as having benefited from the movement of American companies overseas.

Who shall take the lead in developing the kind of open and constructive dialogue that is essential to effectively manage intercultural tensions? Corporations with vested economic interests in globalization lack the credibility to do this because it's too easy to dismiss their efforts as motivated by self-interest. Politicians supporting unfettered free trade often fail to address the attendant issues of intercultural conflict that globalization generates. Politicians concerned with the negative effects of globalization too often retreat to protectionist solutions that increase the tensions between cultures. Religious leaders, in many cases, respond defensively to protect traditional religious beliefs and values. Academics want to wait until more studies have been published before entering the fray. Unfortunately, in too many cultures, speaking out for open and tolerant dialogue with "outsiders" just isn't is "cool". Any volunteers?

Ethnocentrism and the Problem of Comparing Cultures

Globalization, by increasing the frequency and intensity of intercultural contact, produces both positive and negative effects. It creates economic opportunities and the potential for learning about other cultures. The same economic opportunities, however, also present challenges to “business as usual” from increased competition. Further, globalization intensifies conflicts over fundamental beliefs & values held by contesting cultures that have existed for centuries in relative isolation.

Some respond to globalization by seeking to expand their understanding of different cultures. Others react out of fear that their cultural heritage is at risk and important values and beliefs will be lost in a brave new world of global culture. While every cultural perspective has some intrinsic worth as a way of living, it is unfortunately too common for people to react to globalization by becoming so absorbed in nostalgia about their own culture that it ceases to grow and evolve.

One of the most tragic examples of this was the former Yugoslavia, where just as globalization was rendering borders and cultural differences less and less important, people were overwhelmed by a desire to align themselves according to ethnicity and religion, and to revive century old conflicts in a bloodbath from which there were no winners. Politicians and terrorists in every culture play on the themes of ethnic and cultural identity over and over as a very effective tool for gaining internal support.

At the core of this dilemma is the “dark side” of culture itself. In spite of the wonderful things that a culture does for its members, every culture seems to include a set of blinders that lead members to ignore the need to look critically and thoughtfully at deficiencies in their own culture. Ethnocentrism, an element in all cultures, consists of the assumption that my culture is not simply “better” than other cultures, but that it is more “natural”, more “true”. In reality, making culture is a natural process, but the culture we make is not necessarily more natural than any other. How could any culture be more “natural” than any other? On what basis could this claim be made? Aren’t all cultures human creations, and therefore imperfect?

This dilemma is sometimes resolved, superficially, in the form of cultural relativism that simply recognizes the right of any culture to “do its own thing.” But is this really a tenable position? Is our only choice one between total tolerance for any and all cultural practices or constant cultural warfare? The world of our future is one where the differences between cultural systems cannot be ignored, glossed over, or resolved simply by force of arms. We need to begin to understand how to undertake a thoughtful, cooperative process of cultural analysis and comparison over points of conflict. It must be acceptable to raise issues, but we will not make progress if we expect to impose our will unilaterally. All cultural systems, through their inward looking design, fail to prepare us for precisely the biggest challenge facing humanity in a "flatter" world. We must develop a culture for intercultural dialogue.

Question One

How does culture affect how people communicate, in terms of both style and content?

Any act of communication involves some topic or issue that people deem worth sharing with others. To what extent are the topics that are the content of our communication shaped more by our cultural background than by unique individual preferences? Further, each act of communication is also performed in a particular style: one's tone of voice and other nonverbal behaviors reveal the "attitude" we have about the topic, the persons with whom we are communicating, and/or the context in which communication takes place. Most of us assume that these choices about content and communication style are a reflection of our unique identity. Is this true, or are many of these choices determined by culture?

Welcome to MY Connections

Welcome to the Mid York Library System Regional Read Blog: Connections, designed to stimulate community dialogue regarding how globalization affects communication and connections among diverse people and societies. Significant developments in communication technologies and institutions continue to accelerate the pace of cultural change within societies and tensions between societies that have peviously existed in relative isolation from the rest of the world.