This has been an interesting assignment. Good work, everyone.

The project may have ended, but globalization will be going on for quite a while. Everyone should know that by now yes.

So long.

Non-Governmental Organisations

The traditional autonomy of Foreign Policy has also been challenged by the rise of what are known as non-governmental organisations - often referred to in shorthand as NGOs.

Where once, there were a few hundred, now there are thousands working across the world. Good examples are aid organisations, such as Oxfam or Save the Children, or the human rights organisation Amnesty International.

While individual governments cannot control what these organisations do, their opinions can carry considerable weight.

When Amnesty questions a country's human rights policy, its voice is heard around the world. That's not always convenient for foreign policy. Take, for instance, the recent military campaign in Afghanistan. Amnesty was the first to raise questions about events in Mazar I Sharif, where hundreds of foreign Taleban prisoners were killed by the West's allies in the Northern Aliance.

First, it was the MNCs. Now, it's the NGOs. Ahhh. Save us.

Climate change

Protests in Sweden as President Bush tears up the Kyoto treaty on climate change

The global challenge of climate change is one area where the old certainties of international diplomacy have been stood on their head.

Here, you can forget the so-called special relationship between Britain and America: the two disagree fundamentally on how to tackle global warming.

Britain has been at the forefront of climate change negotiations held under the auspices of the UN, while the United States, the world's biggest producer of greenhouse gases, has refused to implement the reductions required by the Kyoto protocol.

As if to underline the point, Britain's place at the climate change negotiations has been filled not by its Foreign Office team, but by its environment ministers. At one memorable meeting in November 2000, a last minute deal hammered out by the environment secretary and Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott fell apart - he said, because the French environment minister was too tired to sign.

In Kyoto, December 1997 the UN brokered the world's first treaty to tackle global warming. Signatories pledged to cut their greenhouse gas emissions in the next decade by just over five per cent from 1990 levels.

But the USA has dragged its feet on implementing the Kyoto protocol and in March 2001, the new president, George W Bush abandoned the Kyoto treaty altogether, saying it is against his country's economic interests.

The Kyoto Protocol. *Sigh* Do we really have to go through this again? Yes, I know what you are thinking. It has been gone over by the other commentators but I simply cannot let go of it. It just so reeks of, I don't know, politics? Hear ye, hear ye. Of all negotiations, the Kyoto Protocol stood out because Singapore is part of this so-called agreement. In this dire situation, the wanting need to save mother earth has taken a back seat while personal interests and politics comes to the forefront. Globalisation has led countries to join forces and handle the problem together as one, as a global community. In this case, it was the serious issue of emission of greenhouse gases especially carbon dioxide. However, big nations like the United States of America has decided that it would affect their economy and therefore, blatantly refuse to adhere to the treaty. None of the nations to do with the protocal could do anything to the US as any wrong move could escalate into a war. It also touhes on the issue of the sovereignty of a nation and how far one can go to engage the other nation. In my opinion, average nation could do anything to any nation bigwigs as it would be total suicide. The furthest you can go is just to engage in more negotiations or call in another bigwig to handle the situation but that would show the world how weak you are, right?

Ever wondered why ‘Global Warming’ was termed ‘Global Warming’? Was it because the effect is Global, or was it due to the fact that everyone all over the world is causing this ‘disease’ Mother Earth now face? Either way, it can be argued that both explanations are close to the truth – Globalization has taught us that we are forever interlinked, and thus, chances are, we do the same thing, and no matter who does what, so long that there’s one who does not follow, the effect will still be the same for all of us.

Globalization is change. Change experienced by everyone, all over the world. If such a principle were to hold, then why is the world not really working together to solve such a great problem that could greatly threaten mankind? Globalization has changed our lives, and it will continue to do so. Yet the idea of the “global village” that comes along with Globalization is simply difficult to imagine. In fact, it seems that the different countries in the world would never put aside their differences and privileges to work together. When faced with problems brought about by industrialization all over the world due to Globalization, it makes sense if everyone were to play a part in solving these problems. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

The Kyoto Protocol is an agreement made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Countries that ratify this protocol commit to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases, or engage in emissions trading if they maintain or increase emissions of these gases.

(Definition of The Kyoto Protocol taken from Wikipedia)

Kyoto Protocol is a noble intention, a treaty brought about by Globalization. Thanks to Globalization, everyone is given the chance to industrialize, and in turn, the harm to nature is greater. Its effect can be felt regardless of whether a country take part in the pollution, and thus it is important. The Kyoto Protocol targets are reducing emissions in order to combat Global Warming. But firstly, is everybody accepting the Global Warming exists?

The Deniers




The above cartoons are good examples of a group of people known as the Deniers of Global Warming, and if one were to like to narrow the category, America would certainly fit in. America is known to have signed the Kyoto Protocol but not ratify it for various reasons. It is oxymoronic to even think that America was the one who initiated the Protocol in the first place.
The Deniers basically deny the existence of Global Warming. And in doing so, they could very well undermine the movement which aims at saving ourselves from Global Warming. They are not without backing either. Statistics such as those that claims that the climate and temperature change is just part of the natural cycle backs the deniers up. Either they deny that it is not happening, or they feel that it is self-correcting. In other words, it is not due to our actions. Such ideas are open to all of us thanks to Globalization, but imagine if people were to blindly follow such excuses. Is Kyoto Protocol really nonsense?

Kyoto Protocol

Perhaps one of the biggest flaws of the Kyoto Protocol would be that only Annex I countries are required to ratify it. Annex I countries are countries that are already developed. The idea would be that they already have the necessary infrastructure and background which would make things easier. However, like the USA argues, developing countries DO give out emissions. All are effects of Globalization, and Kyoto Protocol is too. Therefore, why should Kyoto Protocol leave out the developing countries? Isn’t it better to nip the problem in the bud? If we are all part of this “Global Village”, then everyone SHOULD be included in this treaty. Whatever the case, USA has no excuse to not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, as it is in fact one of the more influential members of the International Community.


In conclusion, if the Kyoto Protocol is all about combating the major side effect of Globalization, then everyone, regardless of race, size and influence, in the International Community should be part of it as well. If Globalization was the force that brought the world together, it is only right that with Globalization, we ought to remain together to solve the issues brought about by Globalization.

This writer assumes the role of environment and health expert. =)-Teresa

Hey everyone,

Project Globalization Blog is due sometime soon (unless Mr Ng extends the deadline), so we need to get everything together as soon as possible, hopefully.

Mr Ng, for (perhaps) easier reference, I have categorized the posts by author on the Archives page (hit the Archives tab to view the list). It's still work in progress, so please pardon the untidyness of the list, we'll try to fix it. Ahhhhhhhhh I know, we need bullets.

Social Studies tomorrow. See y'all then.

"What are our standards of beauty?" Holstein asked. "We begin
to believe that we need to look like the models in a magazine," she said.

Photographs trigger global aspects of beauty, by Esmeralda Tovar for chicagoflame.com

“Hollywood is a place where
they'll pay you a thousand dollars for a kiss
and fifty cents for your soul.”
Marilyn Monroe

Marilyn Monroe to me was beautiful. For all her voluptuousness, overt-femininity, pouty-lipped poses, and her flirtatious persona, she was, beneath the cake of foundation and lip gloss, distinctly human, much more than the blonde bombshell the media often protrays her to be, and 40 years after the death of this female so iconic of the 1950s, even the 20th century, there are people who agree. Back in a poll conducted in 2003 she beat out Breakfast At Tiffany's star Audrey Hepburn and another favourite Grace Kelly to be named the Most Beautiful Actress. She is the quintessential Hollywood sweetheart; arguably representing the Western ideal of beauty, at least at that point of time.

The beauty of redefinition

There are in fact many who look in that direction for definitions of beauty. American and European film and fashion industries have seen immense growth most spectacularly after the second World War, and with advances in technology the media has propelled their local scenes onto the global stage for all to admire and perhaps to criticise. This cross-fertilization of cultures flourishes hand in hand with globalization, and the two are so intertwined that it has become impossible to tell, even with the benefit of hindsight, which led to the other.

This increased exposure to different (and mostly Western) standards of beauty have led to, as some lament with regret, a swift change in what the younger, more savvy generations deem attractive and desirable in terms of beauty. A more gracious term would be a fusion of tastes, but for cynics many classical Asian standards of beauty have been swept aside with the onslaught of Western notions of what is beautiful. From India to China to Korea and Japan, the trend is particularly pronounced. The distinctly classic melon-seed-shaped face, elongated eyes, petite noses and small pouty lips which the Westerners love to label 'oriental' is being lost on the generation of the 21st century. This side of the world craves the sharp, angular features and lean figures of the West, while they remain infatuated with the exotic features of Asians. In fact, the most beautiful and unique of faces are often thought to be a marriage of the two, a fusion of both the 'hard' and 'soft' features of the East and the West. Mixed heritages intrigue and excite. The result is an ambiguous amalgamation; the new global beauty.

Perhaps the perfect example of the new global face of
beauty is Saira Mohan, a model who’s scored gigs with Chanel, Calvin Klein and
Victoria’s Secret. She owes her sharp features to her father’s north Indian
Punjab ancestry, but her round eyes and light complexion come from her mother’s
French-Irish-Canadian side. Mohan is just Asian enough to suit Western
sensibilities, while still retaining some ambiguity. “She’s one of those
beautiful women who can easily be Italian, British or Spanish,” says fashion
photographer Atul Kasekbar. “And she can very well be an Indian in a sari.” Or
as Mohan told an Indian newspaper recently: “I capitalize on all the angles. I
am what I am, and if they want to pay me for being Punjabi, great. If they want
to pay me for looking Spanish or Italian, wonderful.” Says Calvin Cheng, Asia
head of Elite Model Management Group: “There is an increased awareness of all
things oriental in the West. And with [the rise] of China, I think this trend is
set to continue.”

The Global Makeover By Fred Guterl and Michael Hastings for MSNBC
Newsweek

The supposedly fortunate ones are a genetic product, its encoded for in their genes; the rest of us have to rely on artifical means, and it sounds every bit as unsettling as Barbie is plastic perfection.

The current trend, say Guterl and Hastings, is in many ways an extension of the longstanding influence of Western images in movies and television, accelerated in recent years by the addition of satellite television and the Internet. But the proliferation of cosmetic surgery has given this trend a new twist. Techniques and technologies of plastic surgery are more widely available than ever before. As prices keep coming down, more and more women—and men—are electing to go under the knife in pursuit of an emerging global standard of beauty.

Indeed, the prevalent trend today is surgery. Plastic surgeons are especially busy in China and South Korea, where cosmetic operations performed go up to millions combined. Nose jobs, brest implants, Botox injections, and liposuction techniques have become more readily available and accessible than ever before. Demands fuel this trend, and technology sustains it. From gawky braces to nondescript bottles of peroxide to sophisticated coloured contact lenses, there are more ways to attempt to emulate the global standard available to us than we notice.

The Beauty of Tradition

African Ndebele women consider long necks beautiful, for every year that a young woman is attractive, she is given a gold ring that is welded onto her neck. Most of us will only speak of it as a myth; something we shall never personally see or experience. That to us is mystical, unfathomable. But to them, untouched by media and modernity, it is sacred and beautiful.

Black teeth are considered beautiful in Kalinga province, Vietnam, where tooth-staining is a traditional ritual.

The practice of the tubug reaches its peak during the sunga (rite of incorporation), a dance ceremony that serves as a venue for boys and girls to select their mates. They dress up to be attractive by wearing their besti (clothing), kiring (beads) and baraker (scarf), and making sure that they have shiny, black teeth. This, for them, is nalawad (beautiful). "The tattoo, the black teeth, plus the adornments, they all complement their indigenous concept of beauty," said Salvador.

The vanishing beauty of black teeth, by Niña Marie SB. Mendizabal

(Take a look.)

Indian beauties in the past are very much different from what we perceive them to be today, the most prominent of them being Aishwarya Rai, or the many Indian top ten finalists in the annual Miss Universe pagent, which often comes under fire for apparently promoting superficial notions of beauty.

When the ancient Indian poet Kalidasa wrote his epic tale of
love between Lord Shiva and his consort, Parvati, his vision of female beauty
had little to do with the half-starved waifs of Western catwalks or the
lean-muscled athletes of cereal boxes. To Kalidasa, Parvati was a soft,
voluptuous temptress. In the centuries since, ampleness has remained a great
female virtue in India. This classical image of beauty is inscribed on temple
walls and depicted in sculpture, paintings and literature, including the famous
treatise on esthetics, the Kama Sutra. The ideal Indian beauty, says Alka Pande,
author of “Indian Erotica,” has always been “heavy breasted, with a languorous
gait, large child-bearing hips, full—in every sense of the term—luscious lips.”

The number of slimming centres and diet pills available are horrific indications of the reversing trend of today. Never mind that the spokespersons on billboards were never fat, so to say Never mind, also, that the grand proclaimations of success stories are dubious. Statistics, even photographs, can be faked. Just like silicon breasts. Anything an inch too wide or a pound too heavy is unacceptable. Waif is the new proportion. Twiggy is the new Rubenesque. (If you don't know what I'm talking about, good for you. The truth is scary.)

All it took was one woman--one Miss World, to be precise--for young Nigerians to get hooked on the new concept of slim. Agbani Darego, winner of the less-well-known counterpart to the Universe pagent in 2001, the first African winner in 51 years, was skinny. Her win was inspirational; it represented acceptance of this new beauty ideal by the world. While Nigerians of the older generations do not find her particularly beautiful, for the younger generation, she is an idol.This is not foreign to a culture where eating disorders are a problem amongst the younger generation, but to Nigera, this is a quantum leap from tradition to modernity.

To anyone who has traveled across the continent,
especially in West and Central Africa, the cultural shift is striking. In the
United States slimness may be an ideal, but many ethnic groups in this region
hold festivals celebrating big women. In Niger many women take livestock feed or
vitamins to bulk up.Among the Calabari people in southeastern Nigeria, fat has
traditionally held a cherished place. Before their weddings, brides are sent to
fattening farms, where their caretakers feed them huge amounts of food and
massage them into rounder shapes. After weeks inside the fattening farms, the
big brides are finally let out and paraded in the village
square.

Globalization of Beauty Makes Slimness Trendy, by Norimitsu Onishi for The NY Times

All kinds of beautiful

L’Oreal, the industry leader in cosmetics, now operates 12
research centers around the globe to understand how the company can fine-tune
its products to the unique needs of different cultures. In September, L’Oreal
opened up the Institute for Ethnic Hair and Skin Research in Chicago, devoted to
African-American beauty, and the company has also done similar work in China.
“We’re fighting against an ideal beauty,” says research spokeswoman Patricia
Pineau. Some experts say that greater travel and cultural exchange among Asian
countries is creating more of a Pan-Asian standard of beauty than a Western
one.

Dove has also launched the Campaign for Real Beauty, in support of beauty in all shapes, sizes, colours and ages. In a series of six advertisments of the campaign presents us questions challenging a stereotype about age, hair colour, skin tone, size or body shape. The Dove Self-Esteem Fund has been set up to make donations to groups working to improve women's self-esteem. Dove are currently working with the Eating Disorders Association to educate and inspire young women to feel more beautiful more of the time, through an initiative in schools.

These are encouraging signs amidst a sea of slimming advertisments and fancy gimmicks aimed at the common non-model-esque public. Nevertheless, such efforts are not entirely sufficient to address the superficiality of today's society, ironically a deeper problem to deal with, and it has much to do with the standardization of beauty. As society strives to conform to the global standards of beauty, we abandon traditional and classical notions of beauty unique to our race and ethnicity faster than we realise. We forget too often, that there is more than one kind of beauty.

Image Credits
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cybele_malinowski/14108087/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigpru/112339209/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sciamano/91757076/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/49503134555@N01/55999616/

Photo montage by Olivia

The writer is proud to announce her retirement from globalization articles henceforth. Please do share your thoughts or criticisms. Thanks.

The idea that American culture is encroaching on the rest of the world is not a new one. Richard Pells writes in the Chronicle of Higher Education that, as early as 1901, Briton William Stead published a book with the foreboding title The Americanization of the World. The 1904 World’s Fair in St. Louis, MO was billed as a celebration of the 100th anniversary of the Louisiana Purchase. The fair ignited overseas anti-American backlash, however, when exhibits instead tended to celebrate an alleged American cultural, political, and even ethnic supremacy.

More recently, fears that American culture might usurp the rest of the world could be traced to the Marxist social critic Herbert I. Schiller. Schiller’s breakthrough book, Communication and Cultural Domination, was published in 1976, and was a critique of the post World War II influx and influence of American corporation across international borders. In the mid-1980s, the debate again heated up when the dramatic series Dallas gained enormous popularity outside the United States. The show’s mass appeal seemed to validate many of Schiller’s theories, and sparked “cultural preservation” movements in Europe.

Article by Radley Balko for aworldconnected.org

The world 'americanization' is no longer as it was used in the early 1900s. In the 21st century of today the definition 'the conversion and assimilation of American immigrants into Americans' in a cynic's dictionary has expanded to include the rest of the world. For others, the word has become synonymous with globalization; critics view it as nothing more than the imposition of American culture on the world. Activists see it as a fundemental threat to undermine cultural diversity. The rest of us drink Coke, eat Big Macs, watch Hollywood films, listen to Michael Jackson on the radio, and use Windows systems with characteristic nonchalance. Our Mickey Mouse ears are badges of pride. The most visible sign of globalization is in fact the availability of burgers and cola in nearly every country in the world. Leave it to the Americans to brand and globally market it, because we like the convenience.

In fact, the title of this blog, cocacolonization (a portmanteau of the term colonization and the giant soft drink corporation Coca-Cola) can also be used interchangeably with globalization, and implies an inclination towards Westernization or Americanization. While this term is arguably applied more commonly to the cultural aspect--a dangerous invasion of Western or American cultural values, cries Wikipedia--the so-called Americanization of the world is observable even in other aspects. The American economy is an ubiquitous factor in the world of economics, and through large corporations preach the good that is American capitalism. Wars are fought in the quest of American ideals of peace and democracy. The justification is debatable, but the occurances are undeniable.

Yet, to carelessly dismiss or to demonize globalization as mere Americanization is a tragic oversimplification of the complex issue the world is facing. Globalization is much more than just everyone watching the same movies or eating the same food. Its effects, depending on where you're standing, can be empowering, demeaning, or something in between.

Thomas Friedman, a columnist for the New York Times, quotes historian Richard Steel sometime back in 1998 in a disturbingly indicative piece of the troubles that the world, more significantly America, would and have in recent years come to face.

'...For the rest of the world, we are wild, crazy revolutionaries, with
rings in our noses and paint on our toes, overturning cultures and traditions
wherever we go. "We believe that our institutions must confine all others to the
ash heap of history," says Steel. "We lead an economic system that has
effectively buried every other form of production and distribution -- leaving
great wealth and sometimes great ruin in its wake. The cultural messages we
transmit through Hollywood and McDonald's go out across the world to capture and
also undermine other societies. We are the apostles of globalization, the
enemies of tradition and hierarchy." '

Why those angry men want to kill America, by Thomas Friedman, republished in The Houston Chronicle

Much of the debate concerning the effect of globalization on culture is simply passed for conventional wisdom, so much so that many anti-globalization activists (globaphobes if you like) put global companies such as Disney or Coca-Cola into a little box with a big red cross and the words 'cultural vandals' stamped across the side. Globalization for them is Americanization, a simple, one-sided accusation of the apparent cultural hegemony of the United States as cultural blasphemy. It is a relatively easy argument to sustain, with McDonald's and Starbucks franchised outlets looming in the background, and nevertheless one that makes things a whole lot simpler for them by providing them an identifiable target to channel their discontent and rage towards.

Fears that globalization is imposing a deadening cultural uniformity are understandable, but to say that local cultures and national identities face certain death in light of all-American consumerism may be an extremist stand to take. More often than not, what we deem to be Americanization--cultural imperialism shipped over from across the Atlantic--is but a mere semblance of American culture. Cultural pessimists can simply interpret the somewhat frivolously packaged influence as promoting the commercial at the expense of the authentic, and substituting shallow gratification for deeper satisfaction.

The people who see the silver lining to globalization beg to differ.

If critics of globalization were less obsessed with "Coca-colonization,"
they might notice a rich feast of cultural mixing that belies fears about
Americanized uniformity. Algerians in Paris practice Thai boxing; Asian rappers
in London snack on Turkish pizza; Salman Rushdie delights readers everywhere
with his Anglo-Indian tales. Although -- as with any change -- there can be
downsides to cultural globalization, this cross-fertilization is overwhelmingly
a force for good.

The beauty of globalization is that it can free people from the tyranny of
geography. Just because someone was born in France does not mean they can only
aspire to speak French, eat French food, read French books, visit museums in
France, and so on. A Frenchman -- or an American, for that matter -- can take
holidays in Spain or Florida, eat sushi or spaghetti for dinner, drink Coke or
Chilean wine, watch a Hollywood blockbuster or an Almodóvar, listen to bhangra
or rap, practice yoga or kickboxing, read Elle or The Economist, and have
friends from around the world. That we are increasingly free to choose our
cultural experiences enriches our lives immeasurably. We could not always enjoy
the best the world has to offer.

Globalization not only increases individual freedom, but also revitalizes
cultures and cultural artifacts through foreign influences, technologies, and
markets. Thriving cultures are not set in stone. They are forever changing from
within and without. Each generation challenges the previous one; science and
technology alter the way we see ourselves and the world; fashions come and go;
experience and events influence our beliefs; outsiders affect us for good and
ill.

Cultural Globalization Is Not Americanization, by Philippe Legrain for The Chronicle

The counter argument to Americanization is that globalization is not completely Western- or American- dominated. It may have started out that way, but it no longer is. Observations cited are the increase in Mexican and Chinese takeout outlet in America, and the popularity of Indian curry in Britan, as much as the availability of foie gras and pasta in China or Singapore. We don't watch as much baseball or rugby as much as we do soccer, and Asian martial arts like judo, karate, kick boxing and even pastimes such as yoga and tai chi are taught and practised in various parts of the world.

In the relentless quest to push the blame to America, it is easy to not only neglect the economic and cultural influence of many other countries, but also exaggerate the implications of globalization on the world. Legrain states in the same article that many of such fears are unfounded:

Even though American consumer culture is widespread, its significance is
often exaggerated. You can choose to drink Coke and eat at McDonald's without
becoming American in any meaningful sense. One newspaper photo of Taliban
fighters in Afghanistan showed them toting Kalashnikovs -- as well as a sports
bag with Nike's trademark swoosh. People's culture -- in the sense of their
shared ideas, beliefs, knowledge, inherited traditions, and art -- may scarcely
be eroded by mere commercial artifacts that, despite all the furious branding,
embody at best flimsy values.

The really profound cultural changes have little to do with Coca-Cola.
Western ideas about liberalism and science are taking root almost everywhere,
while Europe and North America are becoming multicultural societies through
immigration, mainly from developing countries. Technology is reshaping culture:
Just think of the Internet. Individual choice is fragmenting the imposed
uniformity of national cultures. New hybrid cultures are emerging, and regional
ones re-emerging. National identity is not disappearing, but the bonds of
nationality are loosening.

People fail to recognise and, in a sense, credit national and ethnic identity. If eating burgers and succumbing to coffee cravings at Starbucks makes one any less French, or Malaysian, or Singaporean, then the weakness must be inherent, stemming from perhaps little faith in one's own nationality to begin with. If anything, cultural globalization is a test of faith. That, and a test of the ability to discern for oneself, to consciously accept and resist foreign influence. To be able to enjoy the benefits and sieve out the harm.

The spirit that pulls through unbattered by external influence is bound to be stronger and more mature. That is something the world should strive for, to break out of dwelling in petty arguments over the pressures of foreign cultures as excuses for weak personalities and identites. Globalization is something we cannot, and cannot afford to resist, nor can the effects be reversed. It simply is a set of circumstances which the 21st century presents us, and humans being the adaptable, resillient species that we are, should make the most out of it.

That, of course, is considering we don't kill ourselves first. Global warming and bird flu are very real problems.



The writer assumes the role of a commentator on globalization and its effects on global and local culture. If her stand seems somewhat incoherent it is only because she is in the process of forming her own opinions on the matter. The key, she supposes, is to keep an open mind and be optimistic. The sources cited in this article are undeniably impressive, and everyone should go read the actual articles by real writers. Thanks for reading (if anyone is).

Recommended reading
Can pop-cultural imperialism be stopped?
by Brigitte Pellerin

Cultural Globalization Is Not Americanization
By Philippe Legrain

Why those angry men want to kill America
By Thomas L. Friedman

Globalization & Culture: Americanization or Cultural Diversity?
by Radley Balko

article: Going Global from the shortrun.com
Quote:

Most protestors come with a purpose; to protect the environment, to prevent child labor, to protect industries. Others claim that globalization will exploit weaker nations or steal markets from the richer. The sad thing about all of this is that the protests do little to aid their causes and in most cases, actually end up hurting the world in general. To see what I mean, let me give my take on each of these issues. (Granted, I am strongly biased in my opinion.)
The environment. Let me start off on the right foot, I strongly believe in protecting the environment, and I hope I can make this evident. Increasing trade will hurt the environment. Where's the argument? Businesses tend to hurt the environment so we should make sure that growing nations like China will not grow so they won't hurt their environment. There is some truth to this argument. The industrial revolution in Britain churned up so much smoke and soot that the trees were lined with black soot. It had disastrous effects for the environment and for the health of the English population. What happened? Progress happened, simply put, and the British passed a certain level of income. This development led them to stop worrying about the bare necessities like food and clothing, and they began concerning themselves with other goods such as clean air and water (yes clean air and water can be thought of as goods; they are called public goods.). Economists can show that for pretty much every country, this is true. Once individuals in the country reach a certain level of income (now it is around 4-5 thousand), they began to spend more on public goods. It makes intuitive sense that if I can provide for my family, I am more willing to spend to protect the environment. This trend pushes the idea that we should allow all nations free access to the global economy so that they can grow and develop. The richer a nation is, after this 4,000 to 5,000 income level, the more concerned it will become about protecting the environment. Therefore it is vital that the developed nations aid the undeveloped through freer markets.

The argument the author of the article is presenting is that globalisation is essential in order for us to protect the environment. It is said that although globalisation brings about industrialisation and thus harm to the environment, economies prosper with globalisation. Therefore with the economy prospering, there would be enough resources for the protection of the environment.

In my personal opinion, this cannot possibly be the case. It can be agreed that globalisation is a phenomena that we cannot stop, but being so, it does not necessarily mean that it is beneficial to all parties involved. However, it has well become acceptable that globalisation brings about industrialisation and economic growth, as well as the destruction of the environment. The destruction of our natural environment is ironically, global too. With the world knit together, the world would suffer together. Therefore if (for example) globalisation allows China to prosper, it will, in the process, cause irreversible harm to be inflicted onto the environment. Such dangers are already apparent – almost 20% of China is turning into a desert. If we wait till a country has fully developed before action is taken to save the environment, the effect might have very well become permanent before anything is done. Moreover, there are many countries all over the world, with many different countries undergoing industrialisation and such under the influence of globalisation at their own pace, chances are there would be many sources of pollution etc. at any one time. While one country cleans up, another continues harming the environment. Either way, the environment continues suffering.

In addition, it is not necessary for a country, after undergoing industrialisation, to care for the environment. Globalisation has brought everybody to harm the environment, but there are groups like Greenpeace fighting to preserve the environment. Treaties have been drawn up as well. A famous example would be the Kyoto Protocol, which even Singapore has ratified. Yet one important country has failed to ratify it – the country which produces the largest amount of pollutants into the environment – the United States of America. And their take is precisely the effect of globalisation, which is the fear of falling behind. Should they cut their emissions by their industries, USA would fall behind other countries. As the Kyoto Protocol only requires developed countries to ratify it, China and India are not covered. And as China and India are rising, they would pose as much threat as any fully developed country. Progress is often linked with globalisation, and as such, USA needed to maintain their position. As a result, the environment is very much neglected, even as a country reaches full development.

In conclusion, globalisation has brought more harm than good in terms of the environment. The competition brought about by globalisation spells bad news for the environment, despite there being international environmental groups. This problem, though caused by globalisation, could possibly be salvaged through globalisation – on the condition that the world is truly one. That, in my opinion, has not happened as although we are connected, countries still view another as opponents, and not as counterparts. Perhaps this could be corrected in the near future by globalisation.

The writer takes the stand of an environmental and health expert. –Teresa

The rampant imperialism of the English language contributes to the building of
an ivory tower invisible to its inhabitants. They are so convinced that no
serious thoughts can be conceived outside their culture they deem it unnecessary
to learn other languages. In Britain, only a quarter of state schools make
modern languages compulsory at GCSE level. A generation of linguists is about to
be lost and with it the country's capacity to understand a different world.
University language departments will close, the Foreign Office will find itself
short of competent staff and British academics will declare themselves the last
true intellectuals, in blind ignorance.

Commentary by Agnès Poirier for The Guardian.

Whether or not it is blind ignorance that translates into the apparently unconscious subscription of linguistic Darwinism of the intellectual community in Britain, it has become an undeniable fact that the the expanding role and usage of increasingly standardized language is at once a product and a factor of the phenomena that we have all embraced and come to love, globalization. The promotion of a global lingua franca is primarily classified within the context of cultural imperialism, bringing to attention the ubiquitous connection between the two. Culture forms language. Language forms culture. Language is both the symptom and the cause; the product and intisgator of perhaps the more pessimistic viewpoint of cultural hegemony. More than a means of of communication of ideas, it is a weapon, making language and linguistic dominance the cannons of cultural warfare. Without a language, a culture is defenseless, exposed to larger, global forces and susceptible to steady weathering. In many instances the displacement and neglect of native languages is a direct indication of the displacement and neglect of the culture itself.

In this war of globalization (if it can be thought of as a war between local and global identity) it is those dominant cultures that are emerging strong and on the offensive that will ultimately survive. It is not until one considers the flipside--the cultures that made way for this dominance--that one sees the poignance and futility of the idea that traditional cultures cannot co-exist in light of globalization. The ability to ensure the relevance and usefulness (a devastating degradation and might I add, deadening of) a language is to be able to fight for the survival of one's nation and culture on the global stage. It is a immensely difficult task, and the odds are as always, stacked against the minorities.

Language imperialism by definition is essentially the transfer of a dominant language to foreign people. As with imperialism and colonization in the 19th century, it is a demonstration of power, although not necessarily in the original millitaristic sense. In the 21st century this takes on new meaning. With globalization the demonstration of power is no longer confined to millitary might (although with the rise nuclear weapons this is still a major factor), but has expanded to include world economic and political power as well. It is also a matter of prestige; more often than not the dominant language is regarded as innately superior and an alleged proponent of several values. This is evident in the rhetoric used by the British Council, founded in 1934 with the intent of 'cultural propaganda' (a crude way of putting it) or the promotion of the English language, relying mainly on the key fundamental tenets of English applied linguistics and its teaching methodology. Many of these arguments have been described as fallacies, as highlighted by the article on Language imperialism on Wikipedia:

• English is best taught monolingually ("the monolingual fallacy")
• the ideal teacher is a native speaker ("the nativespeaker fallacy")
• the earlier English is taught, the better the results ("the early start fallacy")
• the more English is thought, the better the results ("the maximum exposure fallacy")
• if other languages are used much,standards of English will drop ("the subtractive fallacy")

The article also identifies the arguments of proponents of the English language as being:

• English intrinsic arguments describe the language as God-given, rich, noble and interesting. These arguments usually assert what English is and other languages are not.
• English extrinsic arguments point out that English is well established: there are trained teachers and a multitude of teaching material. There are also abundant immaterial resources like knowledge of the language.
• English functional arguments emphasise the usefulness of English as a gateway to the world.

While the idea that English is the gateway to the world because it is useful is somewhat circular in nature, it is undeniable either way. It is impossible to pinpoint exactly when English emerged as the singular, dominant language, as it was spread over a gradual period of time.

The article on International English on Wikipedia loosely identifies the beginnings of the globalization of the language as such:

The language of England came to dominance throughout the island of Great
Britain during the Middle Ages and in Ireland during the 18th century and,
especially, the 19th century. In the modern era, printing led to the gradual
standardisation of English, and particularly the use of the prestige dialect of
the English ruling classes.

The establishment of the first permanent English-speaking colony in North
America in 1607 was a major step towards the globalisation of the language.
British English was only partially standardised when the American colonies were
established. Isolated from Britain by the Atlantic Ocean, the settlements
evolved a distinct standard form of American English. In particular, Noah
Webster's reform of American-English spelling in the early 19th century gave
rise to the main division in English spelling that exists today.

In short, the English language spread as a result of British military and mercantile expansion in the 19th century, although it would be slightly after that that the written language was standardized and consciously acknowledged as an international language.

International English is the concept of the English language as a global means
of communication in numerous dialects, and the movement towards an international standard for the language. It is also referred to as Global English, World English, Common English, General English or Standard English. Sometimes these terms refer simply to the array of varieties of English spoken throughout the
world; sometimes they refer to a desired standardisation.

Article on International English, Wikipedia

As America quickly overtook Great Britain after the second world war, International English was consequently American- rather than British-dominated. Today, majority of the competent English speakers are not native to the language, showing the extent of its reach. Along with the language, American culture has also made its way across the world and settled itself comfortably in foreign lands.

Back in the 19th century while developments in mass communications were rapid, written English was increasingly introduced to the world at large. As the film industry grew in influence after sound was added to moving pictures, spoken English was next. Broadcasting and advertising industries increasingly Hollywoodicized countries beyond American borders. Pop music and rock and roll found their way onto the airwaves, and thus began the mass appeal of music, packaged and sold to the masses who accepted all that was seen as popular.

But while the argument regarding the extent of the loss of unique cultures in the world as well as the rise of a single, dominant culture rings true, the standardization of language is not without merit.

The existence of modern mass communications has made it possible to set up international bodies and organize events on a global scale. The United Nations, the World Bank, and the European Union all have several official languages, but practical realities nearly always dictate that English is the one most used. The use of several official languages means that documents have to be translated from the original language into other official languages, but this is often viewed as a waste of time and money. In a sense the convenience of using one standardized language presides over the recognition of the importance of several languages.

Computer-based technology has led to a massive extension in the use of English, both in computer software and on the Internet. Computer languages are based on English, and English is the language normally used to communicate with the user. Theoretically with the use of the internet it is possible to contact anyone in the world as long as one is sufficiently proficient in English. This way, a common language breaks down cultural and linguistic barriers, allowing increased interaction and communication of ideas, which by default is not necessarily bad.

We should not, however, take the pre-eminience of the dominant position of the English language for granted. With the rise of the Chinese language, and possible developments in machine translation technology (making immediate and automatic translation a reality and thus reducing the need for standardized language), the English language faces the risk of progress.

Obviously dealing with globalization and its effect on culture, more specifially in this response, on (the standardization of) language. All sources respectively cited. The writer is very, very, very tired. The ideas and argument cannot, of course, be claimed as original, rather it is a condensation of the argument in attempt at a coherent presentation of both sides of the coin. What else. Oh, all comments and criticisms welcome. Thanks.