The first week of class discussed the concept of
globalization and the debate as to whether the “World is Flat” – as Thomas
Friedman would have it, or if in fact the hype is a bunch of “globaloney”.
I was surprised as to how negative a lot of the students
were towards globalization. It was held up as responsible for everything from
the widening of rich and poor within states, to the poisoning of rivers and neo-colonial
development policies. I found myself trying to defend the “widening, deepening
and speeding up of worldwide interconnectedness”, but the students were not
having it. Interesting.
Key concepts in this class were: complex interdependence (I
think Gangnam Style is a good example of soft power – disagree with my outdated example. I DARE YOU!!!), kinds of
globalization theories (Held and McGrew (1999) outline three types: Hyperglobalists, Skeptics and
Transformationalists), ways to measure globalization (extensity: over social,
political and economic activities; intensity: the magnitude of interconnectedness/impact;
velocity: the acceleration and pace of global interactions and deepening: the
way all three of these factors are increasingly enmeshed in the local/global)
Looking forward to next week when we examine more closely
how these factors (and global governance) are having an impact on the state.
Are they weakening the state or are they actually enhancing it?
(kind of ugly) Week One Power Point: http://ge.tt/1NznHGV/v/0?c
(kind of ugly) Week One Power Point: http://ge.tt/1NznHGV/v/0?c
Agreed. I face that in my Theories of IR classes, most of the students hate globalization...while typing in their laptops and Iphones. Which is ironic. I think cause they are mostly very young, and only read about the Soviet times...without actually seeing the difference between the two worlds. But it is a bit scary...this ever growing virulent anti-globalisation, anarcho-socialist tendencies among students...
ReplyDelete