Sociology of Globalization

Cultures, Economies, and Politics

Keri E. Iyall Smith

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9780367097547
• eBook ISBN: 9780429972713
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

A rich collection of diverse voices, Sociology of Globalization examines the processes of globalization as well as its impact on people around the world. It looks beyond the headlines, stereotypes, and hype and features a balanced selection of classic scholarship and theory, cutting-edge research, and engaging journalism. Key pieces from prominent scholars, journalists, and theorists will resonate with students, stretch the classroom into their daily lives, and give the study of globalization concrete meaning. Each of three sections (culture, economy, and politics) begins with an original introduction from the editor which familiarizes readers with essential themes and concepts and provides necessary context for the readings that follow. Useful resources for further research, including websites, films, and class exercises, are also provided to exemplify and add relevance to major topics. Accessible and expansive, this is the ideal primary reader or supplement for undergraduate courses on the sociology of globalization.

POLITICS

CHAPTER 19

Globalizing Politics

IN A GLOBALIZING world, local communities and global communities both matter. Studying politics through a state-based lens limits the scope of our examination, constraining the analysis to one political form that may or may not survive the most recent changes brought by processes of globalization. To examine the globalization of politics, this book focuses on human rights. How are human rights and politics related? Politics involves the governance of a country; it is a system for the orderly distribution of power. Within the state structure, citizens are entitled to rights and they must fulfill defined duties. Power is also distributed on a global scale, via the UN, NATO, and other transnational organizations. If a human rights framework is employed in the process of distributing power globally, it will ensure the well-being of all. Analyzing human rights allows us to consider the role of individuals and their political choices, how states continue to be a site of rights protection and violation, and to begin to imagine a universal global legal structure.

According to one definition, human rights provide “what is minimally necessary to live one’s life as a human being” (Howard 1995: 14). Here, the focus is on meeting our distinctive needs to live as humans. By another definition, human rights protect human agency and by extension protect human agents (Ignatieff 2001). In this case, it is human freedom that is protected, so that we can determine how we live our own lives as humans. Across all definitions, human rights apply to all humans, regardless of their citizenship status or geographic location. But these definitions are vague—Howard does not tell us what humans need to live their life, and Ignatieff does not explain how to protect agency. Instead, the meanings of these key parts of the definitions are left to social construction. Society determines what individual members need to live freely. Therefore, the meaning of human rights varies between societies and changes over time.

From a globalization perspective, human rights are an example of Giddens’s squeezing (Chapter 2 in this volume). Where local and state governments used to have a monopoly on the definition and protection of rights and freedoms for community members and citizens, a new political structure squeezed onto the scene. Through the United Nations and its agencies, human rights are now created in declarations and treaties. Other nongovernmental organizations specialize in research and service in the field to ensure the protection of human rights. Perhaps these political organizations—both governmental and civil society agencies—would not exist absent the powerful squeezing enabled by globalization.

Human rights may also benefit from Giddens’s pulling, taking legislative and enforcement power away from states and using this power globally in the name of human rights. This is particularly the case in countries with weak or nonfunctioning governments, but it can happen in America too. For instance, the United States is currently being watched by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) for its actions on Western Shoshone lands, including use of the land for military testing, open pit cyanide heap leach gold mines, and nuclear waste disposal (Western Shoshone National Council 2006). The US government has not responded to CERD, but it remains within the jurisdiction of CERD to require actions to redress human rights violations—here racial discrimination.

Finally, it is possible to see human rights as pushing, creating pressures on local communities to promote human rights. One result of this pushing is the emergence of human rights cities. Through collaboration and cooperation, human rights cities unite their community around a transformational process that results in a community that places human welfare at the center of all its work. In places like Graz, Austria; Nagpur, India; and Winnipeg, Canada, human rights are a way of life. These cities establish human rights covenants for the promotion of human rights of all individuals and the community as a whole. In this way, globalization can “push” localized human rights to other localities and it may allow for expansion of the processes of squeezing that are creating space for human rights globally.

While the changes in our world brought by globalization create space for human rights globally and locally, the forces of globalization may also create conditions that threaten human rights and welfare (Brysk 2002). Sometimes the mechanisms of human rights protection are also potential sources of human rights violations, as is the case with surveillance systems and global mapping technologies, which can alternately protect or invade human life. Surveillance systems protect human rights by providing evidence of violations (e.g., satellite imagery of mass graves or the use of Google Earth to map violence in villages in Darfur). Movies such as Enemy of the State show how these same surveillance systems can invade privacy and violate human rights. In this movie a lawyer receives video footage that implicates a politician in murder. The politician uses NSA technology to discredit and track down the lawyer, attempting to prevent him from revealing the incriminating footage.

To begin our exploration of human rights, it is important to understand the concepts of community and impartiality. Peter Singer (Chapter 20 in this volume) is an eminent ethics scholar who has turned his focus to globalization. As an ethicist, Singer asks questions that allow us to begin to understand what it means to be a global community and the ways this changes the duty of politicians. Sometimes our definitions of community can support partiality, protecting people closest to us and most like us. Singer sees partiality as unethical behavior, pointing to the homicidal bigotry of Nazi Germany, which was based on this ideology. He then explores the ethical practice of impartiality—acting for the good of humankind rather than out of our own interest. Singer notes some of the complexities of giving assistance to people far from us, for example, that it is difficult to ensure that a distant individual receives our assistance. He also recognizes critiques of the ethic of impartiality. Some people dispute the idea that we have the same duty to assist a stranger in our country as to assist a stranger in a foreign country. Others argue that we are unable to consider all of the factors to be ethical and impartial in our daily lives. Singer concludes by asking whether any special obligations truly overrule impartiality.

This is a very tricky question to answer, particularly in a world as large as ours—in terms of geography and population. Is it possible that all of the 7 billion people in the world matter equally? This question was explored in an episode of the TV show 30 Rock. Jack Donaghy’s father was suffering from an illness that required a kidney transplant. Without the transplant, he would die shortly and he was on a long waiting list for the organ. Rather than allow his dad to die while waiting for a transplant, Donaghy staged a telethon seeking a kidney donor, complete with celebrity spokespeople, a logo, a slogan, and a theme song, “Give Me a Kidney” (download the lyrics online if you like). The telethon was successful and Donaghy’s father got his transplant. Donaghy used his personal influence to prioritize the needs of his father over the needs of others. In this case, special obligations overruled impartiality. If Singer saw this episode, how might he respond? What would be the most ethical way for Donaghy and his father to behave?

Singer provides one form of global ethic to guide our actions. Judith Blau and Alberto Moncada (Chapter 21 in this volume) explore two traditions that attempt to guide our actions through political means: liberalism and human rights. Together Blau and Moncada have written four books on human rights and sociology which claim the field for study and serve as the foundation for all sociological analysis going forward. This chapter comes from one of their earlier books, and in it Blau and Moncada make the case for the importance of studying human rights by identifying its distinguishing traits. Liberalism is a political theory in contemporary democracies that emphasizes electoral freedom (both to run for office and to participate in elections) and the freedom to create and participate in political parties. This is not the same thing as liberal versus conservative political views, but instead it is the type of democracy that we find present in many old democracies around the world. Within liberal democracies, the political system stresses the right of individual citizens.

Human rights, however, are not solely political. In human rights, the rights of the other are prioritized, rather than my rights. Blau and Moncada explore the human rights tradition, comparing it to a tradition of individualism. In liberalism, people in advantaged positions often feel that these are earned positions, rather than the result of unequal social institutions that distribute resources such as education, clean water, and food. The focus is on the pursuit of “my rights.” The human rights tradition, rather than starting by sorting people, starts by asserting that all people are equal and different. Because people are social, living in a community and depending on each other, we must look out for other people’s rights. The human rights perspective argues that when the rights of someone else are threatened, our rights can be threatened as well. Thus we must all work together to ensure the human rights of all: this work, the process, is the focus of human rights. Blau and Moncada explore one aspect of the process of human rights to conclude their chapter—human rights instruments.

While Blau and Moncada consider the difference between individual-based rights and community-based rights, Bryan Turner (Chapter 22 in this volume) examines the roots of these two kinds of rights and the potential for citizenship and human rights to coexist. Turner’s work in sociology and human rights has established the theoretical underpinnings that support human rights as a new guiding logic for global politics. With clarity and persuasiveness Turner uncovers what is distinctively human and identifies the role of humanness in global politics. He begins by examining the source of citizenship and the rights and duties associated with this status. Turner then looks at the emergence of human rights, which he says happened due to the development of new technologies for warfare. The mechanization of organized killing created a need for human rights provisions as it became cheap and easy to inflict harm not only on other soldiers but also on civilian populations. Human rights, Turner says, are a legal response to atrocities committed against civilians.

A key distinction between these two types of rights is the source: social rights are created by states and human rights are innate. In other words, if a state exists and you are a citizen of that state, the state can create rights for you as a citizen. And if you are a human being, you have human rights. While some see a conflict between citizenship rights and human rights, Turner suggests that this question can be answered through empirical research.

Human rights, unlike citizenship rights, do not include duties or obligations. There is also no power to enforce human rights at a global level. Read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (see Chapter 21, Box 21.2) and you will find no provisions for enforcement. Citizenship rights are social contracts that are enforced by the state. Turner suggests that states are like other membership organizations, which in addition to offering rewards require members to contribute to the organization’s maintenance. In the case of states and citizenship, a citizen’s duties may include paying taxes, serving in the military, raising a family with the values of that state, and contributing to the common good (e.g., volunteering or giving donations). In exchange for these duties, citizens are eligible for benefits like education, welfare assistance (if needed), or unemployment insurance.

To make human rights more concrete and effective, Turner agrees with the lawyers who say that there must be duties that correlate to human rights. One duty Turner suggests is a tax, perhaps on financial transactions or mobility (e.g., tourist taxes, sports taxes, or passport taxes). With the funds from these taxes, UN programs would be better able to finance programs that support human rights such as education, health care, or assistance to the poor. The assertion that eligibility for human rights depends on a person’s ability to carry out defined duties is highly controversial. Some scholars argue that human rights are for all because of their humanness—why would we qualify that by requiring people to take certain actions? It is particularly tricky to think about the duties of children, for example, who are not yet full members of society. If children cannot carry out duties, are they entitled to human rights? Blau and Moncada indirectly respond to this question, suggesting that our duty is to ensure the human rights of our neighbor. In this case, the duty of children would be to learn about human rights and how to respect the human rights of others. Rights and duties often fall together, but it is important to consider how duties may distinctively change human rights, for better or worse.

In a globalizing world, states are feeling all three forces of change. Some writers believe globalization, with its squeezing, pulling, and pushing, is bringing the end of the state. The result, they say, may be the state no longer has any relevant power and thus cannot do anything useful for its citizens ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgments
• List of Figures and Tables
• INTRODUCING GLOBALIZATION
• CULTURE
• ECONOMY
• POLITICS
• Source Credits
• Index