Introduction
Though a wide range of scientific studies have been published on the topic of globalization, seemingly analyzed to the smallest detail, discussion of this issue is neither commonplace nor easy. Analysis of globalization is never done, as the process is undergoing continuous transformation along development trends that are neither linear nor predictable in advance. In addition, analysis of it is not easy, given that the term globalization has been used with different meanings in several frameworks, both scientific and otherwise (Fiss and Hirsch 2005). But, even considering a single discipline such as sociology , we find that it has not assigned a univocal meaning to the topic, and analyses of the underlying processes of globalization are conducted according to radically different perspectives and interpretations. Hence, there is no general consensus on the conceptâs definition, its confines, and even, at least in part, its basic characteristics. Finally, as underscored by Scholte (2005: 46) with a good dose of irony, âthe only consensus about globalization is that it is contestedâ.
Without claiming to perform a complete review of the literatureâeven solely sociologicalâon the theme of globalization, and neither claiming to define an overall synthesis of the topic, these pages discuss some elements of the debate and basic traits of the phenomenon in order to draw out the conceptual background of papers included in this book. These contributions, the contents of which are presented in the final section of this chapter, partly develop the theoretical reflection on globalization and other related concepts and partly present the results of studies conducted to explore the practical effects of globalization processes in specific experiential settings. The purpose is to provide evidence of how, in practice, global dynamics and individual lives are interrelated, an aspect regarding which empirical findings are surprisingly lacking, despite broad theoretical reflections (Axford 2013: 2). With this in mind, the present introductory contribution, as well as the book itself, closely focuses on migration processes, as migrations are one of the main phenomena allowing a high number of people from contemporary society to directly experienceâeither as migrants or inhabitants of the places where migrants pass through or settle downââthe otherâ, in the sense of someone other than themselves, and this is definitely a central feature of globalization.
Three Waves of Studies on Globalization
Globalization has been explained and interpreted with such a broad spectrum of approaches as to make the task of classifying them complex. However, it is widely acknowledged that reflections on globalization have developed along three subsequent waves: hyper-globalist, sceptical, and post-sceptical or transformationalist (Axford 2013: 11; Hay and Marsh 2000; Held and McGrew 2007: 5; Holton 2005: 6â11; Martell 2007: 173â176).
The sequence of these waves seems to follow the classic pattern of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Sceptics reject the theses proposed by hyper-globalists, to the point of denying the usefulness and significance of the concept of globalization. Finally, transformationalists utilize and repurpose the same concept by exploiting the many criticisms made by sceptics, thus mellowing the extremes of hyper-globalist stands.
Hyper-globalist theories, developed during the early phase of the debate on globalization, in the 1980s and early half of the 1990s, were especially supported by authors who were inclined to interpret globalization itself as a primarily economic phenomenon. Holton (2005: 6) and Martell (2007: 173) trace studies conducted, among others, by Levitt (1983), Ohmae (1990, 1995), Reich (1991), Sklair (1991), Gill (1992) and Albrow (1996) to this approach. Hyper-globalists consider globalization in an evolutionary perspective, interpreting it as an unstoppable process that moves along a previously established track that is, in some way, ânaturalâ. It is a track that can, therefore, either be slowed down or accelerated but whose final outcome cannot be changed. From this perspective, globalization will entail the progressive opening and liberalization of markets, leading to global integration that will first be economic and, subsequently, political and cultural. It will lead to a decline in the role and importance of nation-states and to gradual cultural standardization (Martell 2007: 177). It will also be accompanied by a process of spatial and temporal compression that will most likely make the spatial dimension irrelevant for human activities. Hyper-globalists are also convinced that global dynamicsâeconomic, political and culturalâwill tend to surpass local ones, cancelling the importance of the national and subnational dimension (Holton 2005: 105). Finally, hyper-globalists underscore the fact that globalization is a recent phenomenon that marks a profound historical discontinuity with the past (Axford 2013: 156).
Sceptics contest all the traits emphasized by hyper-globalists and, more extremely, the very significance and usefulness of the concept of globalization. In particular, we argue that criticisms made by these scholars can be divided into three main trends. In the first place, some contest the actual existence of globalization processes. They are supposedly only a myth, as witnessed by the remarkable differences, barriers and fractures we still find throughout the world, making any form of total global integration a utopia, both in economic terms and, even more, from a political and cultural perspective (Huntington 1993; Helliwell 2000; Hirst and Thompson 1996; Wade 1996; Smith 1995). From this standpoint, the error made by supporters of globalization lies in having mistaken a conjunctural situationâthe phase of economic openness and the euphoria that followed the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the end of the geopolitical contrast that had marked the Cold War periodâfor an epoch-making twist entailing an unstoppable trend (Rosenberg 2005). Instead, the trend was brusquely interrupted, symbolically, with the attack against the Twin Towers on 9/11.
A second sceptical position, claims instead that globalization does exist but is far less inclusive than deemed by hyper-globalists. In other words, globalization is not, in practice, a global phenomenon, at least for now. Indeed, it would only seem to involve some regions of the world, namely the most industrialized countries and the emerging ones (Hoogvelt 1997; Kaldor 1999), and only some social categories. The poorest inhabitants of the earth, those who possess neither resources nor possibilities nor skills to access, for instance, global markets and the information flow that crosses the world, seem to be excluded from it. Citing an African official of the World Food Programme who addressed an international conference on globalization (Ngongi 2001):
Globalization means different things to different people. For a Peruvian farmer unable to compete with the low prices of imported foodstuffs, it means losing his income. For a Czech car worker earning enough to buy his own home, it means prosperity. For a poor Ugandan woman tilling her family plot, it means absolutely nothing.
The third and final sceptical perspective is adopted by those who do not contest the fact that globalization processes are actually taking place, but instead the fact that they are new (Sen 2002: 4; Arrighi 1994). They claim that globalization is a process that, with varying intensity, has always existed or, rather, manifested from the great geographical discoveries of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Migration, trade and information flows, and some degree of awareness that reaches beyond their local experiential framework (at least an embryo of global consciousness ) have been constant factors in the history of mankind (Robertson and Inglis 2004: 173). For instance, Hirst and Thompson (1996) and OâRourke and Williamson (1999) note that the flow of trade and capital in the years that closely preceded World War I were comparable to, if not higher than, the entire latter half of the twentieth century.
Finally, it can be observed that, as all of the mentioned sceptical positions agree, there is an impression of the persistent central role of the nation-state as a driving force and pillar of economic and political life, and unavoidable landmark for cultural and personal identification processes.
Globalization: An Actual Process that is Both Complex and Ambivalent
The third wave of studies on globalization , as mentioned earlier, creates a synthesis of the hyper-globalist and sceptic views. This synthesis is firstly based on the acknowledgment of the extraordinary complexity of globalization, associated both with the number and large heterogeneity of processes that can be traced to it, and especially the deep ambivalence and contradictory nature of said processes. Ambivalence and contradictoriness also have repercussions on theories that attempt to explain globalization, since even opposite perspectives can almost always find empirical confirmation to support them (Fiss and Hirsch 2005: 32). But admitting the contradictions does not entail denying the actual existence of globalization processes or the validity and usefulness of this same concept from an analytical and interpretative standpoint.
This picture, which has been briefly outlined, is also the perspective that is adopted by this book. Indeed, this book considers globalization as an actual process that is both complex and ambivalent, a process that, despite different forms and intensity, involves all regions and all the inhabitants of the earth, thus becoming a genuine global process. But now we shall attempt to explain this perspective in detail, responding to the criticisms made by sceptics and doing our best to avoid the extreme theories of hyper-globalists. To do so, we will advance seven theses: (a) globalization is not a natural phenomenon, as it is a human pr...