The Violence of Globalization
The concept of violence is twofold. First, the violence of globalization is about the violence resulting from globalization. Globalization has bred intolerance and violence (Scholte 26). Second (the more important and bigger concept), it is violence of globalization because the concept of violence is about something attacking another thing, a target, without consideration and with potentially exploitative nature and characteristic, without remorse or moral and ethical bearing and foundation. The violence of globalization results in the characterization of how globalization is attacking many different parts of the society primarily the culture and way of life of the people - jobs, industries, businesses as well as ethics and morality. Indeed, no account of globalization would be convincing if it failed to acknowledge the enormous violence and suffering which accompanied the formation of the modern interstate system (Held 87). Globalization brings with it the impact and resulting violence.
Globalization creates a chain of events that puts people in a position wherein acts of violence or acts resulting to violence is eminent (Lechner, Boli 429). The concept of the violence of globalization is the tackling of how violent and brutal globalization has become (Lechner, Boli 429), how globalization itself is a process which is destructive and confusing. Globalization breaks down important aspects of the old culture and is re-introducing a new worldwide culture and status quo in a brutal, harsh and violent way characterized by globalization proponents pushing themselves forward, harder, stronger every time, like bloodhounds in a warpath. The resulting violence because of globalization is a small detail in the overall bigger concept of the violence of globalization. The violence of globalization is not just limited to the resulting acts of violence around the world like in African countries for example (Shiva 115) because of globalization, but more importantly, because of the violent nature of globalization per se.
The expanding of the gap between the rich and the poor is one of the proofs and results of the violence of globalization. It is a social phenomenon that is characterized by the presence of violence inside it. Violence happened because of globalization, as the gap itself was a result of globalization. It is important here to tackle one concept or topic at a time for this idea to be clearly understood. Globalization results to the fast expanding gap between the rich and the poor. The main question is how. Basically, one of the main roots of the widening of the gap between the rich and the poor is found in distribution of money and resources. The concept of the gap and the rich and the poor applies both to the rich and poor people and the rich and poor countries. What happens is that through globalization, foreign products enter different countries. Inside these countries, there are locally made products by local, small businesses that eventually cannot compete. The local products are often more expensive compared to imported mass produced products, which the rich companies can do because of the big capital they have and their ability for return of income through bigger bulk productions, something that local small business cannot do or match.
Small, local business will offer a form of resistance, often supported by patrons sympathetic to local businesses. When the consumers are pushed to choosing the cheaper of the options, local businesses will eventually run dry and lose a section of its customers enough to bankrupt the business and force it to close down. This results to the unemployment of workers, many of which may not find a job that pays similarly and would end up settling for a lower paying job. The workers that lost their jobs and the business owners that are forced to close down are all poor or middle class at least. They become poorer than they were before because of one of the impacts of globalization. In return, the rich companies from rich countries that have the political and economic clout to utilize globalization to their full advantage become more and more rich, thus, resulting to the fast expanding gap between the rich and poor. The phenomenon of the fast expanding gap between the rich and the poor, in turn, is proof of the violence of globalization. This shows the violent nature of globalization tearing down businesses with a cold hand, rendering people jobless and hopeless and miserable at the expense of other people, removing the concept of fair trade, and making the world a free-for-all, dog-eat-dog environment made up of power-playing traders that are threatening to (or has already) step outside the boundaries of ethical and moral practice just to make sure that the capitalistconsumerist goals that has been the focus of globalization is achieved. Globalization is a strong arm or even a sharp sword that created a huge swath in the existing cultures of country in just one swing. It alters permanently the cultural landscape of the world environments without the usual panache attributed to. On the other hand, it is strongly similar with the other culture-changing experiences that the world has undergone, like the industrial revolution and the shift from agriculture to industrialmechanical, for example. The fast expanding gap between the rich and the poor is a globalization-triggered social phenomenon that results in many different acts of violence manifested in different forms. There is the presence of direct violence in the form of war, battle and armed conflict. There is also the presence of violence in the form of other things like violence in prostitution, drug trade, poverty struggle, etc. Because of the fast expanding gap between the rich and the poor, the majority poor people or poor countries in the world is pushed to becoming poorer and poorer, while the rich are becoming richer. Because of this, the poor people are blaming the rich people for their state and misery. Some resort to the use of violence or actions resulting to violence to either address their problem or simply react to the situation. Growing poverty resulting from globalization has resulted to violence and crimes worldwide. The people are becoming more and more desperate and are less and less concerned with the repercussions or even the legal and moral implications of their actions. Professionals believe that while globalization is not the sole creator of this condition, globalization is making the condition worse.
The media is a slave to globalization largely because of the fact that the financial survival of the media is strongly dependent on its relationship with capitalist entities that, in the first place, profit from globalization and makes an earning from globalization. The media, for its part, through its news, informs the media about the things that are happening around the world as a result of globalization. On the other hand, on its task to entertain, the media is making the gap widely evident, and thus, result to more acts and manifestations of violence that are globalization-related. The media is used for public information. Many people rely on the media about the things that they know (Nolan, Kaufmann, Speckman 387). For its part, the media does not simply inform. It also sells things, which is important for globalization. This situation puts media as one of the players that influence people to make globalization have a more adverse impact on the social life of the people. On the other hand, they report the impact of globalization as if they are an independent entity that is, in no way, connected with globalization when in truth they are connected to and are very much a part of globalization. In the end, it is a win-win situation for them. Reporting the news about globalization related developments brings in audience and profit. However, its entertainment role also features advertisements and messages that strengthens consumer attitude towards supporting products entering the country as a result of globalization, again the media profiting from it via the payments for ad placing and other related aspects. This contributes to the worsening of the situation, a situation that features violence in its own everyday life. This makes the media not just responsible for highlighting the widening gap through its news but is also responsible in the widening of the gap because of their role in promoting globalization. It is a form of indirect participation in actions resulting to acts of violence around the world because of globalization.
When people watch the news, they see featured stories about the lifestyles of the rich business individuals and entities, showcasing their life, their material possession and personal wealth, etc., unmindful of the fact that many of the audience are poor people who can only dream about these things. Other people are affected differently, using the experience from media information as an inspiration to rob and steal for personal profit so that he or she can get his or her own share of wealth that the rich people have. Others feel that their feeling of resentment and protestation versus globalization and the rich becoming richer because of globalization is justified and ignited by what they see in the media. Through the media, the different walks of life are seen by the people. The observant will notice the glaring difference between the rich and the poor. Part of the phenomenon that is globalization is the fact that what is being brought inside a new place are not just foreign goods but also culture, forcing itself inside other cultures, like the case of globalization and the African way of life for example. Whatever globalization is, it is a total system that seeks to conquer every space of the lives of Africans (Nolan, Kaufmann, Speckman 387). Globalization is strongly criticized even when there are those who argue that even with inter penetration of cultures globalization does not result to the destruction of cultures (Bhagwati 115). People watching shows from cable services featuring foreign shows indoctrinate and immerse the thinking and attitude of the viewers to the cultural characteristics of other culture. The products that are being sold to the place often act as tangible proof of the changing culture inside the country because of globalization. Western culture is penetrating non-western cultures, like Asian cultures for example. Children in Asian countries substitute hip hop attires, like the ones worn by 50 Cent and Eminem for the tradition clothing in their place of origin. The media sells them these ideas. The media says its cool and globalized trade allows these people access to goods that can allow them to imitate what they see in the media. Some aspects are not limited to dress and material items. Western thinking, on sex, gender roles etc., is being introduced to cultures which in the past have different views regarding it. Sports cable channels feature women who are independent and possess strong personality as an athlete and an individual and other women want to be like them, like Maria Sharapova in tennis. Part of their transformation include radical shift in clothing following the fashion sense of their idol even if this means going against their own culture with regards to how women should dress. Many cases of this nature have been reported. This resulting to different sanctions but are nonetheless proof of how globalization has been aiding the penetration of a new culture encroaching on the old ones, threatening to replace it forcibly through the strong will of commercialism, influence of the business circles worldwide upon political leaders and the power of the proponents of globalization all in all. Cultural inter penetration does not always end without someone getting killed (Bhagwati 115).
Business entities with interests in depressed areas, like Africa and other parts of the world resort to arming a private army to protect its local business interests which is important to global trade, resulting to the use of force of this armed individuals in the battle for control, authority and power. The profitable drug trade, which has been strongly globalized, has also contributed significantly to the rise in the number of individuals and groups involved in this trade. This has been strongly tied to acts of violence like killings and shoot-out incidences because of problems resulting to such form of trade. A new culture is present. Sometimes it does not necessarily have to be a culture coming from a different place but a culture created because of the social conditions brought about by globalization. One of the most beautiful and intriguing aspects of human life is that in the past and despite interactions between different groups, culture inside a particular place remains exclusive and distinctly different from other cultures. Today, globalization is making the different cultures look more and more similar with one another - dependence on technology and communication, increasing consumerist behavior, inclination for processed, mass produced items, etc. It is hard to be a stranger anymore. Anywhere one goes today globalization has managed to make every place look and feel universally similar to other places particularly with regards to the material characteristics of the culture, the place and the people. While there may be positive results from this development, in other instances, violence is also strongly connected. Globalization has always been focused on profit which makes people protective of their interests, even if it means they have to use any and all available means to them. This includes the use of force and violence versus other people, a universal characteristic significant in the phenomenon of culture inter-penetration happening because of globalization (Bhagwati 115).
There is no better indication of violence in globalization than in the proliferation of modern weapons worldwide and the availability of such weapons for many different groups. It allows the violence prior to globalization become worse when globalization came into the picture, like the worsening case of violence among tribal groups, for example. While there is nothing new about ethnic violence, globalization seems to be exacerbating it (Lewellen 117). First, what is the connection of globalization with regards to the availability of modern weapons There are many connections. Several can be identified easily and explored, including the following - first, war mongers are supporters of war are first profiteers, which means war is never without the consideration for profit for the victors. In places that are volatile with strong tendencies for war and armed conflict because of its long history are business interests nonetheless which businessmen wanted protected. The only way they can assure this even with the presence of the armed conflict is if they support the group pegged to have the better chances of winning, and at the same time, supportive to their capitalist and profiteering agenda. Supporting the group can only mean one of the two things - giving of financial assistance or the providing of modern weapons to defeat the enemy and have the business interests in the area protected by the group they helped arm. Besides this, there are also the other little things like the growing buy-and-sell of weapons even among private citizens many of whom are not legally allowed to purchase and own some of the weapons for sale the growing black market and black market supply as a result of weapons surplus and the developing convenience regarding the ability to purchase without the hassles found several decades back, like technological hassles and supply sources, as well as communication and payment transactions. Globalization is at war - at war with the old system of commerce and trade that is detrimental to the prospering of globalization, at war with people and groups that working against globalization. To win this war, one of the important things to do is to make sure that weapons are available for the soldiers of globalization to use, increasing the problem of violence inside societies and countries (Lewellen 117).
The nature of violence in globalization can be seen on how ruthlessly it has taken over the system of trade and commerce worldwide, transcending existing old systems and forcing their will politically and economically that left those that cannot adapt with it devastated and broken. The unfortunate part of this act of violence of globalization through the manner by which they penetrated life is that despite being present for years now, legislators and policy makers appear to be either unwilling or uninterested in controlling the action of globalization and its effects by controlling the manner by which they produce and controlling the traffic of the products they mass produced. In the modern world, one of the institutions that can be relied upon is the presence of law, the imposition of policies and the following of rules and guidelines. Through this, the violent incursion of globalization inside local commerce and trade because they have overflowing items to sell to the people can be controlled, especially if production rate and level among entities involved in globalization is the first one controlled. Why is it unsuccessful so far First, because it defeats the core concept of free trade in the first place - how can it be free trade when there is someone telling you how many you can produce for a time It is similar to controlling how one can earn by controlling the number and rate of production, which is totally against the concept of free trade and globalization. More importantly, globalization is not troubled by such inconvenience because of the quid pro quo between legislators and business entities - business entities offer something material or financial or both to legislators supportive of the current system and practice of companies profiting from globalization. Thus, they are left alone in their pursuit of their commercial undertaking however they wish. Because of this, there is hardly any impediment to the practice of mass production and distribution of goods worldwide (Shiva 6). Mass production itself has become another proof of violence of globalization in many instances. For example, the worldwide demand for food as a result of globalization - from the exotic foie gras to the common beef - has created a series of violent practices towards animals. These include force feeding and inhumane treatment (Shiva 6) leaving conditions for more and more animals stored in one place. Globalization has increased the demand and has demanded faster production. This leads to practices that hardly give consideration to how living beings are treated in the process, like livestock and domesticated animals used for food distributed worldwide because of international trade resulting from globalization.
Lastly, another form of violence resulting from globalization is violence directed to environment, ecology and the planet Earth. The inherent violence of globalization (Held, McGrew 64) impacts the planet and environment human beings live in. On one side, there are advocates for the protection of the planet fighting globalization because of its adverse effects on the planet. On the other side, there are the companies who are geared at profit-earning without the knowledge that their actions are contributing to the creation of possible ecological catastrophes once the planet has become unable to carry the burden resulting from human activities because of globalization. The environment is in danger of being destroyed. There are increasing wastes in different form as a result of increased consumerism which in turn increases the production of goods, both scenarios creating different kinds of wastes all of which impact the planet that can lead to ecological catastrophe. The number of people living in the planet increases, and so is the demand for goods, especially to international traders whose target market are getting bigger and bigger. These people consume the goods provided to them and sold to them because of globalization. This scenario can destroy the environment even up to the point of no return when the damage becomes irreparable and the environmental condition irreversible. This indicates globalization and violence. Globalization has violently attacked the environment because of its very nature and characteristic (Held, McGrew 64).
Every time the term globalization comes up, many people think that this is merely something that refers to how international ties and relationships are being pulled closer together with one another. The truth is that globalization can be something more - more devastating, more serious, more dangerous and more threatening, considering its ability for violence. Globalization processes bring about violence (Prazniak, Dirlik 302).Globalization has been considered by many as the initiator of many forms and types of violence the world is seeing today largely because of how the implications of globalization changed the way people think and behaved. Globalization has been violent against the way of life of people, violent against the culture of people, violent against the environment and violent versus the human being. Globalization as a process is in itself violent, with regards to how it rose to prominence, to where it is today in the order of things. Just like anything that is inclined towards violence, globalization has damaged many different aspects of human social life in many different ways and resulted in losses far greater than material and financial losses. And that is the loss of life and the loss of humanity and the loss of sense of culture among people impacted by globalization and its violence.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment