Good or Evil?
Well just to clarify, globalization is defined as a standardization of life and society on a multitude of levels. Things like economy, technology, and political styles are being mocked and blended all around the world to almost establish a universal "right" way of doing things. While I feel there are a few necessary evolving changes such as technological advances (computers, internet, communication) and medical development, there is no need for the entire planet to follow a set of standardized guidelines.
The beauty of this nation- and hopefully the world- is that peoples are free to have their own culture, credo, and lifestyle. Globalization can exist on some levels for the betterment of society at large, but it cannot take away the rights and choices of an individual. To answer the original question, full-scale globalization is bad, but worldwide assistance, understanding, and support is good. When we are able to help a foreigner with new ideas without forcing or imposing our own, then we can say we are truly "globalized."
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Development Journalism
After discussions of UNESCO, NWICO, and the expansion of cultures through reporting, the idea of Developmental Journalism was proposed. This idea has media promoting "good values" of the modern world and help the traditional societies become more democratic. This strategy essentially unites the media and government, and essentially protects [bad] political stories from making the headlines.
In my opinion, there is no surprise that this concept is popular among dictatorships and frowned upon by the West. Our First Amendment gives the press the freedom to report on what it feels in the most newsworthy, and while objectivity and credibility may come into question, the right to report should not. Some say that Development Journalism promote a national media and humanitarian needs, but I say that is promotes complacency. The Fourth Estate exists to keep an eye on government and report on all decisions (for better or worse), and taking away that privileges essentially takes away the definition of a true watchdog journalist.
In my opinion, there is no surprise that this concept is popular among dictatorships and frowned upon by the West. Our First Amendment gives the press the freedom to report on what it feels in the most newsworthy, and while objectivity and credibility may come into question, the right to report should not. Some say that Development Journalism promote a national media and humanitarian needs, but I say that is promotes complacency. The Fourth Estate exists to keep an eye on government and report on all decisions (for better or worse), and taking away that privileges essentially takes away the definition of a true watchdog journalist.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
GC1
This weekend's homework was similar in that it discussed global communication theories, but different in that it came out of a textbook rather than a database. The ideas in pages 16-31 of "Global Communications" dealt with theories on electronic colonialism and the spread of cultures through communication.
The section first introduced Electronic Colonialism Theory, better known as ECT. This idea of colonialism follows its predecessors Military colonialism, Christian colonialism, and Mercantile colonialism as a wave that sweeps over all nations and rapidly spreads the ideas of the inventors. Like the other forms of colonialism, viewers and subscribers to the electronic world see a new perspective on life, whether it be from watching an American-made TV show to get a view of how the free world works (Thanks David Hasselhoff), watching a foreign film to understand culture, or simply reading news sources from all around the world.
This information era notion is coupled with the World-System Theory to show that there is a transfer cycle in which ideas and cultures are "traded" throughout the globe. Core zones of the world dictate relationships, terms, materials, and information for sending, and other peripheral zones return the favor with labor, materials, or venues for which to showcase the core culture.
All in all, these theories do well to explain a world in which data that used to take weeks to transfer is now complete with a click of a mouse or a button on a remote control. I guess those Disney World designerss were on to something when they built that It's a Small World theme ride.
The section first introduced Electronic Colonialism Theory, better known as ECT. This idea of colonialism follows its predecessors Military colonialism, Christian colonialism, and Mercantile colonialism as a wave that sweeps over all nations and rapidly spreads the ideas of the inventors. Like the other forms of colonialism, viewers and subscribers to the electronic world see a new perspective on life, whether it be from watching an American-made TV show to get a view of how the free world works (Thanks David Hasselhoff), watching a foreign film to understand culture, or simply reading news sources from all around the world.
This information era notion is coupled with the World-System Theory to show that there is a transfer cycle in which ideas and cultures are "traded" throughout the globe. Core zones of the world dictate relationships, terms, materials, and information for sending, and other peripheral zones return the favor with labor, materials, or venues for which to showcase the core culture.
All in all, these theories do well to explain a world in which data that used to take weeks to transfer is now complete with a click of a mouse or a button on a remote control. I guess those Disney World designerss were on to something when they built that It's a Small World theme ride.
Follow-Up: My Opinion
Over the last few weeks we have been discussing different world theories and showing the possible outcomes of our changing societies and the different interactions of the dominant countries and cultures. In my opinion, history has not ended, and democracy is evolving, but the most convincing argument may be the Clash of Civilizations. With governmental and theological differences all throughout the world, it will be difficult for nations to coexist for too long without having to confront one another about some underlying issues. I'm not saying there will be a World War 3, but I do feel as if supercultures like the Unites States, China, and the Islamic East have so many unshared feelings that global tensions and culture battlefronts may erupt, and the scope of international communications could change drastically.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
The Rise of the Rest: Illiberal Democracies
(NOTE: There are two readings for today, I wasn't sure which was the correct one, so I went with the one right under the correct date.)
For today's entry, I will be talking about Fareed Zakaria, both in his article on "The Rise of Illiberal Democracies" and his NewsWeek report on the "Post-American World" (with video.) It can be found here: http://www.newsweek.com/id/135380
Zakaria's article discussed the fact that the world is in an era of democracy, a time when elected officials and fair governmental process are becoming a worldwide trend and not just a fad among nations. I agree with this statement and feel that while some nations choose other ways to have a government, the majority- as he says, 118 of the 193-countries are democratic. Now, as an American when I think democratic usually the images of a President and a Congress of elected officials and unity and all of the American democratic values pop into my head, but there are many faces to the "legitimately elected democratic way of life." As Zakaria puts it, "Democracy is flourishing; constitutional liberalism is not."
This lack of liberalism has led to the establishment of Illiberal Democracies, or governments that in Zakaria's opinion are too oppressive to truly be "for the people." It is amazing to see how a nation like Iran can be ruled by a demagogue-like ruler yet still have open elections in which the same rulers are put back in power. Is it because the people feel forced to stick with the majority? The case can be made for the current regimes in Russia and Zimbabwe. While the definition of democracy is clearly being skewed far from the generic American answer, the case could be made that the US in losing is grasp as a world leader and revolutionary.
Zakaria combats that notion of power loss by saying although the democratic cold may be broken, the technologies and education that American offers is far from comparison and will continue to influence the rest of the world. Even democracies that are considered illiberal send students to learn in America, and possibly the values they take with them can help to spread a "truer and freer" democracy.
In my opinion, Zakaria is right about America's size and ability to garner lots of talent in both schools and labs. I also think he is on the right track by calling many democracies "illiberal," although I think there could be a better way to describe them. It may have democratic roots, but with such a strong unmovable government, it's hard not to think it may be just a mask for the authoritarian regimes hidden underneath the "legitimacy."
For today's entry, I will be talking about Fareed Zakaria, both in his article on "The Rise of Illiberal Democracies" and his NewsWeek report on the "Post-American World" (with video.) It can be found here: http://www.newsweek.com/id/135380
Zakaria's article discussed the fact that the world is in an era of democracy, a time when elected officials and fair governmental process are becoming a worldwide trend and not just a fad among nations. I agree with this statement and feel that while some nations choose other ways to have a government, the majority- as he says, 118 of the 193-countries are democratic. Now, as an American when I think democratic usually the images of a President and a Congress of elected officials and unity and all of the American democratic values pop into my head, but there are many faces to the "legitimately elected democratic way of life." As Zakaria puts it, "Democracy is flourishing; constitutional liberalism is not."
This lack of liberalism has led to the establishment of Illiberal Democracies, or governments that in Zakaria's opinion are too oppressive to truly be "for the people." It is amazing to see how a nation like Iran can be ruled by a demagogue-like ruler yet still have open elections in which the same rulers are put back in power. Is it because the people feel forced to stick with the majority? The case can be made for the current regimes in Russia and Zimbabwe. While the definition of democracy is clearly being skewed far from the generic American answer, the case could be made that the US in losing is grasp as a world leader and revolutionary.
Zakaria combats that notion of power loss by saying although the democratic cold may be broken, the technologies and education that American offers is far from comparison and will continue to influence the rest of the world. Even democracies that are considered illiberal send students to learn in America, and possibly the values they take with them can help to spread a "truer and freer" democracy.
In my opinion, Zakaria is right about America's size and ability to garner lots of talent in both schools and labs. I also think he is on the right track by calling many democracies "illiberal," although I think there could be a better way to describe them. It may have democratic roots, but with such a strong unmovable government, it's hard not to think it may be just a mask for the authoritarian regimes hidden underneath the "legitimacy."
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Clash of Civilizations
For today, I read a long article called the "The Clash of Civilizations?" by Samuel Huntington. The article wasn't long in the sense that it was a difficult read or a slow one, but more so that it made many good points and offered insight into past and present international conflicts.
In his opinion, conflict and change occur due to the interaction of the world's largest civilizations; (i.e. Western, Japanese, Islamic) the cultures so large that they cannot be further broadened. His argument rings true for many large wars including the Cold War, which pitted the liberal Western people against the staunch communist Russians.
One other term that Huntington enjoys using is his concept of "the fault lines between civilizations." He says that older wars were decided on the borders of nations, but now the battles are being fought on the front lines of ideologies, cultures, and ultimately civilizations. This example especially rings true for places like Iraq and his example of Ukraine, where one country can have a number of ideologies and in term any number of (armed or other) conflicts.
With the many conflicts and clashes of different civilizations, a type of blending has taken place over the years. While many regions are able to maintain a visible identity, ideas and influences from other cultures have managed to cross the borders and mix into alternate civilizations. Although he touches on the idea of a "West vs. Rest" mentality of merging cultures, he points out that many civilizations have managed and will continue to manage to coexists and function while knowing they have many differences than other countries, and even other national citizens.
On the whole, I agree with the ideas highlighted in the article. It is clear that civilization mergers and conflicts no longer just mean nation vs nation, but more often ideology vs ideology across a much larger fault line. I also agree with his notion that there won't be one dominant civilization in the foreseeable future, as I feel the need for diversity and the sharing of ideas is important to the global learning community. All in all, this was a good piece about a number of obvious trends all blended (or clashed) together to make a solid point about our cultural past, present, and future.
In his opinion, conflict and change occur due to the interaction of the world's largest civilizations; (i.e. Western, Japanese, Islamic) the cultures so large that they cannot be further broadened. His argument rings true for many large wars including the Cold War, which pitted the liberal Western people against the staunch communist Russians.
One other term that Huntington enjoys using is his concept of "the fault lines between civilizations." He says that older wars were decided on the borders of nations, but now the battles are being fought on the front lines of ideologies, cultures, and ultimately civilizations. This example especially rings true for places like Iraq and his example of Ukraine, where one country can have a number of ideologies and in term any number of (armed or other) conflicts.
With the many conflicts and clashes of different civilizations, a type of blending has taken place over the years. While many regions are able to maintain a visible identity, ideas and influences from other cultures have managed to cross the borders and mix into alternate civilizations. Although he touches on the idea of a "West vs. Rest" mentality of merging cultures, he points out that many civilizations have managed and will continue to manage to coexists and function while knowing they have many differences than other countries, and even other national citizens.
On the whole, I agree with the ideas highlighted in the article. It is clear that civilization mergers and conflicts no longer just mean nation vs nation, but more often ideology vs ideology across a much larger fault line. I also agree with his notion that there won't be one dominant civilization in the foreseeable future, as I feel the need for diversity and the sharing of ideas is important to the global learning community. All in all, this was a good piece about a number of obvious trends all blended (or clashed) together to make a solid point about our cultural past, present, and future.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
The End of History?
For today's reading, I read some of the opening chapter of my "Global Communication" as well as an article by Francis Fukuyama entitled "The End of History?"
The two readings complemented each other well, as the first was a short look into the current post 9/11 world of communication, and the latter showed pre 9/11 (post USSR) look into the strides of liberalism and ideologies of evolving nations.
Both articles talked about a sort of "Wall Street Journal" school of thought. "Global Comm" (GC) refers to this as a 'Washington to Wall Street' notion, and Fukuyama also subscribes to the school of deterministic materialism that drives nations. I personally agree with the writers and feel that material gain is taking over any other ideals. The example of having wealth and risk instead of poverty and security further highlights this point. Fukuyama even says that political liberalism is following economic liberalism. While he uses many different current and former governments to show this trend, it can clearly be seen that the push to become and world economic power has trumped former plans for nuclear or "Cold War Era" advancements.
In terms of the "end of history," Fukuyama looked to the end of the French Revolution around 1806 as a time when theoretical truth was absolute. Since then he feels conflicts and wars have only furthered the ideas and ideologies, not created anything new. One portion of the article I found interesting was the mention of two contradictions in liberal societies that may not be fully solvable. One was religion, and the other is nationalism as seen in this passage:
"The vast majority of the world's nationalist movements do not have a political program beyond the negative desire of independence from some other group or people, and do not offer anything like a comprehensive agenda for socio-economic organization."
I found it intriguing since the article was written long before 9/11, when a wave of nationalism captivated America and was a substantial factor in the passing of many bills in Washington including the decision to send troops overseas. Overall this article was a pretty good read, although it was a bit long and complicated at some points. This is only the beginning of my international communication training so I hope to use this article as a stepping stone to further my learning. A copy of the article is available at http://www.wesjones.com/eoh.htm.
Also, in the news today on many sites is an article on Russian Vladimir Putin in which he blames the US for the Georgian conflict. He claims that U.S. provoked the Georgians to take back a Russian separatist piece of land and ultimately sparked the entire dispute for political gain during the presidential season. I don't know if he has any facts (he hasn't presented any) but the White House called him "not rational" on this story, and I think I'll have to agree with them. If I hear any other groundbreaking news on the subject I'll let you know.
The two readings complemented each other well, as the first was a short look into the current post 9/11 world of communication, and the latter showed pre 9/11 (post USSR) look into the strides of liberalism and ideologies of evolving nations.
Both articles talked about a sort of "Wall Street Journal" school of thought. "Global Comm" (GC) refers to this as a 'Washington to Wall Street' notion, and Fukuyama also subscribes to the school of deterministic materialism that drives nations. I personally agree with the writers and feel that material gain is taking over any other ideals. The example of having wealth and risk instead of poverty and security further highlights this point. Fukuyama even says that political liberalism is following economic liberalism. While he uses many different current and former governments to show this trend, it can clearly be seen that the push to become and world economic power has trumped former plans for nuclear or "Cold War Era" advancements.
In terms of the "end of history," Fukuyama looked to the end of the French Revolution around 1806 as a time when theoretical truth was absolute. Since then he feels conflicts and wars have only furthered the ideas and ideologies, not created anything new. One portion of the article I found interesting was the mention of two contradictions in liberal societies that may not be fully solvable. One was religion, and the other is nationalism as seen in this passage:
"The vast majority of the world's nationalist movements do not have a political program beyond the negative desire of independence from some other group or people, and do not offer anything like a comprehensive agenda for socio-economic organization."
I found it intriguing since the article was written long before 9/11, when a wave of nationalism captivated America and was a substantial factor in the passing of many bills in Washington including the decision to send troops overseas. Overall this article was a pretty good read, although it was a bit long and complicated at some points. This is only the beginning of my international communication training so I hope to use this article as a stepping stone to further my learning. A copy of the article is available at http://www.wesjones.com/eoh.htm.
Also, in the news today on many sites is an article on Russian Vladimir Putin in which he blames the US for the Georgian conflict. He claims that U.S. provoked the Georgians to take back a Russian separatist piece of land and ultimately sparked the entire dispute for political gain during the presidential season. I don't know if he has any facts (he hasn't presented any) but the White House called him "not rational" on this story, and I think I'll have to agree with them. If I hear any other groundbreaking news on the subject I'll let you know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)