What is the relation between culture and globalization? - Qiu Pengyu
1. Summary
This article proposes a three-dimensional framework for understanding political globalisation through the following three points. Firstly, global geopolitics: globalisation has not led to the demise of nation-states but has instead catalysed their formal transformation. Democratic systems have proliferated globally, yet this has not resulted in homogenisation but rather fostered diverse political cultures. Although the United States is a superpower, it has been unable to establish unipolar hegemony; the global power structure exhibits a multi-centred competitive landscape. Secondly, global normative culture: issues such as human rights, the environment, and sustainable development constitute a global normative system transcending national frameworks. This culture is not only advanced by international organisations but also widely embraced through dissemination in the global public sphere, becoming a new source of political legitimacy. Finally, the polycentric network: the rise of global civil society represents a non-territorial, networked form of political organisation. These entities operate independently of states through transnational alliances, social movements, and information networks, constituting a form of ‘bottom-up globalisation’.
2. Interesting points
The authors present several compelling observations. They emphasise that the nation-state is not disappearing but undergoing ‘transformation’. In Europe, transnational cooperation has even ‘rescued’ the nation-state, enabling it to address challenges it could not tackle alone more effectively. Another intriguing observation is the ‘decoupling’ of nation and state. While the state level is becoming transnationalised, national identity may rebound in stronger, even populist forms – exemplified by France's 2005 referendum rejecting the EU Constitution. Moreover, the authors' discussion of ‘borders’ proves highly illuminating. Globalisation has not ushered in a ‘borderless world’; rather, it has rendered borders ubiquitous. They have diffused from lines on maps into every corner of society, functioning as filters regulating flows and creating a complex landscape where ‘de-borderisation’ coexists with ‘re-borderisation’.
3. Discussion and Conclusion
During my reading, several critical questions emerged. While globalisation grants greater autonomy to certain groups, does it simultaneously exacerbate societal fragmentation and disorder? How can we maintain the cohesion of political entities while encouraging pluralistic governance? Secondly, the culture of global norms itself warrants scrutiny. Though it claims universality, this assertion is questionable, and its dissemination remains saturated with Western discursive hegemony.
Political globalisation constitutes a complex web fraught with inherent contradictions and tensions. It simultaneously offers new possibilities for emancipation while fostering fresh divisions and risks. We must remain vigilant against the potential for new inequalities and uncertainties it may engender, continually reflecting upon the nature of the global future we aspire to build collectively.
Comments
Post a Comment