What is the relation between politics and globalization?ㅣChoi Jaewon(최재원)

1. Summarize

This week, the reading "Political Globalization" by Delanty and Rumford give a really interesting way to understand this topic. It’s not just one thing. They say political globalization is a "tension" between three big processes that are all happening at the same time. This make more sense than just saying 'countries are disappearing'. The first process is 'global geopolitics'. This is like the spread of democracy as the main idea for government everywhere after 1991. But it also include the power of big countries like the United States, and how other countries like China are challenging them. So it's still about states and power, but on a global level.

The second process is 'global normative culture'. This is a very cool idea. It mean there are now global ideas about what is right and wrong, like human rights or protecting the environment. These ideas are not just 'Western' but are discussed everywhere, thanks to global media and communication. These 'norms' challenge the power of states. For example, a country can't just ignore human rights anymore without facing pressure from the world. This is a big change from the past, when what a state did to its own people was nobody else's business.

The third process is called 'polycentric networks'. This is the part that is not about states. It’s about "non-territorial politics," which sound complicated but just means politics that isn't tied to one place. This include all the international non-governmental organizations (INGOs), social movements, and even terrorist groups. They operate across borders and connect people in new ways. So, the reading show us that political globalization isn't just one story. It’s a mix of powerful states, new global rules (norms), and new global groups (networks) all interacting and conflicting.


2. Something new and interesting

For me, the most interesting and hopeful part was the idea of 'polycentric networks' and what the reading call 'global civil society'. This is what some people call 'globalization from below'. It’s not about presidents or big companies; it’s about normal people and activists connecting across the world. The reading say these networks are 'polycentric', meaning they don't have one center of power. This is very different from a government. This is a new kind of power.

I was thinking about the example of Greenpeace, which I mentioned before, and it fit perfectly here. When they campaign against a company for pollution, they use these global networks. They get information from local activists, share it with the global media (part of the 'global normative culture'), and get people from many different countries to sign petitions or boycott products. This puts real pressure on both the company and the governments. It shows that 'global civil society' can actually influence 'global geopolitics'.

This idea of 'civil societalization' of politics was also new to me. It mean that politics is not just happening in government buildings. It happen in these new spaces, in these networks, and in partnership with all these social actors. It make me feel that politics is becoming more fluid and that maybe individuals and small groups have more chance to make a difference than before. They can find allies anywhere in the world. This is a very positive view on globalization, that it can create new kinds of autonomy and new ways to fight for social justice.


3. Questions and Discussions

But this reading also make me think of many difficult questions and problems. The authors mention three 'dilemmas' in the conclusion, and the last one really scare me. They say that these 'polycentric networks' are not just for good guys. They talk about the 'dark-side' of civil society. This was something I never thought about. The same networks that Greenpeace use, which is open and have no center, can also be "appropriated by terrorists, traffickers in drugs and people, and organized crime." This is a very scary thought. It mean globalization creates new 'autonomy' but also new 'instabilities and dangers'. So my first question is: How can we support the 'good' global civil society (like human rights groups) while stopping the 'bad' global civil society (like terrorist networks)? If the networks are open for everyone, is it even possible to control?

This also connect to the first dilemma they mention: the problem of democracy. We has 'democratic deficits' in global organizations like the WTO or UN, which I worried about last time. But these new polycentric networks also have a big problem with democracy. The reading say they "lack accountability and democratic credentials" and are just "self-appointed spokespersons." This is true. I support Greenpeace, but I never vote for them. So who gives them the right to speak for 'the people' or 'the planet'? This is a big problem.

So my questions for discussion is: First, how do we deal with the 'dark side' of global networks without destroying the freedom that also let good movements grow? And second, how can we make 'global civil society' more accountable? If they are going to have more power in politics, do we need a way to make sure they are really representing who they say they represent? It seem like we are just trading one set of unelected leaders (in the WTO) for another set (in INGOs).


4. References

Delanty, G., & Rumford, C. (n.d.). Political Globalization. [Course Reading Material].


5. Note on AI

I used an AI tool for some help on this post. After writing down all my main ideas and analysis, I used it to help trim some of the overall paragraphs to be more clear. I also used it for partial translation of some Korean words I wasn't sure how to express in English. The main analysis, examples, and all the questions are my own.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is globalization--Kim younggyun

 1) Summarize From what I understand, globalization is not merely an economic trend. It is a broad concept in which the world becomes increasingly interconnected on cultural, social, political, and even individual levels. Because globalization is such an all-encompassing idea, it is only natural that debates continue over its definition. This is exactly what made studying the concept of globalization difficult for me. That is why, like Robertson and White, I tried to understand globalization mainly through the two dimensions of increasing connectivity and growing consciousness. I find their approach persuasive. When internet, transportation, and trade expand, the connections between countries grow stronger, and naturally, people begin to perceive the world as a “single place.” 2) Interesting point What I found particularly interesting while studying globalization is that it does not simply lead to “one-sided homogenization.” I used to think of globalization only as the expansion of...
Read more

What is globalization? | Yun Shinji

1.   Summary It is difficult to define the concept of ‘globalization’ with a single meaning, as the term is used in various contexts with different implications. Sociologist Roland Robertson describes globalization as “the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole". Robertson and White further elaborate it as two main trends “an increase in global interconnectedness” and "an increase in global consciousness". In this way, globalization is a complex phenomenon in which the world becomes closely connected across borders, and it is used in multiple ways in different contexts. Globalization can be broadly divided into three dimensions cultural, political, and economic. Among them, cultural globalization is the phenomenon we experience most directly in our daily lives. For example, a cultural content that becomes popular can spread worldwide and be shared globally. However, this phenomenon also raises concerns about cultural hom...
Read more

What is globalization? (TRAN THUY NGA/ 짠 튀 응아)

What is globalization? 1. Summary of the Reading Roland Robertson and Kathleen E. White’s chapter “What Is Globalization?” offers a careful, multi-layered attempt to describe a phenomenon that has become both a powerful reality and an intensely debated concept. They begin by acknowledging that  globalization is an essentially contested concept : scholars from different parts of the world and from different disciplines approach it with varying assumptions and no single agreed-upon definition. The authors trace the word’s rise in public discourse: although the processes we now associate with globalization long-distance trade, migration, cultural exchange stretch back centuries, the term itself only became widely used after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the partial collapse of communism. This historical moment gave globalization a new political and economic resonance, yet its roots are far older. Robertson and White emphasize that debates often split between those who see g...
Read more