What is the relation between politics and globalization? - Kim Yeong chan

 Summary

 The core argument of this article is that political globalization increases the complexity of politics. In a way, it suggests that modern freedom has made politics more complex, leading to the emergence of new political forms. This transformation arises from the interaction of the three processes introduced at the beginning: global geopolitics, global normative culture, and polycentric networks. The specific details show that the nation-state is not disappearing but is transforming, that politics is no longer confined to one country and is influenced by global norms, and that borders are not disappearing but are instead being relocated more densely into all places.

Interesting Points

What was most interesting was the authors' assertion that the "borderless world" is a "chimera." This is because globalization is usually associated with free movement and the dissolution of borders. However, this article argues that globalization simultaneously causes "rebordering"—where borders are actually strengthened to respond to new types of threats (like terror or immigration surveillance). This was fascinating because it implies that my daily actions, such as tagging a transit card to ride the bus or using my student ID to prove my identity for the library, are all defined as acts of crossing a "border" in this new, "dispersed" sense.

The second interesting point was the section on global normative culture. As humanity has progressed and the concept of human rights has become central, it now seems as if human rights and international law exist above the laws of an individual nation. This was compelling because it refutes the traditional concept that rights (citizenship) are the exclusive possession of a state’s nationals, showing how globalization is "decoupling" citizenship from nationality.

Further Questions

  The point I want to question is whether other actors in world politics, excluding the state, truly possess the "weight class" to make demands on nations. To be frank, these non-state actors—which this article calls 'global civil society'—still have a very weak voice compared to the traditional masters of world politics: the states, which are based on strong, tangible power. For instance, these global actors failed to stop, or even halt, Russia's invasion of Ukraine. They also appear to be merely watching China's pressure on Taiwan. Of course, the accomplishments of global civil society are significant, but we must still place a question mark on the actual influence they wield in the international community.

 I believe this question connects directly to the dilemma of 'autonomy versus fragmentation' that the authors present in their conclusion. The authors state that global civil society has gained new 'autonomy' separate from the state. However, they also warn that this leads to 'fragmentation'. I see this 'fragmentation' not just as the 'dark side' (like terrorists) they mention, but as a fragmentation of power itself. In other words, has global civil society gained the autonomy to speak, while lacking the actual power to stop the geopolitical actions of powerful states like Russia or China? Does this ultimately allow the world to be 'fragmented' by state power anyway, proving that the autonomy of GCS is, in fact, an 'ineffectual autonomy'?

Ai use 

Use Gemini for simple translation


Comments

  1. Hong DahyeonNovember 16, 2025 at 7:06 AM

    Your reflection provided a very thoughtful perspective, especially in showing how globalization reshapes borders rather than removing them. I also found your questions about the limits of global civil society’s influence very meaningful, since they highlight the gap between increased visibility and actual political power.

    ReplyDelete

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