What is the relation between politics and globalization? - Yun Shinji

1) Summary

The author views “political globalization” as a multidimensional, accelerated, and interconnected form of organization that transcends national borders across space and time. Rather than seeing globalization as a simple reality, the author understands it as a “relational dynamic” that produces a complex and constantly shifting political landscape. According to the author, political globalization is driven by three key processes.

First is global geopolitics. This involves interactions mainly between states, including traditional balances of power, international security, territorial disputes, and other state-centered dynamics. These geopolitical interactions continue to shape how states position themselves in an increasingly interdependent world.

Second is the global normative culture, which refers to political values and norms—such as human rights and democracy—that are shared or diffused across the world. These norms influence how states govern internally and how they are evaluated by the global community.

Third is polycentric networks. These networks encompass various actors and relationships that transcend the nation-state, competing with traditional state-centered orders and generating new forms of governance. Such networks challenge the previous assumption that states are the only meaningful actors in global politics.

The author argues that these three processes interact with each other, shaping new political spaces and axes of conflict. Political globalization also brings fundamental changes to territorial modes of state governance. The cross-border flows of financial capital, information, and other transnational forces weaken the state’s traditional control over its own territory. However, this does not mean the state is simply disappearing; rather, states are reorganizing their governance structures in response to new global pressures.

One of the most significant consequences of political globalization, according to the author, is the rise of global civil society. The growth of global civil society increases the autonomy of new actors such as NGOs and international social movements, offering opportunities to elevate issues like the environment and human rights—topics that traditional state politics often failed to address. However, the author also emphasizes that these actors are not always working for peace or freedom; the lack of accountability and democratic legitimacy within global civil society can become a serious concern. Finally, the author argues that political globalization has fundamentally shifted the main axis of political conflict. While political conflict once centered on class divisions or relations between the state and civil society, today’s conflicts revolve around rights of difference, identity, individual versus community, and liberal democracy versus cosmopolitanism. This shift indicates that political debates are now deeply intertwined with cultural and social questions.

2) Something new and interesting

What I found most interesting was the discussion of the darker side of global civil society. I had usually associated global civil society with positive values such as human rights and democracy. However, the author clearly highlights its dual nature. The idea that global civil society can also be exploited by terrorists, human traffickers, and organized crime was striking. It reminded me that the global political order is not shaped only by actors with good intentions but is also vulnerable to those who operate illegally and undemocratically. This perspective broadened my understanding of globalization by showing that interconnectedness does not automatically produce positive outcomes.

The author also emphasizes that today’s major political conflicts revolve around issues like identity and rights of difference. This resonated with me because it is deeply connected to our everyday lives. In Korea, for example, intense debates over gender, generational divides, and immigration are increasingly prominent. These issues are not merely domestic problems but arise from the mixing of diverse identities facilitated by global mobility. In other words, globalization is reshaping the very character of social conflict in our daily lives, often making these conflicts more visible and emotionally charged.

Lastly, one of the points that resonated with me the most was the author’s discussion of reterritorialization. Globalization often raises concerns that the increasing flows of financial capital and information are weakening the state through deterritorialization. The author acknowledges this anxiety but argues that states are not simply losing control; instead, they are reterritorializing governance in response to new global pressures. I can sense this process in my own daily life as well. For example, the strengthening of domestic regulations on foreign digital platforms and the revision of personal data protection laws show that states are not abandoning control but rather redefining rules in new domains such as data, AI systems, and cyberspace. These developments suggest that states are actively experimenting with new policy tools to regain regulatory authority. Ultimately, I realized that I am not living in an era where sovereignty is dissolving, but in an environment where regulatory frameworks are continuously evolving, adapting, and taking on new forms.

3) Questions and Discussions

Many international NGOs work for the public good, but at times they apply unilateral pressure on the policies of specific states. I would like to discuss how ethical and financial transparency and accountability can be ensured for these non-state actors.

Second, while globalization highlights borderless flows, the author argues that global geopolitics remains a crucial political agenda. I would like to explore why global geopolitics continues to be so significant in the era of globalization and whether traditional geopolitical competition is being reshaped rather than diminished.

Lastly, building on what I noted earlier, I would like to discuss the extent to which states should regulate individual freedoms—basic rights—in order to prevent global civil society networks from being exploited for criminal purposes, and how such regulation can remain democratic rather than coercive.