What is the relation between politics and globalization? -Kim Gaeun

1. Summary 

The relationship between politics and globalization is best understood not as a static outcome, but as a "relational dynamic" that continuously produces a complex and shifting political landscape. This perspective defines political globalization as a multi-dimensional, accelerated, and interconnected form of organization that transcends traditional national borders across both space and time. According to this framework, political globalization is not driven by a single force but emerges from the interaction of three distinct processes.

The first driver is Global Geopolitics. This refers to the traditional interactions predominantly between states, encompassing classic power dynamics such as territorial disputes, international security alignments, and the maintenance of a global balance of power. Even in an increasingly interconnected world, these state-centered dynamics remain critical, fundamentally shaping how states define their strategic interests and position themselves against external threats and opportunities.

The second key process is the Global Normative Culture. This involves the shared or diffused political values and standards that permeate the international system, most notably those centered on human rights, democratic principles, and legal accountability. This normative culture influences internal state governance, providing external benchmarks against which a state's political legitimacy is measured by the global community. It acts as a soft power constraint, pressuring states toward certain political and social reforms.

The third, and perhaps most disruptive, driver is the rise of Polycentric Networks. These networks comprise various non-state actors, relationships, and institutions that operate transnationally, including business associations, organized crime syndicates, and activist groups. These multi-nodal networks challenge the long-held assumption that states are the sole meaningful actors in global politics, generating new, dispersed forms of governance that compete with or bypass traditional state-centered orders.

These three processes interact, creating new political spaces and axes of conflict. Political globalization inherently challenges the territorial mode of state governance, as the cross-border flows of financial capital and information weaken the state’s capacity for absolute control. However, this weakening does not signal the demise of the state; instead, states are actively reorganizing their governance structures in response to these new global pressures. A critical consequence of this dynamic is the growth of global civil society, which allows new actors like NGOs and international social movements to raise issues—such as the environment and human rights—that traditional state politics often failed to prioritize. Ultimately, this paradigm shift means the main axis of political conflict has moved away from class or state-versus-civil-society divisions, centering today on rights of difference, identity, the individual versus the community, and the friction between liberal democracy and cosmopolitanism.

2. Interesting Discoveries 

What I found most striking in this analysis was the dual nature of political globalization, particularly concerning Global Civil Society. I had previously associated the emergence of transnational civic organizations solely with positive, progressive goals like democracy and human rights promotion. However, the author’s clear articulation of the "darker side" was a profound realization. The insight that this interconnected network is readily exploited by malevolent actors—such as terrorists, human traffickers, and sophisticated organized crime syndicates—is a critical challenge to idealistic views of globalization. This perspective forcefully demonstrates that increased global connectivity is merely a technology, not an ideology, and it is equally available to those operating outside legal and ethical frameworks. The global political order is vulnerable precisely because its underlying infrastructure of connectivity can be utilized for illegal and anti-democratic purposes, fundamentally broadening the definition of global political threats.

Equally compelling was the discussion of how globalization is reshaping the character of domestic social conflict, particularly concerning identity and "rights of difference." This resonated deeply with local realities. In South Korea, for example, highly visible and emotionally charged public debates surrounding gender equality, generational conflict, and increasing immigration rates are not isolated domestic disputes. They are amplified—and in many ways, defined—by global flows of information, cultural norms, and increased human mobility. Globalization brings diverse identities into unavoidable contact, making previously latent social conflicts visible and intensely political. This emphasizes how political globalization directly alters the composition of social conflict in our daily lives, moving the focus away from traditional economic issues toward cultural and identity-based struggles.

Finally, the concept of reterritorialization offered a crucial corrective to the common anxiety about deterritorialization. While financial and information flows undeniably weaken the state’s previous boundaries, the author asserts that states are not passively accepting the loss of control. Instead, they are actively redefining governance in response to global pressures. I can clearly observe this phenomenon in domestic policies: the introduction of strict data localization laws, enhanced scrutiny of foreign digital platforms, and the rapid revision of intellectual property and national security regulations related to AI development. These measures demonstrate that the state is not dissolving but is strategically reasserting its regulatory authority in new domains like cyberspace and data governance. This confirms that we are not living in an era of evaporating sovereignty, but rather one where regulatory frameworks are continuously adapting, evolving, and reterritorializing control in novel ways.

3. Question/Discussion Angle 

Based on the complex dynamics presented in the analysis, several critical questions regarding the future accountability and stability of the global political system arise for discussion.

First, regarding global civil society: Many international NGOs, while pursuing the public good, often exercise significant political influence by applying unilateral pressure on the internal policies of specific sovereign states. Given their non-state, non-electoral status, how can meaningful mechanisms for ethical and financial transparency and public accountability be effectively ensured for these powerful transnational actors?

Second, concerning the persistence of state power: If globalization emphasizes borderless flows and polycentric networks, why does global geopolitics—the arena of traditional state-on-state competition—continue to dominate the political agenda? We should explore whether traditional geopolitical competition is being merely reshaped (perhaps moving from direct military confrontation to cyber conflict or economic coercion) rather than fundamentally diminished in the era of interdependence.

Lastly, stemming from the discovery of the "darker side" of global civil society: To what extent should states regulate individual freedoms and basic rights—such as privacy and unrestricted communication—in order to prevent global civil society networks from being exploited for criminal purposes, such as terrorism or human trafficking? Furthermore, how can such regulation be designed to remain fully democratic and legally justified, rather than descending into coercive or authoritarian state control? Addressing this balance is essential for maintaining both security and liberty in a globalized world.