Coronil's article details the perceived benefits of globalization, and its actual drawbacks. He begins by saying that many believe globalization to be this new trend, but in fact, it's no different than cross cultural/cross continental trade. History books look back upon these moments as seminal, and important. And they are. But globalization in the contemporary sense is not this warm, fuzzy occurrence it's made out to be. Indeed, "rather than being new," Coronil states, "[it] is the intensified manifestation of an old process of...capitalist expansion, colonization, worldwide migrations, and transcultural exchanges" (352). The issue, as Coronil explains, is that this new breed of globalcentrism "polarizes, excludes, and differentiates" (352). In short, "it unites by dividing" (352).
Further in the article--after his brief history of Marxist economics--he speaks to the differences between the globalization of today, versus the globalization of the seventies. Today, an economy "enabled by new technologies of production and communication," has led to, at least in the mind of Coronil, "new patterns of global integration and a heightened social polarization within and among nations" (358). He cites two articles: one detailing the financial disparities between the upper and lower classes, created by globalization, and the other, detailing the sentiments of Subcomandante Marcos, namely that the Cold War was actually the Third World War, insofar as it was a war waged on the third world.
By article's end, it's clear that Coronil is clearly not a fan of globalization, as he goes to great lengths to show the damage it's caused, and the social divisions it has engendered.
Gikandi, in his article, "Globalization and the Claims of Poscoloniality," echoes many of Coronil's sentiments, namely that globalization has led to the exploitation of the third world. True, we are a global community, but the relationship is becoming decidedly one sided, with the wealthy reaping the benefits of the poor--the poor, this case, being third world countries.
An argument worthy of note, is his hypothetical, though deftly constructed, scenario in which "Somali migrants in Seattle (or North Africans in Paris) insist that ‘‘circumcising’’ their daughters is crucial to their identity(644)." What, then, do we do to embrace new members of our society while acknowledging that their beliefs may differ from our own? At what point is the globalization cocktail too strong? Where does the synthesis end? And should it? Or does having a true global community mean not only accepting, but embracing cultural relativism?
If one thing is certain, it's that globalization is not easily defined, defended, or argued for. The very concept of globalization and all of its implications is infinitely more complex than one may think.
No Responses to "Globalization: Globocentrism and Postcoloniality"
Leave a Reply