The Cultural Pros and Cons of Globalization

One of the main detractors of Globalization for many countries is the idea that it is not so much a mutual sharing of ideas so much as the spread of western and American ways of life and thinking. This concern, addressed in Theodore Bestor's "How Sushi Went Global", James Waston's "McDonalds in Hong Kong", and George Packer's "How Susie Bayer's T-Shirt Ended Up on Yusuf Mama's Back", however, seems like a superficial one to me.

In Bestor's article, the opposite of this idea of west to east seems to be playing out. Sushi, a Japanese traditional meal, has had booming popularity in the US in previous decades and it has impacted the tuna trade around the world, though mainly in westernized nations. This transfer of culture is what many are worried about, but we have yet to see this shared love of sushi create a lasting impact on our national culture and identity, despite its presence as a popular food type.

However, James Watson does not share the same positive point of view on the sharing of culinary traditions from one nation to another. Watson describes the emergence of McDonalds as a dominant fast food restaurant in Hong Kong, and tells how it has radically changed the youth of the city in terms of their habits and desires. While there does seem to be a change in terms of children wanting to eat fast food rather than traditional (according to Watson at least. When I spent a month in Hong Kong, I ate only once at a McDonalds and instead my friends and I frequented local restaurants or food bars for meals eaten out of the house.) While Watson describes this change neutrally throughout the article, his point of view becomes evident when he says that something precious has been lost. But we really must ask what exactly has been lost. The desire of children to eat traditional meals? The lack of proclivity for lines? The dominance of local restaurants? When reading his article, I initially thought that he was going to be neutral on the topic of McDonalds' presence in Hong Kong, as he made sure to show that while yes, this is an American franchise, there was a unique Hong Kong spin due to cultural influences. The ability of the people of Hong Kong to form lines, to become acclimated to having clean bathrooms, and perhaps eating a bit more often at a fast food restaurant, does not appear to me to have impacted their cultural any more than the popularity of sushi restaurants has ours.

Packer's article has a very different spin for me than the other two. The first two articles dealt with highly developed nations, whereas Pack ventures where neither of the other two do- to the third world. The cultural impact of Globalization on third and fourth world nations will be distinctly different from that on developed countries. Those nations that have been war torn will be more susceptible to the cultural influences of the western world, as in some places national culture has been destroyed. As well, the economic instability in countries such as Uganda do not place them in leadership positions and puts them at the mercy of the economic powers of more developed countries. While this position is not the optimal one, and, as Packer points out, further destroys the native culture, it might be a good thing for change to come, even if it comes at a high price.

Cities and the Contact Theory

I've been working my way through "The role of the city in the formation of Spanish American dialect zones" by John Lipski as a beginning document for my research. Lipski's article focuses mainly on the development of different dialects within the Americas based on a "contact-induced language change" theory that emphasizes the importance of contact between people and cultures (specifically the native cultures and the newly arrived Spaniards) as the driving force behind the evolutionary paths taken in different regions.

Lipski begins by addressing the idea of the "found principle", which "is modeled after population genetics, in which an originally recessive or disadvantageous trait can spread in a colony due to (1) mutation, (2) changes in the ecological conditions, and (3) a significant proportional increase in the carriers of the particular trait." The idea behind this theory is that the first settlers in the Caribbean (which was the first Spanish colonial stronghold) developed differences in their language thanks to the great distance between the colonies and the homeland, and that as each new wave of Spaniards came to the new world, they transplanted this newly evolved language onto mainland America. However, Lipski points out that modern language models do not follow the same evolutionary pathway that the founder principle predicted, and therefor believes it to be untrue.

Instead, Lipski believes that it was only was multiple cultural groups were in close proximity with one another that language evolution took place. The city, he says, was the only place for such a mixing of languages to become possible- the country side did not allow enough contact with one another for the change in Spanish to become widespread. The language of the indiginous population, the Spaniards, and the African slaves and servants brought over began to mix together as they interacted and co-inhabited the city. African vocabulary became even more evident in Spanish in the generation of children growing up with African nannies. Even things like the dance the Tango were transplanted into what is now seen as typical Hispanic culture.

The cities in Latin America and the Caribbean that are centers for certain Spanish dialects are also those that were chosen as the main ports for trade and industry during the Spanish colonial period. They were also the areas of highest population density and population in general. Lipski does not see it as a coincidence that these port cities became the epicenters for linguistic evolution. Lipski even cites the relatively small populations of these cities (in contrast with the vast cities of Sevilla and Madrid), as the reason that language changes were so easy: spreading language amongst a smaller group of people was much easier than in the huge cities of Europe.

By the 17th century, the Spanish American population had broken away from the critical changes in the official Spanish language. In Iberian Spanish, grammatical changes (such as the elimination of the pronoun vos for a time) were taking place, but these alterations were not reflected in the Spanish of the Americas, indicating that a distinct break had taken place between the mother nation and the Americas. To further the differences between the dialects, the American cities had a surge in Italian, Canary Island, African, and Creole immigrants that flooded the cities not only with themselves, but with their distinct dialects.

The final point that Lipski makes is that once the cities of the Americas were allowed to grow more rapidly (improvements in sanitation and the passing of several illnesses that had kept population low in previous years allowed for incredible growth), the dialects that had developed there were spread amongst the general population, which created the larger dialect zones that are present today.

Globalization: a Necessary Evil

Globalization has many positive aspects to it, not the least of which is the resulting economic boom that followed the advent of modern globalization. However, the world's hesitation to embrace the idea of globalization in its entirety is completely justified- there is no true guarantee that allowing a nation's economy to join the global one will bring success, and the link between a national economy and a global economy can be a negative one when an economic crisis arises.

Niall Ferguson's "Sinking Globalization" explores both the positives and negatives of a nation engaging in the global economy using the uncanny similarities between the globalization of the late 19th century to the beginning of the first world war. The global economy was then expanding in a similar way to today- "relatively free trade, limited restrictions on migration, and hardly any regulation of capital flows. Inflation was low. A wave of technological innovation...". All of these are conditions that were mirrored in the 80's, 90's, and even the early years of the aughts. However, Ferguson then uses this parallel set up to make the reader understand that, like the downfall of the first period of globalization through (put mildly) a series of unfortunate events (if World War I, the great depression, and World War II can be so classified), the global economy of today is far from infallible. In fact, his point is driven home by the recent recession and the move towards protectionist policies in order to bolster a stalling American economy.

The US of today also faces several challenges that it did not during the first period of globalization. The US is now a debtor nation, not a creditor one, we are indebted to countries with economies that are fragile (China), we are over-exerting our influence and are spread thin, the US is no longer the fastest growing economy on the planet, and terrorist regimes that are hostile to capitalism still exist. All of these factors make the current global situation one that SHOULD make the US stop before plunging headfirst into the global economy.

However much the US needs to think before acting, Thomas Friedman argues in "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" that for the US, or any nation for that matter, to progress economically, there is no choice but to embrace globalization. Friedman starts out by giving the very Fukuyama-esque comment that no other economic system "can generate income to distribute as efficiently as free-market capitalism", and that once this idea has been grasped, the only logical and profitable step is to engage in the global economy. This global economy required that governments place fewer restrictions in economic regulation. However, it is at this point that Friedman introduces the point that makes me the most hesitant about embracing globalization: today, economic success is not assured by entering the global market. The "electronic herd", as Friedman calls modern day investors who utilize technology to make rapid business decisions, have a strong impact on the economic success of a nation, and it is easy for the power wielded by this herd to change directions quite quickly.

As well, globalization truly leaves no one in charge. The safety nets that are in place in a national economy in case of a crisis are simply not present in the global economy. The complete lack of a fail-safe makes me nervous to embrace globalization, as the repercussions of a global economic melt-down could be catastrophic if we have no system in place to immediately recover.

Despite this risk, I feel that the US must move in the direction of further globalization for the reason that Friedman presents: for the growth of our economy, we have no choice but to engage ourselves in the global marketplace.

Fareed Zakaria In General

While reading Fareed Zakaria's article "The Rise of the Rest", two ideas popped out at me as particularly striking, mainly because they combined the ideas of Fukuyama's "End of History" and Thomas Friedman's "The World is Flat" in an interesting way. Zakaria is very emphatic about the idea that the United States has not lost its ability to lead the world in several aspects. Economically, especially in the system, Zakaria sees the US as a force to be reckoned with, and he generally believes that the American system of free markets and democracy have proven themselves to be the best systems for most nations. However, Zakaria's worldview on democracy and capitalism (outside of this article) put emphasis on the presence of institutions before full systems can be developed. This point of view is perfectly in line with Fukuyama's, who essentially wrote that free markets and democracy had proven themselves to be most effective systems in the modern world, as well as his complete adoration for institutions (which he elaborates on thouroughly in "State-Building: Governance and World Order in the 21st Century".)

Despite his similar opinion on state-building, Zakaria also takes a stance close to that of Friedman regarding globalization. He makes the point that

"Over the last 20 years, globalization has been gaining depth and breadth. America has benefited massively from these trends. It has enjoyed unusually robust growth, low unemployment and inflation, and received hundreds of billions of dollars in investment. These are not signs of economic collapse. Its companies have entered new countries and industries with great success, using global supply chains and technology to stay in the vanguard of efficiency. U.S. exports and manufacturing have actually held their ground and services have boomed."

Zakaria, while hesitant about leaping straight into full scale globalization, seems to believe that the integration of the US economy into the global one has not been a bad thing.

The odd combination of Fukuyama and Friedman was unexpected, it also made for an interesting read of Zakaria's article.

Fareed Zakaria and Kishore Mahbubani: different problems, same solution

While it may appear that America is in decline, I disagree. The statement that America is in a state of decline neglects the fact that most of the changes that are being made in world politics and economic power have been caused by an increase in the power of other nations, such as China and India. America itself, however, remains relatively unchanged, and has even grown economically in the past 20 years. Kishore Mahbubani, however, takes a much more hostile stance to America's progress in the 21st century in his article, "The Case Against the West". Many of the reasons that are given for the so called decline, such as America’s poor handling of the situation in the middle east, America’s inability to form a long term strategy for dealing with serious problems, the crisis in the middle east, and its hesitance regarding the global economy, give the idea that it is necessary for America to be failing for these things to be possible. However, as a generally conservative state that tends to fear radical change in policy (which is explicable, as our economic, internal political, and international political strategies have been successful in maintaining superpower status until now), it is not decline that causes many of these issues, but an inability to conform to a rapidly changing world. Fareed Zakaria points out in his article, "The Rise of the Rest" that while the world has been changing, the United States has been shutting down because it does not know how to react to such a radical alteration from the power structure of the 20th century.
The issue of nuclear proliferation and policy regarding nuclear weapons, and specifically the United States’ transgression regarding these regulations, are a result of the stagnation of change in US policy. While it is called hypocrisy that the United States condemns those states that develop nuclear weapons while they themselves continue to do so, the United States has seen its actions as the prerogative of an international superpower. The US is still under the belief that it is its right to dictate international regulations, a view point that is radically different from reality.
As for economic policy and leadership, it is in this area that the United States has seemed to succeed the most, though Mahbubani clearly believes the opposite. The United States has had continual economic growth throughout the past few decades, with a few crashes and the recent economic recession. However, Mahbubani does not acknowledge the fact that much of the growth in nations such as China and India has been global economic growth that has been aided by the United States. As Thomas Friedman argues, the United States and economies around the globe are now being centralized into a much larger one. Though the US’s economic growth is small in comparison to the massive percent increases being put up by developing nations, it is important to understand that the explosive growth undergone by these nations has been contingent upon the involvement of western economies. However, the US’s “lying low”, as Mahbubani calls it, is the natural instinct of a developed nation that has the intention of protecting its interests. The interdependence of various nations is an idea that rightfully scares the United States- the recent recession shows that the economic trouble in one country can have strong repercussions for all nations when the global economy is so integrated. I do not think that the US’s hesitation concerning free trade are at all a sign of decline, but a reaction that I perhaps more wise than plunging ahead.
I agree strongly with Mahbubani and Zakaria in that the United States needs to make radical changes in policy in order to progress in the world ahead. The world position that we have been resting on since the end of the Cold War has been dramatically altered with the rise of the global economy and increased stress regarding policy in the Middle East. However, change is not going to be easy, as the United States has never before faced a situation in modern times when it has not dictated the situation. As Zakaria would argue, it is not so much a loss of power on the part of the United States as an increase in the power of other nations, and we must learn to cope and adapt to this idea.

The Royal Spanish Academy represented in the photo above is one of 22 that are responsible for the "hygiene of the Spanish language". Originally the Royal Spanish Academy was the only one in existance, as Spain was the mother nation of the language. However, the 21st century saw the creation of 21 other academies as the differences between American Spanish, African Spanish, and Peninsular Spanish grew more distinct.