This is the second part of my paper on Globalization. I argue that human beings are naturally tribal-- they make groups and stick with them. Therefore, while globalization exists certainly on the surface, it will never be achieved on a deeper and complete level.
For PART 1, click here.
...What could be a clearer and more genuine representation of this assumption than kids forming cliques all the time? Children don’t act by hidden agenda, they are innocent and act purely, naturally. Their actions and behaviors depend solely on their natural instinct. Intelligibly, when a few kids form a little group and get to the point to exclude other peers, they don’t do so to intentionally harm the excluded, nor are they trying to study their the emotional response. Children do so because they are tribal. They do so because they feel comforted by each other’s similarities, just as they don’t feel comfortable with each other’s differences. They do so because they are able to recognize which other children are similar to themselves. And they can recognize these similarities because they are embedded into the roots of their tribes’ history.
As a matter of fact, being part of a group makes us feel important as an integrative element of a reality, of something larger and bigger than ourselves, while we run away from the dark mystery and the fear of ever being left alone. This natural behavior, described by social psychology as the “Need to Belong Theory,” takes up a central position in the emblematic pyramid portraying a figurative representation of Abraham Masolw’s hierarchy of needs (Cherry, Kendra). Maslow was an American psychologist and a professor of psychology at different institutions of higher education, including Columbia University. His studies have demonstrated that forming groups, or “tribes,” of people similar to each other is a hallmark impressed in the DNA and in the nature of all women and men. These groups, eventually, lead to further development of more and more particular traits and characteristics— distinctive of that “tribe” (Encyclopædia Britannica). As a result, similar people become attached to the attributes and customs that make them unique, reason why they are not willing to give up their identity.
In one sense, individual identity arises ipso facto from a cultural and national identity. While cultures are formed by the interconnection and exchange of similar traits by geographically neighboring individuals, nations are based on their sentiments of nationalism. Nationalism is the firm opposition of the individual to shift the boundary of his nation, underlining and making bold the net distinction between his culture and another. On the same line of thought, the actions and beliefs of the individual depend on who he is, while who he is depends on the actions and beliefs performed by who lives around him. Therefore, preserving the traits of the community becomes a priority, and this has a negative effect on the process of globalization (Schouls, Timothy).
Of course, on the other hand, the word “Globalization” is itself controversial. It is becoming nothing more than the cliché of our time (Global Transformations). In one sense, it is indeed a new concept introduced after the Second World War, when the first corporations made their appearance in the global economy. This nuance in its meaning distinctively describes a specific process in which local barriers have been broken down to create one planetary market. That being the case, the current level of globalization is a direct result of the significant development in the transportation and telecommunication systems, and relies on the liberalization of financial markets. In this sense, we are in a time of globalization surely more than any generation of the past, and certainly much less than any generation of the future (Ritze, George, and Zeynep Atalay).
Under a different perspective, however, globalization can be considered as a natural process due to human thirst for discovery. From this point of view, it is indeed nothing new. Humans have come to know each other through conflicts, wars, treaties, and many discoveries (SUNY Levin). In the Classical period, age of the expansion of the Roman Empire, we can recognize an ancient example of “globalization.” At the beginning of the 2nd century AD, almost two millennia ago, when America and Oceania hadn’t been discovered yet, the Roman Empire reached its peak, extending for a vast part of the known and developed world at the time (UNRV History). The Empire, flourished around the Mediterranean Sea, or, as they liked to call it, Mare Nostrum (“Our Sea,”) expanded from Rome, in Italy, to all Western Europe, North Africa, and part of Western Asia and Arabian Peninsula. While today the people of these countries are different in every aspect of life, including the divergences in their cultural, social, political, and economic regulations and values, 2,000 years ago they were united under one rule. They were all expected to speak the same language and worship the same God(s); the central importance of the family and the indistinct love for Rome was undiscussed among all Romans; the faith to the same leader was guaranteed; and commerce between locations today part of different continents happened regularly and actually represented a vital resource of the Empire’s economy (Encyclopædia Britannica).
Once we realize this, how can we still talk about globalization? In one sense, we are indeed far less “globalized” than the Roman Empire 2,000 years ago, in spite of all the technological advantages that we can benefit from. This demonstrates that globalization has its roots in the history of humanity, and that really the creation of an interconnected society is nothing new, while the future existence of a ‘global village’ is in fact less foreseeable today than ever.
Unless an external force, like an improbable sudden alien invasion, were to threaten the entire globe’s population, a genuine global village would not have a chance to be constituted. Being able to admit and recognize human limits is important for the constant progression of our species. We are now in front of a natural human limit, which would accordingly require a natural catastrophe to be overcome. In the hope that no catastrophe occurs, we will continue to be tribal as commanded by nature, and globalization will not take place in the entirety of its essence.
After some analytical reasoning, we have reached the conclusion that globalization develops on at least two different and separate lines of thought: one mainly economic, and one social. Under an economic perspective, the phenomenon of globalization refers to the “shrinking of the world,” meant as the achievement of technological advances in communication systems, transportation, and financial markets. As traveling the world becomes easier, the interaction between peoples from different countries brings about a significant cultural exchange. As a result, one of the consequences of a “smaller” world could potentially be a better understanding of different cultures in the future; however, this hypothetical enhanced understanding will never be able to grow into true acceptance, because the human being is inevitably naturally and instinctively tribal. The traits at the root of an individual’s existence will never be swapped for someone else’s different beliefs. As a support to this theory, crucial disagreements separate today the countries of the world from simple topics such as the measurement or date systems, to much more complex divergences such as religion, political views, and languages. In addition, as we have learned from Dr. Maslow, every human psychologically needs to feel part of a group of similar people. Enlarging this cluster to the whole world population substantially would imply the belonging to the only one group existent, which practically translates into belonging to no group. Clearly, humans are not prepared for this. Humans by nature, are tribal. And wether we like it or not, these tribes will keep us from forming a global, united society.
Works Cited
Cherry, Kendra. "What Is the Need To Belong?" About Education. Psychology.about, n.d. Web. 29 Aug. 2014.
David Held, Anthony McGrew, David Goldblatt and Johnatan Perraton. "Global Transformations." What Is Globalization? Polity.co.uk, 1999. Web. 05 Sept. 2014.
"Moore's Law." Moores Law. MemeBridge, n.d. Web. 29 Aug. 2014.
Ritze, George, and Zeynep Atalay. "Is Civilization Civilazing, Destructive, or Feeble? A Critique of Five Key Debates in the Social Sciences Literature." Readings in Globalization: Key Concepts and Major Debates. Chichester, West Sussex, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. 4-7. Print.
The Editors of UNRV History. "Roman Empire Population." Roman Empire Population. UNRV History, n.d. Web. 04 Sept. 2014.
Rowlett, Russ. "Units: The Metric System in the U. S." Units: The Metric System in the U. S. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 8 Aug. 2000. Web. 29 Aug. 2014.
Schouls, Timothy A. "Identity Politics and Pluralist Theory." Shifting Boundaries: Aboriginal Identity, Pluralist Theory, and the Politics of Self-government. Vancouver: UBC, 2003. 8. Print.
Stief, Colin. "Read Up on the Positives and Negatives of Globalization." About Education. Geography.about, n.d. Web. 29 Aug. 2014.
The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. "Abraham H. Maslow (American Psychologist)." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 29 Aug. 2014.
The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. "The Expansion of Rome." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 04 Sept. 2014.
The Editors of SUNY Levin. "What Is Globalization?" Globalization101. State University of New York: Levin Institute, n.d. Web. 29 Aug. 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment