Political Globalization
1) Summary
Political globalization represents the growth of a global political system. The notion of globalization is multidimensional, a space that transcends national boundaries as it accelerates. The process of political globalization opens up the possibility of new liberation, but the globalization of other countries may lead to the loss of autonomy and division of the social world. Political globalization presents three processes that interact to produce a complex realm of global politics. Political globalization can be understood as tensions among global geopolitics, global normative culture and polycentric networks.
The first dimension of political globalization is the geopolitics of world power. The second dimension of political globalization is the rise of world normative culture. As a result of global communication and popular culture, political communication is not limited to the borders and is open to any nation. Today, the world normative culture exists beyond the national system. This has created a tension between the nations. There is another dimension of globalization that has little relevance to the nation and can not be reduced to a global normative culture. It is polycentric networks. A polycentric network is a form of nonterritorial politics that can not be reduced to a single center. This process of political globalization depends on the flow of the network. New mobility and communication show personal, social, and national relationships. A polycentric network is closely related to a new form of global governance.
The three dynamics of political globalization talked about the four cases of social transformation : the transformation of nationality and citizenship, the public sphere and political communication, civil society, and space and borders.
In the transformation of nationality and citizenship, according to Robinson, a transnational nation emerged. Transnational nations are multi-hierarchical and pluralistic. The functions between nations are linked in terms of transnationality. This globalization restructures the nation surrounding global capitalism and makes it impossible for the nation to become independent.
In the transformation of the public sphere and communication, Habermas asserted that communication is the open space of political and cultural debate, fully institutionalized by the nation, or wholly controlled by elite and political communication organizations. The public sphere is a place of politics. This is not just a spatial location, but a process of dispute. The world normative culture played a leading role in shaping political communication.
In the centrality of civil society, the civil socialization of politics means the commonality of political forms at the regional, global, national and transnational levels. Civil society covers a wide range of political activities. Civil society is also defined as an area of social activity that is legally recognized and guaranteed by the nation. Although there is no consensus on the nature of global civil society, it can refer to a complex network of NGO-led political campaigns and cross-border approaches. It defines the global civil society as the domain of global civil society activity.
In the transformation of spaces and borders, borderless world is related to the idea of globalization. Beyond the nation, we must face the need to rethink the space and the borders in the global knowledge economy and network society.
Fragmentation of world society can lead to loss of political autonomy. The three processes described above, the civic socialization of the governance structure, are complex and sometimes contradictory. Through this relationship, we can point out the tension between autonomy and division. Political globalization has created new tensions that constitute politics. Political globalization has also created the possibility of a surge of political conflicts on governance, identity, mobility, and prominent communities.
2) Mention of any new, interesting, or unusual items learned
It was interesting that political globalization has two sides. Political globalization can open up the possibility of liberation, but the other side can lead to the loss of autonomy and division of world society. Political globalization can solve global problems such as environmental pollution, war, racial discrimination, and religious conflicts. But the world economy and politics may be dominated by some developed nations. An example of political globalization is the Brazilian Amazon rainforest. The Brazil government is in the position to develop even if the Amazon jungle is destroyed for its development, and advanced nations and NGOs should preserve it because of the environmental problems of the whole earth when the Amazon jungle is destroyed. The Amazon jungle is very important because it supplies 20% of the Earth's oxygen. Recently, the Brazilian government officially withdrew the Amazon rainforest mine development plan. The criticism of the development of the Amazon rainforest mine came out and was withdrawn due to public criticism. Political circles and environmental groups played a major role in this withdrawal. In particular, Greenpeace, an international environmental group, has warned of the crisis of the Amazon rainforest. The controversy will continue in the future. So, I think that we should go in the direction of minimizing conflict through political globalization.
3) Discussion
I want to discuss about an interesting point. Political globalization is on the background of the integration of world politics. In this respect, I wonder if the world could be politically integrated. Every nation adheres to its position for the benefit of each nation. The problem of conflict between the interests of one nation and the interests of other nations will not disappear. But we need to try to reduce it and you will need a compromise. Development can not be viewed as negative even though the development of one's own nation has a negative impact on other nations. Therefore, discussions on this take place in various official organizations. I think that we should think about compromise separately from it.
I agree that we should consider compromise. However, we must consider whether compromise can be achieved in the presence of power differences. In this situation, compromise can be a tolerance for developed countries to developing countries, and developing country has to accept it. And I think the development of negative effects on other countries should be stopped. This is because it can be the logic of colonialism.
ReplyDelete