Resistance to Globalization – Implications to the Average Citizen
Introduction
Globalization is a phenomenon that has permeated not only national borders, but also individualistic margins. It has helped widen the choices of people on several life aspects such as consumer products, job opportunities and public policy implications due to foreign investments and other facets of international relations. Yet, there is a general understanding that globalization is not purely beneficial according to the views of some parties – a pivotal point contributing to the reasons for resistance towards the phenomenon.
This study will seek to explain the reasons behind the concept of resistance to globalization. Resistance, in this context, will come from an individualistic point of view, although collective perspectives, whenever apparent, will find relevant applications. The individual herein will be analyzed as both a consumer and a member of civil society – two arenas that globalization has heavily pervaded. Finally, the study will synthesize towards the main question – whether or not the average citizen should resist globalization.
Brief Definition of Globalization
Anyone who attempts to define globalization might come up with ideas pertaining to increasing international activity in trade, policy relations, transportations and communications. Yet, the reality is that globalization still lack an exact definition to this day, as several publications under its literature have claimed exaggerated or deficient answers (Scholte 1-2). What is common among those publications however, is the fact that globalization manifests an upsurge of inter-border transactions concerning industry, trade and migration. Ergo, globalization mainly concerns activities involving the transmission of trade, capital and labor across borders (Mittelman 15).
Globalization for Consumers
The preceding conception of globalization implies the heavy involvement of individuals as consumers. The worldwide distribution of consumer goods is an integral aspect of globalization. To make such trend possible, it is essential for manufacturers to incorporate suitable production methods that they may develop for themselves. Thus, that would lead to the development of new processes meant to deliver the purpose (Mittelman 16-18). In this case, as global trade increases, different products from various parts of the world would become available in different domestic markets, entailing individual consumers to have more choices that could meet their levels of satisfaction at prices that are more affordable, if not entirely cheap (Scholte 27).
Nevertheless, globalization – as it affects consumerism across borders, have provided controversial results. The reorganization of capitalism to make the global consumer has reached the extent in which further innovation has further driven significant changes in both technology and production methods. The need for labor has eased due to new technologies that make production more efficient and appropriate for serving a larger customer base. At the same time, the need to introduce different products to different markets across the globe has entailed manufacturers to invest in those markets by relocating portions of their operations in identified locations. They have moved to places where they are proximate to their foreign markets and where there are lower costs (Scholte 27).
Yet, the effects of globalization on influencing consumerism worldwide have generated fervent criticism from various parties. Those who advocate the welfare of their domestic markets have credited globalization as a destructive force afflicting local livelihoods. The shifting preference of consumers from local products to globalized ones has deprived domestic markets incapable of launching their respective global fronts of viable markets to cultivate (Scholte 28). The presence of foreign consumer products in different parts of the world has helped distort the concept of citizenship among individuals. Liberalization policies and shifting political preferences in favor of globalization – both being instrumental to globalizing consumer goods, has weakened the organization and mobilization of groups fighting for civil and labor rights – entities that are essential characteristics of the social contract defining citizenship (Schmidt and Hersh 193). The globalized consumer, in this context, is now culturally homogenized and thriving under weakened community structures (Mittelman 27).
Globalization and the Civil Society
As different nations lose their semi-monopolistic control over their domestic affairs in the face of globalization, civil society groups have begun associating particular policy effects to said phenomena. Since nations have started taking policy cues from trends brought by globalization, different groups have started to raise concerns on supranational matters that impose heavy domestic implications. One of those issues heavily involves the protection of the environment. The growth in globalized market activities has gravely affected the state of the global environment. Industrial and manufacturing activities fueled by global investment and dissemination of trade, capital and labor activities in different parts of the globe have become contributory to the emergence of the climate change problem, among others. Conversely, some groups have contended that the need to protect the environment has hindered the generation of further innovation related to globalization, thus serving as a limiting factor (Mittelman 202).
Whereas environmental concerns remain as a key issue in globalization, other facets stand out contextually. Civil society groups have pointed out globalization as the main influence in progressive movements supporting class, gender, race and religious rights. The increasing ability of different actors to permeate borders in a globalized setting has enabled people to have a wider window of perspectives that eventually enables them to have better understandings of different viewpoints. The ease of access to communication channels and wider avenues for travelling to different places has helped foster stronger modes of information dissemination, hence empowering different individuals with relevant knowledge on particular matters. In this case, globalization has become a tool of civil society groups enabling them to reach a stronger consensus on peace (Scholte 180-183).
Synthesis – Is Resistance to Globalization Advisable?
Globalization derives its seemingly inevitable nature from the way individuals and groups across the globe have widely accepted it, seeing it as a phenomenon that fosters the value of open-mindedness and tolerance across different spheres of life. At the same time, some circles see it as one that causes evils to arise – a notion held by skeptics supportive of the welfare of domestic markets, political and cultural values. Yet, what prevails from those observations is the common observation that globalization has the potential to become an avenue for achieving universal peace. The idea of resistance, in this case, is highly relative to the interests of groups and individuals.
Resistance mostly lies on protectionist objectives portrayed in the preceding sections pertaining to the essence of citizenship and civil society issues. If resistance is to lie across those lines, then the reasons would most likely be relative to the construction of globalization. Yet, one must remember that globalization per se does not seek to harm domestic interests. Rather, it is a phenomena brought about by the desire of individuals and groups from different nations to share their outputs to the rest of the world, all of which could come in the form of consumables, ideas and innovations. The essence of communication facilitated by globalization ensures greater understanding between different parties. Hence, globalization in itself would be difficult to resist, and it would be pointless to do so if it involves constructive processes. Players therein must not take globalization for granted, for the effects of such a phenomenon ultimately lies on how players utilize it.
Conclusion
The average citizen should not resist to globalization per se. The varying effects of globalization shown in the foregoing sections prove that it is highly reliant on the players’ actions. Resisting globalization could deny some citizens of opportunities for innovation and better relations with others from different parts of the world. If constructive use stands favorable, globalization is one that could entail negative effects when resisted. Any negative effect associated with globalization should be viewed as one caused by certain actors. By countering it with positive actions, those could be resolved without having to blame the system itself even as it could serve as an avenue for constructive measures.
Resistance should thus lie on the negative actions executed by certain actors. Globalization does not see to deny domestic actors of their right to practice the powers entitled to them, although it inevitably affects their semi-monopoly on such matter. Nevertheless, globalization, when not resisted, could provide constructive approaches for both individuals and collectivities.
Works Cited
Scholte, Jan. Globalization: A Critical Introduction. New York City, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2000. Print.
Mittelman, James. Globalization Syndrome: Transformation & Resistance. Ewing, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000. Print.
Schmidt, Johannes and Jacques Hersh. Globalization and Social Change. United Kingdom: Routledge, 2000. Print.
