Introduction
This paper evaluates the concepts characterizing global society. Global society has been conceptualized in different, but also competing measures. In the first section, the definition of global society is evaluated. Two definitions of global society (Immanuel Wallerstein’s and Gidden’s) are evaluated in the first part. This section also illuminates how these definitions have shaped my understanding oft the term global society. The second part discusses the concept of transformation and its relevance to global society.
Question Two
Globalization and the global society have been defined differently by various authors. For instance Immanuel Wallerstein conceptualizes the world in terms of systems the development of global capitalism. According to this view, division between social, political and economic relationships is seen as artificial. Wallerstein sees globalization as the emergence of a unified world system that is characterized by socioeconomic relationships of capitalism (Shaw 1). This definition has in the recent past been extended in the cultural dimension of the global system in which Wallerstein sees it as being dominated by stretches between universalism and particularism (sexism and racism).
On the other hand, Gidden’s sees the current global society as being dominated by knowledge based abstract systems, which dictate human activity, but at the same time enable or constrain one’s actions and choices (Shaw 1). Gidden’s perception dissociates itself from the notion that increasing integration of systems leads to greater social integration on the international scale. Gidden’s definition thus indicates that the crises that stem from the failures and contradictions of the so called abstract systems are lead to greater problems of social integration (Sanjay 2).
In line with this, it is essential to view globalization on the account of system and social integration. Global society is a manifestation of increasing system integration at the social-economic relations, as well as, the development of political and cultural institutions. The current global society is fragmented by a host of fractures: class, income and wealth, knowledge and power, culture and lifestyle, gender, nation, ethnicity and race. Even as the world continues to become a global community, there are many obstacles to social integration, which are hard to categorize. This begs the question that should the concept of global society be perceived on the account of factual and not normative sense? In real sense, it is impractical to dissociate the two aspects. This is because even the complex global market relations, as well as, global coordination of production yield common expectations and ideas of social life. In fact, the coordination of communications permits the diffusion of ideas and values which in the long run become increasingly held. In addition, the emergence of global politics is a result of the diffusion of language, ideas and values (Sterling-Folker 13).
Having observed these two schools of thought, a global society can be termed as the entire complex of social relations of all humans on the global stage. Global society is not only self-sufficient, but also complete just like any other society. It is a representation of a partial abstraction relative to the natural living world and history of mankind. The current global society does not have needs, is not based on imperatives, and should not be seen to entail a given set of institutions and functions rather. The institutions, systems and social relations characterizing the global society, as well as, its emergence, must be described in the context of historical contingency and discontinuity (Sterling-Folker 13).
Global society, when observed from a sociological perspective, is seen to have social relations, but it is essential to note that not all those social relations are defined at the global stage. In addition, global society is regarded as the largest society or context of social relations. For a global society to exist, it is important for the established global social relations to be strong (Sterling-Folker 13).
The explanation given by Giddens and Wallerstein have shaped the way I perceived global society. Initially, I thought that a global society was a collection of people with shared interest, beliefs and aspirations. I thought that a global society has a single political order and that there are no barriers limiting people’s associations from across the globe.
However, the two theories described in this paper have broadened my understanding of the term global society. First, I have learnt from Wallerstein’s definition that globalization is the emergence of a unified world system that is characterized by socioeconomic relationships of capitalism. Wallerstein’s definition has in the recent past been extended in the cultural dimension of the global system in which Wallerstein sees it as being dominated by stretches between universalism and particularism (sexism and racism). It is clear from the current global era that sexism and racism are prevalent. These are aspects of capitalism: those who propagate it use sexism and racism to drive their agendas. While the initial understanding of the term society entails a collection of people with common belief and customs, it is apparent that capitalists do not give a damn of social principles of society. All they need to achieve is success of their agenda under all costs; they take advantage of the global era to achieve their goals.
Giddens perceptive is the best definition. Giddens sees the current global society as being dominated by knowledge based abstract systems, which dictate human activity, but at the same time enable or constrain one’s actions and choices. Gidden’s perception dissociates itself from the notion that increasing integration of systems leads to greater social integration on the international scale. Gidden’s definition view’s globalization on the account of system and social integration. Global society is a manifestation of increasing system integration at the social-economic relations, as well as, the development of political and cultural institutions. The current global society is fragmented by a host of fractures: class, income and wealth, knowledge and power, culture and lifestyle, gender, nation, ethnicity and race. This is evident in the current era. Globalization has led to the emergence of social classes. The rich are becoming richer and richer while the poor are getting poorer. Political powerhouses are dictating the global political order at the expense of weaker nations.
In summary, this discussion has evaluated two definitions of global society: Gidden’s and Wallerstein’s. Having observed these two schools of thought, a global society can be termed as the entire complex of social relations of all humans on the global stage. Global society is not only self-sufficient, but also complete just like any other society. Gidden’s exaplanation is better than Wallerstein’s. Gidden’s definition view’s globalization on the account of system and social integration. The current global society is fragmented by a host of fractures: class, income and wealth, knowledge and power, culture and lifestyle, gender, nation, ethnicity and race. This is evident in the current era. Rich nations continue to dictate the political and economic order on the global stage. Wealth and class define the social order. These definitions have broadened my understanding of the term global society.
Works Cited
Sanjay, Seth. Post-Colonial Theory and International Relations. London; Routledge. Print.
Shaw, Martin. Global Society and International Relations. Martin Shaw, 2000. Print.
Sterling-Folker, Jennifer. Realistic Approaches. Chapter 2. Print.
Question three
In the broadest sense, global society describes the state of the society in the modern age of globalization. In essence, this stems from international integration following interchange of world views, aspects of culture, ideas and products. There are various concepts that describe the concept of globalization and global society as a whole. Transformation is on the forefront of all concepts as it embodies the whole aspect of global society. Transformation is strongly linked to modernism, whereby global society is realizing advancements in virtually all aspects. At the turn of the 20th C, the world started becoming a global society. Initial barriers that had divided the world into various regions started to disintegrate. To begin with, there was a comprehensive advancement in social connections something that was unattainable in the yester centuries. Secondly, in the current era, the world has a global economic system whereby production and markets are dictated on the global scale (Fulcher 421). In addition, there are evident elements of a global culture and worldwide communications, vibrant global political ideologies, as well as, a possibility of global political action. There are international institutions that are dedicating the world order unlike in the Cold War era.
The current trending aspect of globalization on the account of transformation is the decline of nation-state. Nation-state was anchored on the notion that its citizens are within a defined territory, which has its own rules and regulations. The idea of nation-state meant that there was a unified administration that maintained order, collected taxes, and executed laws made by the national government (Fulcher 421). In addition, national governments supposedly act as representatives of their citizens on the international stage anchored on the sovereignty of the nation-state. Thanks to globalization, nation-state is fast losing its autonomy and control. It has become apparent that globalization in its various dimensions undermines the concept of nation-state and consequently, nation-state is losing grip of the forces it previously contained (Fulcher 421).
Not all scholars second the idea of globalization. Some argue that globalization has led to the loss of national sovereignty, national control of the economy, weakens the actions of the national government, as well as, the state as a whole. In fact, national governments have suffered a blow following overboard overhaul by transnational social and religious movements (Fulcher 421). It is argued that the growth of globalization limits the ability of states to take control of their borders. On top of that national unity has become fragmented by diverse ethnic and religious aspects. Opponents of the global society hold the opinion that global society has made the nation-state to become a relic of the past. They argue that we are transforming from the modern age of nation-state to a global age of personal exploration whereby the nation-state alongside its bureaucratic ways of thinking are gaining a residual place (Fulcher 421).
Following the current proceedings in the global society, one questions the shared values that unite countries such as China and the USA, Indonesia and Denmark, Angola and Japan among other endless examples. Scholars such as Shaw give an example of the ever growing cold war between Russia and the USA over shared values. Shaw does not mince his words; he indicates that the current world is soaked in blood. In fact, massacres and genocides are the order of the day. Tyrants and warlords maim, torture and murder at will. There are thousands of oppressive gunmen who rape at will and go unpunished. The list is endless, according to Shaw, civilians kill and raid their counterparts in the name of ethnic and religious cleansing. Central and East Africa, Kosovo and the Middle East are examples of battlefields where thousands of corpses rot in battlefields. Despite these killings, Shaw sees no valuable moral concern. Although Shaw acknowledges the work done by humanitarian organizations, he sees no hope for the future. He indicates that governments and other humanitarian organizations vanish when things go sour.
In addition Shaw indicates that in a community is made up of accepted rules and conduct, common responsibility for all, effective institutions, and a shared view of the future. A working community, according to Shaw emerges gradually through precedent and practical experiment. If an international community exists, it would follow this procedure, but unfortunately, it does not exist.
Shaw provides further arguments that there is no international theory. This author argues that on the international scale, there are only minor figures and subsidiary works. In real sense, the pre-assumed international community is scattered, is mostly inaccessible to the layman and is unsystematic. Although there is a shared belief that there is an international community, it is marred with everlasting wars and continuing conflicts between rival nations, neighboring nations and geographical regions.
Works Cited
Fulcher, James. Globalization, the Nation-Sate and Global Society. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2000. Print.
Shaw, Martin. Globalization and Global Responsibility. The Theoretical, Historical and Political Limits of International Society. Journal of International Studies, 21 (1992): 421.
Shaw, Martin. Global Society and International Relations. Martin Shaw, 2000. Print.
