Sunday, September 10, 2006
Sept 12: "How Global is Global?"
This article questions the concept of globalization and suggests that the term "globalization" implies universitality, a positive charge. This implication remains generally unchallenged by mainstream media, and people have the tendency to assume that "global" means "betterment of the world."
Technology has generally been used in the past as a measurement of a country's progress. A more technologically advanced society implies a better society. A higher income level, stability of the political system, and health of the economy is used to measure progress. As a result, globalization, or the advancement of telecommunications, symbolizes a victory for society progress-wise.
However, in reality, it is the multinational corporations who are behind the positive implication behind the word "global," and there are serious problems with this. Globalization limits certain groups (i.e., the poor, those without access to the newest technology) from participating. It separates the "haves" and the "have nots" in society. How do the poor access the information without the necessary hardware, service, or technological literacy? Who will provide equal access to these services? Will the poor be left behind?
If we move to the issue of the difference between the “have” and the “have not” countries, the issue grows to be even more complex. The developing countries will have to be dependent upon the developed and knowledgeable countries.
The author concludes the global is not synonymous with “universal” and “all-inclusive,” because of 1) lack of access and 2) control over telecommunications networks is in the hands of those who control economic power over the industrialized world (multinational corporations.)
As a result, the author suggests that a few changes need to take place before we can truly use the word “global” for its intended use. First, we need to close the gap between the “haves” and the “have nots.” More discursive spaces for women, minorities, environmentalists, Third World countries, and modes of thinking need to be opened. We need to realize that English is not the only language, and fix the problem of the domination of the Internet by this language. Those of us studying communication “should give equal consideration to the oppositional and alternative discourses about technology emerging from both the developed and developing world.”
Summary by the author:
"The discourse of the information age has been dominated by those who believe technology to be either good or neutral. Their influence is manifested in popular beliefs about technology as well as in the rhetoric of the information society. Words such as global and globalization have been buzzwords, but do not refer to real phenomena (Marvin, 1987). Global and globalization elicit images of universality, of a comprehensive and all-inclusive process but instead they mean: limited to a small group who has access to the technology; exclusion of the world's have nots and oppression."
Discussion Questions:
1) What might be some of the social and political implications of leaving certain segments of the U.S. society out of the telecommunications revolution?
2) How could the U.S. as a nation ensure equal access to new telecommunications technologies? Who should/could assume the cost of ensuring equal access?
3) Could you think of ways of helping developing countries achieve better standards of living without necessarily imposing on them telecommunications technologies that may disrupt their lives?
4) Some argue that the world’s cultural environment is becoming saturated with cultural products (TV programs, films, magazines) produced by large media corporations in the First World and exported to the developing world. Is there a real threat of cultural domination? Do you forsee one world with one culture?
5) How could you contribute to transform the current dominant discourse about “globalization,” to create a future of fair global communication among nations?
Technology has generally been used in the past as a measurement of a country's progress. A more technologically advanced society implies a better society. A higher income level, stability of the political system, and health of the economy is used to measure progress. As a result, globalization, or the advancement of telecommunications, symbolizes a victory for society progress-wise.
However, in reality, it is the multinational corporations who are behind the positive implication behind the word "global," and there are serious problems with this. Globalization limits certain groups (i.e., the poor, those without access to the newest technology) from participating. It separates the "haves" and the "have nots" in society. How do the poor access the information without the necessary hardware, service, or technological literacy? Who will provide equal access to these services? Will the poor be left behind?
If we move to the issue of the difference between the “have” and the “have not” countries, the issue grows to be even more complex. The developing countries will have to be dependent upon the developed and knowledgeable countries.
The author concludes the global is not synonymous with “universal” and “all-inclusive,” because of 1) lack of access and 2) control over telecommunications networks is in the hands of those who control economic power over the industrialized world (multinational corporations.)
As a result, the author suggests that a few changes need to take place before we can truly use the word “global” for its intended use. First, we need to close the gap between the “haves” and the “have nots.” More discursive spaces for women, minorities, environmentalists, Third World countries, and modes of thinking need to be opened. We need to realize that English is not the only language, and fix the problem of the domination of the Internet by this language. Those of us studying communication “should give equal consideration to the oppositional and alternative discourses about technology emerging from both the developed and developing world.”
Summary by the author:
"The discourse of the information age has been dominated by those who believe technology to be either good or neutral. Their influence is manifested in popular beliefs about technology as well as in the rhetoric of the information society. Words such as global and globalization have been buzzwords, but do not refer to real phenomena (Marvin, 1987). Global and globalization elicit images of universality, of a comprehensive and all-inclusive process but instead they mean: limited to a small group who has access to the technology; exclusion of the world's have nots and oppression."
Discussion Questions:
1) What might be some of the social and political implications of leaving certain segments of the U.S. society out of the telecommunications revolution?
2) How could the U.S. as a nation ensure equal access to new telecommunications technologies? Who should/could assume the cost of ensuring equal access?
3) Could you think of ways of helping developing countries achieve better standards of living without necessarily imposing on them telecommunications technologies that may disrupt their lives?
4) Some argue that the world’s cultural environment is becoming saturated with cultural products (TV programs, films, magazines) produced by large media corporations in the First World and exported to the developing world. Is there a real threat of cultural domination? Do you forsee one world with one culture?
5) How could you contribute to transform the current dominant discourse about “globalization,” to create a future of fair global communication among nations?
