Globalization--Good or Evil?

I think that globalization, for the most part, is a good thing. It isn't something that can be ignored or stopped. Globalization will happen regardless of how individual countries feel about it. I think that ultimately the integration of markets, nation-states, and technologies will only be beneficial to the world as a whole. if the world is "flat" we will only be furthering education. By enabling people to talk to anyone, see anything, learn about anything around the world, we are only perpetuating human growth and connections. I can see where some countries could feel threatened by globalization; it does tend to spread western ideals. Some countries may feel like they are losing their culture or identity by giving in to globalization, but in the end globalization is going to happen anyway. It consists of so many levels (social, economic, political, and technological) that it is impossible to try to hinder it's expansion. 

Development Journalism

I think that in theory, Development Journalism seems like a good idea, but in practice is ultimately more damaging to a people than anything. In class, we discussed the positive aspects of Development Journalism; it promotes national media; it pays attention to the humanitarian needs of the population; and it preserves the “national identity” and “national values” of a country.

         I think it is important for there to be a balance within the media. I do believe the news should focus on the humanitarian needs of the population; however, to maintain balance, the media should have the right to report freely and truthfully about everything, including the government. In order for a people to truly be educated and understand the world around them, free journalism has to be the only form of media.

News outlets controlled but the government will always be skewed or slanted to show itself in only a positive way and disregard any problems with the system. That is a disservice to the people, who the media is really intended for. Medias was not created to be a puppet that only spews out government approved information; it is there to enlighten the general public. This is not to say that everything the media reports should be attacking the government or constantly criticizing everything the government does. This only means that media should be able to truthfully and objectively report on current events, whether they are of a political, social, or economic nature. Media should act as a check on the government. It is in place to make sure the government knows that if something is wrong the people will know about it and if something is right the people will also know about it. That is why the government should not have the right to own media under any circumstances.

What is the future of the world?

I still disagree with Fukuyama. I do not believe that we have reached the end of history. I cannot predict the future but I believe that we will still face the clashing of civilizations and war.  Both Kaplan and Huntington have similar ideas about conflict arising among different people and the plausibility of violence. In my Intro. to Latina/o Studies class we were discussing how the world is getting smaller for the following reasons: surges in population, immigration and technology have made  it much easier for different cultures to interact with one another and even bump heads. In my last two posts I stated that I think different cultures will always find reasons to fight. Kaplan suggests that the increasing number of people in the world could lead to confrontation because of the dwindling of natural resources. For those that are suffering from poverty, crime, and disease war could seem/be beneficial. It would actually be a step up from their current situations. I think Kaplan and even Huntington (although he's a bit more extreme) make valid points about the future of the world and that if we continue the way we are going the clashing of civilizations is highly probable.

The Clash of Civilizations

"The wars of kings are over; the war of peoples has begun." —R.R. Palmer, 1793

For the most part, I am in agreement with what Huntington has to say in this piece; he articulated what I was trying to get across in my last blog (I disagreed with Fukuyama and thought that the end of that essay was valid when he talked about ethnic/racial groups colliding).  I think Huntington makes numerous valid points.Huntington opens up by simply stating "World politics is entering a new phase..." he then presents his thesis, "Conflict between civilizations will be the latest phase of the evolution of conflict in modern world." Huntington goes on to talk about how the world was divided into First, Second, and Third Worlds during the Cold War but that these divisions are no longer relevant. It is more meaningful to group countries not in terms of their political or economic systems or in terms of economic development but rather in terms of culture and civilization. 

So what exactly is civilization? Huntington defines it as a cultural entity. Villages, regions, ethnic groups, nationalities, religious groups, all have distinct cultures at different levels of cultural heterogeneity. The culture of a village in southern Italy may be different from that of a village in northern Italy, but both will share in a common Italian culture that distinguishes them from other villages. A civilization is the highest cultural grouping of people, defined by common objective elements such as language, history, religion, customs, institutions and the subjective self-identification of people.

These divisions are deep and increasing in importance. Differences among civilizations are not only real; they are basic. Civilizations are differentiated from each other by history, language, culture, tradition and, most important, religion. The people of different civilizations have different views on the relationship between God and man, the individual and the group, the citizen and the state, parents and children, husband and wife, as well as differing views of the relative importance of rights and responsibilities, liberty and authority, equality and hierarchy. These differences are the product of centuries. They will not soon disappear. They are far more fundamental than differences among political ideologies and political regimes. Differences do not necessarily mean conflict, and conflict does not necessarily mean violence. Over the centuries, however, differences among civilizations have generated the most prolonged and the most violent conflicts.In conflicts between civilizations, the question is "What are you?" That is a given that cannot be changed (especially when applied to cultural aspects such as religion; it is much more difficult to be half-Catholic and half-Muslim).

Huntington closes by saying, "For the relevant future, there will be no universal civilization, but instead a world of different civilizations, each of which will have to learn to coexist with the others." While reading Fukuyama's piece, "The end of history?" i found myself thinking similar thoughts that Hntington put out there.I think it is a safe assumption that people are and will continue to identify with their culture. Cultural ties are very strong, world-wide. I think that, as history has shown, differences in culture is enough to cause conflict, even war. I thought it was interesting that identifying with a culture was much more defining—it labels you in a different way. I had never thought about how easy it is to switch sides politically and even economically, but it is really hard if not impossible to switch culturally. I agree with Huntington's thesis; we have not reached the end of history. The next hurdle the world will have to clear is a battle between cultures.