"It has been said that arguing against globalization is like arguing against the laws of gravity"
Kofi Annan - 7th Gen. Sec. UN
There have been a number of references to this in our various threads, often used in a perjoritive sense. So I want to explore this phenomenon, to understand what it means and to try to answer the question whether it is an inevitability, whether individual states can control it, who are the winners and losers.
Welcome all input, and just like populism let's try to keep it civilised.
Eons ago when at uni I can remember looking at this "new" phenomenon. We were just in the post colonial era, and globalization at this stage of understanding was simply looked at as an economic phenomenon.
But I want to argue that the term globalisation can be used to describe a number of processes apart from the economy.
I would argue then that there is a globalization of
Culture
Media
Technology
Socio- culture
Political
Biological - my particular interest
Economical.
I think that this is particularly relevant today, with many calling for a more nationalist perspective. So am going to try to work out whether an individual nation state can in fact "control" globalization, or whether they are simply "luddites" and denying the inevitable. If it can't be controlled how then do we control the winners and losers and would this control be desirable?
I think I've bitten off more than I can chew - but if anyone else is up for it let's give it a go!!
I laughed today and it felt good.
Prayer ban at Katharine Birbalsingh’s school is lawful, High Court rules .