Lesson 1.

Understanding Globalization

Lecture Outline: Histories and Definitions of Globalization

Literature 1: “Periodizing Globalization: Histories of Globalization” by Jan Nederveen

Pieterse (2012)

I. Problems with Periodizing Globalization

A. Presentist leanings: it overlooks structural patterns, present as novel what are older features and misread
contemporary trends
B. Eurocentric view: World history begins with the “rise of the West” (1500 and 1800 as the start of Eurocentric
history)
C. This view of globalization is not global: It ignores or downplays nonwestern
contributions to globalization (it makes little sense in times of growing multipolarity)
D. It is out of step with wider globalization research
E. The periodization of globalization is not a given and is one of the areas of controversy in globalization
research

II. Presentism and Eurocentrism

A. The term globalization came out first in business studies in the 1970s and started to be most frequently used in
the 1990s. Because the theme of globalization took off in the 1990s and key texts on globalization were written
in this period, much of the discussion is marked by 1990s themes and sensibilities. Then key works on
globalization were written so globalization was colonized by then reigning perspectives that were imposed on
globalization, even though they were not particularly global.
1. Giddens (1990)- defined globalization as an “extension of modernity”, although modernity is a western
project
2. David Harvey’s (1989) “time-space compression” - it became an oft-quoted description of globalization,
even though the idea of the “annihilation of distance” is mechanical and inappropriate (time, space and
distance still matter because access to communication and mobility is differentiated by class)
B. Several disciplines date globalization from the 1970s with the formation of global value chains and accelerated
communication (most economics, international relations, political science, and media studies). A further
periodization refers to neoliberal globalization, 1980-2000.
C. The disadvantage of taking contemporary times as start time of globalization is presentism or ignoring history.
D. The disadvantage of modernity (from 1800) as a cutoff in globalization thinking is Eurocentrism, an “intellectual
apartheid regime” (Hobson 2004:243), a “great wall” (Jennings 2011) that cuts Europe off from global history
and gives us a biased and shallow perspective on both history and modernity. The disadvantage of using
“modern capitalism” (from 1500) as a cutoff is ignoring earlier forms and infrastructures of capitalism (Fernand
Braudel argued, why not the thirteenth century).
E. The following tables present an overview of disciplines and perspectives on globalization, with their timelines of
globalization, listed from recent to early.
Table 1. Globalization According to Social Science and Humanities Disciplines

Disciplines Time Agency, domain Keywords

Political Science, 1980 “Internationalization of the Competitor states, post international politics,
International relations state,” INGOs global civil society

Development studies IMF, World Bank Debt crisis, structural adjustment policies

Geography Space, place Local-global interactions, glocalization

Economics 1870 Multinational corporations, Global corporation, world product, global

technologies, banks, finance, value chains, new economy, sovereign wealth
 hedge funds funds
Cultural studies Media, film, advertising, ICT Global village, McDonaldization,
Disneyfication, hybridization
Philosophy 1850 Ethics Global problems, global ethics
Sociology 1800 Modernity Capitalism, industrialism, urbanization, nation
states
Political economy 1500 Modern capitalism “Conquest of the world market”
History, historical 3000 BCE Population movements, trade, The widening scale of social cooperation,
anthropology technologies, world religions global flows, ecumene
Biology, ecology Time Integration of ecosystems Evolution, global ecology, Gaia

Table 2. Cluster of Major Perspectives on Start of Globalization

Time Dynamics of Globalization Disciplines

Frame
Short 1970 Production and transport technologies, form of Economics, political science, cultural
enterprises, value chains, marketing, cultural and communication studies
flows
Medium 1800 Modernity Sociology

1500 World market, modern capitalism Political economy

Long 3000 BCE Growing connectivity, forms of social cooperation History, anthropology, archaeology

III. Broad view and a long view of social science (Norbert Elias, 1994)
A. Several features that are associated with contemporary globalization existed also in earlier eras, which gives us a
finer understanding of what is distinctive for contemporary times.
B. The long view breaks the spell of Eurocentrism, which is essentially the nineteenth-century perspective when
the West was triumphant.
C. The long view enables us to understand that the contemporary rise of Asia is a comeback, a resurgence, which
gives us a clearer perspective on ongoing trends and implies an account of globalization that is more relevant in
global contexts.
D. The long view syncs with the broad definition of globalization as growing connectivity over time, the growing
density in connections between distant locations.
E. It breaks with representations of the past as immobile and segmented, which is refuted by research on
migrations (Hoerder 2002), travel, technology (McNeill 1982) and the movement of knowledge and religion.
F. The long view embeds globalization in evolutionary time: ecological adaptability and ability to inhabit all of
planetary space.
G. Disadvantage of the long view: Globalization becomes too general, too all-encompassing a framework.

IV. World History, History of Globalization

A. The timeline of the conventional western history curriculum is the premodern (pre-1500), early modern (1500-
1850), modern (1850-1945) and contemporary eras: reaffirms Eurocentrism
B. Wallerstein’s “modern world-system” (core, semi-periphery, periphery relations) is not merely Eurocentric; it is
also centrist in claiming a single central world-system. Centrism (and its kin universalism) is a trope that is as old
as the first civilizations, empires and religions that claimed a dominant status.
C. Cioffi-Revilla (2006: 87) distinguishes two dynamics of globalization, endogenous (“a process of growth or
expansion that takes place within a given world region”) and exogenous globalization (which “occurs between or
among geographically distant world systems that had previously been disconnected from each other”). From a
European viewpoint, its development is endogenous globalization, whereas from the viewpoint of Africa and the
Americas it is exogenous globalization; so the distinction is vague. Centrist world-system thinkers privilege
globalization as system expansion (endogenous globalization) over exogenous globalization.
 D. Most theories on the history of globalization measures not of globalization but of globality. They assume that
for globalization to occur there must first be globality, so in effect they diagnose a condition, not the process
through which it comes about.
1. “No world system is global, in the sense that all parts articulate evenly with one another” (Abu-Lughod):
Global connections are never entirely global.
2. Globalization is a process, not a condition.
3. Globalization functions as a heuristic, “a shift in attention paid to questions of
knowledge, communication flows, actor, network relations, interconnections, spatiality, mediality, agency, etc.
(Holban, 2013). Korotayev (2005) adopts this view when he focuses on innovations and technologies as the
driver of globalization and Rennstich (2006) adds collective learning.
E. In many recent accounts the definition of globalization has shifted to growing worldwide connectivity
(Nederveen Pieterse 1995, 2009a: 43). It implies that growing connectivity is not a recent trend. It does not
require a specific, definite beginning. The rhythms of globalization follow the vicissitudes of connectivity,
which are not always in forward motion; there are accelerations as well as breakdowns of connectivity.
When connectivity grows, so do subjectivities and cultures of connectivity that enable connections to become
productive, such as trade languages and ecumenical practices, so at every step, globalization is an objective as
well as a subjective process.

V. Oriental Globalization
1. We have multiple phases of oriental globalization— Eurasian globalization and east to west movements in the
early silk roads; Middle East globalization west to east, with caravan and maritime trade moving towards Asia;
and Asian globalization, east to west from the Tang period onward
2. Hobson (2012) distinguishes four historical phases of oriental globalization:
1. “Proto-globalization (from 500 to 145) - the extensity, intensity, velocity, and impact of Afro Eurasian
interactions. Orientalization was dominant in the sense that the “proto-global network was crucial for
delivering Eastern resource portfolios into Europe.”
2. “Early globalization” (1450 and 1492-1830) - “the diffusion of ‘resource portfolios’ from East to West”
led to the “fundamental re-organization of societies across the world including Europe,” a period he
characterizes as “Orientalization dominant and Occidentalization emergent.”
3. “Modern globalization” (1830– 2000) – it witnessed the “Occidentalization in the ascendance, with the
West being the dominant civilization,” which was achieved by colonization and neocolonial
globalization, i.e. Western capitalism.
4. The current phase, “postmodern globalization,” witnesses “the return of China to the center of the
global economy.”
3. Hobson’s views differ markedly from Eurocentric accounts, it provides nuances of relative influence and credits
oriental influences, past and present.
4. For Nedeerven Pieterse (2009a), Hobson’s view is meaningful for two provisos:
1) it should be viewed as part of wider, long ongoing process of east-west osmosis
further back in time: “globalization is braided”;
2) The terminology of modernity (and variants premodern, postmodern) carries such
Eurocentric luggage that it is best avoided in periodizing.

VI. The Greco-Roman World and Globalization

A. Arab-Muslim world – it was the epicenter of early oriental globalization; played as the “middleman
civilization” brokering between wider worlds (Europe, Asia-Africa)
B. The importance of Greco-Roman history for globalization history includes the following:
1. It establishes a link between Bronze Age Afro-Eurasia and later developments and helps to make the
sway from prehistory to the present intelligible.
2. It matches the thesis of a commercial revolution from 1000 BCE. 3.
3. Inserting the intermediate steps sheds light on the Hellenic character and infrastructure of oriental
globalization that took shape in the Middle East from 500 CE.
4. The plural, creole, multicultural Mediterranean of recent ancient history research debunks another
Eurocentric myth, the myth of antiquity itself (as in Bernal’s “Aryan myth” of the classical world).
 5. It does away with the influential narrative of an East-West split (as in Schliemann’s construction of the
battle of Troy, Wittfogel’s oriental despotism, and Huntington’s clash of civilizations).

VII. Conclusion
A. Many globalization studies are steeped in presentism and eurocentrism. The general principle is, the later
the timing of globalization, the greater Europe’s role and the more Eurocentric the perspective (Nederveen
Pietersee 1995).
B. The long view gives a deeper insight in the history and depth of human interconnectedness. While its
advantage is, it embeds globalization in the longue durée and in evolutionary time, its disadvantage is that
globalization becomes too wide and general a category.
C. Identifying different phases and centers of global history is difficult as well as poses problems of identifying
and labeling periods. If globalization is defined as growing connectivity, the rhythms of globalization are a
function of connectivity conditions, spurred by transport and communication technologies and conditions of
security.
D. Identifying a start time of globalization hinges on the definition of globalization and the unit of analysis. If
the unit of analysis is connectivity, connections are as old as human history, as old as when people dispersed
and wandered across the planet.
E. The question “when did globalization begin” makes clear the assumptions that frame globalization; making
these explicit is the purpose of discussion, which seeks to serve as an X-ray of globalization thinking. The
table below features the 5 phases of globalization:

Phases Start time Central nodes Dynamics

Eurasian globalization 3000 BCE Eurasia Agricultural and urban revolutions,
migrations, trade, ancient empires
Afro-Eurasian 1000 BCE Greco-Roman world Commercial revolution
West Asia, East Africa
Oriental globalization 500 CE Middle East Emergence of a world economy, caravan
1 trade
Oriental globalization 1100 East and South Asia and Productivity, technology, urbanization, silk
2 multicentric routes
Multicentric 1500 Atlantic expansion Triangular trade, Americas
Euro-Atlantic 1800 Euro-Atlantic economy Industrialization, colonial division of labor
20C globalization 1950 US, Europe, Japan: Trilateral Multinational corporations, (end of) Cold
globalization war, global value chains
21C globalization 2000 East Asia, BRICS, emerging New geography of trade, global
societies, petro economies rebalancing

F. Multicentrism is based on the premise of “multiple origins of social complexity, not on a single origin from
which social complexity radiated” (Cioffi-Revilla 89). That multicentrism can go together or be interspersed
with periods of hegemony does not undo the premise itself. Rather it sheds light on the diversity of practices
of empire and hegemony. The premise of multicentrism unsettles the proclivity towards the singular that is
widespread in social science and the humanities—as in globalization, capitalism, modernity, “the modern
world-system,” rather than globalizations, capitalisms, modernities (Nederveen Pietersee 2009b). Bentley
(2006) rightly criticizes “modernocentrism” as a deeper problematic than Eurocentrism.
G. Taking into account the ancient globalizations (Mesopotamian, Afro-Eurasian, oriental), western hegemony
is a late comer. 21st century globalization breaks the 200-year pattern of dominant North-South relations
with an East South turn (Nederveen Pieterse 2011), so the era of western hegemony becomes a historical
interlude, lasting from approximately 1800 to 2000. Asian dynamics have been the driving force of the world
economy during 18 of the past 20 centuries (Maddison 2007), through most of the career of globalization,
and present times indicate a return to a historical “normal”.

Literature 2: “Defining Globalization” by Jan Aart Scholte (2008)

I. Rise of the G-Word
A. The English noun ‘globe’ dates from the 15 th century (derived from the Latin globus) - denotes a spherical
representation of the earth several hundred years ago
B. The adjective ‘global’ entered circulation in the late 17 th century and began to designate ‘world scale’ in the late
19th century, in addition to its earlier meaning of ‘spherical’ (OED, 1989 VI, p. 582)
C. ‘Globalize’ (verb) – appeared in the 1940s, together with the term ‘globalism’
D. ‘globalization’ as a process – first surfaced in 1959 and entered a dictionary two years later (Schreiter, 1997, p.
5; and Webster, 1961, p.965)
E. Notions of ‘globality as a condition – began to circulate in the 1980s (Robertson, 1983)
F. Roland Robertson began to ‘interpret globality’ in 1983 (Sociology)
G. Theodore Levitt wrote of ‘the globalization of markets’ in 1983 (Business studies)
H. Some researchers in International Relations focus on ‘global interdependence’ (Rosenau, 1980). Economists,
geographers and others picked up the concept later in the decade.
I. 1990s – Globalization has become a major academic growth industry --- it is now explored across disciplines,
continents, theoretical approaches, and political spectrum
J. Some theorists have even presented globalization as the focal point for an alternative paradigm of social
enquiry (Shaw, 1999; Mittelman, 2002).
K. Anthony Giddens (1996) – has observed that ‘there are few terms that we use so frequently but which in fact as
poorly conceptualized as globalization’
L. There is persistent ambiguity and confusion over the term (i.e. ‘globaloney’, ‘global babble’, and ‘glob-blah-
blah’)

II. Redundant Concepts of Globalization

A. Globalization as internationalization – Globalization here is viewed 'as simply another adjective to describe
cross-border relations between countries'. It describes the growth in international exchange and
interdependence. With growing flows of trade and capital investment, there is the possibility of moving beyond
an inter-national economy, (where 'the principle entities are national economies') to a 'stronger' version - the
globalized economy in which, 'distinct national economies are subsumed and rearticulated into the system by
international processes and transactions'
B. Globalization as liberalization - In this broad set of definitions, 'globalization' refers to 'a process of removing
government-imposed restrictions on movements between countries in order to create an "open", "borderless"
world economy'.
C. Globalization as universalization - In this use, 'global' is used in the sense of being 'worldwide' and
'globalization' is 'the process of spreading various objects and experiences to people at all corners of the earth'.
D. Globalization as westernization or modernization  (Americanization) - Here 'globalization' is understood as a
dynamic, 'whereby the social structures of modernity (capitalism, rationalism, industrialism, bureaucratism,
etc.) are spread the world over, normally destroying pre-existent cultures and local self-determination in the
process.

E. The four definitions outlined above between them cover most current academic, corporate, journalistic, official
and popular discussions of things global. These four definitions do not exhaust the possible definitions of
globalization.

III. New conception of globalization: Globalization as transplanetary, more particularly supraterritorial –

connections between people
A. Here 'globalization' entails a 'reconfiguration of geography’, so that social space is no longer wholly mapped in
terms of territorial places, territorial distances and territorial borders. Anthony Giddens' has thus defined
globalization as 'the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that
local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa (Giddens 1990: 64).
B. David Held et al (1999: 16) define globalization as a 'process (or set of processes) which embodies a
transformation in the spatial organization of social relations and transactions - assessed in terms of their
 extensity, intensity, velocity and impact - generating transcontinental or inter-regional flows and networks of
activity'.
C. For Scholte, globalization as supraterritorial offers the possibility of a clear and specific definition of
globalization. The notion of supraterritoriality (or trans-world or trans-border relations), he argues, provides a
way into appreciating what is global about globalization. His argument runs something like the following:
1. There is no need to replace the 'internationalization' by 'globalization' where it refers to a growth in
interaction and interdependence between people in different countries. This process of internationalization
has been going for centuries - and it adds nothing theoretically to describe it as globalization.
2. To describe the process of breaking down regulatory and other barriers to trade as globalization is similarly
flawed. The liberal discourse of "free" trade is quite adequate to convey these ideas.
3. The notion of globalization as universalization also fails to provide new insight. The move towards
universalization is a long-running one - and so little or nothing is added by substituting the notion of
globalization.
4. The understanding of globalization as westernization has developed particularly in the context of
neocolonialism and post-colonial imperialism. It is, again, difficult to see what advance the notion of
globalization provides as against the discourse of colonialism, imperialism and 'modernization'. As Scholte
argues, 'we do not need a new vocabulary of globalization to remake old analysis'.
5. Important new insight can, however, be gained from approaching globalization as the growth of
'supraterritorial' or transworld relations between people. It allows for us to explore deep-seated changes
in the way that we understand and experience social space.

D. “The proliferation and spread of supraterritorial connections bring an end to what could be called
'territorialism', that is a situation where social geography is entirely territorial. Although territory still matters
very much in our globalizing world, it no longer constitutes the whole of our geography.”

E. The first four approaches are all compatible with territorialism, the fifth is not. Within a territorial orientation
'place' is identified primarily with regard to territorial location. However, we have witnessed a fundamental
change. There has been a massive growth in social connections that are unhooked in significant ways from
territory.

IV. Conclusion
A. When defined in a particular geographical fashion, the notions of ‘globality’ and ‘globalization’ can be valuable
additions to the conceptual toolkit for understanding social relations.
B. A definition of globalization as a respationalization of social life opens up new knowledge and engages key
policy challenges of current history in a constructively critical manner. Notions of ‘globality’ and ‘globalization’
can capture, as no other vocabulary, the present ongoing large-scale growth of tranplanetary – and often also
supraterritorial – connectivity.
C. Globalization as supraterritorial has different ideas from internationalization, liberalization, universalization and
westernization.
D. For Scholte, the conception of globalization is in no way intended to be the last word about what the term might
mean because for him, no definition is definitive. The aim is not to issue final pronouncement, but to offer ever-
provisional ideas that provoke further reflection and debate.

Literature 3: “Ideologies of Globalization” by Manfred Steger (2005)

I. Globalization as a process, condition, and ideology
A. Globalization as a process
 Globalization – A set of social processes that appear to transform our present social condition of
weakening nationality into one globality; human lives played out in the world as a single place;
redefining landscape of sociopolitical processes and social sciences that study these mechanisms.
B. Globalization as a condition
 Globality – A social condition characterized by tight economic, political, cultural and environmental
interconnections and global flows, making currently existing political borders and economic boundaries
irrelevant.
 C. Globalization as an ideology
 Global Imaginary - A concept referring to people’s growing consciousness of belonging to a global
community
-destabilizes and unsettles the conventional parameters within which people
imagine their communal existence
II. Six core claims why globalization is an ideology
A. Globalization is about the liberalization and global integration of markets
 Globalization is about the triumphs of markets over governments; globalization means the spread of
free-market capitalism to virtually every country in the world; the spread of the idea of ‘free trade’, ‘free
markets’, liberal ideas such as ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ around the world
B. Globalization is inevitable and irreversible
 Quoted Philippine politician Manny Villar who said: “We cannot simply wish away the process of
globalization. It is a reality of a modern world. The process is irreversible.”
 State leaders like Margareth Thatcher and Ronald Reagan who pushed for
neoliberal ideas have been heard proclaiming that globalization is happening and
cannot be stopped
C. Nobody is in charge of globalization
 Globalization does not promote the agenda of any specific class or group
D. Globalization benefits everyone (… in the long run)
 Globalist believe that free trade and free market, will bring wealth and prosperity to everyone.
E. Globalization furthers the spread of democracy in the world
 Democracy, freedom, free markets, and free trade are all synonymous words. Economic and political
forces are the two main drivers of globalization.
F. Globalization requires a global war of terror
 Globalization scholars think that the subsequent aggressive and militaristic US foreign policy is a
response to protect the gains of globalization which was openly challenged during the 9-11 attack by
Osama bin Laden’s global network of terror.