The Forces of Globalization
Anthony Elliot’s text, Contemporary Social Theory: An Introduction, examines key scholars, concepts, and theoretical traditions in contemporary social theory. The first part of the book includes chapters that define society and social theory, and review classical theory. The author then explores various social theories in today’s contemporary society, including structuralism, post-structuralism, contemporary critical theory, feminism and post-feminist theory, postmodernity, network theory, and globalization. Each of these chapters includes discussion of criticism of founding theorists. The subject of relevance from the book for this post is Elliot’s analysis of globalization in contemporary social theory.
Globalization, in its broadest sense, is largely about trying to understand the ways in which the world is constantly changing in our current era. What are the forces that are influencing the change we are experiencing? What is the experience and how has human experience around the world changed in the last half-century or so, and what are the present and future consequences of these changes? The terms “globalization” and “globalism” seem to be catch-all terms to describe these changes across the globe, though for many social critics, “globalization” focuses on advanced capitalism across the globe, and its Americanization.
Elliot’s chapter on Globalization examines three distinct accounts of understanding and interpreting “the changing nature of organizations, economics, society, the nation-state and personal life”: the global sceptics (Hirst) and anti-globalists, who argued against the “global” nature of multinational corporations and their harm of the environment and the poor; the radical globalists (Ohmae), who promote free trade and open markets and who may or may not be attuned to their consequences; and global transformationalists (Held), who argue for a more nuanced and complex, center position, which claims that structures, institutions and societies are not either being eliminated or replaced by entirely new ones, but are being transformed, altered, by “a world that shakes up distinctions between domestic and international, internal and external affairs.[1] Held’s central argument is: “Globalization marks the continuation of politics by new means operating at many levels.”[2]
From his transformationalist perspective, Held seeks to analyze four dimensions of globalization:
- The extensity of global networks
- The intensity of global interconnectedness
- The velocity of global flows
- The impact propensity of global interconnectedness.[3]
Within this discussion, Elliot’s analysis of Beck’s consideration of the distinctions between ‘national outlook’ or ‘methodological nationalism’ and ‘cosmopolitanism is worth consideration here.[4] In our globalizing age of ‘transnational interdependencies,’ the emergence of these two outlooks is now spotlighted in America in the age of Trump, where a verbal civil war seems to be underway. In the nationalist camp, according to Beck, we have “a full-blooded, essentialist sociology that squares the circle between national and universal society, squeezing to the sidelines incommensurability in people’s attitudes, beliefs, values and orientations.”
The black-and-white, homogeneous nature of nationalism clearly taps into the xenophobic tendencies of the human condition, and is therefore appealing to many. Trump’s slogan, America First, is a direct attack on the cosmopolitanism that Beck analyzes. Tapping into our collective xenophobia, Trump promotes a wall to tighten borders, activates the deportation work of ICE, pulls out of the Paris Agreement, promotes the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution in the face of a multitude of mass shootings, seeks to build up an already massive military, and negotiates with multi-national companies to come back to the United States. Trump obviously embodies ‘methodological nationalism.’
The other outlook is the cosmopolitan outlook, or as Beck describes them, ‘cosmopolitanism’ or ‘methodological cosmopolitanism.’ This outlook is understood by Beck to be the process of societal change across the globe. Elliot writes, “Cosmopolitanism for Beck involves a positive pluralization of national borders, a deterritorialized society, a mushrooming of globalism from within the nation-state. From international students and transmigrants to multinational global businesses and transnational criminal networks.”[5] Perhaps Barack Obama can serve as a symbol of this population in America, with his promotion of religious, cultural and other forms of pluralism.
From these two basic generalizations it would seem to most that cosmopolitanism would be more favorable for anyone who does not want to be painted with a xenophobic brush. But, according to Elliot and others, it’s much more complex than as I described. Elliot goes on to bring to light the unexamined privilege of the cosmopolitan imagination. While thinking he is contributing to a more equitable global society, he is actually promoting the ideology of advanced capitalism. “It allows,” Elliot writes, “white Westerners to jet around the globe, effortlessly living the transnational lifestyle, crossing national borders as easily as money flows between multinational corporations. This supposedly universal and classless doctrine screens from view those excluded from the privileges and wealth of global capitalism.”[6]
This drastic change from one administration to another (and the rhetoric that came with it) does not simply reveal red state-blue state political philosophical shift in power, but entire orientations of what it means to be a human and an American in relation to other humans who are not Americans. The shift in power is not historically typical, in the sense of it being primarily a shift from high taxes to low taxes, large government to small government, small military to large military, but a shift in orientation in the world and how we see ourselves in relationship to other nations and peoples. What we are facing in the United States today is not merely an interesting sociological case study, but rather an existential identity crisis. We are not sure who we are as a nation anymore. Are we the leaders of the free world, or the leading exploiters of the so-called free world? Are we the moral authority for the globe, or are we the authority for moral confusion? Are we a Christian nation or are we a religiously plural nation? Are we with the strongest military in the world and therefore the global police, or has the techno-boom taken this security away from us, and all those under our perceived protection? These questions have fueled in our social fabric a paralyzing and contentious spirit of anxiety.
The implications of these forces for the church’s witness are as numerous as the stars. In 2007, Zondervan published a popular Christian leadership book called Glocalization: How Followers of Jesus Engage a Flat World, written by Bob Roberts, Jr., an evangelical pastor in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. As expected from the title, the author draws on Friedman’s work to describe the “flattening” of the globe, the interplay between global and local change and understanding, and to apply Friedman’s theory to the witness and ministry of the church. Roberts argues optimistically for the possibility that we are moving toward the kind of ultimate interconnectedness that God planned for creation from the beginning. Like most Christian leaders in our post-Christian West, the author argues from a shift of ministry focus from “the pulpit” to “the pew.” He claims that when the church takes seriously the impact of global and local transformation in our society, and seeks to adapt, communities will develop integrating community culture and morality, churches will multiply, and the church will be able to leverage natural infrastructures for maximum global impact.[7]
Regardless of opinion or preference around these various theories presented by Elliot, these forces are real and changing the way we live as human beings on a multitude of levels. As such, it seems imperative that the church must engage this conversation and learn to adapt the mission for our time.
[1] Anthony Elliott, Contemporary Social Theory: an Introduction, 2nd ed. (Abingdon: Routledge, 2014), 339
[2] David Held, Global Covenant: The Social Democratic Alternative to the Washington Consensus (2004): 10, quoted in Anthony Elliot, Contemporary Social Theory: An Introduction, 2nd ed. (Abingdon: Routledge, 2014). 341.
[3]Ibid., 344.
[4] Ibid, 343-345.
[5] Ibid., 344.
[6] Ibid., 245
[7] Bob Roberts, Glocalization: How Followers of Jesus Engage the New Flat World (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2007), 197-8.
About the Author
Chris Pritchett
4 responses to “The Forces of Globalization”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hi Chris! This statement is everything…
“He claims that when the church takes seriously the impact of global and local transformation in our society, and seeks to adapt, communities will develop integrating community culture and morality, churches will multiply, and the church will be able to leverage natural infrastructures for maximum global impact.” It’s hard to imagine a world where we globalize church. We may say it is now, but I don’t think so. Do you have a model/suggestion on how to do this in your own world (church and community)?
It seems that in our day, discussing the past and present administration is as akin to walking across a minefield; not knowing where those from differing perspectives will attack. I commend you for taking this on in our discussion on the different dimensions of society.
Historically, America has gone through pendulum swings of being world conscious and borderline isolationist. You do don’t have to look farther than WW2 and our inability to join the fight until attacked. Some would say, 9-11 was also another wake up call to join the international fight against terrorism. These are not justifications just observations on a country often focused on itself. We have even seen this in missions as America like to be the sending country but is almost offended when you talk to people about the need to send people to America to reach the lost. Thanks for letting join in the conversation of how we as the church need to respond to ever shifting thoughts.
Hi Chris,
I traveled through UAE both ways from Cape Town, and spent two half days in Dubai. I would think that Dubai is a living example of what you quoted Elliott on, “Cosmopolitanism for Beck involves a positive pluralization of national borders, a deterritorialized society, a mushrooming of globalism from within the nation-state. From international students and transmigrants to multinational global businesses and transnational criminal networks.”
Well quoted Chris! Nowhere have I ever been that has represented globalization better than Dubai. Have you ever been there?
Chris,
In attempting to understand the polarizing forces at work in our own nation you have tapped into the Social Theory of Globalization that seems to most readily connect with our current experience. In particular I am challenged by your recognition that in reality both cosmopolitanism and nationalism are means of exploitation for their own ends by the powerful. Do you think they are actually 2 sides of the same coin or are they entirely different but tap into the same lustful desires within humanity. I also appreciated your questions regarding the US. “Are we the leaders of the free world, or the leading exploiters of the so-called free world?” This is a question I have long wondered and I am more and more convinced one that the church in the US needs to consider if it is to remain meaningfully connected to the global Church.