Mike Hansen Hansen is a political
science and history student. Sooner or later, you will succumb to
his views. Send your objections to [email protected].
Click Here for more articles by Mike Hansen
A new infectious disease is spreading across the globe like
wildfire. Beware of globaphobia: the intense fear that
McDonald’s, Bill Gates and President George W. Bush are
conspiring together to impose one homogeneous Westernized culture
on every single person on the planet.
Knowing the facts about globalization can save you from becoming
a victim of this wicked ailment ““ more contagious than the
Ebola virus ““ and help you to realize the positive changes
globalization has to offer.
The French farmer who took his tractor and bulldozed the local
McDonald’s in a show of cultural defiance and the 2,000
violent protesters who recently rioted outside the G-8 summit in
Genoa make it evident that the globaphobiacs have launched a
full-blown war against globalization.
War against globalization? That’s right. A vast
counter-culture has emerged recently due to an increased fear of
the effects of globalization. We are witnessing the beginning of
the most vigorous grass-roots political movement since the
anti-establishment movement of the 1960s. Forget flower power and
doves ““ rioting with chemical weapons and boycotting Gap is
definitely in.
Globaphobiacs believe that globalization leads to cultural
homogeneity and the economic exploitation of developing nations.
Their greatest fear is that globalization will cause all workers in
these countries to toil in sweatshops for 18 hours a day, producing
Nike shoes for less wages than is needed to buy themselves a cup of
coffee at their local Starbucks.
As bleak as this nightmare is, it’s a doomsday scenario
that fails to recognize the benefits of improved global
communications, increased cultural interaction and the lowering of
barriers to economic development.
Globalization is often used as a replacement for the words
“imperialism,” “modernization,”
“capitalism” or “Westernization,” but it is
none of the above. Globalization is unification.
Illustration by JARRETT QUON/Daily Bruin Through enhanced
communication networks that transcend boundaries of space and time,
we now have the capability to think and act globally. The movement
of information is freer today than ever before because of
globalization.
We can now watch the carnage of war on CNN in real time,
download stolen music whenever we want or join unified worldwide
political movements, such as the very one that so vehemently
opposes globalization. Ironic, isn’t it?
The great knock on globalization is the premise that in the end,
there will be no cultural diversity left anywhere in the world
because everyone will be wearing Reefs and eating at Pizza Hut.
This could not be further from the truth. Increased
globalization and the spread of ideas create heterogeneity, not
homogeneity.
The fusion of different traditions and ideas gives rise to
societies with greater diversity than in any singular, isolated
society. Just think: the greatest multiplicity of local cultures
can be found in large, metropolitan cities like Los Angeles and New
York ““ places highly affected by globalization. Compare this
to the diversity of remote cities, untouched by globalization (in
other words, any city in North Dakota).
Yet even upon realizing the fact that globalization produces
more cultural interaction and diversity, the globaphobiac will
still only be halfway cured. Those afflicted with the fear also
believe that the economic outcome of globalization is the
subjugation of developing countries by richer nations and the
decline in the standard of living in poorer regions of the
world.
But keep in mind that globalization encourages the free movement
of capital, goods and people, which spurs growth and investment in
developing countries. Wage and salary earners in these countries
gain from lowered trade barriers because they get cheaper goods,
better jobs and the capital inflow needed for development.
It is a myth, created by Dan Rather of course, that
globalization negatively affects developing countries by allowing
multinational corporations to create a lower standard of
living.
Actually, the more economic freedom a country has, the higher
the Human Development Index, which measures life expectancy,
education and standard of living. Also, countries with more
economic freedom have a lower Human Poverty Index. (Economic
Freedom of the World, 2001 Annual Report, April 2001).
Sweatshops seem to be the humanitarian issue of the day. I know
some Bruins who refuse to buy certain brand names or products
manufactured in certain countries (even though there are many
sweatshops right here in L.A.) because they believe that they are
helping the people who work at the factories where the products are
manufactured. In reality, they are only harming those workers.
First, it must be made clear that locals working at factories
owned by multinational corporations enjoy much better working
conditions and a higher standard of living than their counterparts
who work for local companies. According to a study by Edward Graham
of the International Institute for Economics, multinationals pay
wages that are twice as high as the wages paid by a local company
for equivalent work.
Refusing to buy products sold by these multinational
corporations is the same as denying the local workers higher wages
and a better standard of living. Although the conditions are often
inexcusable, working for multinationals is still an improvement
over having no employment at all or working in much worse
conditions for local companies.
Don’t let yourself be convinced that globalization is
something to fear. Throughout history, people have always been wary
of progress.
If you fall into the trap of believing that globalization is the
end of cultural diversity and economic freedom, then the dreaded
globaphobia will have claimed yet another victim.