Psychology and Global Studies

Our world is becoming more connected and globalized each and every day. As a result of
this truth; boundary lines are merging and people are becoming citizens of the world. This
reality, coined as globalization, has shown the world many positive enhancements while also
creating chaos and distress in the eyes of many. For some, globalization has led to a crisis of
identity where people are asking themselves, Where do I belong?, Who are my brothers and
sisters?, or as Samuel Huntington put it, Who am I?. In Jeffrey Arnetts article, The
Psychology of Globalization, Arnett explains how globalization is leading to a psychological
crisis of identity. Arnett is a psychologist and conducts his observations and theory in a purely
scientific manner in accordance with his discipline. Conversely, in the field of Global Studies,
Samuel Huntington uses a more loosely defined style of developing and supporting his argument
in his novel The Clashing of Civilizations and Remaking of World Order. Psychologists value
the individual experiences of globalization and are concerned with furthering research associated
with this issue, while Global Studies scholars recognize that their field is a newer discipline
relative to more established fields and focus on building a theoretical foundation for their
discipline.
Generally, psychologists are more concerned with advancing research in their field, rather
than finding definitive conclusions on every subject matter. Jeffrey Arnett is no exception as his
purpose for writing his article is for his audience, his fellow psychological scholars, to further his
research. Arnett specifically mentions his reader when he states, However, my goal is not only
to support this thesis but to provoke thought and investigation among psychologists on the topic
of the psychology of globalization (Arnett 774). Arnett also addresses his audience multiple
times in his article by intentionally leaving thought provoking questions at the end of every

section. Arnett does this on the grounds that his readers will follow his lead and study aspects of
the psychology of globalization. He states his reason for leaving these questions clearly in his
introduction, psychologists have rarely addressed globalization directly, there are at least as
many questions as answers. For this reason, I end each section of the article by proposing some
research questions (774). Arnett is attempting to entice the members of his discourse
community to join him and advance the research associated with their topic. Jeffrey Arnett is
writing for a discourse community that is interested in the human experience associated with the
psychology of globalization. In Discourse Communities by John Swales, Swales states that
one of the characteristics for writing for an academic discourse community is that the author
must reveal the topic and argument in the introduction. Arnett does just that as he clues his
audience in to his direct purpose in writing his article and informs them on what he hopes they
will take away from reading his article in the first paragraph of his article. Overall, he wants his
reader to take his research and build upon it and makes this known by directly addressing his
reader.
Similarly, Samuel Huntingtons audience in The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking
of World Order is intellectuals; however, they are intellectuals from a variety of different
disciplines. Huntington presents highly thoughtful symbolic analysis in his novel and does not
try to hold his audiences hand throughout his novel while he makes bold claims because he
knows they do not need him to. Since Global Studies is a relatively new subject, scholars in the
field must pull from other more established disciplines to strengthen the validity of their papers.
Huntington opens up his topic to an interdisciplinary audience because Global Studies requires
knowledge from other disciplines such as, political science, history, economics, sociology and
many more. In Backpack vs. Briefcases, Carrol touches on how the audience of a piece of work

should be able to help address a problem, which can be applied to Huntingtons audience.
Huntington writes for an interdisciplinary audience because solving issues associated with
globalization requires a global mindset and the ideas from various disciplines.
It is in Jeffrey Arnetts best interest to use outside sources in his article because in order for
his audience to continue his research, they must see the credibility in it. Arnett uses secondary
sources of research from the psychological discipline to strengthen the validity of his argument.
He draws back on a famous psychologists, John Barrys, research in the 50s; using his theory of
identity formation to tie into his current argument (Arnett 778). He spends time talking about
Barrys research and how it ties back in to his own thesis, The cross-cultural psychologist has a
number of ideas that can be applied to globalization, especially to this issue of identity
confusion (778). Arnett goes on to define Barrys terms like marginalization, culture
shedding and cultural distance and relates it to his hypothesis. In general, psychologists have a
hard time proving any theory to be true and instead find ways to support their thesis. Arnett
relies heavily on the use of secondary sources and research to enhance his argument and
specifically pulls from psychology rather than other disciplines to validate his credibility.
Huntington also uses secondary sources; however, he opens up his topic to an
interdisciplinary discussion as he pulls from various disciplines to support his argument.
Huntington quotes a number of people from different disciplines such as economist and
politician Jacques Delors, president Harry Truman, military and naval professor John Lewis
Gaddis and even William James a famous psychologist within the first forty pages. He quotes
multiple disciplines because in order to effectively lay a foundation for Global Studies he must
first draw on all subjects showing that Global Studies is a multi-disciplinary field. In his
introduction, he uses several historic dates such as January 3, 1992, April 18, 1994, and October

16, 1994, to create a metaphor revolving around cultural flags. Janet Boyd defines rhetoric as
what allows you to write for a given situation as defined by the expectations for your audience.
Huntington uses these historical dates defined by a different discipline and creates a metaphor
which violates his audiences expectations. He explains his metaphor by stating In the postCold War world flags count and cultural identity is what is most meaningful to most people.
People are discovering new but often old identities and marching under new but often old flags
which lead to wars with new but often old enemies (Huntington 27). Samuel utilizes history to
explain how in this new, globalized world people are discovering that they fall under novel yet
familiar flags, cultural identities, and the flags that once described them are now shifting.
Stedman states that one of the fundamental ideas of rhetoric is that writers shape what they
say based on what they want to do with their writing. Jeffrey Arnett and Samuel Huntingtons
writing converges on a similar topic; however, the aspects that each discipline values and puts at
the forefront of their minds are different, which is shown through the way each discipline utilizes
rhetoric by relating to their audience and using secondary sources. Arnett uses a strategic and
analytical approach to the topic of identity and globalization because he realizes that the
psychologists in his discourse community will not respect his work if he does not. While Samuel
Huntington is free to present bold and provocative assumptions and present his ideas in a more
loosely mannered way because his genre allows him to. Global Studies is a new and innovative
field of study and pioneers in this field are able to explore more than psychologists because their
field is not as refined as the field of Psychology. Psychologists must meet the expectations and
guidelines that have been clearly laid out for them; while Global Studies academia have more
freedom to explore in their writing. While Arnett and Huntington write on a similar topic; the
way their ideas are presented and resonate in the audience are profoundly different.

Works Cited
Arnett, Jeffrey J. The Psychology of Globalization. American Psychologist 57.10 (2002): 774783. Print
Boyd, Janet. Murder! (Rhetorically Speaking). Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing, Volume
2. Ed. Charles Lowe and Pavel Zemliansky. South Carolina: Parlor Press LLC, 2011.
87-101. Print.
Carroll, Laura, Backpacks vs. Briefcases: Steps toward Rhetorical Analysis. Writing Spaces:
Readings on Writing, Volume 1. Ed. Charles Lowe and Pavel Zemliansky. Indiana: Parlor
Press LLC, 2010. 45-48. Print.
Huntington, Samuel. The Clash of Civilization and the Remaking of World Order. New York:
Simon & Schuster, 2011. Print.
Stedman, Kyle. Annoying Ways People Use Sources. Writing Spaces: Readings on
Writing, Volume 2. Ed. Charles Lowe and Pavel Zemliansky. South Carolina: Parlor Press
LLC, 2011. 87-101. Print.
Swales, John. ''The Concept of Discourse Community." Genre Analysis: English in
Academic and Research Settings. Boston: Cambridge UP, 1990.21-32. Print.