BECK ARTICLE

Ulrich Beck's 'What is Globalization' focuses on theorizing ways to politically align

globalization. Beck believes that globalization, as a whole, should be a transitional process that
involves state actors coming together to develop regional sovereignty and identity beyond the
national level.
Beck starts by stating that misconceptions common linked to the term, globalization has
certainly been the most widely used and misused- keyword in disputes of recent years and will
be of the coming years too; but it is also one of the most rarely defined, the most nebulous and
misunderstood, as well as the politically effective. Overall, Beck stresses the idea of
globalization as being multi-dimensional.
In terms of economics, Beck argues that many confuse the idea of globalization with
internationalization- particularly when it comes to outsourcing jobs to countries with lower wage
costs. He refers to this occurrence as fait accompli. Fait accompli refers to a matter that has
been decided on before it reaches the public eye; meaning that it something to be accepted rather
than contested since it is deemed irreversible. (Ironic how Beck uses a French term to talk about
German economics).
Overall, Beck makes the distinction between globalism and globality. He defines
globalism as: a world dominated by economics being underpinned by the hegemony of capitalist
world market & neo-liberal ideology. Beck views the world and globalization as being both
multi-dimensional and multidirectional. Thus, he contends it is wrong to assume global
developments reduce to single economic dimension; noting that we live and act in the selfenclosed spaces of national states and their respective national societies.

HYTRAK AND ZENTGRAF

Hytrak and Zentgraf start by asking basic questions about globalization: Is it a useful
concept? And like Beck: How do we define it? The authors continue by providing a brief, but
sufficient, overview of the primary perspectives that concern globalization noting the
significance and specificity of the concept. Each perspective from its respected school of thought
is then placed into one of two categories: globalist or skeptic.
We define globalists as those who consider contemporary globalization a real and
significant historical development, while the skeptics are those who understand globalization as
primarily an ideological or mythical construction that has marginal explanatory value (35)
Basically, the globalist category is the opinions that are pro-globalization while the skeptic
category is for opinions opposing it. The ideas placed in each category are compared (and
contrasted) by level of analysis and overall perception of globalization, as well as their stand on
political, economic, and culture issuesetc
Overall, the selected passage from Hytrak and Zentgraf maps out views regarding the
globalization debate, rather than offer a personal opinion or insight. The reading is useful for
sorting out the available (at the time written) perspectives on globalization; but it doesnt compel
the reader towards either position in the debate. Like Beck, it seems to provide a general
overview. However, Beck clearly takes a side (pro-globalization) whereas Hytrak and Zentgraf
do not.
KEOHANE AND NYE (JR.)
Like the two readings prior, Keohane and Nye start by giving a brief overview of
globalization. Like Beck, the authors believe globalization multi-dimensional. The authors, in

particular, view globalization through a liberal theory of complex interdependence; which is a

theory opposing the predominating realist views.
According to the authors, globalization- contemporary globalization- can be classified as
either thin or thick. Thick globalization is the increase in Modern globalization has more
dense networks, institutional velocity (less cost of communication means faster pace), and
complex interdependence than in the past.
Overall, the authors seem to fall in line with Beck, arguing that the prior use of military
force in globalization has become less of a viable option while increasing levels of international
co-operation are on the rise. Both articles view globalization in the context of liberal theory,
pressing for the increase of globalization based on state cooperation.
PIETERSE
Like the other readings, Pieterse begins by giving a brief overview of what globalization
is and how it is often interpreted. According to Pieterse, globalization is usually seen as process
of homogenization, an integrated process by which regional economies, societies, and cultures
through a globe-spanning network of communication and trade. This thought seems to fall into
place with the other readings, EXCEPT when Pieterse continues, claiming that these views are
"historically shallow and analytically narrow". What that means is that the prior views, according
to Pieterse, view globalization as something akin to uniformity- where states would look and act
the same. Instead Pieterse deems hybridization- mixed forms of cooperation, and development of
trans-local mlange cultures- as the appropriate view. Globalization occurring in the form of
hybridization bridges states together via various types of media. This creates more of a cultural

consciousness. Basically, globalization allows for states to share experiences and to adapt
international culture and localize it, instead of one culture being forced and simulated by others.
MICKLETHWAIT AND WOOLDBRIDGE

Micklethwait and Wooldridge articles views the process of globalization as "delivering

the liberal dream" which will, eventually, lead to greater global prosperity. Globalization, they
argue, is a phenomenon to revel in: it allows for greater prosperity in both the individual and the
economy, allows for more freedom in societies. Though they acknowledge that not everyone
benefits, they believe that the gains outweigh the overall cost which overall leads to the
improvement of humankind. Like the other readings (except for the second), both authors see
globalization via liberal theory. The idea that the benefits of globalization extend far beyond
economic, and are also both political and cultural is one that is similar to the two articles prior.
Futhermore the authors in this article defend globalism- a notion shared by all of the readings
(except Hytrak and Zentgraf who merely categorize the perspectives). Like the other authors,
Micklethwait and Wooldridge sensibly apply standard economic arguments to the current world
economy, while also promoting the idea that globalization will also increase individualization.
However, they dont offer a view on how traditional liberal theory should be changed in order to
accommodate a new open world society.
SEN
According to Sen, globalization is not new and is not westernization, as its commonly
mistaken for. This ideal is seen in the arguments presented in the other readings, particularly in
the article by Micklethwait and Wooldbridge. He also writes that the benefits of globalization are
not shared equally, a notion also presented in the Micklethwait and Wooldbridge article. He lists

the various improvements globalization has made to both science and technology, using India
and China as specific examples. Though his argument is similar to Micklethwait and Woolbridge,
Sen differs slightly on the inequality of globalization. According to Sen, the inequality is in the
distribution of the benefits gained, whereas Micklethwait and Wooldbridge argue that some
benefits are not gained at all.
Overall, Sen doesnt believe the question and/or debate of globalization is not whether
the poor are getting poorer. Instead, Sen says the question to ask would be if the poor are getting
their share of the benefits. Like the other authors, Sen acknowledges the arguments made by the
opposing side of the globalization debate, as well as, noting the importance that globalization has
on culture as well. If a blind resistance towards globalization is held, Sen warns, then cultures
will be hindered while others advance.
BARBER
Barbers passage seems to stand out above the rest in the fact that he almost seems to
argue against globalization. Though some of his arguments are valid, he still fails to successfully
argue towards his thesis. Furthermore, his thesis isnt detailed very clearly, leaving us to almost
guess what exactly it is. Instead of presenting convincing evidence towards his overall argument,
Barber just seems to write a laundry list of everything he dislikes about Western civilization and
civilization as whole. The topic of trying to clarify the dichotomy that is Jihad vs. McWorld is
relevant, despite the articles date and had the potential to be more enlightening than it actually
was. Thus, my overall opinion of Barbers writing is, like his opinion of the rest of the world,
cynical at best.
HUNTINGTON

Huntingtons writing argues that the post-cold war would be marked by civilizational
conflict. Something, that since the article is dated, is more of a prediction on current affairs.
According to Huntington, the world is divided culturally, creating barriers with differing sets of
values. He draws attention specifically to the conflict globalization would create between
western civilization and Islamic civilization. Primarily interesting is that Huntington seems to
foresee the ideals held by Barber. The Islamic worlds views, according to Huntington would
clash with the general suppositions held by western society. He notes that Islamic allegiance lies
more toward their religion than it does the nation-state- makin Islamic society more like
vehemently oppose liberal ideals like individuality, pluralism; and democracy.
As previously noted, I find it interesting how Huntingtons writing prophesizes the
current state of affairs in globalizations cultural divide. His article doesnt seem to dote on
economics and try to define globalism like the articles prior, something that Barber doesnt do
either.
My opinions regarding the readings are mixed. I feel as though I gained insight on the
debate over globalization- even though that I feel that the insight gained is lacking. I feel as
though the readings were dated- which in some ways is important, and gives a good foundation;
but fails to explain things as they currently are. Overall, most of the readings offered a proglobalization stance, stating what seemed to be fairly obvious, which is that globalization is far
more complicated than it seems. Conclusively, though, again, the readings proved to be
somewhat insightful, to be honest they gave me a headache.