Ok so perhaps World Domination is a bit far fetched but there is an element of truth in it. While we may see globalization as sparking worldwide growth and prosperity, distributing power across the globe, spreading democracy (and therefore according to the democratic peace thesis: spreading peace), critics of globalization argue there is a distinct American homogenization in terms of global politics, economics, and culture. Having said that, there are also those who argue that the USA as a global hegemon is in decline.
Firstly, what exactly is globalization? Globalization is the political, economic, and cultural process of increased interconnectedness. Our lives are increasingly shaped by events that happen outside our nation state and the territorial borders between said states are becoming less significant. That being said, has the state that takes the leading role in shaping the structure of globalization exerted it's own socio-economic ideology over the system, and in doing so, the rest of the world?
In terms of culture it seems as though the world is being 'flattered out'. By eating the same food, watching the same TV shows, cultural diversity is being eroded and replaced by the rise of supraterritoriality. If we view cultural globalization as a top-down process it is in many ways a form of imperialism as stronger states can exert dominance over weaker states. Many of us would see the USA as the current dominant hegemon which is supported by the rise of consumer capitalism across the globe. Brands such as coca cola have come to dominate the global economic market, show casing the spread of materialist values which have a distinct American character. Furthermore, the fact that the majority of the brands (such as Mcdonalds with restaurants in 119 countries) that are dominating the global market and culture originate in America highlight the fact that the advancing system of consumer capitalism is a particular US model of capitalism. Having said that, other forms of culture
have certainly become globalized, for example Japanese popular culture (anime, music, etc.) is increasingly popular in western countries like the US and UK.
However, the implications of America's association with corporate power and the global inequality that resulted from the current capitalist system have damaged it's 'soft' power on the international stage. It's reputation as a political hegemon and it's moral authority has certainly been damaged since the Iraq War and the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and the Guantanamo detention camp. Furthermore, it's diplomatic influence has been weakened, the pressure it is able to exert on countries is limited for example countries such as China and Russia seem immune to US diplomacy- one only has to look the recent bombing campaign in Syria. There are fears that there could be an accidental clash between the US and Russia as they carry out separate bombing campaigns, although Russia has recently agreed to resume talks on air safety with the US.
The strongest argument for globalization to be merely Americanisation is perhaps America's control over institutions of global economic governance. No country has as much influence as America over global economic decision making, despite the rise of developing economies. For example, in the IMF only one country has the power to veto, which, of course, is America thereby giving it enormous influence over shaping polices. Many would argue that economic institutes (e.g. the IMF, World Bank, etc.) have outpaced the importance of political institutes (such as the UN) meaning that if the US is unrivaled in it's position over global economics then surely globalization is merely Americanization in disguise? Having said that, the US has seen relative economic decline. While it remains the largest economy, countries such as China and India have been growing more quickly- China is predicted to over take the US economy within a decade. Furthermore, globalization has also seen China and India set up their own lending and developing institutions thereby challenging the concept of Americanization.
Some economists such Joseph E. Stiglitz would argue that the failings of the Iraq war highlight the fact that the US can't solve any problem, even with all it's economic power. Furthermore, the US's military power has become in many ways redundant. While the US can certainly achieve destruction, it doesn't always achieve it's political gains, e.g. the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was these difficulties that forced the Bush administration to adopt a more multilateral approach to the 'war of terror'. Following Bush, President Obama has certainly adopted a more cooperative tone, for example acknowledging in 2009 that "no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by another". Having said that, I would personally argue this shift in approach is merely style rather than substance. All in all though, the US has recognized the limit of it's hard power and realized there's going to have to be more multilateralism and cooperation in order to solve the problems that globalization brings. Therefore if America cannot solve global issues on it's own, despite having access to resources that it does, then perhaps it was never a global hegemon to begin with and 'Americanization' is merely a myth?
Bibliography/Further reading
Another great post, really went into detail here!
ReplyDeleteThank you!
DeleteExtremely interesting read
ReplyDeleteThank you!
Delete