2 posts due Oct. 25th

Globalization is the “rapidly developing and every-densening network of interconnections and interdependencies that characterize modern life” (Appelrouth & Edles, 2010, p. 557). As globalization increases the world gets figuratively smaller in various aspects of life from transportation, communication, economics, finances, politics, and so on. The two main perspectives regarding the question of where globalization is taking us are homogeneity and heterogeneity, with both weak and strong versions of each.

With homogeneity, the weak version describes globalization going in the direction of people “what is shared is a common appreciation and respect for differences” (Appelrouth & Edles, 2010, p. 561). This version highlights the direction of complete tolerance by all, for all, and of all across the globe. The strong version of homogeneity is described as one strong nation or culture pushing their way of life on other less-established cultures and economies. This allows the influencing nation to “remodel the world in their image while siphoning off the profits that come with the increasing flows of technology, goods, money, and people across borders” (Appelrouth & Edles, 2010, p. 561). As dominating as that sounds, it is not always intentional influences that make their way into other cultures. This is seen mainly in the sharing of culture, specifically in the form of popular culture.

With heterogeneity there is an increase in glocalism, which is the “hybridization of existing cultural differences”, and in the weak version “local practices and ideas” and combined with “those of foreign origin” (Appelrouth & Edles, 2010, p. 562). The book gives an example of McDonalds in how although it is in numerous countries, their menus differ somewhat to reflect that specific culture’s preferences in cuisine. This is also evident in music or fashion as it can be adopted from one culture and adapted to fit into another.  The strong version of heterogeneity is described as one that produces conflicts arising out of communities who resist “homogenizing tendencies” that have increased with globalization, specifically from that of Western civilization (Appelrouth & Edles, 2010, p. 562). A prime example is that of religion that is continually pushed to be spread throughout the world from all forms of beliefs, and is often met with backlash from a small scale to a global one.

Where I believe globalization is ultimately headed is comparable to the weak version of heterogeneity; though I would suggest more of in between the weak and strong versions of heterogeneity if free to mold my own analysis. Although I see a strong spread of cultures, religions, and so forth through globalization, and a respect and representation of shared values, traditions, and norms; I do see conflict arising out of the clashing of such things, though not always. There have been those that try to literally take over the world and force their culture, religion, or beliefs on others, this has most often been shut down and the original culture is allowed to prosper, even times with adaptations from the forced culture ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

POST #2

The two main perspective of where globalization is taking us are termed homogeneity and heterogeneity. They also have a “weak and a “strong” version. 

The “strong” version of homogeneity would see Western cultural and economic imperialism completely push out all other indigenous and national cultures and replace it with the dominant Western culture and capitalism using force when necessary. All conquered nations would be forced to adopt Western practices and ideologies and would be stripped of their resources which would then be funneled back into Western nations.

The “weak” version of this involves the acceptance globally of a fusion of cultures into a pluralistic global culture which embraces not uniformity but many different cultural and individual identities. Appelrouth writes, “The crucial point to this notion of homogenization is the sense that globalization is not based on the systematic exploitation or domination of one region of the world by another, but rather on a developing, more humane, and tolerant world-as-a-whole” (2011). Indigenous and other national identities would not be erased but included in global culture even while we continue to unite and embrace globalization peacefully and with respect to differences. However, things like human rights, democracy, etc., would be put in place regardless of cultural views on women or minorities. The difference is it would be done through diplomacy and not military or economic force.

The “weak” version of heterogeneity is very similar but with a few important differences. Appelrouth explains it saying, “In short, the process of globalization is seen as penetrating the regions of the world without, however, producing a uniform global culture. Regional distinctions remain, albeit colored by a constant interweaving with “outside” cultural and economic influences” (2011). For instance, instead of having cultural dishes or styles replaced with Western ones, they are instead incorporated along with local favorites to increase choice and heterogeneity. 

The “strong” version of this is that cultures and nations will reject any kind of melding and will become strongly nationalistic and begin to clash and war over their desire to remain apart from a global society., or more specifically, a Western influenced society. 

There are certainly ways in which all of these are true. Groups like ISIS have risen and seem to reflect the strong version of heterogeneity as they rail against what they see as Western imperialism. Their reaction is to become religious zealots who want to destroy any Western influence on their religion, culture or nations. They will remain, I hope, a small minority though. I also think the strong version of homogeneity is reflected in some aspects of Western politics and further fuels the reaction of groups like ISIS. That being said, in the end I see either a weak version of homogeneity or a weak version of heterogeneity as being the most likely scenario for the future of globalization.