Theories of Globalization

Since the end of the 1980s the development of theories of cultural globaliza- tion, in the Anglo-Saxon academic !eld, has resulted in a deep transformation in the ways of thinking media internationalization. The critical political economy of communication, which since the 1960s has played a key role in analysing media internationalization, has been supplanted by disciplines that until the late1980s had rarely addressed the international dimensions of media.
Theories of cultural globalization, as we will try to show here, are the product of a convergence in theory among cultural studies, anthropology and sociology, which regardless of their disciplinary differences tend to think of the cultural consequences of globalization along the same lines. As such, they propose a new dominant paradigm to apprehend the consequences of media internationalization – a paradigm which has deconstructed the perspectives of political economy and replaced them with a radically di"erent vision.
The aim of this chapter is to show, through some of the key texts, how these theories of cultural globalization have emerged and to underline some of the major ruptures that they have entailed in the ways of thinking media internationalization.

El trabajo que se desarrolla a continuación pretende desvelar las claves que se ocultan bajo la continua presencia de la publicidad poniendo de relieve en qué medida y desde qué objetivos ésta se ha convertido en el núcleo del vigente imaginario colectivo. Partiendo de un nuevo concepto de la presente globalización capitalista que desborda su entendimiento puramente económico, se pone de relieve el ejercicio de institución social que existe en la base de la misma, sobre la base de las aportaciones del filósofo Cornelius Castoriadis. El trabajo enfatiza el componente imaginario que contiene la presente producción capitalista, para terminar señalando la función que cumple la publicidad instalando ese componente imaginario en pleno corazón del presente imaginario globalizado.

The pervasiveness of neoliberalism within the field of human geography is remarkable, especially when we consider its virtual absence from the literature less than a decade ago. While the growing attention afforded to neoliberalism among geographers is new, the phenomenon of neoliberalism is not. This paper traces the intellectual history of neoliberalism and its expansions across various institutional frameworks and geographical settings. I review the primary contributions geographers have made to the literature, and specifically their recognition for neoliberalism’s variegations within existing political economic matrixes and institutional frameworks. Contra the prevailing view of neoliberalism as a pure and static end-state, geographical inquiry illuminates neoliberalism as a dynamic and unfolding process. The concept of ‘neoliberalization’ is thus seen as more appropriate to geographical theorizations insofar as it recognizes neoliberalism’s hybridized and mutated forms as it travels around our world. I also consider some of the most salient ways that neoliberalism has been theorized among human geographers. In particular, I highlight understandings of neoliberalism as a hegemonic ideology, as a policy-based approach to state reform, and as a particular logic of governmentality, arguing that while there are significant differences between these various formations, it may also be important to work beyond methodological, epistemological, and ontological divides in the larger interest of social justice.

Contemporary theorizations of neoliberalism are framed by a false dichotomy between, on the one hand, studies influenced by Foucault in emphasizing neoliberalism as a form of governmentality, and on the other hand, inquiries influenced by Marx in foregrounding neoliberalism as a hegemonic ideology. This article seeks to shine some light on this division in an effort to open up new debates and recast existing ones in such a way that might lead to more flexible understandings of neoliberalism as a discourse. A discourse approach moves theorizations forward by recognizing neoliberalism is neither a ‘top down’ nor ‘bottom up’ phenomena, but rather a circuitous process of socio-spatial transformation.

For around fifteen years now, anthropology has been engaged in the study of neoliberalism. What contribution does the discipline have to make to a debate largely monopolized by economics and political science? To answer this question, the present article returns to the major texts and highlights the three perspectives from which anthropology has approached neoliberal expansion: culturalist, systemic and the approach based on governmentality. Each has its own epistemological presuppositions and a specific conception of anthropology, globalization and neoliberalism. The article highlights the relevance and limitations of these approaches.

This paper focus on the historical and contemporary globalization. It attempts to show how different scholars define Globalization in different perspectives. Globalization as a phenomena represents various processes of expansion across continents based on migration, trade, warfare, military alliances, conquest, exploration, colonization and technological advancement. Thus, it has a complex relationship with various contemporary aspects including the economic and financial dimension, the scientific and technological dimension and the interdependence of dimension. Generally, the aim of this paper is to analyse the similarities and differences of the two opposing school of thought (historical and contemporary) which view globalization as a process. This paper challenges the existentialist assumptions of the concept of globalization that are sacrosanct and frozen.

The paper gives an overview of the most important conceptual structures for writing the history and constructing a theory of world society. It 1. defines the concept of society and asks how many types of society can be observed in the history of human social systems; 2. connects the argument about types of society with a reconstruction of patterns of settlement of the earth by humans; 3. resumes these arguments by presenting a concept of sociocultural evolution as basic process of the formation of societies. Then it switches its focus to a reconstruction of modern world society (18th-21 st Centuries) and 4. defines main aspects of the complexity of world society and the nexus from complexity to functional differentiation; 5. identifies inclusion revolutions since the 18th century as starting point of global function systems such as the economy, education, science and polity; 6. explains the other emerging Eigenstructures of world society (scale-free networks, world organizations, epistemic communities, global interaction systems, world events) and 7. resumes the argument by identifying the basic mechanisms of societal transformation -namely communication, migration, observation and knowledge -which function as enabling background of the history of human societies.

Are the growing oppositions to neoliberal market globalism (especially in the aftermath of global economic meltdown) able to develop meaningful alternative ideologies? Is there any substantial alternative to the world capitalist system on the horizon? How would the new ideologies and ideas address the dire dilemmas of economy vs. ecology, redistribution vs. recognition, global vs. local, reform vs. revolution etc.?

No weakening, but rather an expansion, of statehood can be observed in the contemporary world. This does not, on the other hand, imply that extensive forms of constitutional ordering do not exist outside the realm of states. Instead, the evolution of world society has been characterized by a protracted dual movement where the expansion and densification of statehood and autonomous forms of transnational ordering gradually emerged in a mutually constitutive fashion. One implication of this is that neither the concept of the state nor the concept of nonstate transnational entities is adequately capable of delineating the object of constitutional analysis. Instead, the concept of normative orders has been introduced as an overarching category capable of identifying the contexts within which constitutional ordering emerges.
Subsequently, a distinction between the internal and external dimensions of the law of normative orders has been introduced, specifying them as respectively oriented towards establishing internal condensation of a given normative order and external compatibility between different normative orders. With this background, a framework for the analysis of constitutional frameworks of normative orders is developed. The central element is a distinction among three dimensions: First, a constitution implies a coupling between a constitutional object, in the form of a hierarchical organization of a given normative order capable of reproducing an autonomous source of authority, and a concordant legal framework. Second, constitutionalization implies a coupling between an internal reconstruction of an external constitutional subject within the constitutional object, and the register of legal rights, establishing a framework for exchanges between the constitutional object and the wider world as represented by the constitutional subject. Third, constitutionalism denotes the institutionalization of a double function, in the form of a principle-based and legally fortified striving toward universal inclusion, providing a sense of direction in time through an articulated form of constitutional consciousness.
The insights developed are briefly illustrated by the case of the global Fairtrade Certification System.

Globalization via the digital age is upon us, demanding a new ethics and an intercultural awareness while the dialectics of globalism and cyberspace mandate a committed reflection on what the synthesis between the digital realm and global citizenship entails. In many ways, the borders that previously separated us as citizens physically and culturally have begun to dissipate, replaced by a call for an intercultural accountability and a form of global citizenship that, on one hand, surpasses borders, patriotism, and nationalism alike, but while on the other, demands an understanding and respect for the cultural idiosyncrasies among us, acknowledging the unique existential paradox of universal citizenship that posits each of us as both stranger and citizen on a commonly shared globe.

What is cosmopolitan in the digital age? Is a global digital citizen the same as merely a digital citizen? While talk of digital citizenship has increased in recent years, usually centered on a capitalist drive, encouraging a full electronic participation in society and a responsibility to digital commerce, many questions remain unanswered.  Is the netizen the citizen of a democratic state, and of digital democracy? As a citizen of the world interacting online, how will one’s “rights” and “duties” be determined? And are these “rights” universal, and in such a case, what does “universal” mean? What are the legal parameters of netizenship, and what will they be as globalization further takes hold? Is democracy critical to citizenship, or is it not? What are the political landscapes of global citizenship in the digital age? And last of all, is the concept of digital citizenship even tangible? Is it real?

An attempt towards cutting-edge theoretical explorations in translation studies. Starting from the identity crisis in cultural globalization known as “Jihad vs. McWorld” by Benjamin Barber, this paper draws inspirations from Annie Brisset's observation of the “deficient” target language in translation and Edward Said’s criticism on “Orientalism”. It then challenges Jacques Derrida’s “Différance” and points to a new view of cultural identity of negotiable differences, offering a philosophical solution to the global identity crisis.

Six ways are described in which the current phase of globalization has apparently tended to cause destructive violence notwithstanding all its benefits to many people:
(1) a fast-expanding gap between rich and poor,
(2) the media making the gap evident worldwide,
(3) ruthless big-business practices overwhelming weak international (and some national) laws;
(4) worldwide availability of very destructive weapons;
(5) a disturbingly fast rate of mutual cultural penetrations,
(6) fear of macro-ecological catastrophes due to excessive increases in world population and in per-capita consumption and waste.
The cause-and-effect relations are not simple but are a matter of intricate compounds. Some of the problems have to be addressed by strong government.

Manuskripte bitte als Disketten (rtf) sowie in zwei Ausdrucken; Manuskripte, die nicht als E-Datei vorgelegt werden, können leider nicht bearbeitet werden. Manuskripte sollen die Länge von 20 Seiten DIN A4, 14pt einzeilig in Times Roman beschrieben nicht überschreiten. Für unverlangt eingereichte Manuskripte wird keine Gewähr übernommen.

The world has experienced huge, rapid and complex transformation, which is called globalization, since 1940s. The European integration process has emerged and progressed during the same period with globalization as well. The relationship between globalization and the European integration is significant to understand the two processes together with today's and tomorrow's world. Globalization, notably economic globalization, is usually perceived as an exogenous accelerator for the European integration. Although this argument is true to a certain extent, it does not comprise all parts of the reality. The globalization process has social, political, cultural, technological and environmental dimensions and they have affected the European integration as well. On the other hand, the European integration has also certain impacts on the globalization process. Furthermore, European Union claims that European social model provides an alternative form of globalization rather than neoliberal globalization. Consequently, the relationship between the globalization process and European integration process is more complex than it seems and explanations that are more comprehensive are needed in this area. The aim of this thesis is to examine the relationship between the European integration and globalization in the light of globalization theories to provide an alternative perspective to understand the European integration.                 
Dünya 1940larden beri küreselleşme olarak adlandırılan büyük, hızlı ve karmaşık bir dönüşüm yaşamaktadır. Avrupa bütünleşmesi da küreselleşme ile aynı zaman diliminde ortaya çıkmış ve gelişmiştir. Küreselleşme ve Avrupa bütünleşmesi arasındaki ilişki her iki süreci ve bugünün ve geleceğin dünyasını anlamak için çok önemlidir.
Avrupa bütünleşmesi açısından küreselleşme özellikle de ekonomik küreselleşme genellikle dışsal bir hızlandırıcı olarak anlaşılmaktadır. Bu görüş bazı açılardan doğru olmakla birlikte gerçeğin tamamını yansıtmamaktadır. Küreselleşme süreci sosyal, politik, kültürel, teknolojik ve çevresel boyutları içermekte ve bu boyutlar da Avrupa bütünleşmesini etkilemektedir. Diğer yandan, Avrupa bütünleşmesi da küreselleşme üzerinde çeşitli etkilerde bulunmaktadır. İlave olarak, Avrupa Birliği Avrupa sosyal modelinin neoliberal küreselleşmeye bir alternatif sunduğunu iddia etmektedir. Sonuçta küreselleşme ve Avrupa bütünleşmesi arasındaki ilişki göründüğünden daha karmaşıktır ve bu alanda daha kapsamlı açıklamalara ihtiyaç bulunmaktadır. Bu tezin amacı küreselleşme ve Avrupa bütünleşmesi arasındaki ilişkiyi küreselleşme teorileri ışığında inceleyerek Avrupa bütünleşmesini anlamak için alternatif bir perspektif sunmaktır.

Over the last fifteen years or so anthropology has been engaged in the study of neoliberalism, with a growing quantity of research into the implementation and consequences of neoliberal policies (cf. Kipnis 2007). Why should a subject that has ...