Defined by many but agreed upon by few, globalisation seems to be one of those theories that we just can’t put our fingers on. With every definition changing depending on the context of the discussion, and theorist from sociological, political and economic backgrounds arguing its different causes and effects, how are we supposed to fully wrap our heads around it?
Economically speaking Gray defined globalisation as a “Similarity of economic conditions and policies across national boundaries” (1993). However on the other end of the spectrum sociological definitions shift the focus to the decreasing of borders and in turn local cultures.
Author Malcolm Waters of the book Globalisation defines it as “a social process in which the constraints of geography and cultural arrangements recede and in which people are increasingly aware that they are receding” (1995). Definitions such as leads to many people blaming globalisation for the homogenisation of the world.
I have resigned to the fact the globalisation may never have a one definition that can encompass all of its processes. Rather it will always be a discussion that could go a number of different ways about a number of its different contexts. Cultural globalisation, political globalisation, economical globalisation, the effects are endless and constantly changing. What the discussion of globalisation does is give us an opportunity to to better understand all of the social and political changes that are taking place in our world.
M. Waters, 1995, Globalisation, Routledge Publishing, New York, 2nd edition
Gray, H.P, 1993, Development and International Cooperation, Globalization versus Nationhood
Nederveen Pieterse, J, 2004, Globalization: consensus and controversies, Globalization and culture: global mélange, Rowan & Littlefield, Lanham