The current state of world politics nowadays has reached the stage wherein almost everyone from age 8 to 80 is already aware of the subjects of globalization and nationalism. If you put these two words in order, the topic of nationalism always comes first, having people grow with the idea. Globalization comes next and the very word was often perceived as a form of disrespecting the subject of nationalism. In the article that Kusumi (2004) wrote for the Association of Asian Research, he used nationalism and globalization and the al-Qaeda as his subjects which he compared from each other.
In this article, he stated that “on the part of globalization, to make a mess in unintentional. On the part of al-Qaeda, to make a mess is the whole idea (Kusumi, 2004). ” Nationalism, in a more general definition is the way in which a certain society decides to order its affairs. As children, we were taught that nations are also called territories that are governed by either civil or military authorities. For a more comprehensive meaning of nations, these are units of communities possessing their own policies and histories.
One nation generally has its own unique policy system, economy, society, and cultures. Every nation is unique from each other in their own ways. Based from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the term nationalism can be described by two kinds of phenomena with the first referring to the attitude possessed by the members of a certain nation when it comes to the subject of their national identity. This definition raises questions about the subjects of nation or national identity which are often connected to the subjects of common origin, ethnicity, or the membership of a certain individual in a nation.
The second definition moreover, deals with the attitude or actions of these members whenever they seek or fight to sustain their self-determination and carries along questions of whether the concept of self-determination should be viewed as something that involves having full statehood or complete authority over domestic and international affairs etc. For many years, nationalism has been ignored as a significant topic in the area of political philosophy and has only emerged as one of the consequences of nationalist clashes like the one between the former Yugoslavia and Soviet Republics.
Either way, nationalism often presents a picture that is morally ambivalent in theme. The very concept of national awakenings and the struggles that come along with the fight for political independence are both seen as heroic in people’s eyes. Basically, the moral debates about nationalism shows a kind of deep moral tension between national groups that are oppressed and the repulsion that are effects of the crimes committed for nationalism itself. Simply put, the subject of nationalism refers to an area of problems mostly about the ethnic and cultural differences in a democratic policy.
These, also are considered as one of the hardest dilemmas in contemporary political theory (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ). Nationalism is also connected to the term nation-state which refers to a “geographically bounded legal entity under a single recognized environment, the population of which psychologically considers them to be related, through historical, linguistic, racial, or other links (Kacowicz, 1998). ” The forces connected to the subject of nationalism can be presented in many forms that are beyond the definition of the state itself.
For example, the subject of nationalism can serve as an instrument in finding a homeland state for a certain existing nation that still does not own one. Moreover, it can also be used to organize a nation for a state that is not yet one through the collaboration of different elements within territorial boundaries to create a nation. Globalization, on the other hand, is viewed as the antithesis of nationalism. This concept negates what the nationalism promotes about the different identities of nations ad suggests that there are no boundaries existing, only one globe.
There are many implications to this subject. For example, global transportation around the world is becoming far easier compared to the past times and communications technology is still improving and spreading globally. These kinds of changes sometimes make people have the feeling that they are all connected despite of the distances and boundaries. The word globalization implies the fact that the world is only a single market with goods and investments flowing freely across different national borders. The term refers to the changes in both the spatial and temporal contours of social existence.
Here, geographical distance is now measured in terms of time and as time is needed to connect geographical locations is minimized, the subject of distances often undergo the subject of compression or even annihilation. And as changes in human activities also affect changes in space or territory, many theorists believe that these alterations in the experiences of humanity are in the process of undermining the significance of both local and national boundaries in the area of human endeavor (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2006). There are three facets connected to globalization.
The first among these is the association of the subject to the concept of deterritorialization, a concept which refers to the increasing kinds of social activities happening irrespective of the geographical location of the participants. These activities are promoted through telecommunication, audiovisual media, digital computers and even the World Wide Web itself. If you view globalization using the concept of deterritorialization, the former can be connected to the increased possibilities of the actions of people irrespective of their latitudinal and longitudinal location.
As what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2006) stated, “Territory in the sense of traditional sense of geographically identifiable location no longer constitutes the whole of ‘social space’ in which human activity takes place…. globalization refers to the spread of new forms of non-territorial social activity. ” The second concept connected to globalization is that of social interconnectedness across geographical and political boundaries.
In this aspect, globalization is connected to the different processes of change that causes significant transformations in the organization of human affairs though connecting and expanding the possibilities of human activities across borders. The third concept of globalization is social acceleration or speed or velocity of any social activity. The speed of the transportation, communication, and other technologies that link people now at present are very important factors in giving the sense of interconnectedness and blurring of territorial boundaries.
The speed of technology, however, is not the only deal in this subject. The connecting and expansion of social activities across different borders are also defined by the very movements of people, information, and goods. The two other concepts mentioned above are directly connected with the speed or social life and the velocity and interchanges across different borders varies generally from their magnitude, impact, or regularity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2006).
Thus, globalization should be perceived as a multi-pronged process due to the fact that deterritorialization, social interconnectedness, and the acceleration of social activities affect many aspects of social activity like in economic, political, and cultural terms. Every manifestation of globalization also creates conflicts and dislocations in different area. An example of this is the evidence saying that cross-border flows and exchanges re already gaining prominence worldwide. The emergence of global financial markets serves as a big challenge to traditional attempts of liberal democratic nation-states.
When it comes to the political realm, globalization takes a more distinct form through deterritorialization, interconnectedness, and acceleration of social activity elements. One form of political globalization is when activists use high-speed communication technologies to connect and form alliances across borders against dilemmas that are transnational in manner. Forms of supranational organizations exhibited for example by the European Union and North America Free Trade Association are also perceived as new manifestations of political globalization.
Despite all of these though, critics still say that the local, regional and national forms of self-government are now being replaced by the democratic forms of global governance that are insufficient to ordinary citizens. The definition of nationalism and globalization clearly shows the differences between the two concepts. Nationalism promoted the establishing of a national identity and the strengthening of borders from one nation to another. Here, a nation is seen as something that has its own policies, economic flow, and culture that is somewhat unavailable from the members of other nations.
Globalization, on the other hand, firmly says that there are no existing borders and that the world is one undivided network. As what Kusumi (2004) said, nationalism and globalization are like oil and water. You can only patronize one and not the other since the nature of the word “international” is equivalent to the fact of having nations defined by their respective boundaries, while the definition of the word “global” is parallel to the intellectual aggression of individuals to the boundaries that are drawn on the globe.
Globalization and terrorism have common factors. Both aims to reach out across national borders and both are vessels that in a way disrespect nationalism. Nationalism advertises the subject of having a national identity while globalization simply threatens the identity of not only one nation but all others around the world. However, globalization is not at all negative because evidences, particularly in the world of trade, shows that this very subject helps a lot in the economy of several countries (Kusumi, 2004).
Thus, it is all just a matter of perspective for these two subjects. For one, during the last few decades, the international flows of goods and financial capital from border to border has increased significantly and if it will be studied in a global perspective, it can be seen that the international trade of goods and services doubled in a span of four decades. Despite of the increase in the flow of goods, services, and financial capital, the term globalization also implies the fact that the world is considered as nearly a single market.
In a fully globalized economy setting such as this, the goods and investments will be able to flow easily from border to border (Taylor, 2002). Despite of these, though, there are still numerous studies promoting the importance that national borders play in the trade market and how our world regardless of all advancements is still too far into being considered a single world market. One of the evidences to the significant role of national borders can be seen in the situation of Ontario, a province of Canada that has an equal distance from Washington State and the province of British Columbia.
If a person will look at the situation using the perspective of a borderless state defined by globalization, he/she will expect Ontario’s level of trade as equal to that of Washington and British Columbia. However, this is not the case when it comes to real life even after adjusting the respective sizes of their economies. In studies conducted in the United States and Europe, it is found that the trades between regions within countries are actually 3 to ten times higher compared to the trade across national borders even after taking into account factors like the size of local economies and geographic distance (Taylor, 2002).
Reasons of why national borders still play important roles in the limiting of international movements of goods and capital are easy to identify. For one, transportation and communications networks are commonly organized by national governments and concentrate more in connections within their own country than national borders. Thus, the economic transactions across a national border is burdened with additional costs that are connected with different legal systems, institutions, regulations, languages and many other factors.
Also, the changes and flow in exchange rate also ass to the level of risk to economic transactions across borders (Taylor, 2002). Globalization is not the single and most viable ingredient in achieving economic growth. In fact there are a multitude of factors that can serve as a catalyst to the achievement of economic success like good education, available investment capital, good infrastructure and transportation, a proper financial sector, and many more. Thus, nations aren’t face with the tough choice of choosing economic improvement over their loyalty to their nation.
The availability of a certain market to the international flows of goods and capital is also one of the most important factors in promoting improvement but there is always a risk that globalization can’t accomplish much and may even be harmful to the economy (Taylor, 2002). Basically, the very concept of nationalism directly opposes the processes of globalization since the concepts of disintegration, fragmentation, and localization deviate from the very trend of globalization.
For example, a new sense of statehood may be a response to the forces of globalization in aiming to annihilate borders between nations. Thus, the persistence and survival of nationalism can be viewed as a kind of response to the forces of the global market through actions that will relocate and strengthen the legitimacy and sense of loyalties at national or subnational levels versus the transnational and supranational force of economic globalization (Kacowicz, 1998).
Moreover, the promotion of nationalism as well as the organizing of new states is even encouraged by pressures of globalization. Through the processes involved in technological dissemination, globalization can even be considered as a catalyst in promoting nationalism so that these two concepts can even converge if a new global revolution of rising expectations will only be viewed. These forces can even encourage states and nations to be more active and managing the pressures that comes along with the subject of globalization.
Here, an interesting paradox can be seen because even though the forces of globalization seem to be a giant next to the concept of state sovereignty, the technological changes brought by the former can even improve the material conditions needed to enhance and give birth to nationalistic trends. To put it simply, globalization opens doors for new strategies and roles for the nation-state and the resurgence of the sense of nationalism (Kacowicz, 1998). In conclusion, nationalism and globalization are two concepts that directly oppose each other’s purposes but in a way also complements the promotion of one.
Just like what has already been mentioned earlier in this paper, “it is all just a matter or perspective. ” References: Kacowicz, A. M. (1998). Regionalization, Globalization, and Nationalism: Convergent, Divergent, or Overlapping? Retrieved June 7, 2009 Web site: http://www. nd. edu/~kellogg/publications/workingpapers/WPS/262. pdf. Kusumi, J. (2004). Globalization versus nationalism versus al-Qaeda: These three things are important to understand as bad, good, and bad respectively. Retrieved June 7, 2009, from Association for Asia Research.
Web site: http://www. asianresearch. org/articles/2261. html. Taylor, T. (2002). The Truth About Globalization. Public Interest, 24. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2006). Globalization. Retrieved June 7, 2009 from Stanford University: Official site Web site: http://plato. stanford. edu/entries/globalization/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2005). Nationalism. Retrieved June 7, 2009 from Stanford University: Official site Web site: http://plato. stanford. edu/entries/nationalism/