Globalization as the end and the beginning of history: The contradictory implications of a new paradigm

Abstract

This paper seeks to understand globalization as a new paradigm. It recognizes that there is much about the discourse of globalization that is ideological, that seeks to cover up the detrimental consequences of globalization for the majority of the world's population. It suggests nevertheless that there may be much to be gained from viewing it as a new paradigm, albeit a contradictory one, that has replaced an earlier paradigm of modernization. It makes an analytical distinction between globalization as historical process, which is at least as old as the history of capitalism, if not older, and globalization as a new way of looking at the world and its past, which is quite novel. To illustrate its argument, the paper contrasts present-day political and intellectual consequences of globalization with the late nineteenth-century, where several observers have identified a level of economic globalization greater than that of the present. It argues that whereas earlier globalization produced nationalism, colonialism and epistemological universalism, globalization presently is postcolonial, challenges the nation-state, and is marked by a break-down of universalism. It follows that globalization needs to be understood not just as global integration, as suggested by its ideologues and in economistic interpretations, but equally importantly as a new mode of fragmentation. An analytical distinction between globalization as process and paradigm is necessary to grasping globalization as a new mode of comprehending the world, but it is nevertheless necessary from a critical perspective to keep in mind the historical relationship between the two; globalization may be viewed as a new beginning in breaking down old hegemonies, but globalization may be viewed also as the ultimate victory of capitalist modernity. The contradictoriness may be perceived in the epistemologies of postmodernism and postcolonialism. The paper suggests that these epistemologies are best grasped

Does Good Governance Affect Globalization? A case of Bangladesh

“…Besides, encouraging private entrepreneurship and developing private sector have been the major part of the agenda of regulatory quality (Dirlik, 2000). In recent years, the country achieved a lot in promoting private sector.…”

The Discourse of Globalization: Framing and Sensemaking of an Emerging Concept

“…We therefore distinguish between globalization as a structural process and globalization as a symbolic discourse (cf. Chase Dunn, Kawano, and Brewer 2000;Dirlik 2000;Kayatekin and Ruccio 1998). Research has mainly focused on the first aspect of globalization as a historical trend that can be measured by such structural changes as shifts in trade patterns or flows of capital.…”

Markets, Culture, Power: The Making of a “Second Cultural Revolution” in China

“…31 For the most important discussion of globalisation in terms of networks, see Castells 1996. For a discussion of globalisation as a contradictory process of integration/fragmentation, see Dirlik 2000. I am indebted to Majid Tehranian for the term``pan-capitalism.''…”