Why Global? Diagnosing the Globalization Literature Within a Political Economy of Higher Education

Abstract

This article examines the assumed factuality of globalization in light of its persistent conceptual incoherence. Through a diagnosis of five reoccurring ambiguities within the globalization literature, I argue that the concept of globalization lacks an empirical referent. Scholars writing on globalization overcome this absence by asserting that some things (the Internet, McDonald's, etc.) and not others (genocide in Rwanda, refugee camps, etc.) are essentially “global.” It turns out, however, that who is positioned to posit some things (and not others) as “global,” and therefore posit the foundation for a theory of globalization, is shaped by a highly asymmetrical political economy of knowledge production. In particular, some scholars—usually in North American and European universities—are materially better positioned to produce knowledge about globalization than many of their colleagues in postcolonial countries. The seemingly arbitrary positing of some things as “global,” therefore, should be understood as a symptom of the highly unequal social relations in which knowledge about globalization is produced.

Towards a ‘critical cultural political economy’ account of the globalising of education

“…We see it as a particular project that acts as a mechanism of change at a 'global' level. This is in contrast to representing it as one or other form of empirical generalisation -such as the 'unspecified other', an 'arbitrary list', the 'not local', the world is global because everyone says it is, or as both 'menagerie' and 'concept' (Kamola 2013). Referring to globalisation as a project means that we see it as neither an accidental nor unintended set of processes and outcomes -though it certainly cannot be seen to fit any 'master plan' -but as a witting attempt by a range of national and transnational organisations to bring about a set of interventions around the globe aimed at extending the role of the market and reducing the role of national states.…”

University administrators as forced language policy agents. An institutional ethnography of parallel language strategy and practices at the University of Copenhagen

“…Increasing the number of foreign researchers and students is not a need that has grown gradually from the inside out, but is, rather, imposed to universities from above. The increased marketisation of the field of knowledge production is caused by the fact that universities are (partly) run as corporate entities operating within the highly competitive international education market, where they compete for (international) student tuition revenue and research grants from the same international and national pools, and where they strive to maximize their ranking on the common ranking systems, such as the Times Higher Education Supplement (Kamola, 2013;Khoo, 2011;Meyer & Schofer, 2009). Besides having to respond to the pressure from the global education market (Mosneaga & Agergaard, 2012, p. 527;Marginson & Wende, 2009), Danish universities are also target of the Danish government's globalisation strategy.…”

“…This homogenisation applies not only to language, but also to concepts and theories. Kamola (2013) argues that the political economy of higher education favours knowledge produced in English by the American style research institutes that occupy the top 100 places on the THES list. But there are also differences between conceptual universes in different languages (Airey, 2011;Phillipson, 2015), which is why increasing use of English colours the knowledge about the world mediated through it, including our knowledge of what counts as global or international (Kamola, 2013, p. 48).…”

Rethinking China’s Soft Power

“…Scholars have come to understand modernization as a set of projects with prescriptions of what could be rather than as a force shaping what was (Tsing 2000). Likewise, the "global" is not something that is, but is rather an object of knowledge (Kamola 2013) -or more precisely, knowledges which are specific to time and place. Contemporary global processes should be understood as a composite of multiple global projects (or ways of imagining and acting in the world), each of which is culturally and institutionally specific (Tsing 2000) and thus limited.…”

“…In so doing, he demonstrates that soft power is about more than a desire to attract: it is also very much about a desire to define, to make China's version of events credible. Knowledge of what constitutes the global has been shaped by an acutely asymmetrical political economy of knowledge production in which those located in wealthy, developed countries have enjoyed a distinct advantage (Kamola 2013). Many in the PRC have become increasingly discontented with that asymmetry.…”