THE THEME OF THE IPSA WORLD CONGRESS 2000:
GLOBALIZATION OR WORLD CAPITALISM
By Fred W. Riggs
Some reflections concerning a
COCTA-sponsored panel on Globalization to be held at the next
Congress
of the International Political Science Association, in Quebec, August
2000.
NOTE: This memo was posted in July 1999 when preliminary planning for a Roundtable on concepts of Globalization at the IPSA Congress first started. The project is now formally launched and details about participants and methodology can be found separately at COCTAGLO
The first of the five major themes of the 2000 IPSA Congress in Quebec -- as given in the Program Committee's announcement -- is called: GLOBALIZATION, SOVEREIGNTY AND LEGITIMACY. For details, see: IPSA Program for Quebec Congress, August 2000. The third paragraph of the accompanying text contains this explanation:
The changes in question have increasingly been treated under the rubric of "globalization"; a catch-all phrase which emphasizes the emergence of a truly global economy along with the spread of Western values and institutions. By shifting the emphasis from "globalization" to "world capitalism", and by specifically focusing on the corporate aspect of change, the main theme of the Quebec Congress highlights the organizational and goal-oriented dimension of the process.
The term, catch-all phrase, as used here, suggests the difficulty many political scientists have already experienced with the use of a word that has become so popularized that it has already lost whatever specific meaning it may have had at first. We are naturally inclined, in the presence of such popular buzzwords, to reject them and propose substitutes that more precisely express our meaning -- in this case, Prof. Lafferty suggests that world capitalism can better indicate what members of the Program Committee have in mind. Unfortunately, this procedure may create as many difficulties as it solves. Consider the following problems.
1. First, the new term may be as problematic as the displaced
one. In this case capitalism is, itself, a buzzword that has
been the focus of heated controversies, and the addition of world
as a modifier scarcely makes the term any clearer. George Soros, a
billionaire who has made his fortune by money market speculations -- he
may or may not be a capitalist, depending on how one defines this
term -- has written a lot about the growing dangers caused by world
capitalism -- see: Soros In the process of globalization, the
meaning of capitalism has shifted drastically from its small-scale
entrepreneurial origins to its mega-scale supra-state manifestations in
the global flow of speculative money-market transactions in which
entrepreneurial productivity is scarcely an important consideration.
2. A second problem arises when a broad multi-disciplinary
concept is replaced by a more narrowly focused term. In this case,
globalization is surely a multi-faceted process, not only with
deep economic aspects, but also political, social, cultural,
environmental, historical and geographical implications, putting into
jeopardy all the established boundaries of Social Science
By contrast,
although capitalism clearly has political connotations, the
word's focus on money and entrepreneurship suggests a kind of economic
determinism.
Political scientists -- they may want to invert this
perspective and ask how public policy decisions influence economic
development or may regulate market forces -- are handicapped by the
rhetoric of political-economy that typically makes politics a dependent
variable. One advantage of globalization is that it overcomes this
bias: it permits one to view the planetary spread of trade, markets, and
industry as both a consequence and a cause of contemporary world affairs,
using the model of circular causation rather than unilinear thinking.
When modern states adopt policies that open or restrict the flow of goods,
capital, and people, these political decisions have profound economic
consequences -- surely political scientists should not rush to conclude
that they are predetermined by economic forces.
3. A third problem I see in the program plan involves the assumption
that globalization implies "the spread of Western values and
institutions". IPSA members from many third world countries are well
aware of powerful movements in their own countries that have emerged to
combat Westernization and to resist its penetration. Even within the Western
world, globalization has spawned movements to revive traditional values and
practices and to counteract the more negative aspects of capitalism and
materialism. Surely globalization does not compel homogenization -- instead,
increasing diversity may be viewed as a normal response to unwelcome
global pressures.
It is surely a misunderstanding of globalization to
see it as a euphemism for Westernization. Consider some of the
older terms like progress and development. Each had
strong positive connotations that were rejected by critics who pointed to
their unhappy consequences. One of the attractive features of
globalization as a replacement for these earlier terms is its
value neutrality -- it points to a fact of life in the world today that
has both positive and negative consequences. It can, therefore, be
studied empirically without presuppositions or any implied determinism.
It is as important to explain the causes -- economic, political, social,
psychological, geographical and historical -- of globalization as it is to
look at its many consequences. One way to interpret this phenomenon
rests on a reassessment of
Area Studies as a
tool for understanding how conquered and liberated peoples respond to the
impact of the West in their lives.
4. Speaking terminologically, we can see that
globalization is a kind of "shelter" or
"umbrella" under which a congeries of overlapping and linked concepts can
be subsumed. In context, however, one can use globalization to
refer precisely to any one of these concepts but without such contextual
markers the word is easily misunderstood. An everyday example might be
the word mother which originally, no doubt, referred only to
birth mothers, but has cone to include also "step mothers," "foster
mothers," "surrogate mothers," etc. When the word is used in a fuzzy way
to cover all these diverse relationships, it become highly ambiguous, but
the use of more specific terms permits one to focus on different kinds of
motherly relationships. In context, therefore, one can use
mother to refer precisely to any one of several overlapping
concepts, or to any combination of these relationships. Without such
indicators, however, the word gives only a fuzzy impression which, of
course, may well be all that is needed in a particular situation.
The same is true of globalization. Under the aegis of
the International Sociological Association, Henry Teune and I launched a
project last year which involved the analysis of texts from the work of
many ISA members who had written about "globalization". The results are
reported in a document that can beviewed at Concepts . It provided the basis for a Roundtable
at the last ISA Congress in Montreal. COCTA plans to replicate that
exercise at the Quebec IPSA Congress. Anyone using the term
globalization in a research project or in the title of a paper
prepared for presentation in Quebec, is invited to participate. Just
contact Fred Riggs and express an interest in the project -- if possible,
also send a text showing what one has in mind when speaking about
globalization. The texts will be copied into a corpus and made the basis
for subsequent analysis and discussion by all participants in the project.
Quebec Congress Plans []
Roundtable on Globalization || COCTA Sessions at Quebec Congress
|| COCTA Home Page []
Related Globalization Links [] Classified concepts
|| Explanation
|| Sites || Projects []
Return to top of this page or click here for Home
Page links:
Personal
Autobio
Prism
GRD
Globalization
Concepts
Ethnicity
ETHNIC-L
COCTA
Onoma.
COVICO
Choices
Impeach
SITES Search
Engines
Updated: 14 February 2000