8 Theories of Globalization – Explained!

All theories of globalization have been put hereunder in eight categories:

liberalism, political realism, Marxism, constructivism, postmodernism,
feminism , Trans-formationalism and eclecticism. Each one of them carries
several variations.

1. Theory of Liberalism:
Liberalism sees the process of globalisation as market-led extension of
modernisation. At the most elementary level, it is a result of ‘natural’ human
desires for economic welfare and political liberty. As such, transplanetary
connectivity is derived from human drives to maximise material well-being and
to exercise basic freedoms. These forces eventually interlink humanity across
the planet.

They fructify in the form of:

(a) Technological advances, particularly in the areas of transport,
communications and information processing, and,

(b) Suitable legal and institutional arrangement to enable markets and liberal
democracy to spread on a trans world scale.

Such explanations come mostly from Business Studies, Economics,

International Political Economy, Law and Politics. Liberalists stress the
necessity of constructing institutional infrastructure to support globalisation. All
this has led to technical standardisation, administrative harmonisation, trans-
lation arrangement between languages, laws of contract, and guarantees of
property rights.

But its supporters neglect the social forces that lie behind the creation of
technological and institutional underpinnings. It is not satisfying to attribute
these developments to ‘natural’ human drives for economic growth and
political liberty. They are culture blind and tend to overlook historically situated
life-worlds and knowledge structures which have promoted their emergence.
All people cannot be assumed to be equally amenable to and desirous of
increased globality in their lives. Similarly, they overlook the phenomenon of
power. There are structural power inequalities in promoting globalisation and
shaping its course. Often they do not care for the entrenched power
hierarchies between states, classes, cultures, sexes, races and resources.

2. Theory of Political Realism:

Advocates of this theory are interested in questions of state power, the pursuit
of national interest, and conflict between states. According to them states are
inherently acquisitive and self-serving, and heading for inevitable competition
of power. Some of the scholars stand for a balance of power, where any
attempt by one state to achieve world dominance is countered by collective
resistance from other states.

Another group suggests that a dominant state can bring stability to world
order. The ‘hegemon’ state (presently the US or G7/8) maintains and defines
international rules and institutions that both advance its own interests and at
the same time contain conflicts between other states. Globalisation has also
been explained as a strategy in the contest for power between several major
states in contemporary world politics.

They concentrate on the activities of Great Britain, China, France, Japan, the
USA and some other large states. Thus, the political realists highlight the
issues of power and power struggles and the role of states in generating
global relations.

At some levels, globalisation is considered as antithetical to territorial states.

States, they say, are not equal in globalisation, some being dominant and
others subordinate in the process. But they fail to understand that everything
in globalisation does not come down to the acquisition, distribution and
exercise of power.

Globalisation has also cultural, ecological, economic and psychological

dimensions that are not reducible to power politics. It is also about the
production and consumption of resources, about the discovery and affirmation
of identity, about the construction and communication of meaning, and about
humanity shaping and being shaped by nature. Most of these are apolitical.

Power theorists also neglect the importance and role of other actors in
generating globalisation. These are sub-state authorities, macro-regional
institutions, global agencies, and private-sector bodies. Additional types of
power-relations on lines of class, culture and gender also affect the course of
globalisation. Some other structural inequalities cannot be adequately
explained as an outcome of interstate competition. After all, class inequality,
cultural hierarchy, and patriarchy predate the modern states.

3. Theory of Marxism:
Marxism is principally concerned with modes of production, social exploitation
through unjust distribution, and social emancipation through the
transcendence of capitalism. Marx himself anticipated the growth of globality
that ‘capital by its nature drives beyond every spatial barrier to conquer the
whole earth for its market’. Accordingly, to Marxists, globalisation happens
because trans-world connectivity enhances opportunities of profit-making and
surplus accumulation.

Marxists reject both liberalist and political realist explanations of globalisation.

It is the outcome of historically specific impulses of capitalist development. Its
legal and institutional infrastructures serve the logic of surplus accumulation of
a global scale. Liberal talk of freedom and democracy make up a legitimating
ideology for exploitative global capitalist class relations.

The neo-Marxists in dependency and world-system theories examine

capitalist accumulation on a global scale on lines of core and peripheral
countries. Neo-Gramscians highlight the significance of underclass struggles
to resist globalising capitalism not only by traditional labour unions, but also by
new social movements of consumer advocates, environmentalists, peace
activists, peasants, and women. However, Marxists give an overly restricted
account of power.

There are other relations of dominance and subordination which relate to

state, culture, gender, race, sex, and more. Presence of US hegemony, the
West-centric cultural domination, masculinism, racism etc. are not reducible to
class dynamics within capitalism. Class is a key axis of power in globalisation,
but it is not the only one. It is too simplistic to see globalisation solely as a
result of drives for surplus accumulation.

It also seeks to explore identities and investigate meanings. People develop

global weapons and pursue global military campaigns not only for capitalist
ends, but also due to interstate competition and militarist culture that predate
emergence of capitalism. Ideational aspects of social relations also are not
outcome of the modes of production. They have, like nationalism, their
autonomy.

4. Theory of Constructivism:
Globalisation has also arisen because of the way that people have mentally
constructed the social world with particular symbols, language, images and
interpretation. It is the result of particular forms and dynamics of
consciousness. Patterns of production and governance are second-order
structures that derive from deeper cultural and socio-psychological forces.
Such accounts of globalisation have come from the fields of Anthropology,
Humanities, Media of Studies and Sociology.

Constructivists concentrate on the ways that social actors ‘construct’ their

world: both within their own minds and through inter-subjective communication
with others. Conversation and symbolic exchanges lead people to construct
ideas of the world, the rules for social interaction, and ways of being and
belonging in that world. Social geography is a mental experience as well as a
physical fact. They form ‘in’ or ‘out’ as well as ‘us’ and they’ groups.

They conceive of themselves as inhabitants of a particular global world.

National, class, religious and other identities respond in part to material
conditions but they also depend on inter-subjective construction and
communication of shared self-understanding. However, when they go too far,
they present a case of social-psychological reductionism ignoring the
significance of economic and ecological forces in shaping mental experience.
This theory neglects issues of structural inequalities and power hierarchies in
social relations. It has a built-in apolitical tendency.
5. Theory of Postmodernism:
Some other ideational perspectives of globalisation highlight the significance
of structural power in the construction of identities, norms and knowledge.
They all are grouped under the label of ‘postmodernism’. They too, as Michel
Foucault does strive to understand society in terms of knowledge power:
power structures shape knowledge. Certain knowledge structures support
certain power hierarchies.

The reigning structures of understanding determine what can and cannot be

known in a given socio-historical context. This dominant structure of
knowledge in modern society is ‘rationalism’. It puts emphasis on the empirical
world, the subordination of nature to human control, objectivist science, and
instrumentalist efficiency. Modern rationalism produces a society
overwhelmed with economic growth, technological control, bureaucratic
organisation, and disciplining desires.

This mode of knowledge has authoritarian and expansionary logic that leads
to a kind of cultural imperialism subordinating all other epistemologies. It does
not focus on the problem of globalisation per se. In this way, western
rationalism overawes indigenous cultures and other non-modem life-worlds.

Postmodernism, like Marxism, helps to go beyond the relatively superficial

accounts of liberalist and political realist theories and expose social conditions
that have favoured globalisation. Obviously, postmodernism suffers from its
own methodological idealism. All material forces, though come under impact
of ideas, cannot be reduced to modes of consciousness. For a valid
explanation, interconnection between ideational and material forces is not
enough.

6. Theory of Feminism:
It puts emphasis on social construction of masculinity and femininity. All other
theories have identified the dynamics behind the rise of trans-planetary and
supra-territorial connectivity in technology, state, capital, identity and the like.

Biological sex is held to mould the overall social order and shape significantly
the course of history, presently globality. Their main concern lies behind the
status of women, particularly their structural subordination to men. Women
have tended to be marginalised, silenced and violated in global
communication.

7. Theory of Trans-formationalism:
This theory has been expounded by David Held and his colleagues. Accord-
ingly, the term ‘globalisation’ reflects increased interconnectedness in political,
economic and cultural matters across the world creating a “shared social
space”. Given this interconnectedness, globalisation may be defined as “a
process (or set of processes) which embodies a transformation in the spatial
organisation of social relations and transactions, expressed in transcontinental
or interregional flows and networks of activity, interaction and power.”

While there are many definitions of globalisation, such a definition seeks to

bring together the many and seemingly contradictory theories of globalisation
into a “rigorous analytical framework” and “proffer a coherent historical
narrative”. Held and McGrew’s analytical framework is constructed by
developing a three part typology of theories of globalisation consisting of
“hyper-globalist,” “sceptic,” and “transformationalist” categories.

The Hyperglobalists purportedly argue that “contemporary globalisation

defines a new era in which people everywhere are increasingly subject to the
disciplines of the global marketplace”. Given the importance of the global
marketplace, multi-national enterprises (MNEs) and intergovernmental
organisations (IGOs) which regulate their activity are key political actors.
Sceptics, such as Hirst and Thompson (1996) ostensibly argue that
“globalisation is a myth which conceals the reality of an international economy
increasingly segmented into three major regional blocs in which national
governments remain very powerful.” Finally, transformationalists such as
Rosenau (1997) or Giddens (1990) argue that globalisation occurs as “states
and societies across the globe are experiencing a process of profound change
as they try to adapt to a more interconnected but highly uncertain world”.

Developing the transformationalist category of globalisation theories. Held and

McGrew present a rather complicated typology of globalisation based on
globalization’s spread, depth, speed, and impact, as well as its impacts on
infrastructure, institutions, hierarchical structures and the unevenness of
development.

They imply that the “politics of globalisation” have been “transformed” (using
their word from the definition of globalisation) along all of these dimensions
because of the emergence of a new system of “political globalisation.” They
define “political globalisation” as the “shifting reach of political power, authority
and forms of rule” based on new organisational interests which are
“transnational” and “multi-layered.”

These organisational interests combine actors identified under the hyper-

globalist category (namely IGOs and MNEs) with those of the sceptics (trading
blocs and powerful states) into a new system where each of these actors
exercises their political power, authority and forms of rule.

Thus, the “politics of globalisation” is equivalent to “political globalisation” for

Held and McGrew. However, Biyane Michael criticises them. He deconstructs
their argument, if a is defined as “globalisation” (as defined above), b as the
organisational interests such as MNEs, IGOs, trading blocs, and powerful
states, and c as “political globalisation” (also as defined above), then their
argument reduces to a. b. c. In this way, their discussion of globalisation is
trivial.

Held and others present a definition of globalisation, and then simply restates
various elements of the definition. Their definition, “globalisation can be
conceived as a process (or set of processes) which embodies a
transformation in the spatial organisation of social relations” allows every
change to be an impact of globalisation. Thus, by their own definition, all the
theorists they critique would be considered as “transformationalists.” Held and
McGrew also fail to show how globalisation affects organisational interests.

8. Theory of Eclecticism:
Each one of the above six ideal-type of social theories of globalisation
highlights certain forces that contribute to its growth. They put emphasis on
technology and institution building, national interest and inter-state compe-
tition, capital accumulation and class struggle, identity and knowledge
construction, rationalism and cultural imperialism, and masculinize and
subordination of women. Jan Art Scholte synthesises them as forces of
production, governance, identity, and knowledge.

There are three major contemporary theories of

globalization:

1) Homogenization Theory

This theory recognizes a uniform standard for world

cuisine, tourism, culture, consumption patterns, and
cosmopolitanism. An example of homogenization
theory is George Ritzer's McDonaldization of Society.

He theorizes that global expectations of McDonalds

restaurants are predicated on four dimensions
(efficiency, predictability, calculability, and control)
and three forces. The three forces are economic
aspirations of the public, sensitivity to societal
changes (where mobility and efficiency are highly
valued factors in success), and the American
appetite for an iconic brand.

The four dimensions:

a) Efficiency

The stream-lined process of McDonaldization in

terms of consumer food preparation has influenced
global trends in shopping, dieting, healthcare, and
even entertainment. For example, consumers can
now down diet pills to lose weight, shop on the
Internet instead of queuing in long lines, watch Netflix
movies instead of going to the cinema, and listen to
audio recordings of books instead of reading them.

b) Calculability

Each McDonalds meal is a product of a quantifiable

process. This just means that each step of the
preparation is defined by a uniform and unchanging
standard. Likewise, the Mcdonaldization of global
society leads to the ascendance of quantity over
quality; for example, each student's college financial
aid package is predicated on standardized SAT or
ACT scores. Highers scores tend to earn a student
more attractive scholarship packages. This process
almost always marginalizes other student
achievement in classroom work, volunteer service,
extracurricular activities, or even military service,
although it does not completely discount these
factors.

c) Predictability

The public appreciates the consistency and inherent

dependability of the McDonalds brand.

d) Control

Non-human technology controls both the customer

and the McDonalds worker. For example, the food
ordering process places structural constraints on
customers. They have to order food based on a
predetermined process, just like pilots are required
to depend upon on-board computers to guide the
landing and taking-off process. In short,
McDonaldization is all about the system that is in
place.

In summary, the Mcdonaldization/homogenization

theory marries a 'globalization of nothing' with a
'glocalization of something.' The globalization of
nothing refers to the introduction of a standardized,
foreign food process which means nothing to a local
culture. This is combined with the 'glocalization of
something,' which further solidifies the extent and
influence of McDonaldization culture through the
customization of menus based on local preferences
and customs. For example, McDonalds restaurants in
India provide local vegetarian options in its menu.
Here are examples and descriptions of international
McDonalds customized menus.

2) Heterogenization Theory

This theory recognizes the multi-cultural influences

of various global movements. It celebrates the
significance and effectiveness of a multitude of
trends while acknowledging the benefits unique to
one's culture.

An example of this theory is the colonization process,

which has left previous colonized nations with both
local customs and preferences existing side by side
with the Western cultural norms of the former
imperial power. Many Commonwealth nations,
previously British colonies, still hold onto
characteristically British customs such as teatime,
for example. Where the English teatime crumpets and
toast are served with tea, former colonies such as
Malaysia combine both English and local treats.
Malaysia's Eurasian population (usually Dutch,
English, or Portuguese mixed with Asian parentage)
serve such local delicacies as shrimp sambal
sandwiches alongside more typically English options
such as watercress sandwiches during tea-time.

3) Hybridization Theory

This theory recognizes the fusion or integration of

various global trends as necessary to global
cohesion and is open to constantly evolving
standards for consumption and societal expectation.

This theory effectively combines both the

homogenization and heterogenization theories,
leading to a complex and unique blend of both, but is
neither global nor local in their essence. An example
of this theory is the blending of various races (in what
used to be termed the crime of miscegenation in
various cultures) resulting in unique, racially diverse
demographic areas. We can see this in the Middle
East, Northern Africa, America, and Eastern Europe.

The hybridization theory is then a post-modern view

which seeks to eliminate all barriers based on purity
creeds and out-dated racial theories. This may
explain the global fascination with American culture
and the charisma inherent in American music,
movies, and fashion. For example, the popular TV
series Heroes and its new sequel, Heroes Reborn,
combines a diverse, multi-ethnic and international
cast. The producers have utilized a unique blend of
diversity (in its cast) to tell a story relevant to all
cultures. This is hybridization theory at its best and it
is emerging as an important part of the global
narrative.