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 contem-porary 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 affir-mation 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 exploi-tation 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 opportu-nities 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 insti-tutional
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. Conver-sation 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 signifi-cance 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 subordi-nation 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 expan-sionary 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 trans-continental 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
intergov-ernmental 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 interna-tional 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 experi-encing 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.
Accordingly, capitalists attempt to amass ever-greater resources in excess of their survival
needs: accumulation of surplus. The capitalist economy is thoroughly monetised. Money
facilitates accumulation. It offers abundant opportunities to transfer surplus, especially from the
weak to the powerful. This mode of production involves perpetual and pervasive contests over
the distribution of surplus. Such competition occurs both between individual, firms, etc. and
along structural lines of class, gender, race etc.
Their contests can be overt or latent. Surplus accumulation has had transpired in one way or
another for many centuries, but capitalism is a comparatively recent phenomenon. It has turned
into a structural power, and is accepted as a ‘natural’ circumstance, with no alternative mode of
production. It has spurred globalisation in four ways: market expansion, accounting practices,
asset mobility and enlarged arenas of commodification. Its technological innovation appears in
communication, transport and data processing as well as in global organisation and
management. It concentrates profits at points of low taxation. Information, communication,
finance and consumer sectors offer vast potentials to capital making it ‘hyper-capitalism’.
Any mode of production cannot operate in the absence of an enabling regulatory apparatus.
There are some kind of governance mechanisms. Governance relates processes whereby
people formulate, implement, enforce and review rules to guide their common affairs.” It entails
more than government. It can extend beyond state and sub-state institutions including supra-
state regimes as well. It covers the full scope of societal regulation.
In the growth of contemporary globalisation, besides political and economic forces, there are
material and ideational elements. In expanding social relations, people explore their class, their
gender, their nationality, their race, their religious faith and other aspects of their being.
Constructions of identity provide collective solidarity against oppression. Identity provides
frameworks for community, democracy, citizenship and resistance. It also leads from
nationalism to greater pluralism and hybridity.
Earlier nationalism promoted territorialism, capitalism, and statism, now these plural identities
are feeding more and more globality, hyper-capitalism and polycentrism. These identities have
many international qualities visualised in global diasporas and other group affiliations based on
age, class, gender, race, religious faith and sexual orientations. Many forms of supra-territorial
solidarities are appearing through globalisation.
In the area of knowledge, the way that the people know their world has significant implications
for the concrete circumstances of that world. Powerful patterns of social consciousness cause
globalisation. Knowledge frameworks cannot be reduced to forces of production, governance or
identity.
Mindsets encourage or discourage the rise of globality. Modern rationalism is a general
configuration of knowledge. It is secular as it defines reality in terms of the tangible world of
experience. It understands reality primarily in terms of human interests, activities and conditions.
It holds that phenomena can be understood in terms of single incontrovertible truths that are
discoverable by rigorous application of objective research methods.
Ratio-nalism is instrumentalist. It assigns greatest value to insights that enable people efficiently
to solve immediate problems. It subordinates all other ways of understanding and acting upon
the world. Its knowledge could then be applied to harness natural and social forces for human
purposes. It enables people to conquer disease, hunger, poverty, war, etc., and maximise the
potentials of human life. It looks like a secular faith, a knowledge framework for capitalist
production and a cult of economic efficiency. Scientism and instrumentalism of rationalism is
conducive to globalisation. Scientific knowledge is non-territorial.
The truths revealed by ‘objective’ method are valid for anyone, anywhere, and anytime on earth.
Certain production processes, regulations, technologies and art forms are applicable across the
planet. Martin Albrow rightly says that reason knows no terri-torial limits. The growth of
globalisation is unlikely to reverse in the foreseeable future. However, Scholte is aware of
insecurity, inequality and marginalisation caused by the present process of globalisation. Others
reject secularist character of the theory, its manifestation of the imperialism of westernist-
modernist-rationalist knowledge. Anarchists challenge the oppressive nature of states and other
bureaucratic governance frameworks. Globalisation neglects environmental degradation and
equitable gender relations.
HOMOGENEITY AND HETEROGENITY

Homogeneity vs Heterogeneity
Although globalization has created an environment that lends itself to cultural homogenization, it
has also made it easier to reject such homogenization. The communication and transportation
advancements that allow for rapid spread of ideas does make it easier to imitate other cultures
and this, of course, is seen widely around the world, especially by the emergence of terms like
“westernization,” but these same advancements make it easier to either strengthen a culture
that is already in place or to “create your own culture.” For example, the Breton language was
on the decline, but, due to globalization, it is being saved and preserved by a number of people
concerned with its extinction. Worldwide, information about the language can be found on the
internet, TV and the radio and, thus, can attract more supporters. This is the case for many
other examples of cultures that were once dying out, such as the revival of traditional
Appalachian culture, traditional Chinese culture and so on. In Tyrrell’s essay “Bollywood versus
Hollywood,” she illustrates the Indian rejection of Hollywood produced films in favor of their own
films produced in “Bollywood.” Westernization is unable to break through the nationalism and
pride of the Indian people. Another form of a rejection of global homogenization is the idea that
anyone with access to information about other cultures can create their own culture, picking and
choosing different aspects of different cultures suited to each individual. Michael Kimmelman
says in his article “DIY Culture”:
When Mats Nilsson, a Swedish product-design strategist for Ikea, not long ago told The New
York Times that he loves to browse for handmade baskets in Spain, bird cages in Portugal,
brushes in Japan and hardware on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, he was creating his own
cultural identity out of the bric-a-brac of consumer choices made available by the globalizing
forces of economic integration. Bricolage, it’s called. Anyone may now pick through the
marketplace of global culture.
This is an incredibly important statement about global heterogeneity and shows the ability for
people to reject homogenization. Another example of this is the “soccer mom” who goes to
church, does yoga and goes out to eat at a Mexican restaurant. Globalization, though it is
present, is not about homogeneity, but rather the preservation of old cultures and the formation
of new ones.

Media imperialism

is a theory based upon an over-concentration of mass media from larger nations as a

significant variable in negatively affecting smaller nations, in which the national identity of
smaller nations is lessened or lost due to media homogeneity inherent in mass media from the
larger countries.
The McDonaldization of Society
George Ritzer introduced the concept of McDonaldization with his 1993 book, The
McDonaldization of Society. Since that time the concept has become central within the field of
sociology and especially within the sociology of globalization. The sixth edition of the book,
published in 2011, has been cited nearly 7,000 times.
According to Ritzer, the McDonaldization of society is a phenomenon that occurs when society,
its institutions, and its organizations are adapted to have the same characteristics that are found
in fast food chains. These include efficiency, calculability, predictability and standardization, and
control.
Ritzer's theory of McDonaldization is an update on classical sociologist Max Weber's theory of
how scientific rationality produced bureaucracy, which became the central organizing force of
modern societies through much of the twentieth century. According to Weber, modern
bureaucracy was defined by hierarchical roles, compartmentalized knowledge and roles, a
perceived merit-based system of employment and advancement, and the legal-rationality
authority of the rule of law. These characteristics could be observed (and still can be)
throughout many aspects of societies around the world.
According to Ritzer, changes within science, economy, and culture have shifted societies away
from Weber's bureaucracy to a new social structure and order that he calls McDonaldization. As
he explains in his book of the same name, this new economic and social order is defined by four
key aspects.
Efficiency entails a managerial focus on minimizing the time required to complete individual
tasks as well as that required to complete the whole operation or process of production and
distribution.
Calculability is a focus on quantifiable objectives (counting things) rather than subjective ones
(evaluation of quality).
Predictability and standardization are found in repetitive and routinized production or service
delivery processes and in the consistent output of products or experiences that are identical or
close to it (predictability of the consumer experience).
Finally, control within McDonaldization is wielded by the management to ensure that workers
appear and act the same on a moment-to-moment and daily basis. It also refers to the use of
robots and technology to reduce or replace human employees wherever possible.

Ritzer asserts that these characteristics are not only observable in production, work, and in the
consumer experience, but that their defining presence in these areas extends as ripple effects
through all aspects of social life. McDonaldization affects our values, preferences, goals, and
worldviews, our identities, and our social relationships. Further, sociologists recognize that
McDonaldization is a global phenomenon, driven by Western corporations, the economic power
and cultural dominance of the West, and as such it leads to a global homogenization of
economic and social life.