GLOBALISING CONFUSION

By Michel Ogrizek and - - Reprint | | Print |

This column is available for visitors to the IPS website only for reading. Reproduction in print or electronic media is prohibited. Media interested in republishing may contact romacol@ips.org.

GENEVA, Jan 1 2003 (IPS) - In the last few years, globalisation has forced traditional capitalist thinking to reposition itself in relation to both the market and society, writes Michel Ogrizek, director of communications for the World Economic Forum. In this article for IPS, the author asserts that the result has been the proliferation of numerous and often paradoxical interpretations by technocrats which have been hijacked by various popularity-seeking groups. A generally distorted perception of what globalisation is has been aggravated by simplistic behaviour from some political and business leaders, contradictory economic data, social and cultural side-effects, and extreme adverse psycho-sociological reactions. The global smoke screen, generated by the actors on centre stage today, hides not only the real nature of the risk but also the potential positive impact. Should we see globalisation as the Trojan Horse for a new worldwide order? I don\’t think so, for the simple reason that the same communications technologies which are the driving force make it impossible to carry out such a supposedly imperialistic project.

In the last few years, globalisation has forced traditional capitalist thinking to reposition itself in relation to both the market and society. The result has been the proliferation of numerous and often paradoxical interpretations by technocrats which have been hijacked by various popularity-seeking groups. The whole process has been hastened, irresistibly and chaotically, by new technologies and financial market excitement. Within this new context of economic and social mutation, globalisation has inevitably led to considerable misunderstanding and confusion.

In recent years the concept of globalisation has become the noisy star of worldwide thought. This new icon of the 21st century perpetuates its myth by continually flirting with academic fans looking for new business role models. Editorial writers seeking a stand point and opinion leaders grasping for an ideology are all willing impresarios of globalisation.

Globalisation can mobilise large opposition crowds organised by self-labelled representatives of ”civil society”. The ongoing media saga is guaranteed by globalisation’s incorporation into ”entertainment society”. For some dreamers, globalisation has even become a kind of Noah’s ark, drifting across the electronic ocean that is currently engulfing our planet. So much for the universal prime-time soap.

The result? A generally distorted perception of ”what globalisation is” aggravated by simplistic behaviour from some political and business leaders, contradictory economic data, social and cultural side-effects, and extreme adverse psycho-sociological reactions. The global smoke screen, generated by the actors on centre stage today, hides not only the real nature of the risk but also the potential positive impact.

The globalisation debate has become the favoured platform for international communications for a number of very simple reasons: it is by nature, univocal and multifactor. It is ”univocal” in so far as it lets speakers who adopt it join a worldwide chorus singing the same song and obtain visibility and exposure they could never have hoped for on their own. it is ”multifactor” because the globalisation theme is a genuine communications ”buffet” — everyone can bring along his favourite recipe, whether for roquefort cheese, modified soya, or a mad cow hamburger. Everyone is free to join the party, without having anything in common with the other participants. The most important thing is simply being there. moreover, globalisation is a perfect suspect to target, because it never looks innocent.

It’s hardly surprising to find the same received ideas and ontological cliches on globalisation in every language. Globalisation can easily be applied to all kinds of issues — economic, technological, cultural — by politicians trying to gain voters’ support as much as by big firms looking for sustainable growth. It is the ”new equation”, the ”final frontier” for international institutions of all kinds — regulatory, humanitarian and commercial — looking to increase their quotas, regain order, and even sometimes justify their raison d’etre.

In terms of communications, globalisation means connecting individuals at the worldwide level. The fundamental consequence of this is that virtual minority groups are created by people with similar interests. Without new communication technologies, globalisation could never have existed.

These new technologies also represent a crucial break with the traditional rules of international economics and social relations between nations and individuals. Individuals, as citizens and communications consumers, have become individual audiences, separate and unique, but connected by a global virtual network. They are potentially in touch with millions of other people — and tomorrow possibly billions– wherever they may be in space and time.

Seen in this context, should we see globalisation as the Trojan Horse for a new worldwide order? I don’t think so, for the simple reason that the same communications technologies which are the driving force make it impossible to carry out such a supposedly imperialistic project. Indeed, if the anti-globalisation lobby has achieved a certain momentum, it is because their activists also use the cyberworld and communicate globally.

Ironic, isn’t it? They use cyberspace to get together in small groups through their common interest in anti-globalisation. They can organise themselves and disappear into the world of virtual protest, having formulated a disruptive message, calling for demonstrations at major institutional meetings on globalisation.

As Moliere’s Monsieur Jourdain might say, one often globalises without knowing it. The last straw of the anti-globalisation discourse is indeed to advocate global measures that protect local values.

Will globalisation succeed or fail? This is a vital question for the billions of people living in poverty. There is no lack of political and economic argument in either direction in the media. In fact, public opinion depends largely on the ability of opinion-forming groups to put across their arguments for or against globalisation. In this battle over what globalisation really means and does, one must recognise that NGOs have always been much better at this than official institutions and business.

Having said that, one should not forget that the anti-globalisation lobby has the merit of reminding everyone that we not only have to face a sizeable economic challenge (in fact, the world is still very far from being a single economy) but also that globalisation is ”a moral issue”.

Seen from this angle, it’s not really surprising to find World Bank leaders publicly agonizing over the best way to manage one of the fundamental economic paradoxes, the inter-dependence between poverty and sustainability, between poverty and the quality of growth: in other words, can rapid and global growth be sustained long term without improving the lot of the poor?

These growing social and cultural issues generated by the globalisation process ultimately remind of Lavoisier’s law of conservation of mass — (in a chemical reaction) matter is neither created nor destroyed. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)