The fact that an American can go today to any corner of the world and safely assume that he can eat at a McDonald’s restaurant, and find someone to converse in English with, is enough to perceive the reality of globalization. Critics continue to try to assess the impact of globalization, and to analyze the consequences of this new trend upon local cultures, economies and languages, fearing that globalization might lead to the loss of cultural diversity in favor of a unique, global culture. However, in their articles, both Anthony Giddens (1999) and Vargas Llossa (2000) reveal the positive aspects of globalization, and try to demonstrate that, however challenging and threatening it may appear, globalization may nevertheless support the development of local cultures, instead of destroying them.
They both perceive globalization as an unstoppable force which will have a transformational effect on societies. However, they subtly differ in the way in which they envision this transformation: Llosa Vargas (1999) seems to understand globalization as an evolution, whereas Gidden (2000) perceives it as revolution. The difference between the two concepts is an essential one because the idea of ‘evolution’ is to take what is already there and improve it, whereas the concept of ‘revolution’ involves idea of radically transforming something from within. However, because globalization is such a complex phenomenon it is possible for it to be negotiated differently in different parts of the world, and therefore, to involve either evolution or revolution, depending on the kind of grounds it finds and the kind of influence it has on local culture.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Globalization: Is it Evolution or Revolution?".
Globalization is a process which involves the adoption of international brands at a global scale and the ‘export’ of the culture of a dominant nation – America- even in the remotest parts of the world, facilitated, as Giddens (1999) argued, by the development of communication tools which allow people of different parts of the world to connect rapidly, and leading, Llossa Vargas (2000) noticed to a world which will be “less picturesque and imbued with less local color than the one we left behind” . As the author further argues, this reality is not only shocking, but also frightful for some societies, particularly old and developed ones, such as France, which are proud of their own identity and feel that it would be a catastrophe to allow globalization to transform them. In front of globalization, some critics fear that some languages and cultures are ‘swallowed’ completely by the globalizing trend, and that others are doomed to be ruined economically, as local business ‘surrender’ in front of global ones, against which they cannot compete.
For Giddens (1999), this transformative process is one of ‘revolution’ because it involves accepting change from within. The author’s word choice suggests this notion of radical change, which will lead the world in an entirely new direction. He therefore speaks of something that “has changed in our everyday experience” (p.4), and of a “wave of evolution” (p.4). In particularly, it is clear that he envisages globalization as a revolution because he speaks of the way that globalization has determined certain societies to dramatically alter their ideologies and practices. For example, “traditional family systems are becoming transformed, or are under strain, in many parts of the world, particularly as women stake claim to greater equality” (Giddens 1999, p5). Analyzing the situation under the ‘revolution’ paradigm, it is easy to come to the conclusion, as Giddens (1999) does, that nations must rethink their identities and innovate their views on geopolitics, as the old forms are becoming obsolete.
In comparison, for Llossa Vargas (2000), things are not as radical, as he sees the process as an evolutionary one, which leads to modernization. In his own terms, the loss of traditions and local cultural elements, although associated with globalization, “it is due to modernization, of which former is effect not cause” (n.p. ). Evolution, the author suggests, is inevitable but it is a positive outcome, because it “opens opportunities and constitutes an important step forward for a society as a whole” (Llossa Vargas, 2000). For this reason, it is counter-productive to dismiss globalization, because this would force cultures to remain unchanged, which is against the natural course of things. For Llossa Vargas (2000), cultures are not fixed, they change and evolve. They do not completely eliminate local traditions and cultural patterns, but they integrate them and they become part of the people’s past and therefore, of their identity. Therefore, the author explained that, “cultures, in particular those that have the right to be called modern and alive, have evolved to the point that they are but a remote reflection of what they were just two or three generations before”. This is a less threatening perspective, because it involves the idea that cultures simply follow an essential rule of nature by changing continuously.
Both authors essentially perceive the effective aspects of globalization. For example, they both consider that cultures can be revived as a result of globalization, and they both show how globalization can mean an important step forward for societies. However, the difference is that, whereas Lossa Vargas perceives globalization as a process through which culture evolves, Giddens perceive it as a means through which culture is revolutionized. The problem with revolutions is that they radically transform the society and bring about something completely new, an element that did not exist in the society before, and does not result naturally by means of modernization or transformation. In addition, while ‘evolution’ has a positive connotation, ‘revolution’ might signify a transformation to the worst as well. The authors’ different understandings of society do not exclude each other. Rather, they function in the same time, but separately, depending on the society where globalization occurs. For some society, globalization may lead to evolution, for some, to revolution, depending on how they choose to integrate the global concepts within their own culture, by adding where needed to improve, or to modernize, or by radically changing the culture from within.
Therefore, as shown in the present paper, both authors perceive globalization in positive terms and perceive it as a normal outcome of improved technology which facilitated communication, and the movement of people. However, the authors have a different perception of the way in which globalization manages to act upon local forces. For Llossa Vargas (2000), globalization leads to the evolution of culture, whereas for Giddens (1999), it leads to a revolution which occurs at the level of the entire society. The difference consists in the fact that ‘evolution’ gives the impression of a smoother and more positive transition. Evolution is part of a natural cycle and is equated, in the article, with modernization. All cultures evolve, the author argues, and do not do so in isolation. Giddens (1999) however explains that globalization leads to a radical transformation from within, which can be both positive and negative. However, as argued here, there is no need to reject one perspective in favor of the other, as globalizing forces act differently upon different cultures, causing some to evolve, and revolutionizing others.
