Quatrains of Wisdom...: Questioning Globalisation's True Effect

One cannot think of a larger domain than the global nor a broader

topic than culture...the field, if not controlled, can degenerate into

what we might call “global-babble.” – Janet Abu-Lughod.[1]

Considering the globalisation thesis under the lens of either proliferation of homogenous cultures or transformation of culture and evolution of identities would normally result in a cliché summary of the history of globalisation, mechanics of geopolitical expansion under which globalisation is a key element as well as strong ties with the concepts of imperialism, modernism and postmodernism. Objectifying ‘globalisation’ and the study of its effect on culture (a mirror to the human condition) as an entity, thereby demarcating such focus to a particular field of study is problematic. The plethora of academic commentary on this highly ambiguous component of human history ranges from anthropology, sociology, philosophy, economics, politics and history.[2] [3]

Such immersion within multidisciplinary breadth requires one to venture with new angles to the deconstruction of the monolith that is globalisation as well as culling many viable and unviable theories regarding the effect of globalisation in order to be as succinct as possible. Tracing globalisation to any historical point such as expansionist European imperialism limits the study of globalisation to a single and therefore unique period in human history. Globalisation is evident in a peculiar paradigm and the processes which are borne of it exist should not be regarded as a product of imperialism, modernism or postmodernism[4]. Observing through the cultural lens, this essay aims to consider globalisation in its various manifestations with emphasis on the numerous historical examples of globalisation and its undoubtable congruency with the advent and development of culture.

Simply put the effect of globalisation is far more authentic and inevitably of greater importance when looked at through the lens of cultural experience rather than the mere existence of globalisation as a process of human society. Inda and Rosaldo ascribe more ‘anthropological’ value to this approach in that concentration is placed upon the local manifestations of globalisation and its effects.

Citing Foster’s notion of ‘connectedness’[5] as being vital to the cultural exchanges evident throughout globalised links, Inda and Rosaldo’s views on this topic will be explored thoroughly as their argument is a vital concept from which both aforementioned theses can be derived. Inda and Rosaldo present a case for the deterritorialisation and reterritorialisation of culture early in their argument for the effect of globalisation on world cultures. The definition of deterritorialisation is given by Inda and Rosaldo as;

“[A] term [which] captures at once the lifting of cultural subjects and objects from fixed

spatial locations...”

The lesser known term ‘reterritorialisation’, is also defined within the same sentence as;

“[And] their relocation in new cultural settings.”[6]

Stressing that the two processes do not follow each other in cyclic fashion, Inda and Rosaldo make it clear that deterritorialisation and reterritorialisation are simultaneously linked and inevitably reliant on each other for the total effect of globalisation to be complete and stable.

Firstly, one should consider the manner in which culture has been deterritorialised especially in that it is not a passive process. The momentum required to deterritorialise an indigenous culture thereby allowing the reinscription[7] of another is usually dramatic and often violent.

Since cultural deterritorialisation is not an ‘ethereal’[8] transition, meaning that culture simply does not float from a ‘cultured place’ to an empty space to ‘cultural-ise’ that space. This is regarded by Inda and Rosaldo as being a pivotal point to understanding the paradigm of culture and the place it occupies within spaces and the effect globalisation has on both the place and culture it encroaches upon.

Reterritorialisation on the other hand is not a case of an empty space being re-filled by a cultural entity, but rather it is the instantaneous result of deterritorialisation. In other words, as a culture is displaced its existence is not nullified or made redundant but rather it survives in some capacity within the original spatial confines of its native source, and even outside these confines through cultural flows and exchanges. Reinscription is what allows globalised contact and is an anti-thesis to the idea of homogenous globalisation or any form of uniformity found after the permeation of a culture by globalising forces.

If we consider the effects of deterritorialisation and reterritorialisation on culture, how can one position culture if its place is constantly shifted, re-arranged, erased and re-drawn? We turn to a common denominator found within all cultures, an entity which must be capable of binding peoples of different races, traditions and customs with each other. Religion has been instrumental in the proliferation of globalised cultures; bridging any language restraint, all socio-economic boundaries and multiple cultural adaptations, religion transcends all boundaries. Peter Beyer explores the role of religion as both active participant in globalisation as well as the reversed role it finds itself functioning in as a traditionalist institution.

Beyer presents us with a second definition of globalisation as a single, globally extended society.[9] He then delineates the processes concerned with globalisation transparently by stating both explicit and implicit commitment[10] of the term. Simply put, globalisation evolves to simultaneously take on and release connotations attributed to it using obvious and subtle forces on the culture being globalised. Interestingly, Beyer firmly supports Inda and Rosaldo’s notion of reterritorialisation but designates it as ‘cultural respecification’.[11] Agreeing to the notion of reterritorialisation and in turn respecification requires one to accept the first of the globalisation theses – ‘transformation of culture and evolution of identities’. When compared with a thesis pertaining to the proliferation of homogenous cultures, it is clear through Beyer as well as Inda and Rosaldo that the latter thesis is not evident in the contemporary world. Though it would seem that Beyer prefers the concept of proliferation of homogenous cultures, one should not hasten to retire his discussion seeing as there are multiple positions for religion to occupy when discerning its role in globalisation.

Religion is seen by Beyer as an organisation that cannot be solely identified with any of its manifestations at a local level.[12] Provocative as it may seem, one could consider a religious denomination such as the Roman Catholic Church as being a possible vehicle for an ethnologic process such as globalisation and therefore warrants an ethnographic study unto itself. Immersion of the Roman Catholic Church into institutions relating to political, economic, health, educational, media and various other societal avenues[13] has inevitably been challenged by increasing secularisation – one of the contemporary renditions of globalisation. This congruency between globalisation and secularisation can be investigated by examining both Peter Beyer and Roland Robertson’s alternate views on the aforementioned subjects.

Beyer insists that organised religion (exemplified by Roman Catholicism, Islam and Pentecostalism) is affected by local and global factors to an extent that understanding the effect of secularisation is not possible if studied on a country-by-country[14] basis. He regards such a venture as one which underestimates the variation of religion and secularisation at the localised stage and therefore missing the dynamicism to be found at this level. He reiterates his primary argument by stating that;

“...a global perspective asks us to look at the religious market as global, as well as local or national.”[15]

Beyer stipulates that the religious institution’s strength and weakness as being a stable element throughout the entire history of religion’s globalising endeavour. Since globalisation has placed greater onus on the individual and their human agency; is the ebb and flow of religion’s globalising capability therefore an issue of the individual’s involvement? Supporting this notion, Beyer observes Muslim migrants to Europe and North America as an example of religion’s adaptability in that individuals of such a religious congregation will take up multifunctional roles differing immensely from the institution’s manifestation found where it originates.[16] In this, the individual is the ‘unit’ of change and the catalyst for variability in whatsoever the instance religion encounters globalisation through secularisation.

In contrast with Beyer’s identification of secularisation as being the prime implement for the installation of globalisation, Robertson approaches the globalisation dilemma via identity in culture. Commentary by Robertson on the identity required of culture to perform its function within globalisation requires steady concentration and constant re-alignment with philosophical and social theory concepts.[17]

Robertson’s focus on the notion of homogenous globalisation is defined within the first sentence of his article regarding the problem of globality. He speaks of modern societies which;

“...are characterised less by what they have in common...than by the fact of their involvement in the issue of universalism.”

He continues to hone in on his focussed study of globality with,

“The need, even the urgency, for ‘universal reference’ has never been felt so strongly as in our time...” [18]

Tempting as it may seem to instinctively align Robertson’s ‘universalism’ as a synonym for the contentious terms ‘globalism’ and by extension ‘globalisation’, Robertson is hasty to correct misinterpretation that may have arisen in the reader’s mind by using the word ‘reference’ to restrain any imaginative connotations to globalisation. He uses the terms ‘universalism’ and ‘particularism’ throughout his text as representations for the societal and the personal cross-flow of culture respectively. Whilst delving into Bourricaud’s mechanisms regarding globalised culture, Robertson simplifies his labyrinthine concepts of ‘universalism’ and ‘particularism’ by equating them neatly as the ‘interaction and communication between collective and individual actors on the global scene’.[19]

Robertson prompts readers in his text on the problem of globality (synonymous with globalisation in Robertson’s perspective) that there should always be a concerted effort to;

“...address the issue... [as] an analytical package.”[20]

Designating the study as a package strongly suggests the variability of the subject matter and therefore the individual upon whom the subject is extended to for the purpose of analysis. To an extent, personalised results concerning culture constitute the basic problem of globalisation which both Beyer and Robertson convey.

Sampling the notion of ‘universalism’ in globalised culture is the ‘general’ resistance (not aimed any particular nation, company or media) found in various modern societies against globalisation in the effort of sustaining individual identity – regarded by Robertson as an effort of anti-modernity.[21] Alternatively, an example of a cultural struggle in the guise of particularism is presented by Robertson in the form of the Islamic movement which he considers as being opposing to any homogenised world system and thereby a considerable force of anti-postmodernity.

Robertson revives Geertz’s nostalgic commentary on diversity within culture as found in the latter’s article ‘The Uses of Diversity’ (1986) whereby Geertz describes the pursuit of diversity (alluding to cultural diversity) as being rather ‘nostalgic’[22] and not an ‘undangerous’[23] romanticised dream. Through Geertz, Robertson directs the attention of the anthropological lens to the internal cultural struggles found within societies rather than the strife exhibited between distinctly separable cultures; one would regard such a vantage point as being well displaced from the concept of homogenous globalisation. Though globalisation may be evident in every society and by default affecting all cultures, the individual manifestations (as previously examined by Beyer regarding the Roman Catholic Church) render the notion of homogeneity as being defunct. Such incongruity only serves to highlight the contrasting view Robertson maintains especially in regards to globality and the identity of culture. Robertson responds to the secularisation theory and by association any proliferation of homogenous cultures thesis by explicitly distancing himself from secularisation and even goes as far as describing the whole theory as uninteresting.[24]

For the purposes of this essay, compressing the highly complex and intertwined phenomenon of philosophical anthropology (in Robertson’s perspective), one can safely summarise Robertson’s view of globalisation in a metaphor whereby globalisation can be likened to a vehicle; whilst different cultures serve as distinct fuel products – each producing a varied effect on the performance of globalisation. The overarching concept however is that neither culture nor globalisation can exist or function without human agency; or as Bourricaud explains it – ‘[we] form [ourselves] into an open ensemble of interlocutors and partners...’[25]

Human agency is undoubtedly more suitable as the catalyst for transformation of culture and evolution of identities as the concept relies heavily on interactions humans have with globalising powers from generation to generation. Each successive cultural amalgamation as a result of war, alliance or dissolution of power centres has caused a constant effect and resulted in the re-incarnation of the affected culture. Inextricably linked to the ebb and flow of cultural exchange is the identities of the populous within these cultures; certainly transforming but unlikely to become a homogenous mass. Having examined the respective views of Beyer and Robertson, one is inclined to agree with their preferred conclusion rendering culture as highly transformable and in this same adaptability lays culture’s inherent immunity to any absolute homogeneity.

Reference List

Beyer P. Secularization from the Perspective of Globalization: A Response to Dobbelaere. Sociology of Religion, Vol. 60, (1999) Oxford University Press

Inda J. X., and Rosaldo R. Tracking Global Flows. The Anthropology of Globalisation (2008) Blackwell Publishers

King A. D., (ed.) Culture, Globalisation and World Systems: Contemporary Conditions for the Representation of Identity (2000) University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis

Robertson R. Globalisation: A Brief Response. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. Vol. 31 (1992) Blackwell Publishers

Quatrains of Wisdom...

Saturday, August 7, 2010

Questioning Globalisation's True Effect

No comments:

Post a Comment