INTERNATIONAL JOURNALISM - GLOBALIZATION:GOOD OR EVIL?

Globalization – is it good, bad or just plain ugly?

The process of globalization presents a mass of contradictions, and many dichotomies. It can advance some nations, whilst putting others firmly behind. It can enhance countries, or exploit them. It can simultaneously make the world feel a lot smaller, yet still immensely large. At its very foundation, globalization is a double-edged sword, which can provide opportunities for some whilst offering little to others. I believe that while globalization offers many benefits, it is a very discriminatory process that benefits the West to a far greater degree than developing or Third World countries. However, in this day and age it is impossible to avoid this international interaction upon which globalization depends, and closing one’s nation off from such change and retreating into an ideology of anti-Western hatred, warmongering or anger is not the answer.

It is impossible to say that some countries benefit from globalization and that others simply don’t, as this is not the case. For example, whilst globalization has contribute to the spread of diseases such as AIDS, malaria and ‘mad cow’, it has also allowed areas affected to gain access to medicines and medical technologies that can aid in treating them. Similarly, whilst free trade agreements are often not entirely equal, often both countries involved gain access to cheaper imports that challenge the domestic markets to improve in efficiency, whilst gaining profits from their exports. It is a matter of degree in determining who are globalization’s biggest winners and losers. In the case of the environment, the developing world clearly suffers at the hands of the Western nations, which hypocritically demand that the developing nations should curb their levels of pollution, to avoid worsening the environmental issues that Western industrialization created. As for the dissemination of cultural ideals, the developing world appears to have been exposed to aspects of Western culture and capitalism to a far greater degree, with ‘McDonaldization’ and the spread of Western (mainly American) media clearly evident. The spread of different cultural ideas can increase understanding of other societies and of one’s own. However, attempts by some nations (for example, some Islamic states) to preserve their cultures can lead to anti-Western sentiment and resentment, which can in turn develop into hatred and violence. Such behaviour, whilst being an attempt to resist Western imperialism, does not in my opinion provide an effective means of cultural preservation, but rather brings out the worst aspects of a society and makes them ignore the potential benefits that they could gain from such foreign interaction.

However, the fact remains that globalization as a process benefits those nations that are already in a position of power, such as those in the West, to the greatest degree. Citizens in poorer nations do not have the luxury of choice when it comes to embracing or rejecting foreign expansion; a low-paying job in a Western-owned factory is often better than no job at all. Similarly, it is often easier for people of all nations to buy the cheaper alternative, be it clothing, food, electronics etc., than to support domestically made products or industries. Thus, globalization is often a necessary evil in order to make people’s lives easier, despite the detrimental effects they may have on other cultures or one’s own.
Globalization is not ultimately good or evil. It effects different nations in different ways, some to their benefit, whilst others to their detriment. Globalization is an unavoidable concept in our modern age, and countries need to embrace its advantages to offset its inevitable flaws.