His perspective of diaspora “involves dwelling, maintaining communities, having collective homes away from home (and i...
“The Marvelous History of the Dominican Republic in Junot Díaz’s The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao.” MELUS: Multi-Ethnic Literature of the U.
The extraordinary range and depth of these transnational interactions have led some authors to view them as a rupture with previous forms of cross-border interactions, a new phenomena termed “globalisation” (Featherstone, 1990; Giddens, 1990; Albrow and King, 1990), “global formation” (Chase-Dunn, 1991), “global culture” (Appadurai, 1990, 1997; Robertson, 1992), “global system” (Sklair, 1991), “global modernity” (Featherstone et al., 1995), “global process” (Friedman, 1994), “globalisation cultures” (Jameson and Miyoshi, 1998) or “global cities” (Sassen, 1991, 1994; Fortuna, 1997).
Giddens defines globalisation as “the intensification of worlwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa” and accuses sociologists of an undue attachment to the idea of “society” as a closed system (1990: 64).
These are some of the questions Boaventura de Sousa Santos aims to elucidate in a thorough and wide ranging essay.
After Globalization Essays In Religion Culture And Identity
Arguing that our current globalisation is indeed something unparalleled in history, Santos discusses the unequal economic and political realities between North and South which globalisation enforces.Referring to the dominant characteristics of globalisation may convey the idea that globalisation is not only a linear process but also a process of consensus.This is obviously false, as will be demonstrated later. And, although false, it nonetheless contains a grain of truth.Globalisation, far from being consensual, is, as we shall see, a vast and intense area of conflict for various social groups, states and hegemonic interests, on the one hand, and social groups, states and subordinate interests on the other and even within the hegemonic camp there are greater or lesser divisions of this.However, over and above all its internal divisions, the hegemonic camp acts on the basis of the consensus of its most influential members.Given the breadth of the processes at work, the prescription is, in fact, a vast set of prescriptions, all anchored in the hegemonic consensus.This consensus is known as the “neo-liberal consensus” or the “Washington Consensus”, since it was in Washington in the mid eighties that the core states in the world system subscribed to it, and it covers the future of the world economy, development policies and, in particular, the role of the state in the economy.In addition, the globalisation of the last three decades, instead of conforming to the modern Western model of globalisation – that is, to a homogeneous and uniform globalisation – so keenly upheld by Leibniz as well as Marx, as much in theories of modernization as in theories of dependent development, seems to combine universality and the elimination of national borders, on the one hand, with particularity, local diversity, ethnic identity and a return to communitarian values, on the other.Moreover, it interacts in very diverse ways with other, parallel transformations in the world system, such as the dramatic rise in inequality between rich and poor countries and between the rich and the poor inside each country, overpopulation, environmental disaster, ethnic conflicts, international mass migration, the emergence of new states and the collapse or decline of others, the proliferation of civil wars, globally organized crime, formal democracy as a political condition for international aid, etc.In the debates surrounding globalisation there is a strong tendency to reduce it to purely economic dimensions.Without denying the importance of this, I believe that it is also necessary to pay equal attention to its social, political and cultural dimensions.