The Emergence Theory Of Globalization

Globalization

Globalization hovers over substantial fields yet remains an elusive subject because it's not necessarily unidirectional or rigid in effect across fields. Globalization is defined by Giddens as “The intensification of world-wide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa” (Giddens 1990: 63-64). Held certifies this ‘intensification’ as a result of more tangible dimensions such as extensity, vigour, pace and impact. (Held 1999: 14-15) Steger widens your scope yet further by means of encompassing disciplines affected by globalization such as economic, political, cultural, ecological, and ideological (Steger 2009: 11). The challenge

Giddens observes, “Consequences of modernity are becoming more radicalized and universalized than before” (Giddens 1990: 3). He implies that globalization is now radicalized and universalized congruently but there are also plenty of instances when these forces are observed to collide against each other. Kaldor rightly says that “The term globalization conceals a complex process which actually involves globalization and localization, integration and fragmentation, homogenization and differentiation” (Kaldor 2001: 71). The Convergence Theory and also the Global Chaos Theory highlight this dichotomy. Convergence Theory asserts that with globalization, distinct systems will become more alike, whilst Global Chaos Theory is saying that globalization imposes a sort of convergence of values, even an imposition of western values, which the ‘rest’ of the world retaliates against

The idea is that wars don't primarily occur between state-to-state actors, but transnational actors that act outside states (Kaldor 2001: 2). This is possibly the reason why Wolff’s measurements demonstrate lesser conflicts. Duffield acknowledges Kaldor’s views and points, in consonance with instrumentalist/constructivist views, that unlike conventional national liberation struggles, warring parties today are often pursuing separatist economic or ethnic interests as an alternative to universalistic political motives (Duffield 2001: 118). While the ‘old wars’ might not have waned forever, they have become very rare when compared to the ‘new wars’ since the Second World War, as everyone has come to grips with the monstrosities of current warfare, epitomized by nuclear warheads (Kaldor