Overview
****PLEASE DO NOTNUSE GENERATIVE AI SOFTWARE. IT IS CHECKED THOROUGHLY****
ASSIGNMENT: Please respond to the classmates discussion post below:
Cole Rice:
The globalization as “clash of civilizations” debate is not necessarily a zero sum game. World events indicate globalization simultaneously ties people together from different groups that perceive their culture, religion, or national sovereignty to be under siege. The most recent political struggles, protest movements, and cultural shifts suggest that the globalization debate is more of a proposition. The most compelling evidence against Huntington’s argument is the globalization of information that has resulted from technological and media advancements. The globalization of information has brought together different societies in the face of global problems. For example, young people from all over the world recently organized massive protests in their respective countries calling for action to be taken against climate change (PBS NewsHour, “Youth marches for climate action draw millions around the world”). If globalization is bringing about a clash of civilizations, we would not see protests like this transcend cultural boundaries and reflect a shared interest in a solution to a common problem.
Economic imbalance, cultural domination, and political coercion of international organizations all contribute to a sense of insecurity. According to the video clip, Has Globalization Revved Up Religious Fundamentalism?, under circumstances of rapid cultural change, individuals may increasingly find refuge in religious or nationalist movements to maintain a sense of order and meaning (Has Globalization Revved Up Religious Fundamentalism?). This case goes in favor of the clash of civilization thesis as it demonstrates how globalization can revitalize cultural faultiness.
Similarly, the same dynamics are present when looking at political disagreements. In the article titled “Global Challenges Require a New Approach to Sovereignty” the author asserts that current challenges like climate change and global inequality cannot be handled on a national basis, however, the national level remains the preeminent jurisdiction of authority for most governments (World Politics Review). In the article “With buildup of forces on border, China displays waning tolerance for Hong Kong protests” the author gives the example of China’s reaction to the recent protests in Hong Kong. While many countries have accused China of violating the democratic sovereignty of Hong Kong, the Chinese government has valued maintaining national unity and political authority above international concerns (PBS NewsHour, “With buildup of forces on border, China displays waning tolerance for Hong Kong protests”). This example goes to show that states are more likely to ignore global sovereignty in issues where the state feels like national identity or authority is being challenged.
The role of the United States and other Western powers in Iraq and Afghanistan should also be mentioned and are also explained in cultural and religious terms. In some cases, it is believed that the West is trying to export its culture through military force. This contributes to a sense that there is a cultural cleavage between the West and Islam when in fact the cleavage may be political or economic.
In conclusion, there are many examples from recent world events to argue that globalization is a double-edged phenomenon; it brings integration and conflict. While the globalized communication and common problems will enhance global understanding and cooperation, they will usually also generate religious or nationalist backlashes depending on the context. Current events seem to demonstrate not that the world is on the path to global culture or the clash of civilizations, but that globalization unites or divides the world.