Political Globalization

Political Globalization

 

The concept of globalization as used in this chapter means the multidimensional, accelerated and interconnected organization of space and time across national borders.

 

The approach to political globalization adopted in this chapter highlights the multifaced nature of globalization, which is best seen as a relational dynamic rather than a new kind of reality.

 

The first dimension of political globalization is the geopolitics of global power.

 

A second dimension of political globalization refers to the rise of a global normative culture.

 

While globalization requires the existence of global players, there is another dimension of globalization that is less related to states and which is not reducible to global normative culture.

 

And polycentric networks are associated with emerging forms of global governance.

 

 

The three dynamics of political globalization will be examined in this chapter around four examples of social transformation: the transformation of nationality and citizenship, the public sphere and political communication, civil society, and space and borders.

 

 

The notion of the decline of the nation-state in a post-statist world of governance without government should be replaced by the idea of the continued transformation of the nation-state.

 

The nation-state does not ‘wither away’ but becomes transformed by becoming a practical component of this transnational apparatus and a major agent of global capitalism.

 

It is evident that what is being discussed here is a transformation of the nation-state rather than its demise.

 

Throughout Asia, Africa, Central and South America, nation-states are on the whole the main expressions of political mobilization and identity. Globalization has enhanced not undermined them. The two most powerful actors in the world today, the United States and China, are nation-states. Europe and the movement towards the transnationalization of the nation-state is undoubtedly an exception.

 

However, the aspiration to national autonomy cannot hide the general movement towards the transnationalization of the state and the even more extensive movement towards a geopolitics of global power.

 

Two kinds of decoupling processes are evident: the decoupling of nationality and citizenship and the decoupling of nationhood and statehood.

 

The decoupling of nationality and citizenship can be attributed to the impact of global normative culture, which has led to a blurring of the boundary between national and international law.

 

Communication is central to politics. Collective identities were codified, reproduced and legitimated. Most nation-states have been based on a national language.

 

The public sphere is the site of politics; it is not merely a spatial location but a process of discursive contestation.

Until now this has been mostly conceived of as a national public sphere.

 

The role of the public also well documented, as is evidenced by the significance which is now attached to the public sphere, and which must be conceived as having a cosmopolitan dimension.

 

I think we should transform public sphere and global communication.

it means that we changes because public sphere is our place.

So, we should think how to great change.

In more and more changing world, we have to adapt and change greatly.

 

The discursive construction of the social world takes place within the wider context of global communication in which the global public plays a key role.

 

In The Centrality of civil society, Central to understanding these developments is the idea of civil society.

The ‘civil societalization’ of politics both reinforces the idea that politics is increasingly informed by a normative global culture and points to the transformation of the nation-state as a site of political struggle.

 

 

Global civil society holds the promise of resolving contradictory tendencies which have become central to the experience of globality.

 

The first contradiction is that between the tendency of globalization to homogenize and the increasing emphasis on and respect for difference.

The second is the contradiction within the individuating power of globalization, which works to fragment, while at the same time allowing for the construction of new types of autonomy represented by new communities of interest, networked polities and collective identities.

 

Global civil society is not defined in relation to a state.

In other words , the growth of global civil society is the result of increasing opportunities for interaction between domestic and international politics.

So, I think that the growth of global civil society is very important.

 

 

The image of a ‘borderless world’ has long been associated with thinking about globalization.

we learn about globalization in Sociology of Globalization.

when we think Globalization, we think this sentence ‘we are the one’.

This mean that world is one. So I agree borderless world.

Moving beyond the ‘national scheme of things’, we confronts the need to rethink space and borders in the global knowledge economy and the networked society.

If we view globalization as social transformation, that is to say a transformation in the very nature of society, its relation to the state and citizens, then we must rethink the nature and meaning of political spaces and borders.

In other words, the rescaling of politics has caused a major reassessment of the role and meaning of borders and spaces in the construction of polities.

 

Spaces and borders do not have to be conceived as unitary and exclusive.

Importantly, the nation-state no longer dominates the spatial imagination and global spaces abound the world is a single place and political activity and individual consciousness increasingly reflect this.

 

The focus on new spaces and new forms of connectivity has led to a realization that space is constitutive of social and political relations, not simply a ‘given’ which comes with the territory.

 

 

One important consequence of this shift to spaces of flows is that mobility is increasingly seen as independent of space conditions of globalization the quantitative relation between borders and territory has been inverted.

There are two dimensions to this:

1.borders are to be found everywhere, existing both within and between polities. 2.borders have become important spaces in their own right and often take the form of zones of transition or borderlands

 

To conclude, we can point to three dilemmas to which these complex relationships give rise and the implications for the tension between autonomy and fragmentation.

 

First, the globalization of the nation-state, and its model of political membership and institutionalized governance, has given form to the universal aspiration for democracy.

 

Second, global normative culture, which has been disseminated by INGOs over a long period of time and has scripted the development of the nation-state as a global form, has also acted as a vector for global norms of personhood positing a world of individuals sustained by human rights law.

 

Third, polycentric networks, and in particular the development of global civil society, create new opportunities for autonomy and the recognition of a range of new actors and new modes of governance, but, at the same time, can create new

instabilities and dangers.

 

Political globalization has worked to create the possibility for a proliferation of sites of political conflict around an expanded set of concerns:

governance, identity, mobilities and community prominent amongst them.

 

Topic of this reading is Political Globalization.

So, when I looked the topic, I worried. because I don’t know well this political parts. So, this reading is not concentrated to me.

I want to discuss about “ The Transformation of spaces and borders.”

Global is more and more boundless through such as Internet.

To me, meaning of ‘boundless’ is to help each other.

but, still a few nation fights for own needs.

So, I want to know accurate meaning of word ‘boundless’ and

I wonder that how we help each other for each needs , not fighting.