Political globalization

1>  Summarize

Political globalization is process of transnational world. It created different kinds of politics. First one develops networks and flows over nations. Second one promotes reterritorialization. For some, political globalization open to possibilities ‘emancipatory’ while others globalization cause a loss of autonomy and it leads to fragmentation of social world. In sum, political globalization is not a new phenomenon in reality, but it is multidimensional phenomenon which is seen as a relational dynamic. Political globalization is tension between three processes: global geopolitics, global normative culture and polycentric networks.

The first dimension of political globalization is the global geopolitics. It means territorially based kind of globalization and largely confined to politic form. After collapse of the Soviet Union, the word ‘End of history’ occurred. It does not mean end of ideology. Conversely, proliferation of liberal democracy promotes to spread different kind of ideology. The globalization of democratic politics called ‘new world order’. In fact, it contains a pressure from supremacy nations like United States. But the United States, however, will not be able to establish global supremacy and will be challenged by many center of power.

The second dimension of political globalization is the rise of a global normative culture. It emphasizes human right, which lies at the center of a global cosmopolitanism, not focusing on Western. Also it deals with environment concerns which included ‘sustainable development.’ Nowadays, global normative culture exists beyond the state system but also it has a tension with states.

The third dimension of political globalization is polycentric networks. It forms of nonterritorial politics which pursue multiplicity. The polycentric networks associated with emerging forms of global governance.

By globalization, there are lots of important changes in nations-state, nationality, citizenship, civil society, and borders. Especially, transformation of public sphere and communication is worthy to attention. Communication is the most important factor in politics. Nation states have been based on centralized systems of communication which features one-way communication such as national newspaper or television. But today’s communication is an open site of political and cultural contestation. It doesn’t follow the system which is institutionalized by the states or elites. The ‘public sphere’ became the site of politics. In the past, there were ‘proletarian public sphere’ and ‘bourgeois public sphere’. But new social theory explains a wider view of the public sphere as cosmopolitian. It brings about non-Western public spheres and it comes to global public sphere.

Political globalization has many strong points, but it implies new set of tensions: the right to difference, individual versus community and so on. Also it expanded set of concerns such as governance, identity and mobility.

2>  Any new, interesting, or unusual items learned.

As I read three articles, I learned globalization can’t define one word or few sentences. It is interconnected with every social context. Political globalization is not different from cultural globalization or economy globalization. Also I learned dark side of political globalization. Before I read this article, I just thought political globalization is beyond national political and it towards to cosmopolitanism. But the initial time of political globalization history was western-centric. By the name of globalization, they legitimate their ideology and press to adapt democracy. For example, Pax Americana means peace but it underlies domination from powerful nation. Also I was interested in Habermas theory. His theory is similar to our today’s society. Nowadays, dissemination of internet became universal. As a result, online public sphere was occurred which features anonymity and openness to everyone. I think online public sphere has high possibilities to proliferate information which is not based on objective fact.

3>  Identify at least one question, concern, or discussion angle that is either problematic in some respect or could have been elaborated more.

I think online public sphere has not only bright side, but also it has dark side as I mentioned above. In the worst case, someone might decide to suicide because online public sphere based on anonymity and it makes easy to slandering or defamation. In addition, it has high possibilities to base on not proved or false information. It may cause vicious rumor that someone can’t bearable. What do you think about online public sphere? What is necessary to solve this phenomenon in individual level and state level?