Blog 1: What is globalization? -LI QINGLU

 1. Summary

Robertson and White begin by admitting that globalization is an “essentially contested concept.” Scholars from different disciplines, regions, and civilizations define it in different ways, and some even prefer to speak of “globalizations” in the plural. Even so, the authors try to build a coherent framework instead of giving up on definition altogether.

They explain that the word has been used in two main ways. After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, it became closely linked to economics: free trade, deregulation, neoliberal policy, and the growing power of transnational corporations. The anti-globalization protests of the late 1990s also grew out of this economic understanding. However, sociologists and anthropologists had already been using the term since the late 1970s in a much broader sense, based on the simple observation that the world was becoming “a single place.”

According to the authors, globalization has two central tendencies: increasing global connectivity and increasing global consciousness. Economists and political scientists usually focus on connectivity, such as trade, communication, and networks. Consciousness, meaning a shared awareness of the world as a whole, has been relatively neglected. The authors use Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” thesis and the events of 9/11 to show how costly it can be to ignore the cultural side of globalization.

Globalization is also described as having four dimensions, the cultural, social, political, and economic, which are always intertwined. Its form is organized around four reference points: nation-states, the international system, individual selves, and humanity as a whole. The nation-state is not simply disappearing but changing, especially through migration and multiculturalism. Individuals are part of the process as well, through individualization and increasingly diverse forms of identity.

A key concept in the chapter is glocalization. The global and the local are not opposites but two sides of the same coin, because anything that spreads globally must adapt to local conditions. For this reason, the authors argue that globalization is in a sense self-limiting, and that a “fully globalized world” is impossible. Ritzer’s concept of “grobalization,” by contrast, describes a homogenizing force that could in theory continue without limit.

Finally, the authors warn against treating globalization as a “thing” or as a buzzword to blame for every problem in the world. Critical analysis of inequality and exploitation is necessary, but it requires a careful conceptual framework first.

2. Interesting Part

The part I found most interesting was the concept of glocalization, especially the claim that globalization limits itself. I used to think of globalization as a process that gradually makes the whole world uniform. However, the authors argue that every product, idea, or practice has to adapt to local contexts as it spreads. Because of this, globalization can never simply create one identical world.

A clear example from my own life is malatang in Korea. Malatang originally comes from Sichuan, and in recent years it has become extremely popular among young Koreans. As someone who grew up in China, I was surprised that Korean malatang tastes noticeably different from what I knew at home. It is usually less numbing and a little sweeter, the broth is milder, and many shops let customers choose their spice level step by step, which fits Korean eating habits. In other words, what spread to Korea was not exactly Chinese food. It was a Koreanized version of it that has almost become a new local dish.

The same process also works in the opposite direction. In tourist areas such as Myeongdong, many shops now display Chinese signs, accept Chinese mobile payment apps, and sell products designed especially for Chinese visitors. Here Korea is not simply receiving global influence. It is actively reshaping the way it presents itself to a foreign audience. This shows that the local is not a passive victim of the global, but an active participant in it.

What I find even more interesting is the authors’ point that the way companies adapt to local markets is itself very similar everywhere. Almost every global brand now localizes its menu, advertising, and customer service in the same standardized way. So glocalization produces difference on the surface while following a common global pattern underneath. I think this explains a feeling I often have when traveling: the food and the language are local, but the way everything is arranged for visitors feels strangely familiar.

This reading made me realize that the question “Is globalization making the world more similar or more different?” may be the wrong question. The answer seems to be both at the same time. A more useful question is how global and local elements are combined in each specific case, and who has the power to decide how that combination takes place.

3. Points for Discussion

1. The authors argue that global connectivity and global consciousness increase “hand in hand.” However, is it possible for connectivity to grow while consciousness does not? For example, the Internet connects more people than ever, but algorithms often show us only content that matches our existing views and language.

1-1. Many countries now use largely separate digital platforms, such as different messaging apps, search engines, and video sites in China, Korea, and the West. Does this mean the Internet is actually dividing global consciousness into several separate “worlds,” even as technical connectivity increases?