Blog 1: What Is Globalization? — LI ZAIQUAN
1. What I understood from the reading and class
Before this course, I mainly understood globalization as an increase in international trade, travel, and communication. I imagined it as a process in which countries become more connected and national borders become less important. After reading Roland Robertson and Kathleen E. White’s “What Is Globalization?” and considering the lecture, I now think this definition is too narrow. Globalization is not a single economic process. It is a multidimensional and contested concept that involves institutions, cultures, political systems, communities, and individual identities.
Robertson and White emphasize that it is difficult to give one final definition of globalization because scholars approach it from different disciplines and viewpoints. Discussions of globalization may focus on migration, human rights, global governance, citizenship, diasporas, media, or transnational connections. These subjects look different, but they all concern the changing relationship between local life and the world as a whole. This helped me understand why people often disagree about whether globalization is positive or negative: they may be discussing different dimensions of the same broad process.
One useful part of the reading is its framework of four connected components: the international system, humanity as a whole, individual selves, and nation-states. Globalization changes the relationships among all four. Governments remain important, but they operate within international institutions and global problems. Individuals increasingly think of themselves through multiple identities, such as national, cultural, religious, professional, or global identities. At the same time, problems such as climate change and pandemics encourage people to think about humanity beyond national borders.
For me, globalization therefore means both growing interdependence and a stronger awareness that the world forms a connected whole. A decision in one country can affect people far away through supply chains, financial markets, migration, media, or environmental change. Just as importantly, people become more conscious of these connections. Globalization is not simply the disappearance of distance; it is also a change in how people imagine their place in the world.
2. What I found interesting
The most interesting idea for me was that globalization does not automatically produce one uniform global culture. Global and local forces can exist together. The concept of glocalization explains how global ideas or products are adapted to particular local conditions. A product, media format, or cultural practice may circulate internationally but acquire a different meaning in each place.
As a Chinese student studying in Korea, I can observe this process in everyday life. Korean cities contain Chinese restaurants, American franchises, Japanese cultural products, and entertainment from many countries. However, these things are rarely copied without change. Menus are adjusted to Korean tastes, global brands use local advertising styles, and foreign media are interpreted through Korean social experiences. The same process occurs when Korean popular culture travels abroad. K-pop, films, and television dramas reach global audiences, but fans in different countries interpret and use them in their own ways.
This example also shows why globalization is not simply Westernization. Cultural influence moves in several directions. American media remain powerful, but Korean music and drama, Japanese animation, Chinese digital platforms, and many other cultural products also cross borders. The result is not necessarily cultural sameness. Globalization can create both similarities and new differences because local communities actively select, modify, and sometimes resist what arrives from outside.
I also found the role of individual identity interesting. Online communication allows people to participate in communities that are not limited by location. A person may identify with a nation while also belonging to international fan communities, professional networks, or political movements. These connections can expand personal freedom and understanding, but they can also expose individuals to manipulation by states, corporations, and digital platforms. This makes globalization a process involving power, not only connection.
3. A question and discussion angle
My main question is: how can we judge whether a society is becoming more globalized without assuming that more globalization is always better? Measures such as trade volume, international travel, or internet access capture visible connections, but they do not fully measure global consciousness, unequal power, or the ability of local communities to shape global influences.
For example, Korea may appear highly globalized because of its exports, digital infrastructure, international media presence, and foreign cultural products. China is deeply connected to global manufacturing and trade but also regulates many international information flows. Japan has major global cultural and economic influence while maintaining strong local traditions. Deciding which society is “more globalized” depends on whether we prioritize economics, culture, politics, technology, or everyday identity.
This leads to a second concern: globalization connects people unevenly. Some individuals gain mobility, information, and economic opportunities, while others experience insecure work, cultural exclusion, or decisions made by distant institutions. The world may be compressed, but people do not occupy equal positions within it. Therefore, I think the most useful question is not simply whether globalization is increasing. We should ask who controls global connections, who benefits from them, and how local communities can participate without losing meaningful choices.
After the reading and class, I understand globalization as an ongoing reorganization of relationships among individuals, nations, humanity, and the international system. It creates interdependence and global awareness, but it also produces conflict, adaptation, and unequal outcomes. This is why globalization cannot be explained only as international trade or cultural exchange. It is a way of understanding how local lives are increasingly shaped by the world, and how local actions can also reshape that world.
AI-use disclosure: AI was used to help organize and edit the language of this post. The student is responsible for reviewing the analysis and ensuring that it reflects their own understanding of the reading and class.
I found your point about inequality particularly sharp. I had mostly thought about globalization in terms of how connected countries and people are, but I had not considered that these connections can involve unequal power. I think this is an important point when we try to measure globalization because simply having more global connections does not necessarily mean that everyone experiences globalization in the same way.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your thoughtful comment. I agree that globalization should be measured not only by how connected people are, but also by who has power and who benefits from those connections. I’m glad this point resonated with you.
DeleteI think we often use a very selective, and sometimes Western-centered, standard when judging globalization. For example, when Korean culture or products become popular in Africa, the Middle East, or Southeast Asia, people may treat it as simply interesting news. However, when Korean culture or products become popular in the United States or Europe, people are more likely to say that Korea has become “globalized.” But globalization should not be understood in this way.
ReplyDeleteTo me, globalization is a process in which different cultures become connected and interact with each other without being dominated by only one side. Therefore, when we judge how globalized a society is, we should not simply look at how much foreign culture has entered the country or how widely its own culture has spread abroad. Instead, we should look at how well local and foreign cultures coexist and interact, and whether this interaction creates a unique kind of “globalized culture” within that society.
From this perspective, I do not think we can simply say that the progress of globalization itself is good or bad. I generally see greater cultural connection and exchange as positive. However, it becomes problematic when globalization causes local culture to disappear or to be treated as less valuable than foreign culture.
Therefore, I think the more important question is not how much globalization has progressed, but how it has progressed. We should focus on the relationship between different cultures, whether local culture and identity are being preserved, and whether new cultural forms are being created through their interaction.