Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Roland Robertson - Beyond The Discourse of Globalization PDF
Roland Robertson - Beyond The Discourse of Globalization PDF
OF GLOBALIZATION
ROLAND ROBERTSON
University of Pittsburgh and University of Aberdeen
Abstract: This paper deals with the ways in which discourse concerning planet earth is
being transcended. Specifically, attention is drawn to the increasingly overlapping
relationship between the work of philosophers and anthropologists, one the one hand,
and astrophysicists on the other. Woven into the discussion are the issues of the neglect of global consciousness and culture in comparison with the more usual concern
with global connectivity. In this respect it is argued that globalization, as it is normally
understood, can be regarded as self-destroying when it is considered under the rubric
of glocalization. The paper concludes with discussion of the possibility of some form
of global governance in the light of the present chaotic state of global affairs. It is argued that some relatively clear-cut image of the world as a whole is a precondition of
any systematic attempt to resolve this problem. The attempt to provide such an image
rests upon the authors previous discussions of the global field.
Keywords: global consciousness, glocalization, governance, global problems, cosmos.
ISSN 2283-7949
GLOCALISM: JOURNAL OF CULTURE, POLITICS AND INNOVATION
2015, 1, DOI: 10.12893/gjcpi.2015.1.6
Published online by Globus et Locus at www.glocalismjournal.net
ROLAND ROBERTSON
ROLAND ROBERTSON
As I have already remarked, I think that much of our concern now should be with what lies beyond this planet. There is
much contemporary discussion not merely of space exploration and travel, and science fiction but also the growing
sense that we are just a little dot in the cosmos as a whole, in
what some people call the multiverse or series of universes.
(See Roberto Unger and Lee Smolin, The Singular Universe
and the Reality of Time, 2015). I should emphasize that, in this
connection, I am presently trying to become rather more expert in the field of astrophysics. With regard to the latter, I
think that in the future people claiming to be dealing with
globalization or, indeed, glocalization will need to know a
great deal more about that particular discipline. One of the
exceedingly few books that at least begin to take this argument
seriously is that of Dickens and Ormrod (2007). Later, however, I will enter some reservations about the latter.
It is at this point that I must accord considerable praise to
the very important institution that has been established here in
Milan, namely Globus et Locus and its production of an important on-line journal, Glocalism: Journal of Culture, Politics and Innovation. Globus et Locus is attempting to bring
together the natural-scientific aspects of globalization and glocalization together with more social-scientific and humanistic
aspects of the world as a whole, with a view to greatly improving the latter. This is what I am largely concerned with here.
The great Marxist thinker, Rosa Luxemburg, observed that
the accumulation of capital could not continue ad infinitum,
largely because there would come a time when the resources
of the earth would be exhausted and depleted. Exploitation
would continue, but would eventually come to an end. (This
kind of observation was not at all uncommon in the early years
of the twentieth century. To take but one example, the highly
influential German intellectual, Max Weber, had remarked a
few years earlier than Luxemburg that human life would remain in the same condition until the last ton of fossilized fuel
had been burned.) In her book, The Accumulation of Capital
(1951) Rosa Luxemburg very briefly discussed the possibility
of life beyond earth or at least implied this. This could possibly have meant that the earth no longer had what she called
an outside it would not have a capitalist realm, in the conventional sense, in which investments could be profitably
made. These comments by Luxemburg have proved to be remarkably prescient, for in a sense she anticipated the theme
with which we have become increasingly concerned, i.e. the
ISSN 2283-7949
GLOCALISM: JOURNAL OF CULTURE, POLITICS AND INNOVATION
2015, 1, DOI: 10.12893/gjcpi.2015.1.6
Published online by Globus et Locus at www.glocalismjournal.net
ROLAND ROBERTSON
his point by saying that this task demands we ask the deepest
questions of all about the nature of time, the cosmos and their
beginnings (Frank, 2011: xv).Obviously there were various
myths and ideas about creation long before the concept of the
Big Bang was postulated. This theme is particularly evident in
the book by G.R. Evans, First Light: A History of Creation
Myths from Gilgamesh to the God Particle (2013). However, I
will not go into the whole discussion about the attempt to discover the God Particle. All that needs to be said here is that
myths are the oldest components of cosmology more accurately cosmogony. Indeed, it is very striking that there is a
present trend for books and articles to be composed and coauthored by philosophers, and anthropologists, on the one
hand, and astrophysicists or physicists, on the other (e.g. Nancy and Barrau, 2015 and Unger and Smolin, 2015. See also
Nagel, 2012 and Frank, 2012).
Along such lines we may speak specifically about the relativization of planet earth. Although the word relativization has
become quite common, there are still some who apparently
have difficulty in understanding this term, so a brief explication is in order. When we say that something is being relativized, or is in the process of relativization, what we are in effect
saying can be illustrated thus: I stand for a particular principle, I have a strong idea about something or other, whether it
is God, sexual conduct, or anything. If somebody then comes
along and says: I have a completely different point of view,
indeed an opposite point of view to yours, we must ask what
the person does who had the original idea. What did he/she
do about this challenge that comes from the opposite end of
the spectrum. These are two highly conflicting positions.
He/she can say, on the one hand: I stick steadfastly to what I
believe, no matter what you say. This is what is widely known
nowadays as fundamentalism, at least since the explicit rise of
Fundamentalism in the USA in the early twentieth century.
On the other hand, at the other extreme it may be said that
Your idea is just as valid as mine and you have a more or less
equal right to hold it. This is what is called relativism namely, the principle that every idea or commitment is relative to
another. I think that it is very unwise to go to either extreme.
Both of these extremes are analytically unfruitful, even
though for a considerable amount of time relativism was accepted in parts of the academy, notably in the discipline of anthropology. Aspects of this problem have been cogently expressed in a well-known article by the anthropologist, Clifford
ISSN 2283-7949
GLOCALISM: JOURNAL OF CULTURE, POLITICS AND INNOVATION
2015, 1, DOI: 10.12893/gjcpi.2015.1.6
Published online by Globus et Locus at www.glocalismjournal.net
Geertz where he addresses the issue of what he calls anti-antirelativism. Specifically, Geertz (1984) is strongly opposed to
those who oppose relativism but he is even more concerned to
put anti-relativism in its place. More generally, I wish to emphasize that I regard relativization as being the major, general
dynamic in the whole process of globalization, emphasizing
that it is a multidimensional phenomenon. In arguing in this
way I am maintaining that globalization, as well as glocalization, can be fruitfully regarded as inevitably involving processes of contextualization, placing what is the case at a particular
point in time in a broader framework. In other words, globalization has historically proceeded by ideologies, institutions,
and other such phenomena being overtaken by successors,
which make the items concerned unstable. In fact, we presently live in a world of increasing instability and uncertainty
hence the ubiquity of fundamentalism in our time, as well as
culture wars in every part of the world.
It is certainly worth mentioning at this stage that globalization has very often been used as a blame word, in the
sense that numerous so-called social problems such as teen
pregnancy, crime, traffic congestion, etc. are characterized as
being the consequences of globalization. In this respect it is
very important to stress that globalization also produces diversity and heterogeneity. In fact, recognition of diversity and
heterogeneity has become much more common in recent
years. One of the main reasons for this indeed, perhaps the
principal reason is that introduction of the concept of glocalization into our discourse has done much to cancel many of
the once strong claims as to the homogenizing effect of
globalization. I could provide numerous examples of the ways
in which, either directly or indirectly, glocalization has been
seen as a corrective to the homogenizing effect of globalization. However, one particular example should suffice. In the
early 2000s upon arriving at Narita airport near Tokyo I purchased a copy of the English-language newspaper, The Japan
Times. I was immediately surprised (as well as pleased) to see
that on the front page the editor had claimed that a new
word had entered Japanese discourse. The new word was no
less than glocalization. The latters significance was stated to
be a way in which native Japanese traditions could be preserved in the face of the homogenizing effects of Westernization and/or globalization. For me, this was particularly interesting not to say paradoxical for the simple reason that it
was from Japanese business discourse that I myself had obISSN 2283-7949
GLOCALISM: JOURNAL OF CULTURE, POLITICS AND INNOVATION
2015, 1, DOI: 10.12893/gjcpi.2015.1.6
Published online by Globus et Locus at www.glocalismjournal.net
ROLAND ROBERTSON
tained the alleged new word glocalization some ten years earlier. More specifically, the Japanese term for glocalization was, I
had discovered in the early 1990s, dochakuka, a word that
means, almost literally, to indigenize.
Turning directly to Europe we find much opposition
presently to the whole idea of the European Union. In fact,
opposition to the latter within the Union itself is a kind of microcosm of world-wide opposition to globalization; although I
have attempted myself to apply the concept of glocalization to
these various oppositions (Robertson, 2014b). Many of these
oppositional movements are very right-wing although a few
are of the left. In any case, the desire to thoroughly reform or
actually leave Europe has been centered upon the so-called
problem of immigration, or free movement among European
nations. The general idea is that if immigrants are expelled
or, at least, strongly resisted all will be well. In other words,
there is a strong nativistic sentiment all over Europe, involving
the very nostalgic, reactionary idea that traditional ways of living should be restored. This is the broad approach that I have
adopted in my most recently published book European Glocalization in Global Context (Robertson, 2014b).
In my work on globalization and glocalization up to the
present I have worked with the concept of the global field.
There are four components to this: nation-state; individual
selves; the system of international relations; and finally, but
not least, humankind. I would like for a moment to address
the topic of the nation-state since many academics and politicians think of the nation-state as disappearing under the impact of globalization (or, more narrowly, Europeanization). It
should be emphasized that I thoroughly
disagree with this unfortunately, very influential proposition. My own position is that the nation-state is being reconfigured and altered under the conditions of globalization
and Europeanization. In fact, these reconfigurations are best
regarded as involving glocalization with increasing clarity. It
would not be appropriate here to explore the other components of the global field. I simply wish to emphasize that globalization/glocalization are processes which have been thought
of as occurring on planet earth. I would only say here that the
relationships between the nation-state, individual selves, the
international system of societies, and humankind, change over
time and become increasingly problematic and difficult for
humans to handle. A particularly vital aspect of this general
picture is that individuals no longer belong simply to societies,
ISSN 2283-7949
GLOCALISM: JOURNAL OF CULTURE, POLITICS AND INNOVATION
2015, 1, DOI: 10.12893/gjcpi.2015.1.6
Published online by Globus et Locus at www.glocalismjournal.net
in spite of extremist rejection of such an idea. In varying degrees individuals are torn between their attachments to the
four components of the global field. This dilemma that characterizes the sentiments of global citizens has become increasingly intense and apparent since the late nineteenth century;
although the idea of global citizenship is a very old one. To
put it succinctly, even bluntly, we must learn to live in a vigilant condition of ambivalence.
The form of the global field and its apparent but changing
stability makes the entire issue of global governance particularly acute. I should remark, however, at this stage that the
global reach and extent of world wars has both enhanced the
need for global governance and at the same time made it increasingly difficult. The chaotic state of world affairs particularly with regard to geopolitics and geoculture has a
great bearing on this issue. In any case it must be pointed out
that what I have called in my own writing the take-off period
of modern globalization occurred during the period lasting
from the eighteenth century until the nineteen twenties (Robertson, 1992).
I now take a closer look at the theme of glocalization. It is
particularly striking to me that the theme of the glocal has
been adopted and pursued very evidently in Italy and I have
direct and personal evidence of this trend in Rome and Milan.
In both of these cities work has been produced that has greatly promoted and advanced the study of glocality and glocalization. I feel very secure in saying that the concept of the glocal
is one of the most important of our time. Having just edited a
book on Europeanization as glocalization (Robertson, 2014b),
I am even more convinced that the glocal perspective is vital
to our understanding of the present state of the world as a
whole. This understanding is not merely an academic one, for
it clearly now has very significant political, practical use; although it should be stressed that it was almost certainly in the
sphere of business and business studies that the idea of glocality and glocalization was first fully realized. In any case, adopting the glocal perspective enables us to gain a new purchase
on such crucial issues as the sustainability, indeed the survival,
of the European Union.
Taking a much broader historical and geographical perspective, even though this example may be quite controversial,
we can see that the so-called world religions at least the
Abrahamic ones can be regarded as glocalized versions of
monotheism. This theme and the more or less simultaneous
ISSN 2283-7949
GLOCALISM: JOURNAL OF CULTURE, POLITICS AND INNOVATION
2015, 1, DOI: 10.12893/gjcpi.2015.1.6
Published online by Globus et Locus at www.glocalismjournal.net
10
ROLAND ROBERTSON
11
12
ROLAND ROBERTSON
13
NOTES
1
This paper is based on a lecture given at the University of Milan on November 7, 2014.
REFERENCES
A. Acharya (2014), The End of American World Order (Cambridge UK:
Polity Press).
T. Barkawi (2006), Globalization and War (Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield).
R. Braidotti (2013), The Posthuman (Cambridge UK: Polity Press).
A. Coustenis and T. Encrenez (2013), Life Beyond Earth (New York: Cambridge University Press).
P. Dickens and J.S. Ormrod (2007), Cosmic Society: Towards a Sociology of the
Universe (London: Routledge).
G.R. Evans (2014), First Light: A History of Creation Myths from Gilgamesh to
the God Particle (London: I.B. Tauris).
A. Frank (2012), About Time: From Sun Dials to Quantum Clocks, How the
Cosmos Shapes Our Lives And How We Shape the Cosmos (New York: Free Press).
S. Fuller (2011), Humanity 2.0: What it Means to be Human Past, Present and
Future (London: Palgrave Macmillan).
C. Geertz (1984), Anti Anti-Relativism, in American Anthropologist, 82 (2).
K. Karatani (2014), The Structure of World History: From Modes of Production
to Modes of Exchange (Durham and London: Duke University Press).
R. Luxemburg (1951), The Accumulation of Capital (London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul).
T. Nagel (2012), Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
K. Mahbubani (2013), The Great Convergence: Asia, the West, and the Logic of
One World (New York: Public Affairs).
M. Mazower (2012), Governing the World: The History of an Idea (London:
Penguin Books).
J. Micklethwait and A. Wooldridge (2009), God is Back: How the Global Rise of
Faith Is Changing the World (London: Allen Lane).
J. Micklethwait and A. Wooldridge (2014), The Fourth Revolution: The Global
Race to Reinvent the State (London: Allen Lane).
P. Mishra (2012), From the Ruins of Empire: The Revolt Against the West and
the Remaking of Asia (London: Allen Lane).
ISSN 2283-7949
GLOCALISM: JOURNAL OF CULTURE, POLITICS AND INNOVATION
2015, 1, DOI: 10.12893/gjcpi.2015.1.6
Published online by Globus et Locus at www.glocalismjournal.net
14
ROLAND ROBERTSON
J-L. Nancy and A. Barrau (2015), Whats These Worlds Coming Too? (New
York: Fordham University Press).
R. Pankhurst (2013), The Inevitable Caliphate? A History of the Struggle for Islamic Union, 1924-to the Present (London: Hurst).
R. Robertson (1992a), Globality, Global Culture and Images of World Order, in
H. Haferkamp and N. Smelser, Social Change and Modernity (Berkeley: University of
CaliforniaPress), pp. 395-417.
R. Robertson (1992b), Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture (London:
Sage Publications).
R. Robertson (2001), Kungs Global Ethic: Parametric Lacunae, in International
Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, 14 (3), pp. 657-665 .
R. Robertson (2014a), Situating Glocalization: A Relatively Autobiographical Intervention, in G.S. Drori, M.A. Hollerer and P. Walgenbach, Global Themes and Local Variations in Organization and Management: Perspectives on Glocalization (New
York: Routledge), pp. 25-36.
R. Robertson (2014b), European Glocalization in Global Context (London: Palgrave Macmillan).
R. Robertson and F. Lechner (1985), Modernization, Globalization and the Problem of Culture in World-Systems Theory, in Theory, Culture & Society, 2 (3), pp.
103-118.
M. Steger (2008), The Rise of the Global Imaginary: Political Ideologies from the
French Revolution to the Global War on Terror (New York: Oxford University Press).
R.M. Unger and L. Smolin (2015), The Singular Universe and the Reality of
Time: A Proposal in Natural Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
ISSN 2283-7949
GLOCALISM: JOURNAL OF CULTURE, POLITICS AND INNOVATION
2015, 1, DOI: 10.12893/gjcpi.2015.1.6
Published online by Globus et Locus at www.glocalismjournal.net