Globalisation and History

It can be said that while globalisation has been around since the movement of our ancestors toward the Mediterranean hundreds of thousands of years ago, the developing aspects of conquest, exploration and trade over time have led to a redefined nature of what globalisation entails. Robinson notes that the evolving nature of exploitation has become a main benefactor in modern society and consequently, has become the main disadvantage of globalisation. While the evolving nature of technology has provided a grounding for a larger framework for exploitation, when compared to times hundreds of years ago, it can be said the main motive for globalisation has always been the struggle for resources.

Nevertheless, while the main intentions of globalisation have constituted the same framework over many years, technological advancements have allowed for communication barriers to be crossed and as such, means of education among global citizens have continued to expand and diversify.

On the other hand, the notion of Americanisation has contributed to the growing nature of exploitation in a world which is becoming flooded more and more by technology, popculture, and materialism. While this is certainly true in large societies, as individuals, Americanisation is in the eye of the beholder, and is as influential as you make it to be.

Yes, while Americanisation was certainly the last wave of globalisation, it is hard to predict what the next wave will be. Having said that, regulated economies such as China have potential to be the next wave of globalisation, purely based on their array of resources they possess.

It can be said that while it is hard to say where or if a new wave of 'Americanisation' will form, a change of power due to such development is most probable. Historically, powers have swayed from Egypt, to the Persian empire, to Greece, to Rome due to the presence of resources and the stranglehold they have over other societies. As such, it can be said that power in globalisation will most probably lean toward those with resources (in the future most probably China), be it natural, financial, military, technological or geographically.

Now the question must be asked, is globalisation good or bad? Essentially, globalisation is necessary for continual development and consequent competition amongst societies. On the other hand, this comes through the form of exploitation which in itself negates the concept of globalisation. As such, globalisation like a fire. Fire can bring both positive and negative repercussions . When correctly implemented, it can heat, cook and help develop resources. On the other hand, when incorrectly implemented, lives can be put at risk. As such, globalisation is both good and bad. Only when effectively used, will the positives be seen.

Peter Adams