Prior to the subject reading, my knowledge of globalisation
was limited to a modern age. At first I believed that globalisation developed alongside
modern technological advancement and should be considered a 21st
century term. While this period aided the ongoing development of globalisation,
it is evident that this concept began a few centuries ago not only through
trade, but war, and consequently the transfer of knowledge among differing
societies.
As acknowledged by Carter, global citizenship entails two
intrinsic trends, that is, people who believe that global citizens constitute
interpersonal values which are instilled into the fabric of the community, and
those who preserve the concept of universal values and a compassionate point of
view. While both points are true in their own respect, I believe that both
thoughts work interchangeably to broaden global citizenship. While global
citizenship should follow some sort of central idea, it should not be limited
to one defining fact.
As mentioned, globalisation has often been motivated by the results
of war and trade. Through this, exploitation of labour and the consequent sale
of the by-products from this labour have led to the search for increased profit
amongst organisations. As such, while
connecting the world through the aforementioned actions, unfortunately, while
developing or maintaining global ties, there will always be a party at cost
while somebody benefits at their expense.
From this, the question must be asked: Is globalisation good
or bad?
While this question will generate differing views depending
on the organisation or party asked, in my opinion, globalisation has become a
type of ‘indirect’ business. In an age where the consumer must be pleased, global
issues have moulded from the old (war, slave trade etc) to consumerism (where
internet has become a main global communicator); a dog eat dog world where
profit is key.
Peter Adams
No comments:
Post a Comment