71
edits
Society and Globalization: Difference between revisions
Society and Globalization (view source)
Revision as of 23:42, 3 December 2009
, 23:42, 3 December 2009→Individual fear and society's power
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
== Individual fear and society's power == | == Individual fear and society's power == | ||
The question about the role of individuality in the Globalization process is very interesting, because it's changing all the time, it's differently influenced be different inputs producing and being produced by Globalization processes. Individuality may seem as intangibile as Globalization itself. So Individual means –what? | The question about the role of individuality in the Globalization process is very interesting, because it's changing all the time, it's differently influenced be different inputs producing and being produced by Globalization processes. Individuality may seem as intangibile as Globalization itself. | ||
How is a society to be defined in a globalized world? | So Individual means –what? | ||
'''How is a society to be defined in a globalized world?''' | |||
How is the individual influenced by the Globalization process? Is the Global risk society more “risky” than former modern societies or does the difference lie in the society’s cognition of riskiness increasingly process? | How is the individual influenced by the Globalization process? Is the Global risk society more “risky” than former modern societies or does the difference lie in the society’s cognition of riskiness increasingly process? | ||
As HABERMAS pointed out, it is nice to live in a welfare state. But under which conditions had the welfare state been built? The lifestyles were different and so were the interactions between nations. As in competition the stronger, faster, better one won. Like in nature the conditions were unfair. But as humanity also created ethics, love, consciuosness and many, many other unmaterial goods, it is very unfair to simply not get in touch with other states’ non-welfare system, which obviously has something in common with the welfare other states are able to afford. Some nations could afford their overage of products for very good prices, while others had to buy the products of need for prices they in fact couldn’t pay. | As HABERMAS pointed out, it is nice to live in a welfare state. But under which conditions had the welfare state been built? The lifestyles were different and so were the interactions between nations. As in competition the stronger, faster, better one won. Like in nature the conditions were unfair. But as humanity also created ethics, love, consciuosness and many, many other unmaterial goods, it is very unfair to simply not get in touch with other states’ non-welfare system, which obviously has something in common with the welfare other states are able to afford. Some nations could afford their overage of products for very good prices, while others had to buy the products of need for prices they in fact couldn’t pay. | ||
“In the mixed economies of the West, states had a considerable portion of domestic product at their disposal, and could therefore use transfer payments, subsidies, and effective policies in the the areas of infrastructure, employment and social security. They were able to exert a definite influence on the overall conditions of production and distribution with the goal of maintaining growth, stable prices, and full employment.” (HABERMAS 2001). | “In the mixed economies of the West, states had a considerable portion of domestic product at their disposal, and could therefore use transfer payments, subsidies, and effective policies in the the areas of infrastructure, employment and social security. They were able to exert a definite influence on the overall conditions of production and distribution with the goal of maintaining growth, stable prices, and full employment.” (HABERMAS 2001). | ||
But in the Globalization process the borders of nations and with them the power to their social regulations are loosing strength. At this point it’s helpful to understand BECKs determination between “Globality” and “Globalization”. He proposes a reflexive theory of the global. | But in the Globalization process the borders of nations and with them the power to their social regulations are loosing strength. At this point it’s helpful to understand BECKs determination between “Globality” and “Globalization”. He proposes a reflexive theory of the global. | ||
“Globality: refers to the collision of economic, cultural and political forms in ‘world society’ Globalization: denotes the processes through which sovereign national states are criss-crossed and undermined by transnational actors with varying prospects of power, orientations, identities and networks” (BECK 2000). | “Globality: refers to the collision of economic, cultural and political forms in ‘world society’ Globalization: denotes the processes through which sovereign national states are criss-crossed and undermined by transnational actors with varying prospects of power, orientations, identities and networks” (BECK 2000). | ||
By using this terms the complicacy of dealing with the intangibility of Globalization processes’ products and results do clearly appear. | By using this terms the complicacy of dealing with the intangibility of Globalization processes’ products and results do clearly appear. | ||
“Globalization is to be understood as multi-causal, multi-dimensional process, one driven by the interplay of a number of different spheres rather than by a single developmental logic.” (BECK 2000). | “Globalization is to be understood as multi-causal, multi-dimensional process, one driven by the interplay of a number of different spheres rather than by a single developmental logic.” (BECK 2000). | ||
This concludes the | |||
This concludes the frightened feelings of the individual. Nothing seems to be secure, everything is in the change, is on the run, does not seem to be overviewed or even understand. | |||
== Conclusion == | == Conclusion == | ||