*On the duality of Globalization

"This century, in contrast, will be the first time in history in which multiple versions of order and modernity coexist in an interconnected world; no longer will the West anchor globalization. Multiple power centers, and the competing models they represent, will vie on a more level playing field. Effective global governance will require forging common ground amid an equalizing distribution of power and rising ideological diversity. 

With that in mind, Washington should acknowledge that America’s brand of capitalism and secular democracy must now compete in the marketplace of ideas. 

To be sure, even as it adopts a more pluralistic approach, the United States should defend not just its interests, but also its values. It should continue to promote democracy, stand resolute in the defense of human rights and do what it can to stop indiscriminate violence of the sort unleashed by Syria’s government."

 
After reading the article, 'America's Place in the New World' by Charles A. Kupchan (Prof. of International Relations at Georgetown Univ.), I was struck by a recurring theme with the word 'Globalization.'

Kupchan discusses the need to abandon the "Western primacy" of democracy, free-market, and secular (all of which are problematic even for the U.S. - not quite a democracy, not quite a free-market, and not quite secular) as the universal mold for countries around the world. He provides examples of other countries and their developments, albeit they are done in hasty brush-stroke adjectives to define their state, the point is that other countries are finding their own way of governance and economy. This leads up to the quote above.

Globalization has largely meant two things. At times using one definition in some literature and at times using another. The first sense we can speak of globalization is the way in which populations are migrating. The world is blending together. Countries are no longer the homogenous units they were once thought to be. Indeed, it is difficult to define what an ethnic race is or would be. Blood, skin color, ethnic background, passport or cultural habits are insufficient to define any one person as a definite member belonging to a particular group. If it is, we have yet to see an appropriate criteria of what it definitely means to be a person of a particular ethnicity. We can say that one person is from a particular country or that one is this ethnicity or that ethnicity. But what does it mean to be this or that ethnicity? A common tension between immigrants and those considered native is the insult of being "white washed." That is, being brown on the outside and white on the inside; a "coconut". Or yellow on the outside and white on the inside; a "twinkie." The heterogeneous religious mixture of beliefs and various ideologies and so on and so on. The criteria or what it means to be a particular ethnicity is elusive. In a similar sense, we are seeing the world communities enter into a global neighborhood.

The second sense in which globalization comes up is in terms of economics. As we see trade relations grow and economies enter into various trade agreements with each other, the world is globalizing its economy. Some critics have mentioned that all this means is a western hegemonic economy. Where Starbucks, Mcdonalds, and Coca-cola pervades the market and the majority of wealth becomes pooled towards western economic standards and ends. The anthropology of oil or wealth would be a great study here.

The semantic fields of a diversification of the world and a globalizing economic model are becoming blurred and what it means is becoming more and more multifarious. Not only is this a linguistic matter but also a practical one in terms of the place of religion, law, morality, governance, and economy. What globalization means should be thought about as well as what its place is in the various disciplines of study and practical areas of society.