Effects of globalization - Реферат

It is also important to include non-human activities, which incorporate, but are not limited to, the spread of bacteria and non-human diseases such as bird flu, as well as natural disasters such as tornadoes, tsunamis, earthquakes, and hurricanes. As all of these issues impact human and global security, it is our opinion that a truly comprehensive definition must address them. In addition, it is important to recognize that globalization is not a force that needs to be stopped; rather, it is a process that influences each of us in a number of ways, both to our benefit and also to our detriment. When embraced in the context of our definition, globalization can be understood in a way that allows for a greater appreciation of, and, consequently, movement towards furthering, individual, as well as global, security and stability. Discussion This overview of current definitions of globalization can arguably leave one feeling more confused in the discourse than before. The abundance of definitions is clearly an indication of the varying opinions that have developed regarding this concept since it first appeared in Webster’s dictionary in 1961. The past decades have allowed for the creativity of humankind to develop the definitions that appear in this paper. However, abundance does not necessarily indicate that with each new definition there has been marked improvement. Since the debate over globalization stems largely from the act of defining the concept, it is important to see the progression of where the definitions have come from and how different connotations have emerged. This overview illustrates that many of the definitions refer to questions of economics: of the 114 definitions presented here, 67 of them make some reference to the economic dimension either through market expansion or the selling of goods and services. Many of these definitions do, however, include other dimensions: quite often they involve political and social aspects as well. However, this does indicate that notions of globalization, at least in our representation, tend to lean toward the economic roots of the concept. Similarly, the definitions tend to be multifaceted and complex. They are rarely confined to one or two lines; rather, an elaborate definition is more often the norm in addressing this issue. This is illustrative of the complex nature of globalization: in attempting to determine how the impact of globalization is most felt, whether politically, economically, or socially, one frequently finds oneself debating aspects that are also multidimensional. This appears to be universal, as a majority of our authors have written definitions that are lengthy. Therefore, it is safe to assume that the majority of definitions will encompass such aspects. So what conclusions might we draw from this overview? To what extent have the definitions helped us understand more fully the concept of globalization? Why should one engage in such a study? Globalization is evolutionary; it is a fluid process that is constantly changing with the development of human society. This becomes more evident when assessing the various attempts at defining this idea. This paper argues that the perspective of the person who defines globalization shapes any definition thereof. One could reflect on the impact of globalization for days without having a clear understanding of what in reality the term means. By analyzing what has been offered in attempts to express the meaning of such a complex idea, it forces the issue to be simplified in one or two sentences. In this task, the core of the discourse must be determined by the author. The definition is a clear indication of what the author’s perspective is on where globalization has come from and, more importantly, what it will mean in geopolitical terms in the future. By only having an abstract concept and nothing concrete, there is no reference point. Does this mean, then, that in order to have a worthwhile debate on globalization, a definition must be agreed upon at the outset? In a way, this is the case. If nothing else, this overview of definitions has made it clear that globalization is many things to many different people. As Arjun Appadurai noted in 1996, “globalization is a ‘world of things’ that have ‘different speeds, axes, points of origin and termination, and varied relationships to institutional structures in different regions, nations, or societies.’” This captures the complexity of globalization without actually defining it. It implies that further elaboration would not be particularly useful. The future of globalization is one that no academic would venture to try to predict. The fluidity of this concept makes concrete recommendations for a definition difficult. By looking at the ways in which the definition has changed over the past 45 years, one can ascertain that the future will not give way to a simpler or a more refined means of arriving at a clearer conceptualization of the process. There are defini