Globalization and HomogeneityThe idea of a world that is largely homogenous is a concept that is identifiable and needs to be understood in consonance with the concept o globalization. The basic functional idea behind this assumption is that with an evolution of communication and related technologies, an increased level of intra nation interaction and dependence there is would come a tome when the world would be homogenous, there would be no difference or separating factor that would distinguish one part of the world from another part making it what is known in academic circles a ‘global village’.
There are those that argue that is in fact the process of globalization that has made the world a homogenous place. Wendell Wilke wrote in One World, in 1940 that the ‘world has become small and completely interdependent’, (Greider. 1997). The focus of this essay however is not to look at the impact that globalization has actually had on the world but debate the truth of the assumption that the world is homogenous free of the individuality that defines its constituents. Ti this end, the essay will try and analyse the difference that the world has experienced and is experiencing by virtue of the impact that globalization has left.
The basic underlying debate is with respect to the levels of homogeneity achieved by the world and its people; this obviously includes areas such as politics, culture, language and economics. The second par of the essay will try and look at the ways in which Multi National Corporations-MNCs- around the world came to grips with the changing realities and how there is still a need to tailor product according to local demands.
There is a lot that has been written and discussed about globalization and its impact over the past two decades. The word itself was first used in 1962 but has been used in such a manner that it was described by the Economist as being ‘the most abused in history’, (Adams and Carfagna, 2006). It has come to mean all kinds of things for many people and has been used to glorify and to demonize. The IMF defines it as, ‘the growing economic interdependence of countries worldwide through the increasing volume and variety of cross borer transactions in goods and services and of international capital flows, and also through the more rapid and widespread diffusion of technology’.
Another manner in which globalization can be described which would probably be more pertinent to our discussion here is, ‘the Copernican revolution of our day. It is making the world truly round because it is simply bringing humanity into a single ecosystem of embedded, overlapping networks. Borders, boundaries, delineations and walls of any kind are slowly giving way to the compelling forces on integration and interdependence’, (Garrison, 2004).
What one can conclude unarguable from the above discussion is that globalization is a fact of life, it relates to all of those processes that are producing an increasingly interwoven world society and that its effects are easily discernible, it has in fact spawned equally passionate friends and foes.