Introduction

Defining Globalization

Misconceptions About Globalization

Globalization: As Metacontextuality, Appropriation, And Participation

Globalization And Cultural Identity

Anti-Globalization Protests

Conclusion

Globalization, which is indeed a historical phenomenon, is predicated on the assumption that there is a fundamental core of values and virtues commonly shared by all the inhabitants of the globe, and that there are certain basic needs that they would want to fulfill have in pursuit of the realization of their lives. Globalization thus speaks to our common humanity and to the common yearnings and hopes that must necessarily be generated by it—our common humanity. It involves an awareness of the world as a single, capacious space. Our one world is inhabited by human beings with different talents, endowments, and capacities. These generate assets that can, nevertheless, be considered common and to be collectively shared. To the extent that the impulses to globalization are driven by considerations of basic human values, I consider the subject matter of this lecture on globalization to be of a piece with the theme chosen earlier for the J. B. Danquah Memorial Lectures, namely, human values concomitant with our common humanity.

In this presentation, therefore, I will look at globalization in more comprehensive terms that go beyond the purely economic or material, for it is clear that there is much more to globalization than economics. My position is guided by the logic of the concept of globalization itself: just as the globe comprehends everything on earth, so globalization ought to be conceived as comprehending all the spheres of human activity, spheres that cannot simply be telescoped into the economic. I will concern myself with the general nature of the concept of globalization. My intent will be to provide a philosophical background or foundations for globalization, not to discuss the economics of globalization, which is not within my academic purview.

Traveling or migrating to other places of the world appears historically to be an outstanding feature of human activity. This is evidenced in the constant movements of people to and from distant lands in recorded history, in search of security, material comfort or ways to improve their lives. The result of this activity of travelling or migrating has been historical encounters between different peoples of the world and, thus, between cultures. People of different cultures from far regions of the world have, through their ideas, values, forms of life, practices, and objects, helped shape the intellectual and material lives of other people in other regions. In the wake of cultural encounters, cultural borrowing or appropriation occurs, as people appreciate the need to take on the ideas, values, and practices of others that they think will enhance their own lives. Cultural borrowing is an outstanding historical phenomenon in the development of all human cultures and has resulted in the enrichment and fulfillment of the lives of people’s. As I will elaborate in due course, the process of globalization can be said to have resulted substantially from the historical phenomenon of cultural borrowing or appropriation, consciously pursued with the aim of enhancing the cultural life of a people. I use the expression ‘cultural life’ in a comprehensive sense that encompasses all spheres of human enterprise: political, economic, cultural, ethical, technological, artistic, and others.

Yet, the process or historical phenomenon of globalization has bee quite widely misconceived—and by people from different cultural backgrounds. I would like to mention some of what I regard as misunderstandings or misinterpretations or confusions about globalization.

In most recent decades, an aspect of globalization called economic globalization is seen to be associated with the activities of international financial institutions, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and international (or multinational) corporations, which have the capital and goods that they can move across borders. In the wake of the activities of such institutions and corporations, this aspect of globalization has come to hold the preeminent place in the whole globalization equation. Consequently, globalization has come to be understood as another name for capitalism or the free market economy. Economic globalization is of course a species—only a species—of globalization and, even if it is a very important species, it should not be equated with globalization as such. It would be a logical blunder to substitute a part for the whole. The anti-globalization campaign that is being waged by some people is targeted at this economic species of globalization.

"That globalization is characterized by keen competition and an aggressive quest for supremacy by various contending peoples and interest groups in the world;"

"That globalization fosters increasing disruption and marginalization of the arts and cultures of Black and African peoples;"

"That globalization imposes alien cultural values on African societies, thereby distorting the African value system and identity;"

"That globalization is a fresh phase in re-colonization of African societies which attempts to continue the promotion of Western linguistic heritage and literary and aesthetic canons at the expense of African indigenous languages and literature;"

The observations made by the participants of the symposium are, to my mind, a tissue of errors and perhaps groundless suspicions. They betray a sense of inadequacy, of passivity and inactivity, and of the inability to respond adequately to situations in defense or in pursuit of one’s interests. They also seem to suggest that the consequences of globalization implicit in their observations, such as the marginalization of the arts and cultures of Africa, are inevitable and automatic. They are, of course, not inevitable consequences that no one can do anything about. It is not clear to me how globalization will marginalize the arts and cultures of Africa, if individual Africans endowed with artistic or aesthetic talents continue to exercise those talents to develop the arts to high degrees of excellence such as will appeal to the aesthetic sense of many others outside Africa, as in the past and, indeed, today. Globalization will not—cannot—subvert the exercise of artistic talents; nor is there a reason why African artists will have to totally abandon their own indigenous artistic expressions in favor of, say, the European or the Chinese, or to abandon the cultivation of the music or dance forms of Africa.

Thomas Friedman writes:

I do not think it would be correct to say that globalization is globalizing American culture. That would be a simplistic assertion, in fact an exaggeration. Many nations of the world today are involved in developing information and communications technology, for instance. But I think it would be more fruitful, from the methodological or philosophical point of view, to look at the whole matter of globalizing a particular culture in the abstract, not in relation to American culture or the culture of any particular people as such. An abstract way of looking at things is perhaps the most objective way of understanding the issues and seeing them in their proper perspective. So, I wish now to look at globalization from the abstract point of view.

It can be said that the seeds of globalization were sown in our common humanity, in the limitations of human intelligence, in the differences in human talents and endowments, in man’s insatiable desire for comfort, better life and happiness on earth. Our common humanity disposes us toward sharing some values or basic needs, entertaining common desires, hopes and aspirations that we would regard as fundamentally human, as making for our human fulfillment. Globalization derives, indeed, from the assumption that there is a core of common values that the inhabitants of the globe share, certain basic needs that they would want fulfilled, if they want to live a minimally bearable and tolerable life here on earth. The limitations of human intelligence whittle away any pretensions to autarky (self-sufficiency) and generate the need for interdependence. Differences in human talents and endowments lead to the pursuit and creation of different objects, which, nonetheless, would be of interest to many others beside the creators or originators of these objects. Man’s insatiable desire for his mundane comfort in turn engenders the desire to look not only within, but also beyond, his cultural environs in search of what will satisfy his desires. It seems, then, that the impulses to globalization are anchored in the characteristics of the human species.

What I have said in the foregoing constitutes the background of a philosophical idea, a cultural value, practice, or institution becoming so attractive and influential as to win the embrace, in the course of time, of the rest of the peoples and cultures of the world. Such an idea or value or institution attains the status of universality or globality (if you will) by virtue of its historic significance or relevance or functionality or power of conviction or some such quality. Consequently, peoples outside the cultural origin of the idea or value become increasingly enamored of it for several reasons and accept, appropriate, and exploit it for their own purposes. At this point, that idea or value or practice would have become metacontextual, for it would have transcended its original cultural or historical context and would, thus, have gained the widest currency elsewhere.

The most important point that needs to be noted here is that every human culture puts out products—cultural products. I use the expression ‘cultural products’ to refer to the values, artistic products, political, legal, economic, and educational systems or institutions, technological products, philosophies, textiles, styles of dressing, techniques of farming, and so on. Some of these cultural products are taken over by other cultures that, for some reason, are attracted to them. This being so, the real question one would like to raise is this: Why should those products hold attraction to many or most cultures or places of the world? That is: why should an idea, value, practice, or institution spawned by a particular culture or people become global, i.e., spread to many other places on the globe through adoption by these places and increasingly become an outstanding feature of the thoughts and actions and goals of these places?

The basis for the attraction and adoption by some cultures of the cultural products put out by other cultures or places is the interest and enjoyment generated by those products, the conviction of their quality and importance, and of their functionality. I would like, however, to highlight the role of functionality in the whole enterprise of cultural adoption and appropriation. In terms of functionality, the conviction is that those cultural products to be adopted will work and so can play meaningful and effective roles in the attainment of the goals and vision of the adopting cultures or places. If a practice or system is believed or known to work for some people, if it is believed or known to have assisted the development of some people and to have consequently brought improvements to their lives, there is a tendency to convince oneself that it will work for oneself as well. In this case, the evidence of the functional capability of the practice or system would appear to be overwhelming, as the adopting cultures would have become (or would have been made to become) aware that it has worked for many cultures or places in the world and therefore will work for them too. The conclusion here does not logically follow. But in the realm of politics—in the realm of practical human affairs—probabilities or possibilities are as convincing to people as certainties. The practice or system that is found wanting functionally is not adopted or loses its attraction (where there was one before) to the kind that functions (or, is known to function) successfully.

Whatever are the discontents or the moral weaknesses of the market economy, it seems to work for most people and to give them satisfaction. This is probably because private ownership or property, which is a feature or consequence, of the free market economic system, is considered a fundamental value by most people. People want to lay their hands on the economic or financial value of their labor and their sweat. Liberal economic practice will, it seems, continue to be in the ascendant and become the outstanding feature of the global economic system simply because it is known to work for most nations that adopt it. Its functional capability appears to be proven; hence its global appeal.

One has reason to believe that the discovery by an African practitioner of herbal medicine of a scientifically approved cure for the deadly disease HIV/AIDS would instantly have a metacontextual recognition. It would undoubtedly become global, as all the inhabitants of the globe recognized the importance of this cure and would want to participate in its expansion and use. Far-reaching and comprehensive metacontextuality is the explanation for the global dominance of the ideas, values, and institutions fashioned by some particular peoples, cultures, or times of history. But this presupposes an open field of universality, to be populated by contributions from the various cultures evolved by humankind. This being so, it is possible for every culture, including those of Africa, to make contributions to the global system, whether in the field of ideas, values, institutions, etc., and for that contribution to gain appreciation and recognition far beyond the confines of its origin.

Appropriating and integrating the products of a culture will result in participating in the benefits that come with those products. The assumption here is that the things that are appropriated from a culture are things that are considered worthwhile by the participants of the appropriating culture, things they consider beneficial to their lives. When many cultures or nations enjoy the products of a culture (or, a group of cultures), those products, we say, are, or have become, global. Globalization thus involves participation in the appreciation and enjoyment of the products of a culture or group of cultures. But this kind of participation must be active, not passive. In passive participation in regard to the process of globalization, the participants merely look on as spectators, while enjoying the fruits of the creative enterprise of others; there is lack of concern for making a contribution. Passive participation results in the marginalization of a culture, reducing it to the fringes of global activities or processes: cultural, intellectual, economic, scientific, technological. In this case, marginalization would, at least in part, have been the consequence of some internal incapacity or a debilitating, bizarre mentality of the participants of the culture.

In active participation, on the other hand, the participants not only successfully appropriate, i.e., make their own, the cultural products of others, but they also contribute (or make the effort to contribute) in their own fashion to some spheres of the human activity. The degree of excellence must be not merely appreciated but appropriated by many of the cultures of the world. Active participation in the globalization process will result not only in contributing to the global cultural output, but also in being involved in the vertical as well as horizontal expansion of some idea or discovery of global importance. Ideally, all human cultures should be active participants in the globalization process, not mere spectators or consumers of the products of others. No human society—not even a previously colonized society—is eternally condemned to be a mere passive participant in the evolution of a globalizing culture, unless it itself decides to be so. The reason is that all men are endowed with creative talents and faculties. The robust exercise of these talents and faculties will make possible the creation of cultural products that have qualities that can appeal to many others outside the culture (s) that created those products. What I have said about appropriation and participation points up the quintessence of globalization. This is the volitional drawing upon a system of ideas, values or practices evolved another culture or society on the basis of its worth and functional characteristics.

The element of volition is of the last consequence. Without this element i.e., where a society is forced by threats and conquest or imposition of some kind to depend on a system, the globalization process becomes vulgar rather than ideal, and without depth. Ideal globalization requires that nations or societies have the opportunity to choose which elements or features of an encountered culture they find attractive and consider worth adoption.

It is interesting to note that, while bemoaning the consequences of globalization on the arts and cultures of Black and African peoples, the participants in the symposium referred to above, some of whose observations I find overstated and objectionable, asserted curiously enough "That Africa has, through its music, made positive impact on the musical sensibilities of world cultures." This assertion, which is at variance with some of their own observations, indicates that the arts and cultures of a people can be developed, despite the process of globalization, to a level of excellence sufficient to have positive impact on others. In other words, the exercise of a people’s musical talents—and, for that matter, of their endowments generally—cannot in any way be hamstrung by the spread of various ideas and cultural creations which is what globalization is really about. On the contrary, the culture of a people may in fact be enriched by appropriating elements from other sources. The historical background of any human culture is complex in terms of its sources. The growth of a human culture can be helped through rubbing shoulders with other cultures and appropriating from them elements considered desirable by the appropriating culture. Which elements to appropriate from an alien culture or cultures is a matter of choice. In a non-colonial situation, such a choice can be said to be a real choice that any people or nation can make of its own volition.

Globalization should not detract from the preservation or pursuit of local or national cultures, for it is not aimed at cultural uniformity or conformity. Globalization will not negatively affect every sphere of the cultural life of a people. It will not, for instance, prevent Ghanaians from celebrating their cherished annual festivals if they choose to, any more than it will prevent the Irish in New York and Boston from celebrating St. Patrick’s Day, or the Japanese from celebrating the Shinto festival.

Globalization appears to be concerned with basic needs and wants that are not only common, but also intrinsic to human fulfillment. The particularities of cultures will remain largely unscathed in spite of globalization. It will, indeed, be most appropriate for globalization not to pursue a monochromic culture, but to allow the exercise of the artistic talents of individuals in the various societies of the world. Imagine a world in which the ballet or the high-life is the only dance form, or the musical pieces of a Mozart or an Ephraim Amu (Ghanaian music composer) exhaust the musical productions and experiences of the inhabitants of the world: such an artistic or aesthetic world would not only be drab, but would forever cripple creativity. It would be worthwhile, then, for local or national arts and cultures to be seriously developed in order to make contributions to, and thus have positive and palpable impact upon, the aesthetic cultures of the globalized world.

With all this said, however, one cannot fail to see that the process of globalization will involve the homogenization of cultures in some respects. This immediately leads to a set of questions, important and apt. Won’t the prospect of the homogenization of cultures at the global level conflict with the hope of preserving local or national cultures and identities? Won’t homogenization involve the absorption of local or national cultures and so make it impossible to preserve them? Won’t there, therefore, be a tension between the homogenization of cultures and the preservation of local cultures and identities? The answer to this set of questions is no. There would be no tension or conflict between global cultural homogenization and preservation of local cultures and identities, because homogenization will occur at the level of values that human beings have in common and the basic human needs that will need to be fulfilled, irrespective of the particularities of local or national cultures. Thus, oriented essentially to the fundamental values and needs of the inhabitants of the earth, globalization would allow a capacious space for the expression of diversity and the preservation and promotion of national cultural identities. On this showing, while the homogenized global culture would include such features as respect for human rights, democratic governance (with possible local nuances in form), market economic systems (with possible local variations), the pursuit of science and technology, and shared understandings of certain basic human problems. But it would not include such things as dance forms, festivals, inheritance systems, certain social structures, ceremonies for the dead, and many other customary practices of a local culture. The latter, i.e., dance forms, festivals, etc. would not be swept away by the homogenizing process. Thus, globalization will not destroy local or national cultures and identities, even though one is not necessarily implying that national cultures and identities would, in all of their features, remain permanently the same. Cultural globalization will involve—and will limit itself to—the former, i.e., to such things as human values or human rights, technology, free market systems, etc.

The process of globalization was and is to bring about the spreading and sharing of ideas among the peoples of the world, to put the achievements and discoveries of a culture or group of cultures at the disposal of other cultures, with the consequent participation in the enjoyment of those benefits and the enhancement of the general well-being of the inhabitants of the earth. Thus, it was and can be expected to be a good process that will bring about positive results for all people. Yet, in economic terms it does not seem to have functioned in this way, benefiting all people, rich and poor. Like other human ideas, globalization has been interpreted and pursued by some people in a manner that serves their interests to the detriment of the interests of others. Thus, an originally good idea has in some respects been skewed and bungled. Consequently, globalization has met with some amount of skepticism, opposition and discontent.

It is a matter of common knowledge that over the past few years there have been demonstrations at the annual general meetings of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization (WTO), and the eight highly industrialized nations referred to as the ‘G.8’. The demonstrations are against globalization. In this case, however, they are specifically against economic globalization—in particular the exploitative and selfish manner in which the wealthy, industrialized nations of the world carry on their economic and trade measures and practices, which are believed to have deleterious consequences on the economies of the developing nations of the world. Thus, the demonstrators are giving expression to the discontents of the economic features of globalization, such as the industrialized nations’ closing their markets to products from the developing nations, while insisting that the latter open their markets for the manufactured products of the former.

Globalization appears on the surface as a descriptive term that merely says that ideas, values, and institutions evolved by specific cultures of the world spread to all other parts of the world, making it possible for these other cultures to appropriate them for their own purposes. But the term is essentially a normative term. It says that nations or cultures ought to come together, share ideas, values, and participate in the benefits made available to the inhabitants of the earth through the cultural, scientific, technological, and economic enterprises and achievements of the various peoples and cultures of the world. Such benefits are there for the taking by those who may consider it worthwhile to do so. True, discontents have been associated with economic globalization in particular resulting from the misinterpretation and misapplication of an otherwise good idea. Yet it can hardly be denied that the various peoples of the world, in the long run, stand more to gain from globalization than not. Globalization offers great opportunities for global interactions not only in the fields of economics, but also of science, technology, and culture.

Economic discontents can be dealt with if those who generate them through their actions see themselves as bound by shared commitments and by a core of common values that we may call human values, if they allow such values to guide and influence their thought and action, and if they recognize that the basic desires and needs of human beings are common and so require certain common conditions to survive and flourish. The horizontalization of the benefits of globalization then is a function ultimately of the recognition and application of human values—values that are intrinsic to the fulfillment of human life. Fundamentally, globalization is the closer integration of nations and peoples of the world, yes; but it should be integrated also with fundamental values. For, after all, the impulse to globalization was basically moral, namely, to make life better for all.

I have in this lecture attempted to understand globalization, a process that makes possible the appropriation and consequent spreading to many regions and places of the ideas, values, institutions, and techniques evolved or created by some particular culture (or, group of cultures). The appropriation was grounded in the acknowledged importance, interest, relevance, and functionality of these cultural products. Ripples of the process of globalization have for centuries been heard on the terrain of human history, making it an historical process not new to the human species, even though it can be said to have reached a crescendo in recent times. I have pointed out that the characteristics of the human species, which would include differences in talents and endowments and the human yearning for comfort, constitute the background of globalization. Given that globalization is tethered to humanity itself and to human desires and aspirations, it does not appear to be something that can ever be jettisoned, despite the genuine discontents—generally of economic nature—that have been associated with it. These will have to be dealt with satisfactorily if globalization is to be beneficial to all the inhabitants of the earth. If human values were globalized (i.e., recognized and respected globally) in tandem with economic globalization, then injustices and inequalities would be removed or at least reduced to the minimum, and anti-globalization protests would be neutralized.

I wish to end this lecture with two verses of an Indian religious poem:

We are the birds of the same nest

We may wear different feathers

We may speak different tongues

We may believe in different religions

We may belong to different cultures

Yet, we share the same home, Earth.

Born on the same planet

Covered by the same skies

Gazing at the same stars

Breathing the same air

we must learn to live together

Or, miserably perish together

For, a person can live individually

If globalization is pursued humanely—with due consideration for the interests and needs of all the inhabitants of the earth—and if it uses human values as its compass as it journeys through human history, this process will make for collective human good and survival on this planet.