Reading 1: What is globalization? MINJI JEONG

 1. summary

     "What is globalization?" This one question contains a variety of topics, such as "global governance, global citizenship, human rights, and transnational connections." There are various perspectives on the definition of 'globalization'. This can be seen as natural because the position of accepting globalization varies depending on the situation of countries such as advanced countries, developing countries, and underdeveloped countries. Velho (1997) looked at globalization from an object-oriented perspective. This is characterized by the idea of globalization as a single process, as Archimedes' point of view. In addition, I thought that research on globalization leads to a mixture of academic orientations, and the debate on this leads to interdisciplinary development. In fact, research on globalization has been studied in various fields such as religion, sociology, and anthropology.

     Huntington argues that the conflict of civilization stems from, among other things, a profound difference in the concepts of the nature and purpose of human life. The so-called 'crash' is a process that makes it completely meaningful. Looking at this from the perspective of globalization theory, it can be seen as a kind of mistake to not fully understand the cultural aspects of globalization.

     Many books and articles on globalization stipulate that there are at least three main dimensions of economy, politics, and culture, not written by sociologists. The cultural latter has come to the fore in part because of concerns about economic globalization. There's been a lot of talk about what Ritzer called influential McDonaldization (2000). While Ritzer did not entirely explicitly refer to McDonald's as a form of cultural globalization or cultural imperialism, at least that idea is latent in his significant contributions.

     Given all that is said about us living in the current global era (Albrow 1996), it is not surprising that the historical perspective of our time is greatly influenced by this enhanced global sense (Robertson 1983). At any point in historical time, the issues that draw our attention to the past are so much structured by what we think are the main features and problems of the present. In this way, a significant number of historians and social scientists with historical minds have become very interested in the current globalization, more specifically the era of great connectivity and global consciousness.

     At the heart of our attempt to characterize globalization is: First, globalization consists mainly of two main directions: increasing global connectivity and increasing global awareness. Consciousness does not mean consensus, it simply means a shared sense of the world as a whole. Second, globalization has a specific form that has been completed with the establishment of the United Nations organization for all purposes and purposes.

     We also stressed the importance of not embodying globalization. Globalization is not a thing, it's not a thing. Recognizing the conceptual state, not the ontological issue, is of paramount importance. This is very important given the global nature of interest in globalization, discourse and analysis. This debate brings us to a sharper focus on what we describe as the inevitable competitive nature of the globalization debate.

2. Interesting items

     I learned more deeply about globalization. The first thing I thought after reading the article was that I had accepted the word 'globalization' without any resistance. It has been thought that it is simply a leap into a society with broken national boundaries and hyperconnectedness. Therefore, the most interesting thing was the various perspectives on globalization. It was convenient for someone, but I didn't think it could have been violent for someone. It made me reflect on myself who always accepted social changes without filtering and accepted new words without questioning them.

3. Discussion point

     The author says that swimming in a sea of cultural relativism should push out the views of those who prefer it in order to fully look at globalization. I know that many forms of injustice and exploitation are prevalent in the world, and they require constant attention, but in order to correct the problem, it is the view that the discussion and justice of globalization are the first to be set right. But can a definition without someone's view be called a full definition? Isn't that just a subjective opinion?