Globalization: A Triumph of Ambiguity

Abstract

This article is a critical analysis of the definition of globalization in sociological studies. It argues that sociologists, unlike economists, have not achieved a commonly accepted definition of globalization. This seriously hinders the development of empirical studies. The ambiguity of the concept of globalization is rooted in three dialectics: globalization-as-a-process vs globalization-as-a-condition; globalizationas-reality vs globalization-as-futurology and one-dimensional globalization vs multi-dimensional globalization. These dialectics are rarely made explicit in different studies on globalization, which contributes to an accumulation of confusion rather than an accumulation of knowledge. The article aims to provide a theoretical framework in which concepts of globalization can be positioned through the formal analysis of a commonly used definition. Conceptual limitations that arise from the choice of a specific concept are highlighted, such as the underestimation of the present when globalization is considered a process, the neglect of internal contradictions when globalization is seen as a multidimensional concept; and the dangers of determinism and ignorance of unique features when the processes of globalization are defined by their sole destination. It challenges the sociological community to position research on globalization within this proposed framework.

Rethinking the 'global' in global health: a dialectic approach

“…In this context (i.e. in the 'globalization' discourse), Van Der Bly bemoans the triumph of ambiguity in social science [ 91 ] and lauds the (apparently) clear definition of 'globalization' by economists. Referring to the World Bank, she states that '[e]conomists seem to have succeeded in reaching more or less a commonly accepted definition of globalization, namely as international economic integration that can be pursued through policies of 'openness', the liberalization of trade, investment and finance, leading to an 'open economy'' [ 91 ].…”

Wikipedia as a space for discursive constructions of globalization

“…Attempts at defining globalization have resulted in an extensive, multidisciplinary, and frequently conflictive literature (Al-Rodhan and Stoudmann, 2006; Kilminster, 1997; Van Der Bly, 2005; Walck and Bilimoria, 1995). Although many authors seem to coincide in recognizing the complex and multidimensional nature of the idea of globalization, they generally ‘solve’ the challenge of generating a comprehensive definition by delimiting instead the scope of the field in which they propose their own articulation of the term.…”

“…Our article intends to make a contribution to the vast literature on globalization, as well as to the emerging literature on WP, by comparing WP entries in multiple languages for the term ‘globalization.’ This constitutes the first phase of a multilayered project that will also explore a group of notions related to globalization, including glocalization, cosmopolitanism, universalism, localism, particularism, multiculturalism, hegemony, colonialism, hybridity, identity, interdependence, and sovereignty. While glocalization and some of its associated terms have not been recognized as the most disputed WP entries, controversy over the definition and scope of those notions has sustained a considerable scholarly production to date (Al-Rodhan and Stoudmann, 2006; Van Der Bly, 2005). To what extent is it possible to identify, however, similar struggles over the meaning of globalization within the open and plural context of WP?…”

Internet access in Brazil: Social context and science and technology professionals

“…The use of the Internet can be seen as a condition for participating in the knowledge society. This usage is an evidence of connectivity and, moreover, indicates participation in the globalization process, which can be defined as “complex connectivity” and seen as an empirical condition of the modern world (Van Der Bly, 2005).…”