Rethinking Globalization: Glocalization/Grobalization and Something/Nothing

Abstract

The concept of “grobalization” is proposed to complement the popular idea of “glocalization.” In addition, a sociologically relevant concept of “nothing” is defined and juxtaposed with “something.” Two continua are created—grobalization‐glocalization and nothing‐something—and their intersection creates four quadrants: the grobalization of nothing, glocalization of nothing, grobalization of something, and glocalization of something. Of greatest importance are the grobalization of nothing and the glocalization of something, as well as the conflict between them. The grobalization of nothing threatens to overwhelm the latter and everything else. Other issues discussed include the loss of something in a world increasingly dominated by nothing, the disappearance of the local, and the relationship of the triumph of nothing to political economy, especially social class. I conclude that no social class is immune to this process and that the poor and lower classess may be “doomed” to something.

Dilemmas of Development and the Reconstruction of Fashion

“…As such a conscious effort is often made to source only found or discarded materials and to practice local production by the establishment of design studios equipped with appropriate machinery. In many ways this form of production conforms to Ritzer's notion of glocalisation by being distinct in nature and similarly subject to pressures of grobalisation in the form of mass acceptance, availability and price (Ritzer, 2004).…”

“…It is often undertaken as an alternative to conventional modes of consuming new clothes and also a way of producing pieces that can be brought to the market place in new forms thus prolonging the natural life of the original piece (Ketchupclothes, AntiForm, Good One, Junky Styling, von Busch, Redmuttha etc.) In Ritzer's terms turning a 'nothing' into a 'something' by a process of glocalisation (Ritzer, 2004). At the root of this activism is often the desire to investigate anti-consumption approaches to clothing design, social enterprise and ways in which people are able to have without buying, make rather without consuming.…”

“…Sharing and engaging with global products has fostered a homogeny that has given an impression of harmony, that we are all the same, that old differences and conflicts are dyfunct, we can be like the 1980's Benetton adverts if only we bow down to the god of globalisation. Ritzer (2003) provided a compelling discussion into ways of viewing items made under the guise of globalization citing two dependent but very distinct processes namely 'glocalisation' and 'grobalisation'. These he argued gave way to the production of 'something' and 'nothing' respectively.…”

“…It was found more likely to be undertaken under social enterprise structures that placed emphasis on the integrity of the product and its links to social, political and cultural values of the producer 2 . The resultant 'something' being seen as intrinsically more valuable and distinctive but potentially of much less appeal to a wider audience, usually due to cost, distribution and availability (Ritzer, 2003). There are obviously value judgements embedded in these thoughts, and critics have highlighted how in many instances the poor, whom globalization was meant to help, do not perceive the products from grobalisation as 'nothing' and don't have the resources to engage with the glocal products (Rumford, 2008).…”

Küresel Markalar, Yerelli̇k Ve Kültürel Göstergeler

“…Mc Donald's'ın dünya genelinde melez, glokal yaklaşımlarla Kore'deki menülerinde "Kimchi Burger", Hollanda'daki menülerinde bira ve Fransa'daki menülerinde şaraba yer vermesi toplumların yerel yiyecek tercihlerine ve değerlerine göre hizmet vermesine örnek olarak gösterilebilir (Alden ve diğerleri, 2006:227-228). Ritzer (2003) çalışmasında bu durumu; "global ve yerelin birbiri içine geçmesinin farklı coğrafi alanlarda aynı sonuçlar doğurması" anlamında tanımlamıştır. Bu görüş global heterojenliği vurgulamaktadır ve batının özellikle de Amerika'nın politik, ekonomik ve kültürel homojenliğe yön verdiğine ilişkin görüşe karşı çıkmaktadır (Ritzer, 2003:193).…”