Do We Need Globalization

Global Communication With the rise of globalization over the past century and the advancements made by communications technology, it is only natural that global communication should become a topic of concern: with so many people of so many cultures and languages coming together, connecting in the virtual space and even working together on virtual teams (Klitmøller, Schneider & Jonsen, 2015), the impact of so much interconnectedness among diverse populations was bound to become an issue.

As Masoom, Abdula and Islam (2016) point out, the problem extends beyond the mere agency of language; it goes on to include the issue of how to define social values, which are important for many nations and states around the world but which may differ in the global context. For instance, what is deemed a social value in the West may be deemed a social problem in the East (i.e., in China or the Philippines or in the Middle East).

The rise of global communication has not just lifted barriers in terms of how people communicate, live, share information and work together: it has also raised questions about how to view one another, how to live in a global society, and how to respect other cultures and cultural values even when they conflict with one’s own.

This paper will analyze how global communication has created an environment in which people are now closer than ever before yet also less certain about their place in the world and what it means to have a national or cultural identity in the global context. Globalization has indeed created its own culture—a global culture in which appreciation of common interests (business, success, peace, advancement) have mutually beneficial outcomes for all invested.

However, it has also led to the creation of a culture that views the global stage as something of a problem—a stage that is set for a major showdown. If the latest trade war between the U.S.

and China, or the latest round of sanctions against the Venezuelan government, in which both China and Russia (another “enemy” of the U.S.) are heavily invested in, shows anything it shows that the global stage is one upon which there is soon to be a terrific fight, one way or the other.

Already the pieces are in place and even across Europe there is a rise in nationalistic politics, from Italy to England to Hungary to Spain: the people who have been brought together via the wonders of global communication that have arisen through developments like social media and the information highway are now beginning to feel that in spite of their closeness with the rest of humanity, they still want to retain their own values, their own culture, their own unique way of life.

The question is: is such acceptable in a world where global communication has introduced a global culture and a global stage upon which there may soon be one dominant actor? Even businesses are now running up against the inherent problems that have been exposed via the rise of global communications. Khojastehpour, Ferdous and Polonsky (2015) point out that there are many complexities in managing domestic and multinational corporate brands simply because what makes one brand appealing in one state may not be what makes it appealing in another state.

The reason is simple—not every population has lived the same life, shared the same history, or indulged the same belief systems. In spite of the way the ease of global communications may make it seem, people are only united on the surface of things. Down below they are definitely less able to understand and appreciate both small and big differences in outlooks and experiences.

What might make one want to be a Communist or a Buddhist in the East could be what makes a Westerner rage and pray to God that his country build a strong military just in case it is needed. To overcome these difficulties, Constantinescu (2015) has developed a theory that fewer international languages are required—i.e., a culling of the herd of languages is necessary. The fewer languages available on the global stage, the less complexity and confusion there may be.

The fewer opportunities there are to discuss in a multitude of different words with all their different suggestive powers and meanings, the less likely there is to be dispute. Constantinescu (2015) suggests that in order for the global culture that global communications and globalization have helped to bring about to succeed for everyone there has to be a coming to terms with the matter of language. Language is the great barrier that continues to keep people divided.

It is the representation of history, of shared experience, and of values which have been given words and meanings unshared and unfelt by others of other cultures and nations and pasts. For a new era of global culture to transpire, it has to grounded in a global language that all can speak—and only through such a global language can the new global culture become the dominant culture and override the other cultures that drive that smaller nations and states all over the world to seek to assert themselves.

But is Constantinescu’s (2015) theory practical or ethical? Were one to argue that based on purely utilitarian grounds the idea of a global language taking over in the field of global communication is a moral one, one would still have to show that the majority of people around the world accepted it and would embrace it. Barring that embrace, the language would more than likely be rejected.

The only alternative would be to play the long game and have the language gradually be accepted over time by each and every succeeding generation, as each and every succeeding generation becomes more and more entwined in the global culture. Surely, it would facilitate the aims of the multinational and international businesses, which would benefit stupendously from a global language that all people everywhere could speak. It would reduce complications in business meetings among people of diverse backgrounds.

It would reduce risk of malinvestment in foreign lands, as the global language would reinforce the global culture, which would reinforce the ability of the global corporation to provide goods and services to the global community in a uniform manner.

But would such a feat be conducive to the human experience, which has benefited from the richness of diversity for so many thousands of years? Would it be something that even succeeding generations would be willing to embrace? Global communication has thus introduced many questions and issues that still need to be.