This essay explores globalization as a multifaceted worldwide phenomenon with both positive and negative dimensions. Using conflict theory as a lens, the paper examines two specific issues: the ongoing debate over constructing a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border to curb illegal immigration, and the exploitative treatment of maquiladora women factory workers in Mexico. The author argues that while globalization enables technological interconnectedness, it also produces class struggle, labor exploitation, and contentious immigration policy. Drawing on Marxian conflict theory, the essay evaluates the ethical and practical tensions embedded in these issues, concluding that one's overall assessment of globalization depends largely on perspective and position within the global economic order.
Globalization is ever present in today's world. It is found in our ability to speak with a person across the world in minutes, in media coverage of distant lands and their strife, and in the constant reality of outsourcing. Globalization is, thus, a phenomenon that is all around us, yet many do not truly understand what it means. It signifies far more than outsourcing and an increase in technology — it is truly defined by the ongoing interconnectedness of the world. Yet this interconnectedness is not always positive. This paper examines the debates surrounding a proposed fence along the U.S.-Mexico border and the treatment of maquiladora women workers in Mexico, drawing on conflict theory to illuminate the negative dimensions of globalization alongside its benefits.
The first topic related to globalization is the ongoing debate over whether a fence across the U.S.-Mexico border would be effective in curbing immigration into the United States. Various camps offer pro and con arguments, some of which are compelling, while others — such as comparisons of the proposed fence to the Berlin Wall — miss the mark entirely. A border fence and the Berlin Wall serve fundamentally different purposes: the Wall was built to keep people in, whereas a border fence would be intended to regulate who comes in from outside.
A reasonable position is that constructing such a fence would have a curbing effect on immigration. At the same time, immigration itself — and particularly the right of a person to pursue life, liberty, and happiness — deserves respect, and it is precisely this aspiration that drives many Mexican immigrants to cross the border. While there are concerns about the concentration of undocumented immigrants in certain regions of the United States, this does not necessarily mean that a fence alone will solve the underlying problem, even if it reduces it to some degree. As Messerli (2011) outlines, the border fence debate involves complex trade-offs between security, economics, and human rights.
There is also a practical argument in favor of a border fence: it could curb the illegal activity of those who smuggle immigrants into the United States, and it could help create a more orderly process for identifying people who genuinely deserve entry. This would allow authorities to better distinguish between individuals truly seeking asylum and those coming to work temporarily before returning to Mexico. In order to sift through these categories more effectively, a fence may serve as a useful policy instrument, even if it is not a comprehensive solution.
Another problem closely related to globalization is the treatment of women working in maquiladoras — export-oriented factories located in Mexico, predominantly along the U.S.-Mexico border. These women face increasingly harsh conditions, in part because their labor is constantly compared to even cheaper labor available in Asian countries, driving a race to the bottom in wages and workplace standards. As a result, they are made to work in deplorable conditions, subjected to segregation, and forced to live in deep poverty. In this respect, both the border fence issue and the maquiladora issue contribute to a negative view of globalization's human consequences.
"Marxian class struggle and ethical dimensions of globalization"
You’re 72% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.