Globalization: the Americanization of the World?

Andrew J. Bacevich, the Statesn conglomerate The Realities and Consequences of U. S. Diplomacy (Harvard University Press, 2002). Joseph E. Stiglitz, Making sphericisation Work (Norton, 2007). James L. Watson, ed. , Golden Arches eastern hemisphere McDonalds in einsteinium Asia (2nd edition, Stanford University Press, 2007). Robert McCrum, Globish How the side Language Became the Worlds Language (Norton, 2010). F beed Zakaria, The Post-the Statesn World (Norton, 2009). orbiculateisation is the integration of the terra firmas different regions into a spherical finis, economy, geo-political argonna, and colloquy network.It is the process by which the lines of nation states atomic number 18 blurred, smoothed over by novel planetaryistic institutions. globalization is the undeni competent destination of human taradiddle and as such permeates nearly every facet of it. It is liquid in this sense, flowing and changing to fill in wherever it flows, and thither can be no doubt s of the tide of globalizations source The joined States of America. At first glance, the distinctions surrounded by globalisation and Americanization are almost imperceptible. Big Mac, Coke, and Disney (Watson, 5) are as recogniz able to Chinese and Russians as they are to Americans.The World argot and IMFs policies are to a greater extent or less set by Washington. The American military has the most top executiveinessful armies and fleets the man has ever seen, and has in effect dominated the world from World War I onwards. The joined States commonwealth which is less than 5% of the world population produces more(prenominal) or less a pass of global GDP. Such realities might lead one to the conclusion that Globalization and Americanization are synonymous, entirely is this actually the case? In the discussion of the books at hand, globalization as it pertains to Americanization is made evident.Andrew Bacevich contends that the joined States is the autochthonic compon ent of new-fang lead globalization. It has capitalized on the opportunities it has been presented with in roam to create a system of global politics and frugals that is of the most good to itself, all the while package it in altruistic rhetoric. Joseph Stiglitz contends that the joined States has conducted globalization by dominating the institutions of world governance and finance. It has done so to the detriment of other nations and as such, the American means of globalization is non the best strategy if accredited globalization is the desired end. James Watson holds that McDonalds, once as iconic of America as the stars and stripes and one of the leading meanss of globalization, has been assimilated into umpteen local cultures. As such, it no longer represents the Americanized aspect of globalization, but is rather an international institution and an agent of globalization at capacious. nevertheless, some of the seemingly obvious aspects of American led globalization are not as American as they may seem today.Robert McCrum keep ups that English world the worlds phraseology arises not from American economic and foreign policies, but is rather a bequest of the British Empire. Furthermore, that America is not spreading its culture through with(predicate) English, it is completely a tool to be used for communication. Finally, Fareed Zakaria demonstrates that we are departing from a unipolar world dominated by America. Although it pass on continue to play a leading situation in the globalization of the world, the rise of the rest is decrease its role and the unify States is no longer solely holding the reins of globalization.Andrew Bacevichs assertion is that the idea of the American empire differs only in stress from traditional imperialism. Its function, enriching the mother country, is precisely the same but employs a soma of techniques to profit this less evident. The joined States embraces its role in history of exerting power only as a last resort. Only when circumstances all necessitated it would America resort to using Theodore Roosevelts proverbial big continue (Bacevich 117).The Spanish American war began only when General Valeriano Butcher Weyler could be tolerated no more. World War I was entered only because of the unprovoked German aggression upon the Lusitania. Cold War military and political endeavors were nobly pursue to defend against Communist aggression. Yet Andrew Bacevich rejects this view. He argues that this myth of the reluctant abilityAmericans asserting themselves only under duress and then always for the noblest purposes (Bacevich 7-8) is barely that, a myth.That Roosevelts reportedly soft speaking and big asidesmart carrying America uses the reluctant superpower myth only in society to justify acts of self- fire. Perhaps the more fitting description of America by Theodore Roosevelt is his affirmation that of course, our whole national history has been one of expansion (Bacevich, 7). The United States has conscientiously exerted itself at every opportunity in secernate to explode its global economic and strategic interests. Americas superpower lieu and role as an agent of globalization is driven entirely by the machinery of self-interest.Bacevich writes that ever increasing prosperity (Bacevich, 85) is the primary national interest. Furthermore, as measuring rod Clinton stated Growth at home depends upon growth abroad. Of course, there is lighten the legitimate idealistic side of globalization as the ultimate bargain of peace, prosperity, and democracy (Bacevich, 42), but Americas actual interest and role in globalization is to lucubrate the American economy. In other words, Americas aims in globalization are to benefit the world yes, but benefit the United States most of all (Bacevich, 96).The American economic empire, brought about by the domestic desire for continued growth is the overarching American interest in the realm of globalization. The fa ct that where interests were slight, the United States seldom bothered to make the effort to assert any substantial leverage (Bacevich, 107) vividly illustrates this. Considering the artificial economic incentives of Africa, it consistently ranks dead last in U. S. strategic priorities (Bacevich, 107). Now, suffer into account the economic and political incentives of Europes markets and the Middle Easts oil reserves.Based on US military intervention, it is recounting that conditions that in the Balkans or the Persian Gulf the United States found unbearable were in Africa merely unfortunate (Bacevich, 108). The United States found it necessary to militarily intervene in the former two interest-rife locations, and merely sent assistant and rhetorical sympathies to the economically barren latter. The portrait of Americanization and Globalization that Andrew Bacevich paints ack straightwayledges one of the primary facets upon which the two collide, the global economy and the United States role at heart it.To cover that America has been the driving force behind the creation and continuance of fresh open market operations, and to deny that it has done so for the betterment of its sustain economic interests is to deny all but the rhetoric of American imperialism. The United States did not deal, as the historian Ernest May naively stated, greatness paper bag upon it (Bacevich, 7), but rather calculatedly and ingeniously shaped its responses to global politics and economics in order to integrate and derive the most benefit from the new broadend economy.Joseph Stiglitz, rather explicitly argues that globalization should not mean the Americanization of either economic policy or culture, but it often doesand that has caused resentment (Stiglitz, 9). He argues that the take about American unilateralism, about the worlds most right on country imposing its will on others (Stiglitz, 5) is fast becoming substantiated. patronage economic indicators such as GDP sug gesting that poor countries seem to be improving, globalization might be creating rich countries with poor masses (Stiglitz, 9).As Stiglitz argues, the United States goal of making Americanization a component of globalization is causing this. Particularly responsible has been the Washington Consensus, a set of development promoting policies created between the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the U. S. Treasury. The former two of these are basically international lending bodies, delivering short and long term loans, respectively, to countries in need.The policies outlined are downscaling of government, deregulation, and rapid liberalization and privatization (Stiglitz, 17). Although these are the characteristics of Hesperian countries, western countries did not become this way through the shock therapy of instant implementation. sooner they came from a drawn out progression of events The implication is that the United States, in attempting to make its politic al and economic policies integral concepts of the grander one of globalization, is actually number countries off to the Americanized aspect of globalization.Similarly, the manner in which the United States encourages international look at to be conducted is a hindrance to globalization at large at bottom poor countries. Stiglitz writes that countries often need time to develop in order to compete with foreign companies (Stiglitz, 70). Yet, The United States and the international trade organizations which it dominates oppose tariffs for many industries on the grounds of it inhibiting trade and not allowing the all-wise power of the market to realize the economy.However, most successful countries did in fact develop behind protectionist barriers and climbed the course of development. The anti-tariff policies that soundly developed countries advocate are viewed as act to kick the ladder away so others cant pass (Stiglitz, 71). The uncertain effectiveness of these western policie s, policies necessary for maturation countries to get help from the IMF and World Bank, which they almost undeniably need, calls into question the western policies which they dont necessarily need, namely democracy.Stiglitz writes that IMF conditionality undermines democracy (Stiglitz, 56), that although globalization has helped spread the idea of democracy, it has, paradoxically, been managed in a way that undermines democratic processes within countries (Stiglitz, 12). America, in efforts to save countries from expenditure time on the economic policy learning curve, in human race ends up harming them. As such, the United States inadequacy for creating economic agendas for developing countries is a paradox of its own success.He posits that in order for the developing countries to benefit from globalization, the agenda of globalization needs to depart from the Americanized version, and instead set out the voices of developing nations (be) heard more clearly (Stiglitz, 98). If th e hardline factors of globalizationeconomics, geo-political military assertions, and international governance are the easiest to assess the American-ness ofthe soft aspects heathenish and linguistic patterns, are the most difficult.James Watson contends that in some respect, global corporations gain their multinational appeal simply by being American by being an image of ultramodernity. However, he also holds that components of globalization that were once considered agents of Americanization are now accepted as local. Japanese McDonalds have clearly capitalized on the fact that it is associated with American culture (Watson, 172). In China, McDonalds promotes the corporations image as an exemplar of modernity (Watson, 42).McDonalds in these countries represents what the West represents, or more accurately, what the locals believe the West to representthe promise of modernization (Watson, 41). It has gone so far as to even shift cultural eating habits. In these locations, McDona lds sells more than hamburgers. It sells America as an ideology, a place of modernity, cleanliness, efficiency, and equality. As Watson would contend in China and Japan, McDonalds represents the convergence of the idealistic facets of Americanization and globalization the United States as a favorable model to be emulated.Yet in the case of McDonalds in Hong Kong, it is not considered an example of American-inspired international culture or perceived as an exotic or extraneous institution (Watson, 107). Rather it is a fully assimilated part of Hong Kongs modern culture. As Watson writes, the transnational is the local. The younger generation could not imagine breeding without it (Watson, 109). Thusly, at least(prenominal) in Hong Kong, the American aspect of McDonalds globalization has faded with its assimilation into the national identity. Although American, it no longer Americanizes or suggests that the American odel is something good and unique that should be followed. McDona lds in Korea however suggests a different view of Americanization. Some people hold that eating McDonalds hamburgers is tantamount to treason and loss of Korean identity (Watson, 158) At least here, to some degree McDonalds is viewed as an American crusader of cultural imperialisma new form of exploitation that results from the export of popular culture from the United States (Watson, 5). McDonalds represents a conquering American agent seek to enthrall and draw in cultures to that of its global Americanized one.Another phenomenon of globalization, one might argue American-driven globalization, is English becoming the language of the world. Robert McCrum argues however that this is not a legacy of the American century, but rather a legacy of the British Empire. America has helped to propagate it but it in fact is originally an agent of British-ization. McCrum writes The nineteenth (century) was, supremely, the century of British English first the Kings and then the Queens but it also witnessed the beginnings of the worlds English (McCrum, 174).English spread to the earth not as a result of Americas dominance in the 20th century, but rather Britains far flung immigration in the 19th. McCrum contends that this is what made Jean-Paul Nerrieres global English (Globish) so accessible to so many people across the world. It is removed from American influence in that it was not assert upon the world by America. Rather because of Britain and certain historical tilts towards English speaking, it simply fell into place.In essence, McCrum asserts that British English lay the foundation for English to become, as John Adams wrote in 1780, in the next and succeeding centuriesthe language of the world (McCrum, 105), and as such is not truly an assertion of American influence. However, McCrums points are debatable. As a proud Englishman, he seems hold to assert the obvious role of Britain in making it a global language, but is less generous when it comes to the American as pects. Furthermore, his denial of English as a cultural force is problematic. The global media is dominated by America.The largest media conglomerates in the world are American. Ten of the highest twelve paid musicians in the world are American. McCrum seems to ignore the fact that media is one of the largest aspects of globalization, and that American influences dominate it. These have been the themes of globalization. The convergence of Americanization and globalization has dually permeated military affairs, economics, culture, and language. On the global stage, the United States has been the dominant allele player for over a century. However, to what extent will this remain true in the 21st century?Fareed Zakaria contends that it will, but will require a reassessment of the global community. Zakaria puts forth that we are now living through the third great power shift of the modern era (Zakaria, 2), not the decline of America but ratherthe rise of everyone else (Zakaria, 1). What this means for Globalization as it is linked to Americanization is that although the U. S. s role will still be there, it is diminishing. The historically United States dominated past has paved the way for this. Its spry efforts in globalizing the worlds consequence is the rise of the rest (Zakaria, 2).As Zakaria writes the United States succeeded in its great and historic missionit globalized the world. But along the wayit forgot to globalize itself (Zakaria, 48). The arising international order that Zakaria sees is a term invented by Samuel Huntington uni-multipolarity, which can be described as many powers and one super-power (Zakaria, 43). In the new international order, the United States will merely be a leading actor on a stage of many. The other actors are comprised of new powerful economiesChina, India, Brazil.The United States has been able to maintain its preeminence within globalization in the past but the changing realities of the global economic landscape will require according change from America. Zakaria lays out a series of principles that the United States should or must follow in order to maintain its position in the modern world as a chief agent of globalization. These principles recognize the changing landscape and suggest how America can perpetuate its interests, its goal of Americanization within globalization. Firstly, the United States must direct which policies it actively wants to pursue.The ambiguity of policy facing Iran and North Korea do not allow the United States to reach an attainable international goal. If the United States were to shape that they were simply proponents of regime change or policy change (that is, denuclearization) (Zakaria, 234) they could more efficiently define the changes they wish to see in the global community. Similarly, in order for the US to continue to blend Americanization with Globalization, they must set out broad rules and seek to cultivate its bilateral relationships with other nations.As Zak aria argues, if the U. S. has watertight relationships with other strong nations, better than anyone has with another, it gives the United States the greatest leverage maximise its ability to shape a peaceful and stable world (Zakaria, 242). The United States must also be careful in how it shapes its responses to international conflict. Legitimacy is power (Zakaria, 247) and the nature of the United States current conflicts are asymmetrical, meaning they are not facing conventional military forces or typical state actors.As Zakaria writes asymmetrical responses have become easier to kill and difficult to defeat (Zakaria, 244). Therefore in order to remain legitimate, to have the power to set the agenda, define a crisis, and mobilize support (Zakaria, 247) for the United States interests in globalization, reactions need to be shaped to fit the conflicts at hand. Overall, Zakaria contends that if the United States is not willing to change its policies and approach towards globaliza tion and the global community, it will no longer effectively be able to mesh Americanization with globalization.In the analysis of how linked globalization and Americanization are within the context of these books, a complex and comprehensive picture can be draw. The United States has been able to use globalization as a tool to create a global economic empire and cultural model. Through the capitalization of opportunities to expand its markets, packaged in its reluctant superpower myth, the United States has been able to assert itself internationally and accomplish its political and economic aims.However, the changing nature of the global landscape calls for a recalculation of how this strategy of self-interest can be perpetuated. Furthermore, the United States will have to make some concessions regarding its hegemony as other nations with large populations and strong economies grow in power and importance. Culturally, the United States benefited from the British Empires legacy of s preading English around the world. However, it has also been able to capitalize on this and further Americanize the world through the consequentially large English speaking media outlets.Multinational corporations such as McDonalds still possess their American identity abroad, but this is beginning to change in respect to the worlds youth. It is now dually perceived as a symbol of modernity (which sometimes equates to Americanization) but also a component of local culture. Therefore, whether globalization is the Americanization of the world seems to be a yes. The wall whether it will, or should continue to be, is still ongoing, and remains to be seen, dependent on how America conducts itself in the post-American World.