Technology's Role in Globalization.

This image gives us a pretty good understanding of the different concepts that globalization covers, and also shows technology's role. Technology has a role in all of these components.

The 'spreading of American culture' depends on technology, advertising, and the Internet.
'Increasing cross border exchange' depends on technology, as it facilitates the transfer of funds and information and facilitates communication between these borders.
I'm not sure what they mean by 'decreasing distance', but it has the word the Internet right under it and makes reference to jets, which are quite technological, so we can assume that that's the relationship. If I had to guess, I'd say that due to the increasing border exchanges and the other things I mentioned there, the 'distance' becomes obsolete.
'Increasing instantaneous communications' allows us to communicate on a political, professional and personal level.
'Increasing power and voice' is again facilitated by the Internet and social media, though this time on a broader scale. This demonstrates how technology allows us to organization to become such significant societal actors as Amnesty International.
'Increasing influence of global media networks' is definitely important, though I'd say that I am definitely aware of the negative implications of this. I am recently enrolled in a course called Marketing and Society that demonstrates the inherent conflict of interest in network TV, particularly in the news. Corporate and political influence over these networks do not seem to be working in the interests of society, and are using news channels, advertising and other trusted sources to provide us with biased misrepresentations. I'd recommend checking out this link http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6737097743434902428. It's a long one, but very informative. This video with others that I've watched in the class have changed the way I see the news. Or the way I don't I should say; it made me stop watching it.
'Increasing economic links' is obvious at this point.
'Increasing global movement' is a summary of all of these points, and the role that the Internet and technology have played and continue to play in globalization.

Social Media: The Biggest Shift Since the Industrial Revolution.

I previously identified a number of aspects of globalization, all of which I'm rather excited to relate to technology. Here's my thoughts on human rights. 

Thinking back on course material, it seems that protests have been mentioned a lot. Occupy Wall Street, Tahrir Square, Arab Spring, Occupy Oakland. The common factor is human rights and individuals serving as advocates for them. Also, I suppose, is the common factor of social media and the Internet, as this is usually the medium by which we learn about these things and communicate about these things, as did Asma Mahfouz when she recruited her fellow protesters for Tahrir Square.

The Internet and, often more specifically, social media facilitate global communication. The Internet is almost always the medium by which advocates for causes communicate their opinions, organize themselves, create petitions that can potentially be distributed to millions of people, and inform and educate people willing to learn about the issues facing their own society on a local, national or global level.

The advertising industry has removed our ability to make informed decisions, without biased information, independently and knowingly. Because of advertising and the use of it, as encouraged and enabled by Edward Bernays (creator of public relations), the industry developed an ability to manipulate our desires and our purchases. Social media is allowing us to get this power back.

I came across this image in my search. This picture illustrates the significant of social media and the potential that it has to influence us. This illustration has some pretty significant evidence hidden within its content, and also makes it obvious the role that social media allows us, as consumers and citizens, to have in our economy. For example, 14% of people trust advertisements, while 78% of consumers trust peer reviews, which they frequently receive from blogs and other social media sites such as facebook and twitter. So if 34% of bloggers post about products and services, and we are exposed to this content every day through search engines and our involvement with social media, does this mean that the industry of advertising will become obsolete? Or does this mean that The Persuaders (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/) will simply evolve their strategies, as they have already began to do, to influence the communications of these bloggers, or to make their messages appear as if they are "user generated content"? I think so.

So social media is the biggest shift since the Industrial Revolution? That's definitely debatable. However, it's a debate that is over my head. I'll do my best. Let the blabbering begin...

So the Industrial Revolution was essentially the point in history when we became obsessed with efficiency. This movement was drive by mechanization and likely can be pinpointed on that technology timeline that we mentioned earlier. The Industrial Revolution changed everything. Obviously. The Internet changed everything as well. But has the extension of social media to the Internet been a bigger shift? I would argue yes. At the inception of the Internet we were simply given the ability to search information that was presented by those willing and able to invest the money into creating the content. Now, with blogs and social media, everyone can communicate their opinions for free, and everyone can read those opinions for free. This has removed the tendency of information to only be supplied when one party has such a vested interest in the well-being of that idea, product or company that they decided to communicate it. Social media has made this communication so easy that we don't feel it is insignificant to talk about products we tried, places we ate, movies we watched and more significantly, to present greater society with information that it important, affects them, and that they would otherwise have no way of knowing. Companies aren't going to post on the Internet bad things about themselves. Government isn't going to post bad things about itself. Government isn't going to post bad things about companies that are supporting them financially. This brings us to the self interest of government and corporations and to the inevitable conflict of interest that arises when they are allowed to work together.

Without social media, the Internet would be censored.

Blogging.

I just found out that now if you google me, this blog comes up. My picture and everything. I find that super embarrassing. But wanted to mention that Professor Hall specifically created this project the way that he did because he wanted us to make our opinions known, to not be afraid to share, to be brave and to not be cowards. I think that this will serve as a significant learning component to this project. Especially if someone actually reads it. Who knows, I might actually get excited.

Also, I have to admit, I am kind of enjoying this whole blogging thing. I'm surprised. Maybe one day I'll actually be good at it! Another potential learning component. Good job Professor Hall.

Globalization and Anti-Globalization.

I am going to proactively address the fact that I am likely going to get off the topic of globalization, at least directly. I do not want this to happen, as the course is Capital, Culture and Globalization, and globalization was one of the only criteria for this assignment. So I figure if I ramble on here for a little bit about globalization, hopefully my rambling will result in me generating some ideas on the idea of globalization and technology.

Is this how a blog works? Is it acceptable to just think online? Because that's what I am going to do...

So. Globalization. My ideas of the topic so far have been overwhelming, if anything. So many things are involved in globalization. Off the top of my head, I'd say that globalization for the purposes of this course has gone everywhere from industrialization, philosophical thought, cultural values, human rights, public relations, corporations, capitalism, socialism, democracy, government, agriculture, the advancement of law, technology... glad that word came up in my mind, or else I would likely be back to off topic.

At this point, I think my previous definition of globalization must be too complex, because I keep having to look back at it to remind myself of which components I can refer to. I remember multicultural, multinational, process, and those are pretty much the only key words that come to mind. So let's look at a not so technical source to find a not so technical definition. The CBC article titled What is Globalization seems sufficient (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/summitofamericas/globalization.html). Woah. My opinions are changing. This article just presented me with a different approach: anti-globalization.

Globalization, according to some and mentioned in the article, "describes the increased mobility of goods, services, labour, technology and capital throughout the world." I had not considered the mobility aspect of globalization, but as I read this article am realizing that mobility is a better word to use than a process. Conversely, another definition, as explained by anti-globalists, is that is "the process of exploiting economically weak countries by connecting the economies of the world, forcing dependence on (and ultimately subservience to) the western capitalist machine."


The article proceeds to work in the interests of both sides with what seems to me like an adequate and fair list of both perspectives. Going over these lists, it's my impression that those in favor of globalization would typically be politically conservative; interested in individual economic prosperity as opposed to equality (this is my perception of the underlying motives of politically conservative individuals, in a nutshell). It seems that advocates of globalization are concerned with independence, choices, and the removal of barriers, while anti-globalists fear that it reduces equality and positive political intervention.


I feel like Darwin would be in favor of Globalization; survival of the fittest, concerned with the benefit of the few. According to this article globalization also seems to be something that would be supported by capitalists. If you're not following, you should really look at the link. The lists are giving me a very good idea of globalization and the perspectives involved; quite beneficial to someone trying to understand globalization. Oh, I just found out how to make that link an actual link! Better go back to the other links and "linkify" them for you. Easy access to encourage you to click it!


Did anyone notice that I obviously named this post after I wrote it? Obviously.

Technology Timeline.

Globalization is a process. To understand the process of technology and how it got to where it is today, it's important to consider the historical aspects of technology. There have been several innovations, philopohers and events that have contributed to the advancement of technology. I came across a timeline of technology at http://www.history-timelines.org.uk/events-timelines/12-technology-timeline.htm. This timeline demonstrates the progression of technology since its inception in 2400 BC. This seems an appropriate starting point, because it is when the abacus was invented. The abacus is a cultural object that signifies that beginning of intelligence as an object; the beginning of math and science as used by humans; the beginning of technology. Few events occurred between the invention of the abacus and the beginning of technology as we know it; the events that did occur are the invention of the mechanical clock, eyeglasses, suspension bridges, etc. The first evidence of computer technology was in 1500 with the first mechanical robot. After this, the advancement of technology occurred at an increasingly rapid rate. Famous contributors, in order of appearance, include Galileo, Leonardo Da Vinci, Isaac Newton, Benjamin Franklin, James Watt, Eli Whitney, Samuel Colt, Samuel Morse, Charles Darwin, Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, Nikola Tesla, Henry Ford and Albert Einstein. Each of these individuals, and the many others, contributed by expanding their knowledge and applying it an area in which they believed could be bettered.

The events that should be noted are the invention of the abacus, the telescope, steam engines, the computer, the electric motor, photography, morse code, the revolver, the typewriter, television, nuclear power reactors, the ballpoint pen, e-mail and finally, the world wide web.

It must be asked: is this where it stops? This timeline stops with the invention of digital satellite radio. I imagine the site has not been updated. But what if this is not the case and the site creators simply feel as if there's been nothing else to add. Have our inventions in the past simply been improvements of current ideas? Have they aided in the global revolution, or have they simply served as improvements and ways of making simple things even simpler?

Without any one of these inventions, we would not be where we are today as a society in terms of technology. It would be interested to study technology as a calculation of how the exclusion of any one of these actors in history or their relative inventions would have affected our society and technology as it currently exists. Would it have affected those cultures that currently don't use any of these items?

This thought makes Dr. Nayef's complexity with which he approached globalization significant now; globalization is completely culturally dependent. This is true as well for our studies of technology. We have adopted so many technologies into our society and we use these items and ideas every day. Technology to us, today, is computers, email, the internet, electricty, and covers manufacturing, production and communication. In un-developed countries, what is technology? Is technology still the way that they've shaped their rocks to become efficient tools for cooking and sewing? According to the definitions, this is technology. And though globalization is global, have these countries been affected?

Technology: defined.

I previously defined technology in my own words as "systematic processes and objects being utilized by humans to make current processes more efficient." Given how far off I was on the definition of globalization, it's definitely necessary to seek some alternative sources. There doesn't seem to be any work as extensive as Dr. Nayef's on the definition of technology. This is probably because technology can be scientifically defined and has fewer fields to which it can be applied. I mean, sure, technology can be applied to agriculture, information systems, computer technology, and basically any industry, but the definition seems to stay relatively the same among these fields, even though the application of the definition definitely differs. Webster's dictionary offers several definitions, which I have combined to create the statement that technology is: a manner of accomplishing a task using technical processes, methods or knowledge, and the practical application of that knowledge, in a particular area. This definition differs from my own, but not in any way that's devastating.

Essentially, technology can probably be explained as a manner or accomplishing a task that utilizes technical processes, methods or knowledge. 'Efficiency', though not included in this definition, is definitely inherent in the idea. However, my assumption of this might be due to my knowledge of the history of technology, with the influences of Thomas Edison, Adam Smith, Steve Jobs, and other historical actors that have aided the progression of technology.

We've defined the relevant terms. Now we can look at how they have influenced each other in their accumulation of followers, ideas and progressions. Next time.

Globalization: defined.

Before researching what will define the scope of these topics, I will define how I currently see the two main concepts that we're concerned with: globalization and technology. Globalization, to me, could best be defined as the evolution of societal patterns and philosophical thought as determined by the human population. Technology, on other hand, would be appropriately defined as systematic processes and objects being utilized by humans to make current processes more efficient. This is how I would define these two concepts without seeking any external sources. I am sure I have missed several components of these two terms; we'll find out shortly when I begin my research. We'll address globalization here and create a separate entry for that of the expansion/correction of my definition of technology. Then we can merge the ideas later for the rest of the entries.

Now, to get a more accurate idea of what these two concepts are referring to I will seek to find scholarly or seemingly credible evidence that will define them. According to Dr. Nayef R.F. Al-Rodhan, Director of the Program on the Geopolitical Implications of Globalization and Transnational Security, I underestimated globalization and widely missed several aspects of the term. According to Dr. Nayef in his work intended solely and specifically to define globalization, "[g]lobalization involves economic integration; the transfer of policies across borders; the transmission of knowledge; cultural stability; the reproduction, relations, and discourses of power; it is a global process, a concept, a revolution, and “an establishment of the global market free from sociopolitical control.” This makes it quite evident that globalization is incredibly broad and encompasses so many components that it may be impossible to define holistically. Dr. Nayef makes reference to several definitions and discussions of globalization, and claims that the definition of globalization may be subjective in the sense that different people view it differently based on their geographic location, cultural values, political ideologies, etc. Dr. Nayef's conclusion is essentially that there are so many conflicting definitions of globalization that the Academy has made little progress in making a clear definition of the term that could be applicable to all purposes for which it is sought. Dr. Nayef, who I consider to be an expert on the subject based on his thorough research and demonstrated expertise, proposes that globalization be defined as: “Globalization is a process that encompasses the causes, course, and consequences of transnational and transcultural integration of human and non-human activities.”



So I was off. By a lot. But now that we have a definition, we can continue our discussion about how globalization has influenced technology and vice versa, and further explore the modern implications of these terms.