Researching both liberal and critical approaches to international relations, has opened my eyes to the different perspectives on globalization. These two schools of thought, liberalism and realism, are some of the dominant approaches to international relations. I could go on more about both of these topics overall, but since my audience is primarily fellow students and I hate to be a bore, I will get to the point (something that I always have trouble doing). Liberal and critical International Relations scholars often vastly differ in their perspectives on globalization. Liberal approaches tend to give a more optimistic view of globalization by viewing it as a positive force supporting economic interdependence and cooperation among states. Some might even argue that it is more transformative than just a positive occurrence. Globalization transforms society through the free flow of goods, services, and ideas. Furthermore, interconnected economies can lead to mutual benefits, such as reducing the likelihood of conflict (or overall anarchy) and fostering connections among nations. Building more off of this idea, the liberal approach stresses that globalization promotes the spread of democratic values, which could in theory also further reduce the chance of conflict (“democracies do not go to war with each other”). In simple terms, the idealism of liberalism can be viewed as a recipe of diplomacy, economic interdependence, with a sprinkle (maybe somewhat more) of international organizations. The latter bring to mind important players such as numerous free trade agreements, like theNorth American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), or World Trade Organization (WTO). While free trade agreements foster economic interdependence, Organizations such as the WTO use order and regulations to reduce the chance of conflict. In the eyes of a liberal scholar, all of these examples explored above support the overall optimistic view of both the international order and globalization.
Critical approaches tend to give a more skeptical view of globalization by viewing it as a stressor of negative elements of our society. This becomes apparent through the common focus of critical scholars on the unequal power relations and potential negative consequences associated with globalization. Some might even candidly state that it is simply a power struggle. Globalization sustains existing inequalities as well as benefiting powerful states and corporations at the expense of less powerful actors. Furthermore, the presence of neglecting disparities calls for a closer examination of the social, political, and economic implications of globalization. This raises concerns about economic exploitation, cultural homogenization, and environmental degradation. An prominent issue that encompasses these concerns is the rise of the fast fashion industry and their exploitation of globalism. (while this is a important issue this is a brief take because of A. time, B. with the amount of fast fashion in my closet I am a bit of a hypocrite) The loose threads of exploitation and bright stains of systemic issues of fast fashion might lay heavy on the mind of critical scholars. Many fast fashion brands practice labor exploitation in other countries due to extremely low production cost and more flexible workers rights. This practice also can lead to environmental degradation due to the strains it has on the environment. All of these raise the question if abusing other nations natural resources will always be a timeless practice? From a shallow dive into realist thought, it can be assumed that globalism can not be amended due to its roots in the exploitation of others. Further stressed by the dependency theory that trade and resource relations set up under colonialism persist into the post-colonial era. The skeptical view of globalism appears rightfully justified to a critical scholar.
I began to realize while writing this post that the critical analysis of globalization is relatively new to me. For the most part, I have always been taught the liberal analysis of globalization other than maybe one (amazing) history teacher in high school. Consequently, I see the compelling case for perspectives. The access to new cultures as well as the spread of technology provided by globalism can not be ignored. I can also say that I cannot imagine my own daily life without globalization. Globalization has fostered the collaboration between states, leading to progress in many different fields. Obviously, the appealing positive nature of the liberal analysis can easily cloud your judgment, but is it only fully excellent in theory? The social, political, and economic costs of globalization do need to be considered as well. Globalization has exacerbated existing inequalities, as powerful states exploit weaker ones, leading to a degradation of their economy and resources. Once the colonial scars left by Globalization become apparent to me, I knew that the image of globalization was forever changed. This along with an already pessimistic nature has left me falling for a more critical IR perspective of globalization.
Be the first to reply