The most important thing about globalization from a liberal perspective is the overarching interdependence- be it economic or institutional. They believe that through state integration into an international system, there is a greater likelihood of mutual benefits and economic growth, as well as an easier path to peace governed by international institutions. With complex interdependence, states have a stronger incentive to cooperate and maintain stability as there is an intrinsic reliance on each other for your own benefit.
Critical scholars emphasize inequality and the dangers of a monocultural world. To me, it seems like they worry about complex interdependence not just about the economy or institutions- about the consequences of a world in which everything is so interconnected there is only one way of existing. Globalization weakens state sovereignty, especially in developing countries in which the influence of already-defined powers will take control and the dominant West will undermine local identity and culture. It could also contribute to furthering the Tragedy of the Commons, all countries are bound together but no one is willing to actually do anything, so environmentally, there are dangers as well. Mostly though, I think it’s a lot about the United States being the sole hegemonic power that dictates nearly everything. Is globalization a system of complex interdependence or is it just a hegemonic power in total control over the globe?
Personally, I definitely like the liberal view, but I also really like the idea of everything working out and being peaceful so that may be why I would rather listen to that kind of perspective. I will say though, few things are as persuasive as fear, and critical scholars really use that to their advantage. While I’m not sure about a monocultural world, I do understand that globalization seems like a mechanism to perpetuate capitalism and Western thinking which obviously has some benefits but I just don’t believe that a world with one ideology would work, it feels a little too dystopian for my liking.
I feel like the liberal view is made to sound more rational and the critical view is usually framed as pessimistic- a consequence of living in the United States maybe- but this difference makes me more inclined to want more information from critical scholars. I want to know why and how their beliefs would come to be whereas liberal scholars it’s not that difficult to know what they think of globalization. They make it seem so easy that it makes me trust them a little less honestly, because how can there be no downsides to something? For that reason I guess I find the critical view more persuasive because despite the fact that I do think I side with the liberal view, I can’t fully buy into their utopian idea, so the criticisms of globalization definitely intrigue me. While I may not be an opponent of globalization, I can’t fully say I find the liberal view persuasive, it’s the only view I’ve been taught, so naturally, the lesser known critical view is more interesting to me.