Thoughts on the Term "Globalization"

As a term, globalization can either be useful or a grand generalization in describing current international processes.

I believe that we should view globalization with "critical ambivalence", viewing it as a positive or negative force depending on the specific circumstances being studied. Therefore, saying globalization is negative regarding the (now banned) Chinese import of ivory and positive regarding the migration of Syrian refugees to stable nations is a correct use of the term.

However, using globalization as a scapegoat for the world's prosperity or decline ignores the fact that it affects varying sectors and circumstances differently. For example, the hyper-globalist stance that globalization will increase standards of living for all is questioned when practices that hyper-globalists support lead to tortuous, fire-prone sweatshop work in Bangladesh and a manufacturing decline that has led to political instability in the USA. Also, the anti-globalist stance that increased global interaction worsens life in the Third World is challenged by the frequency of people there starting Internet-based channels or start-ups that lead them out of poverty and towards impressive monetary gain.