“What is the relation between politics and globalization?” / Joon Hee Lee

 (Summary)

In this article, globalization means an organization of cross-border interconnected spaces and time. Especially with regard to politics, for some, the process of political globalization opens up the possibility of new liberation, while for others, globalization leads to the loss of autonomy and the division of the social world. Rather than supporting a particular point of view here, it emphasizes the multifaceted nature of globalization. 

One of the universal forms of globalization is the worldwide spread of democracy. A democratic government exists in some form in most parts of the world, and where it does not, there is considerable demand by the democratic movement. In that sense, globalization does not undermine a democratic state, but gives it acceptability worldwide. The democratic ethnic states of many parts of the world have spawned a very different kind of political culture. In other words, the globalization of democratic politics has been the basis of the so-called "new world order." Thus, the first dimension of political globalization is considered the geopolitics of world power.

The second dimension of political globalization refers to the rise of a global normative culture. This mainly means global interest in human rights and environmental concerns. This exists beyond the national system and in the relationship of tension with the state. It also provides countries with a normative standard point and a direction to political actors. For the first time in history, there has been a global culture that provides a frame for reference to all societies.

This process of political globalization is associated with new sources of network and flow and communication and represents new relationships among individuals, countries and societies. What's important is that multipolar networks are associated with a new form of global governance. The world political order represented by the United Nations is mainly based on ethnicity, but one can talk about other kinds of global political order that can be associated with the concepts of global civil society.

However, the development of globalization has contributed to the emergence of new political confrontations. Also, the universalization of democratic models, the beginning of a global normative culture, and the 'civilization' of governance are very complex and sometimes incompatible with each other. In conclusion, the author tries to explain the meaning of the confrontation between the three dilemmas and autonomy and fragmentation that arise here.

(Interesting Point)

I already knew that the concept of globalization was accepted differently in each field of sociology and that there were various discussions, but when I read it, I felt that there were more complex and diverse debates coming and going than I had imagined. In fact, what I thought while reading the article was that if there was a single rule that people around the world could relate to, based on this, it could help countries that are still politically immature or discriminated against. On the contrary, it occurred to me that the existence of standards could undermine diversity to some extent (as in the case of the French people). Of course, I don't mean that we should respect all the diversity, but I thought it would be very difficult to walk a tightrope between the two positions.

(Discussion)

As I mentioned in the article, the position that political globalization is a new possibility or loss of autonomy is sharply divided. But I think it's impossible to say either is right. In other words, I think they are both too extreme. I wonder what other people think about this.