Globalization & Periodization
Globalization is a term used to describe large-scale changes and trends in the world today. It is often defined as a complex phenomenon whereby individuals, nations, and regions of the world become increasingly integrated and interdependent, while national and traditional identities are diminished.
Most limit the definition of globalization to the global integration and connections forged in the last twenty years. Worldwide integration dates back much further, however. In fact, all of human history can be understood as the story of increased interaction. Even ancient empires, connected by land or maritime routes, interacted with each other through trade and exploration, exchanging goods as well as ideas. The current era of economic globalization is largely a product of the industrial capitalist world, roughly dating back to the 1800s when interactions between peoples rapidly increased. Since the conclusion of World War II in 1945, and increasingly since the end of the Cold War in 1989, technological developments have enabled globalization on a wider scale and at a faster pace than occurred during any previous age.
Jet travel, satellite technology, mobile phones, free-trade agreements and the internet have initiated a truly global integration. Large corporations now earn large sums by utilizing raw materials, laborers, and consumers from every continent. This economic globalization has profound cultural ramifications; increasingly the peoples of the world are watching the same films and television programs, speaking the same languages, wearing the same clothes, and listening to the same music. Will the world become one gigantic shopping mall? Are the pieces of the world becoming more alike or more different? And is the process generally positive or negative?
Globalization supporters believe that these economic and cultural connections will ultimately result in improved living standards by providing new job opportunities for workers around the world, raising productivity as young people rise to the challenge of global competition, spreading modern principles of healthcare, enriching lives with cultural exchange, and promoting peace through cooperation and international organizations like the United Nations.
Critics of globalization cite specific statistics and events as examples of the corrosive effects of interaction and interdependence. Anti-globalization analysts point to the economics of income as the wealthiest 1% of the world’s population grow wealthier, while the poorest 99% witness falling income levels. Environmentalists believe that international corporations are now so powerful that they can negotiate for less restrictive pollution regulations with nations as they spread dangerous factory and chemical operations around the world. Traditionalists refer to Western shopping, dress, and entertainment practices as promoting a materialistic culture without morals. Some political scientists note the increasing number of genocides and regional conflicts as evidence that greater interaction spurs nationalism. Several Western observers view globalization as a force that provokes international terrorism as fundamentalists react to increasing global intrusions.
Regardless of the debate, our world is changing more rapidly than ever before. Despite signs that the United States is becoming more economically and culturally diverse, its status at the world’s sole superpower has led the United States to be seen as the symbol and principal proponent of globalization, for good or ill. On September 12, 2001, the day after nineteen hijackers carried the fateful September 11th attacks, the French newspaper Le Monde declared "Nous Sommes Tous des Americains."In the article that follows, Le Monde's editor, Jean-Marie Colombani, expressed the shock and outrage felt by many around the world after the tragic event – seen by some as an expression of globalization and perhaps the start of a new era in history.
“We Are All Americans”
by - Jean-Marie Colombani
In this tragic moment, when words seem so inadequate to express the shock people feel, the first thing that comes to mind is this: We are all Americans! Indeed, just as in the gravest moments of our own history, how can we not feel profound solidarity with those people, that country, the United States, to whom we are so close and to whom we owe our freedom, and therefore our solidarity? How can we not be struck at the same time by this observation: The new century has come a long way.
September 11, 2001, marks the ushering in of a new age that seems so far from the promise of another historic day, November 9, 1989 [the breaking of the Berlin Wall], and a somewhat euphoric year, 2000, which we thought might conclude with peace in the Middle East. If Osama bin Laden, as the American authorities seem to think, really is the one who ordered the September 11th attacks, the perpetrators of this murderous madness will claim "good intentions," whereby the oppressed peoples of the world avenged their "poverty" against their sole oppressor [America]. What monstrous hypocrisy! None of those who had a hand in this operation can claim they intend the good of humanity. Actually, they have no interest in a better world. They simply want to wipe ours off the face of the Earth. And so a new century moves ahead.
The reality is that we live in a destabilized, dangerous world with America, in the solitude of its power, lacking the Soviet Union as a counterbalance. In the regulated world of the Cold War, nations were drawn to the United States in opposition to communist Russia, and the dialogue between Washington and Moscow never stopped. Now, in many parts of the globe, America seems to draw nothing but hate. Perhaps we have underestimated the intensity of the hate, which - from the outskirts of Indonesia to those of South Africa, among the rejoicing crowds in Egypt and Iran - is focused against the United States. Today, it is a new barbarism, apparently with no control, which seems to want to set itself up as a counterpower.
Beyond their obvious murderous madness, these latest attacks nonetheless follow a certain logic. There is a new hand that has begun to be dealt out in blood, but could it have been America itself that created this demon? How can we fail to recall that Bin Laden was in fact trained by the CIA and that he was an element of a policy, directed against the Soviets? Whether supporting corrupt Muslim regimes in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan or lashing out in an anti-Islam rage after the attacks, the United States has done little to endear itself around the world. Regardless, this terrorism follows a barbarous logic, marked by a new anarchy that is repugnant to the great majority of those who believe in Islam, which, as a religion, does not condone suicide any more than Christianity does, and certainly not suicide coupled with the massacre of innocent people. But it is a political logic, which, by going to extremes, seeks to paint the United States in the context of its foreign policy mistakes as "the Great Satan."
In the long term, this disastrous logic is obviously suicidal, because it attracts lightning. And it might attract a bolt of lightning that does not discriminate. This situation requires our leaders to rise to the occasion. They must act so that the people whom these warmongers are seeking to win over will not fall in step behind them in their suicidal ideology. Madness, even under the pretext of despair, is never a force that can regenerate the world. Be that as it may, America is going to change. Profoundly. That is why today we are all Americans.
Reflections
The present can be more perplexing than the past. Our modern world can be the hardest to understand because it is an unfinished story. And yet the present has little meaning without history, and the surer our historical footing, the less likely we will be surprised by tomorrow. When confronted with dramatic change we search the recent and distant past for explanations, for clues that we are moving in a new direction or that we are returning to an old trend. For example, many commentators trying to make sense of the changes in a globalized United States alluded to its glorious past—its founding principles of freedom, honesty, and justice — in an attempt to put recent changes in broad historical context.
When the United States was attacked on September 11, 2001, Jean-Marie Colombani was hardly the only commentator to declare the beginning of a new era and a new barbarism. But seeing only what is new is to be caught without history, as the editor of Le Monde well knew. Thus, he searched for historical explanation: Was it the end of the Cold War? Was it allying with dictatorial government in Saudi Arabia? Or, was it U.S. support in the 1980s of Muslim extremism as an alternative to Soviet imperialism in Afghanistan?
When considering the causes and consequences of 9/11 and America's war on terrorism, the process of globalization cannot be ignored. But what exactly is this force of globalization? Do globalization and 9/11 represent a radical change in history? How would we know? History is not an exact science. But, understanding the process of change is the most basic skill of historians and perhaps the most useful outcome we gain from studying the past.
It can be disorienting to consider that people living in Philadelphia today are more similar to those in Shanghai than people 50 years ago living on the opposite side of Pennsylvania. One way historians attempt to make sense of the present (and interpret the past) is by breaking history into discrete, named chunks of time or time periods. This is known as periodization. By chunking history, individuals may be better able to analyze themes and recognize patterns. This is particularly useful when studying a broad, big-picture history like World History, which on the surface is study of everything. There are many ways in which history can be separated, with more interpretations added each year. Yet without it, history would be one long narrative without a climax or plot twist because it would be too difficult to recognize change.
All systems of periodization implicitly claim to designate important transitions in the past. One of the earliest forms of historical periodization, in keeping with kingly dominated ancient cities, was marking the current date by numbering the years of the king’s reign.Centuries and decades are also useful periods for societies. As if these mathematical periods actually distinguished a true historical transition, some historians use the 1950s and 1960s or 18th and 19th centuries for rough periodization. Perhaps the most fundamental form of periodization comes in form of dividing world history into BC (before Christ) and AD (anno Domini, “the year of our lord”). This periodization did not develop until the sixth century AD, when a Christian monk named Dionysius Exiguus hit upon a way to center Christ as the major turning point in history.
Periodization can be based on type of government, decades, or religious shifts, but in a globalized world where change appears to happen so quickly, it is a necessary tool to study what happened and why it happened. Understanding how time periods begin, end, and are described will help make the study of world events – like September 11th – far more manageable.Are societies becoming more similar or more different? Was September 11th a major turning point in history? If we don’t like our society’s direction, what can we do? What kind of world can we create? These are questions that can only be answered by studying the past, both distant and recent, and trying to understand the overarching changes that are shaping our world. Fortunately, human beings are creators, as well as subjects, of change.
1