Bauman on Globalization

Bauman argues that globalization unites as well as divides. I think this is basically true. He reminds us that it is a force that brings people closer together and helps people understand cultures. But it can also divide especially along class lines (a social issue that he specializes in). The reason I agree with this is because how wealth is distributed and also how culture is more fluid. Globalization exacerbates this problem on international terms. He also goes on to talk about how we are on the move physically and that immobility is not a realistic option in the world of permanent change. I also think this true. However in education (also other fields) people have a hard time changing especially regarding culture. One reason for this is because it is hard for people to engage multiple perspectives.

Also he discusses that a cause for worry is the breakdown in communication in the world. So a question for educator is how can we help people have better cross cultural communication skills? I think we should increase cultural self awareness including communication styles.

Later he argues that in modern civilization people stop questioning. I also agree with this. As educators we must teach teachers to learn to ask questions more often and to teach student of all ages to question. He says that we stop asking the “right” questions. I think people stop asking questions overall. Anyway what defines right or wrong questions? Questioning is important regardless if someone things they are right or wrong.

Bauman argues some problems with territorial constrain of locality and that it can be marginalizing. He always has rigid lines for the rich and poor, but regardless of how much money you have we are all marginalized in issues with locality. This collective pain always brings me back to the miner’s canary in how we all suffer but the most vulnerable suffer more and first. He says that rich people are free from territorial constraints. This is where I start to disagree with him more. I don’t know if people are totally free from territorial constraints (not that they are not influenced by them, but I wonder how much). Although these territories are problems, they create culture even if you consider yourself a global citizen. I always think about how culture is changing even due to globalization (i.e. hip hop). Hip hop is a global culture.

On the same note, he says that geographical boarders are increasingly difficult to sustain. That notion really shocked me. Hello, I think political boarders are real. I don’t even know if they are difficult to sustain b/c they create serious consequences for poor countries. These boarders are probably very real for them (I think of Mexican boarder crossings into the United States and how immigrants become citizens).

Bauman summarizes President Clinton saying that there is not difference between domestic and foreign politics. I know he was going a different direction with this but this comment immediately brought out for me how President Clinton and other people from dominate cultures have an ethnocentric way to look at different culture “They are just like us” “Their politics are the same as ours”. I know this is though was a little off topic, but it is hard to stay on topic reading Bauman.

Later in the book he starts to talk about identity. I do not know what he means by identity. I think he is saying that a consequence of globalization is that people can’t form an identity. I hope this is not what he is saying because people find new ways to form identities. People change with their times. Just different because we are more connected than ever it will look different.

Again, he looses me later in the book regarding his prose and siding with his arguments. He proclaims that people watch helplessly while their locality moves away from them underneath their feet (saying that the more powerful leave and everyone else is desolate). I agree with this to a certain extent. However, I do not think I agree that I would use the term helpless. Instead of look at how they empower themselves and are helpful and hopeful in their own communities. He sees them as poor old me that we can’t live without rich people. Maybe he things that they are not smart enough to do that. This reminds me how some teachers use the deficit theory by arguing that some kids just do not have culture and they must have us in order for them to have culture.

Overall reading Bauman is difficult for many reasons. One of them is that he is too much of a pessimist and seems not to be able to see the power that marginalized groups have within themselves. He looks at them in a deficit sort of way, as if they can not do anything without the elite. This linear perspective becomes boring very quickly.