Goodbye to Globalization

The OED etymology ignores the non-English origins of the term, which can be found in the inventive linguistic terminology of continental European student radicalism. In 1970, the radical left-wing Italian underground periodical Sinistra Proletaria carried an article entitled The Process of Globalization of Capitalist Society, which was a description of IBM, an organization which presents itself as a totality and controls all its activities towards the goal of profit and ‘globalizes’ all activity in the productive process. Because IBM, according to the article, produced in 14 countries and sold in 109, it contains in itself the globalization (mondializzazione) of capitalist imperialism. This obscure left-wing publication is the first known reference to globalization in its contemporary sense.

Since then, the term has had ups and downs. It became increasingly faddish in the 1990’s, but mostly as a term of abuse. In the late 1990’s and early 2000’s, anti-globalization demonstrations targeted the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the World Economic Forum, and McDonald’s. Globalization was seen at this time – as in the vision of the 1960’s Italian leftists – as the exploitation of the world’s poor by a plutocratic and technocratic elite.

But in the 2000’s, the meaning of globalization shifted and began to take on a semi-positive note, in large part because it increasingly looked as if the major winners of globalization included many rapidly growing emerging markets. Indeed, countries that had previously been described as under-developed or Third World were becoming incipient global hegemons. Moreover, many former critics began to recognize global connectedness as a way of solving global problems such as climate change, economic crisis, and poverty.

Historians have started to project globalization backwards. It is no longer seen only as a story of the capital-market-driven integration of the last two decades of the twentieth century, or even of an early wave of globalization in the nineteenth century, when the gold standard and the Atlantic telegram seemed to unite the world. Instead, the wider and deeper historical vision is of a globalization that encompasses the Roman empire and the Song dynasty, and goes back to the globalization of the human species from a common African origin.

The terms that we use to describe complex political and social phenomena and processes have odd ambiguities. Some concepts that are designed as criticisms are quickly inverted to become celebratory.

By 2011, anti-globalization rhetoric had largely faded, and globalization is thought of as not something to be neither fought nor cheered, but as a fundamental characteristic of the human story, in which disparate geographies and diverse themes are inextricably intertwined. In short, globalization has lost its polemical bite, and with that loss, its attractions as a concept have faded.

Harold James is Professor of History and International Affairs at Princeton University. Matteo Albanese is a researcher in history at the European University Institute.

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2011.www.project-syndicate.orgFor a podcast of this commentary in English, please use this link:

©RIPRODUZIONE RISERVATA