Dalam membicarakan tentang isu-isu globalisasi, beberapa tokoh dan ilmuwan dari Barat mahupun timur telah membicarakan tentang definisi globalisasi. Tokoh-tokoh yang memberi sumbangan besar dalam membicarakan tentang globalisasi ialah Anthony Giddens, Ahli Sociologi dari Universiti of Cambrige, Manuel Castelles, Ulbrich Beck dari Munich University, Jan Ia Schoilte, Dr Yusuf Al Qardawi dari Universiti Al-Azhar. Tokoh tokoh ini telah mencorakkan pemikiran kita tentang proses globalisasi. Sebagai contoh,Ahli Sociologi dari Britain membicarakan tentang maksud globalisasi. Menurut Anthony Gidden, Globalisasi didefinisikan sebagai penyahgandinagn ruang dan masa, memberikan penekanan kepada Komunikasi, ilmu pegetahuan dan budaya segera yang dapat dikongsi secara serentak di seluruh dunia. Di sini disertakan dengan pandangan beliau dalam isu-isu globalisasi.
The four dimensions of globalisation
according to Anthony Giddens
GLOPP, 2007 1
Summary by Gabriela Tejada
Summary by Gabriela Tejada
Giddens defines globalisation as the intensification of worldwide social relations linking distant
localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many thousands of
miles away and vice versa. Although every attempt at classifying the processes of globalisation
necessarily results in oversimplification and a reduction of complexity, Giddens defines four
dimensions of globalisation.
localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many thousands of
miles away and vice versa. Although every attempt at classifying the processes of globalisation
necessarily results in oversimplification and a reduction of complexity, Giddens defines four
dimensions of globalisation.
The most obvious one is the world capitalist economy. “The main centres of power in the world
economy are capitalist states – states in which capitalist economic enterprise is the chief form of
production. The domestic and international economic policies of these states involve many forms
of regulation of economic activity, but […] their institutional organisation maintains an “insulation”
of the economic from the political. This allows wide scope for the global activities of business
corporations, which always have a home base within a particular state but may develop many
other regional involvements elsewhere. […] The biggest transnational companies today have
budgets larger than those of all but a few nations. But there are some key respects in which their
power cannot rival that of states – especially important here are the factors of territoriality and
control of the means of violence. […] If nation-states are the principle “actors” within the global
political order, corporations are the dominant agents within the world economy” (Giddens 1991:
70/71). The influence of any particular state within the global political order is strongly conditioned
by its level of wealth (and the connection between this and military strength).
The nation-state system, the second dimension of globalisation, has long participated in the
reflexivity characteristic of modernity as a whole. “The very existence of sovereignty should be
understood as something that is reflexively monitored. Sovereignty is linked to the replacement of
“frontiers” by “borders” in the early development of the nation-state system: autonomy inside the
territory claimed by the state is sanctioned by the recognition of borders by other states.”
(Giddens 1991: 72-74)
“The third dimension is the world military order. As a result of the massive destructive power of
modern weaponry, almost all states possess military strength far in excess of that of even the
largest of pre-modern civilisations. Many economically weak Third World countries are militarily
powerful. During the Cold War, the two most militarily developed states, the United States and the
Soviet Union, built a bipolar system of military alliances of truly global scope. The countries
involved in these alliances necessarily accept limitations over their opportunities to forge
independent military strategies externally.“ (Giddens 1991: 74/75)
“The fourth dimension of globalisation concerns industrial development. The most obvious aspect
of this is the expansion of the global (international) division of labour, which includes the
differentiation between more and less industrialised areas in the world. Modern industry is
intrinsically based on division of labour, not only on the level of job tasks but on that of regional
specialisation in terms of type of industry, skills, and the production of raw materials. There has
undoubtedly taken place a major expansion of global interdependence in the division of labour
since the Second World War. […] One of the main features of the globalising implication of
industrialism is the worldwide diffusion of technologies. The impact of industrialism is plainly not
limited to the spheres of production, but affects many aspects of day-to-day life, as well as
influencing the generic character of human interaction with the material environment. […] Yet
industrialism has also decisively conditioned our very sense of living in “one world”. For one of the
most important effects of industrialism has been the transformation of technologies of
communication.” (Giddens 1991: 76/77)
communication.” (Giddens 1991: 76/77)
A further and fairly fundamental aspect of globalisation, which lies behind each of the various
institutional dimensions that have been mentioned, might be referred to as cultural globalisation.
Adding a fifth dimension of globalisation, namely culture, gives us the following picture of five
main globalisation issues:
References:
Backhaus, Norman (2003): Zugänge zur Globalisierung – Konzepte, Prozesse, Visionen. 2. Aufl.
Zürich. (38-41)
Danielli, Giovanni, Backhaus, Norman und Laube, Patrick (2002): Wirtschaftsgeografie und
globalisierter Lebensraum. Compendio Bildungswesen AG, Zürich. (206)
Giddens, Anthony (1991): The Consequences of Modernity. Polity Press. Cambridge. (70-78)
