| GE 6 The Contemporary World 1

UNIT 2: THEORIES OF GLOBALIZATION

2.0 Intended Learning Outcomes

a. Discuss and differentiate the various theories of globalization; and
b. Assess the cultural, social, economic, and political influence of these theories to the
globalism phenomenon.

2.1 Introduction
In this unit, you will learn about the different theories of globalization that will aid in your
analysis of globalization along culture, social, economic, and political aspects. You will see
globalization as the process that increases either homogeneity or heterogeneity.

Homogeneity refers to the increasing sameness in the world as cultural inputs,

economic factors, and political orientations of societies expand to create common
practices, same economies, and similar forms of government. In culture, homogeneity is
linked to cultural imperialism which means that other cultures pose effects or impacts
to the cultures of another. Americanization, is seen as an example to this. This concept
means an import by non-Americans or products, images, technologies, practices, and
behaviour that are closely associated with Americans (Kuisel, 1993). The political realm
also suffers homogenization if one considers the emerging similar models of
governance in the world. Barber (1995) said that, “McWorld” (from the concept of
‘Mcdonaldization’) is existing which implies that there is only one political orientation
growing in the world today.
Heterogeneity, on the other hand, refers to the differences owing to either lasting
differences or the hybrids or combinations of cultures that can be produced through the
different transplanetary processes. Heterogeneity in culture is associated with cultural
hybridization, glocalization, and Jihad—which refers to the political groups that are
engaged in the intensification of nationalism and that leads to greater political
heterogeneity throughout the world (Ritzer, 2008).

Cultural Imperialism
Cultural Imperialism is when a culture (dominant culture) poses effects or impacts to the
cultures of another (subordinate culture) leading to erosion or dissolution of cultural
practices of the latter. Narrowing down to the Filipino context, cultural imperialism is seen
by observing the imposition of Christianity over indigenous beliefs, emphasis on the use of
English language at school and work, dominance of Western entertainment and products
(e.g., movies, music) which affects Filipinos’ tastes and preferences (e.g., beauty standards),
and changes in consumption habits and values. Furthermore, cultural imperialism closely
relates to media imperialism where the global media are dominated by a small number of
large corporations. As McChesney (1999) claimed, this is being extended from old media to
new media, such as the Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter and Threads, and Google. McChesney
asserts that this will lead to the internet becoming less diverse and competitive in the long
run. Independent media center, associated with the alter-globalization movement, helps to
counter this trend. It disseminates information to facilitate global participation of activists.
This results to the emergence of hacktivism wherein hacktivists extend activism to the internet
through hacking into computer programs to promote particular cause (Juris, 2005).
 | GE 6 The Contemporary World 2

Mcdonaldization
The term ‘McDonaldization’ was first used by George Ritzer in 1993 through his publication,
The McDonaldization of Society. According to Ritzer, the contemporary world is going through
the process of McDonaldization where the principles of fast-food chains (i.e., McDonalds) are
applied to other aspects of society, thereby resulting to homogenization of cultures and
thus—globalization. It is largely based on Max Weber’s (1921/1968) work on rationalization
that embodied efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control—and as a result produced
bureaucracy, which became the central organizing force of modern societies through much of
the twentieth century. According to Weber, the modern bureaucracy was defined by
hierarchical roles, compartmentalized knowledge and roles, a perceived merit-based system
of employment and advancement, and the legal-rationality authority of the rule of law.
These characteristics could be observed, and still can be, throughout many aspects of
societies around the world. McDonaldization became a globalism symbol due to the
homogenization effect of corporations doing business on a global scale (e.g., McDonalds).
This process is extended to other sectors (e.g., education, health, government) and
geographic areas (e.g., third world countries). Thus, sociologists recognize that
McDonaldization is a global phenomenon, driven by Western corporations, the economic
power and cultural dominance of the West, and as such it leads to a global homogenization
of economic and social life.

According to Ritzer, there are four (4) principles of McDonaldization, namely:

1. Efficiency entails a managerial focus on minimizing the time required to complete
individual tasks as well as that required to complete the whole operation or process of
production and distribution.
2. Calculability is a focus on quantifiable objectives (counting things) rather than
subjective ones (evaluation of quality).
3. Predictability and standardization are found in repetitive and routinized production
or service delivery processes and in the consistent output of products or experiences
that are identical or close to it (predictability of the consumer experience).
4. Control within McDonaldization is wielded by management to ensure that workers
appear and act the same on a moment-to-moment and daily basis. It also refers to the
use of robots and technology to reduce or replace human employees wherever
possible.

However, there has been a looming question of concern among scholars as to whether
intensified consumerism and international flow of goods are creating a more homogenous
and standardized way of life, that is the “world culture” (Hassi & Storti, 2012).
McDonaldization affects our values, preferences, goals, and worldviews, our identities, and
our social relationships, which in return affects local and indigenous cultures. Hilal Ahmad
Wani (2011) asserts that globalization is a hegemonic process. According to Wani,
globalization is more of the monoculturation of ideologies, political systems, and economic
models, rather than promoting economic freedom and opportunities, and thereby has
brought decline to traditional religions and belief systems, and the start of the disintegration
of traditional shared norms by consumerism, cyberculture, and new ideologies.
 | GE 6 The Contemporary World 3

Cultural Differentialism
The sociological perspective of cultural differentialism emphasizes the fact that cultures are
essentially different and the ways in which these differences can lead to conflict,
competition, or even isolation. This interaction of cultures is deemed to contain potential
“catastrophic collision.” Increasing interaction among different “civilizations” would lead to
intense clashes, particularly economic and political conflict between countries (Huntington,
2004).

Cultural differentialism has been criticized for an oversimplified view of peoples’ identities
and a stereotypical representation of the Self and the Other (Tiurikova, 2021). In this context,
the Self refers to one’s image of oneself (e.g., as a member of a cultural group), whereas the
Other refers to an image of a dissimilar person (e.g., a representative of a different cultural
group), which is required to define oneself through opposition. By emphasizing cultural
differences between people, differentialists tend to consider the Self and the Other as
representatives of different ethnic or national groups. Ethnic or national culture, therefore,
becomes a “badge” of identity and of differences between people (Turner, 1993). Critics
argue that to a certain extent, ethnic or national culture has always provided this mark of
identity and social distinction, but what is problematic is that within the differentialist
approach, it becomes “a synonym for identity, its main marker and differentiator”
(Benhabib, 2002). This simplified view underestimates or completely ignores that other
factors, such as gender, social class, and age, also constitute identity and can distinguish as
well as represent similarities between people.

Cultural Hybridization
Cultural hybridization delves into the interaction between the local and global cultures
where globalization is considered to be a creative process which gives rise to hybrid entities
that are not reducible to either the global or local (Cvetkovich & Kelllner, 1997). Cultural
hybridization is simply a mixing of cultures. It is the blending of different religious,
languages and traditions which create a new and unique cultural norm. A key concept often
associated to cultural hybridization is “glocalization” or the interpretation of the global and
local resulting in unique outcomes in different geographic areas (Giulianotti & Robertson,
2007).

Cultural hybridity also involves power relations. It involves the combination of two different
things and which leads to the creation of new things. Hebdige uses the concept of subculture
as something capable of generating a hybridity. His work shows how something subculture
that has deviated from normal cultural laws can form new cultural practice. Subcultures are
seen in this modern world as a cultural solution to the problem of mass production and
standardization. Hybridity can be made in two different ways. The first way is imposed
hybridity. This is a counter hegemonic strategy which tries to retrieve the silenced and the
lost. In summary, hybridity provides a theoretical and methodological framework for
understanding cultural mixture cropping up in various forms in modern landscapes. It is
always tempering the forces of globalization, which tend to create homogenization and
cultural domination.
 | GE 6 The Contemporary World 4

The most notable example of cultural hybridization is ‘culinary fusion’. The main reason
why hybrid food is created is because it allows people from different cultural backgrounds
to accept and understand each other. In virtually every country, we can find dishes that
come from abroad and that have been "domesticated". In the Philippines, adobo and lechon are
staple dishes with significant influences from Spanish culture; lumpia, pancit and siopao were
local dishes hugely derived from the Chinese culture. The reason for this hybridization lies
in the history of countries; the creation of these dishes was possible thanks to the colonial
power. However, also in recent times, the phenomenon of culinary hybridization continues.
The process that leads to the birth of new meals comes in most of the cases from the arrival
of immigrants to the country; after some time, immigrants' food begins to mix with the local
traditional cuisine and new forms of it come to light.

Another form of cultural hybridization is seen on fashion and clothing styles influences. In
the Philippines, the use of modern Barong Tagalog and Filipiniana are becoming more and
more common. Ethnic fashion or incorporation of traditional and native clothing and
accessories into mainstream fashion can also be observed. Where cultural hybridity is
concerned, the fluidity and dynamic synthesis of multiple social influences symbolize a
special kind of mutual understanding which clothing communicates. The world has also
witnessed the fusion of different music to create new cross-cultural music. A huge factor of
this hybridity is the rise of internet and advanced technology that have brought people all
around the world closer. As a result, music and art have been increasingly used as a tool for
cross-cultural understanding and the need for global interaction.

Theories of Global Stratification

Modernization and dependency theories represent two rather different points in the
spectrum of approaches to international development. Politically, these two theoretical
positions, which focus on ‘macro-structures’ (Pieterse, 2010), have pointed at fundamentally
different strategies for the improvement of the situation in developing countries.

Modernization Theory
The oldest development paradigm is rooted in Western economic history and,
consequently, structured by a historically important experience. Development is one of
the oldest and most powerful of all Western ideas. The historical, political, and cultural
conditions that shaped the ideas of “development” as an antidote to social anarchy and
chaos, and as a stimulus to “progress” were first constructed in Europe. It can be found
in the works of 19th-century scholars such as Condorcet, Comte, Durkheim, Saint-
Simon, Spencer, and even Karl Marx. The central element of this perspective is the
metaphor of growth and the identification of growth with the Western idea of ‘progress’.
Development is thus conceived as organic, intrinsic, direct, cumulative, irreversible,
and goal-oriented.

The modernization paradigm considers underdevelopment in terms of perceptible and

quantitative differences between rich and poor countries. Development means bridging
the gaps by means of imitation processes between tradition and modern. Accordingly,
developing countries must gradually meet the “qualities” of industrialized countries.
This paradigm perceives development as a spontaneous and irreversible process that
 | GE 6 The Contemporary World 5

every society passes through. Almond & Coleman (1960) defined what constitutes a
modern society:

“A modern society is characterized, among other things by a comparatively high per capita
income, extensive geographical and social mobility, a relatively high degree of commercialization
and industrialization of the economy, an extensive and penetrative network of mass
communication media, and, in general, by widespread participation and involvement by
members of the society in modern social and economic process.”

Consequently, the means of modernization were the massive transfer of capital,

ideology, technology and know-how, a world-wide Marshall Plan, and a green
revolution. The measures of progress were Gross National Product, literacy, the
industrial base, urbanization, and the like—all quantifiable criteria (Servaes, 1999).

Dependency Theory
The beginnings of Dependency Theory took off when the Western modernization
approach started to lose credibility in the 1970s. Dudley Seers in 1977 documented the
reasons as to why this dominant economic paradigm, that is modernization, was started
to be contested.
1. The environmental degradation as cost of economic growth of the First world
countries started to draw concerns.
2. Scholars started to assert that despite the substantial transfers of capital and
technology from the first world to the third world, the gap between their per capita
incomes was not narrowing but rather growing. Take note that in the modernization
approach, the ultimate measure of economic growth was measured via per capita
incomes and GNP rates.
3. The Third World nations with impressive rates of growth did not achieve either the
political status or social equity expected of them.
4. Income inequality was soaring throughout the Third World. In many third world
countries, the share of national income was concentrated in the hands of a small
minority of elites.
5. Many third world countries were economically doing well but unemployment rates
were especially high—an irony during a time of Development Decade of the 1960s.
6. Power was concentrated among the elites who benefitted the most from the growth,
who in turn use that power to preserve the inequality in their societies.

A lead figure on the promotion of the Dependency Theory was Andre Gunder Frank
who was a Neo-Marxist sociologist and economic historian. In his publication, “The
Development of Underdevelopment” in 1966, he argued that the third world countries
struggle to develop not because of their deficiencies but because the first world
countries leave them in a state of dependency. According to scholars, the modernization
paradigm denied history to developing nations (Melkote & Steeves, 2001). The
assumption was that the Third World nations resembled earlier stages of the history of
West European nations. However, Neo-Marxists scholars contend that this was not
true. Underdevelopment in the Third World does not signify an early stage of
European developmental history but instead “is in large part the historical product of the
 | GE 6 The Contemporary World 6

past and continuing economic and other relations between the satellite underdeveloped and the
now developed metropolitan countries” (Frank, 1969).

Therefore, according to Frank, this system promotes underdevelopment in the world and
why we see other countries not developing in the way that the modernization theory
describes. The first world is actively underdeveloping third world countries as a result
of the systems of interactions between them. Brazilian economist Theotonio Dos Santos
posited:

“[Dependency is]...an historical condition which shapes a certain structure of the world
economy such that it favors some countries to the detriment of others and limits the development
possibilities of the subordinate economics...a situation in which the economy of a certain group of
countries is conditioned by the development and expansion of another economy, to which their
own is subjected.”

(Theotonio Dos Santos, "The Structure of Dependence," in K.T. Fann and Donald C. Hodges, eds.,
Readings in U.S. Imperialism. Boston: Porter Sargent, 1971, p. 226)

Dependency theorists, activists, post colonialists, environmentalists, etcetera, they

articulated a set of alternative approaches to achieve what they consider real
development in the Third World. Melkote & Steeves (2001) documented these
alternative approaches:

1. There must be equity in distribution of information and other benefits of

development. Growth with equity must be attained and the poorest of the poor
must be prioritized and the wide gap between the wealthy and the disadvantaged
must be narrowed and closed.
2. There must be an active participation of people in the grassroots to give people
voice and ensure that they are involved in the development plans and decisions that
are relevant and meaningful to them.
3. Attain independence of local communities (or nations) to tailor development
projects to their own objectives. This is to foster greater self-reliance in development
and attain freedom from external dependency.
4. There must be integration of the old and new ideas, the traditional and modern
systems, the endogenous and exogenous elements to constitute a unique blend
suited to the needs of a particular community. This gives emphasis to local culture
as a crucial component that shall not be overlooked when discussing development,
rather culture should be used to come up with a unique harmonization of factors
towards development.
 | GE 6 The Contemporary World 7

2.2 Assessment

“Is globalization hurting the local culture?”

In an A4-size bond paper, write an integration paper on the abovementioned

topic/question. Integrate and intensively discuss the concepts of cultural imperialism,
Mcdonaldization, cultural differentialism, cultural hybridization, and modernization and
dependency theories in your paper. Ensure to provide real-life examples in the
Philippines/Filipino context under each concept.

Minimum: 400 words; Maximum: 500 words

Format: Hard copy (facilitators of the week shall facilitate the submission)
Standard Font: Calibri (Body), Font Size: 12
Deadline: All submissions must be submitted at the Publications Office,
Andaya Bldg. 2/F on October 14, 2024, 10:00 AM

Rubric for Evaluating Integration Papers

Category Description Point

Required topics/concepts are stated
clearly and comprehensively integrated,
Content 20
delivering information necessary for full
understanding.
The progression of ideas and discussions
Organization are logically sound which contributes to 10
the full understanding of the paper.
Focuses on the topic and reflects own
Focus insight; includes other’s point/s of view 10
synthesized within position perspective.
Quality of Clear and concise and contains minimal
10
Writing grammatical or mechanical errors.
TOTAL 50 points
 | GE 6 The Contemporary World 8

2.3 References
Almond, G. and J. Coleman (eds.) 1960 The Politics of Developing Areas. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.

Benhabib, S. (2002). The claims of culture: Equality and diversity in the global era. Princeton
and Oxford: Princeton University Press.

Dos Santos, T. "The Structure of Dependence," in K.T. Fann and Donald C. Hodges, eds.,
Readings in U.S. Imperialism. Boston: Porter Sargent, 1971, p. 226

Frank, Andre Gunder. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1969

Hassi, A., & Storti, G. (2012). Globalization and Culture: The Three H Scenarios. In
www.intechopen.com. IntechOpen. https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/38348

Melkote, SR & Steeves, HL (2001). Communication for Development in the Third World:
Theory and Practice for Empowerment. SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd

Pieterse, Jan. Development Theory: Deconstructions/Reconstructions. SAGE Knowledge,

2nd ed., London, 2010, sk.sagepub.com/books/development-theory.

Ritzer, G. 2018. The Changing Nature of consumption and the intensification of

Mcdonaldization in the digital age. Journal of Consumer culture 0(0), pp. 1-18.

Seers, D. (1977). The New Meaning of Development, International Development Review.

Servaes. “Communication for Development. One World, Multiple Cultures.”

Lirias.kuleuven.be, 1 Jan. 1999, lirias.kuleuven.be/2315644?limo=0,
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2113.7120.

Tiurikova, I. (2021). Researching intercultural competence in language learners: Gaps

between theory and methodology.

Turner, T. (1993). Anthropology and multiculturalism: What is anthropology that

multiculturalists should be mindful of it? Cultural Anthropology, 8(4), 411–429.

Wani, H. (2011, May). Impact of globalization on world culture. ResearchGate.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312146733_Impact_of_Globalization_on_World
_Culture

2.4 Acknowledgment
The images, tables, figures, and information contained in this module were taken from the
references cited above.