Bangladesh e-Journal of Sociology. Vol. 1. No. 2. July, 2004
Glocalization as Globalization:
Evolution of a Sociological Concept
Habibul
Haque Khondker ·
This paper examines the evolution and transformation of the concept of globalization highlighting the tangled relationship between the discipline of sociology and globalization. The paper will also trace the history and the development of the concept of “glocalization”, which originated in Japan as a popular business strategy. Professor Roland Robertson, a sociologist at the University of Pittsburgh, introduced this concept to the Western social scientific discourse. Robertson was well aware of the changes of this concept in Japanese society. This paper will trace the roots of the Japanese concept and its use in sociological discussions. The paper will also examine in broad terms concepts, theories and paradigms in sociology. The paper will also touch on the problems of the application of the sociological concepts developed in the western sociological and social scientific discourses in the local contexts such as those of Singapore and Malaysia.
In social sciences it is often
difficult to trace the origin of concepts. Concepts, theories and ideas
are often products of collective endeavors. It would be extremely
difficult to identify who used the term “globalization” for the
first time. According to Malcolm Waters (1995) whose book titled Globalization is a fine primer, Roland Robertson was one of the
early users of the term. More recently, Roland Robertson and Kathleen
White edited Globalization:
Critical Concepts in 6 volumes is a tour de force which present some
of the most important essays on this subject.
No matter who coined it first, at the
dawn of the 21st century globalization as a concept, as a
slogan, as a term is used more frequently than any other terms. In
Singapore, from the inflow of foreign capital, technology, workers or
“foreign talents”, music, movies, popular culture, almost everything
has resonance with globalization. Globalization is a heroic process,
globalization is a sinister process, depending on which side of the
debate one stands. Some tend to see globalization as a brakeless train
crushing everything in its path, others see benefit in getting on board
the train towards economic growth and modernization.
2.
Sociology and Globalization
Globalization
as a concept in social science has a short history. Even in the revised
version of Raymond Williams’ Key
Words (1983) there is no entry on globalization. The Harper Collins Dictionary of Sociology (1991) has an entry on “globalization of
production” but no entry on globalization as such. The Oxford Concise Dictionary of Sociology (1994) has an entry on
globalization together with globalization theory. It says,
“Globalization theory examines the emergence of a global cultural
system. It suggests that global culture is brought about by a variety of
social and cultural developments…”. The entry refers to the book
edited by Martin Albrow and Elizabeth King (1990)
Globalization, Knowledge and Society. The term globalization was
probably first used as a book title in the Albrow and King edited book
(1990) which was published drawing on the essays published in various
issues of International Sociology
the journal of International Sociological Association (1986-1990) Some
of the journal articles contained globalization as a phrase in the
titles in the 1980s and even earlier (see Moore, 1966, Meyer, 1980;
Robertson, 1983a, 1983b, 1985). One could even claim that the first
social science text that dealt with the subject of globalization was The
Communist Manifesto (1848). One could even argue that Ibn Khaldun
(1332-1406), the author of Prolegomenon
to the Universal History was the real claimant of the credit.
Globalization as a social process is old and has a much longer history.
Many writers have traced the early globalizing processes in the
dissemination of religion and culture, interactions of people, groups,
communities through trade and commerce from the ancient times.
Sociology
has been traditionally defined as the study of society. And as the
boundaries of society have expanded from local community, through states
to global society, sociology has become the study of the global society.
This is a good illustration of how ideas, knowledge and (social)
sciences expand with the changes and expansion of realities.
Sociology,
it is often said, deals with the social life. In fact, all social
sciences deal with social life or its various aspects. It is difficult
to conceptualize social as a category. In sociology, there are two meanings of
social. Social used in the
sense of Wallerstein or for that matter Marx, encompasses technology,
economy, politics and culture. Sociology is interested in the
understanding of these broad processes, especially at their
interrelatedness.
There
is, however, a narrow meaning of social, which is often equated with
social system, or what some people call societal. Here society is an
abstract system of social relations, a web or network of social
relations. Following Talcott Parsons, (and before him, Durkheim) some
social scientists sought to view sociology as the scientific
study of society. I put the stress on scientific because one of the
goals of science is to define one’s field narrowly so that specialized
and predictable knowledge can be produced and accumulated. Sociologists
with a positivistic bent of mind were quite happy with the narrow
definition of sociology, hence the delimited conceptualization of
society in the sense of social system. In this formulation, the field of
study of economics is economic system; the field of political science is
political system and so on. All social sciences could live happily in a
world of segregated systems of knowledge!
However,
a large number of sociologists having dissatisfied with this narrow
conceptualization of society, sought to view society and the scope of
sociology broadly. They also found the earlier compartmentalization
unnecessary, unproductive and overly abstract. All these so-called
subsystems interact. Albert Hirschman called for the need of trespassing
into each other’s domains. The rise of macro-sociology is a clear
response to the attempt to overcome a delimited view of sociology.
Barrington Moore, Wallerstein, Tilly, Skocpol and others have looked at
society in the broadest sense of the term, in that the inspiration came
from Marx, Weber and later Braudel and other social historians.
Globalization,
though it means many things to many people, is one of the master
processes of our time. Globalization as a field in sociology is a
legatee of the macro-sociological interests and development.
Globalization study addresses itself to the connectivity of broad
processes of technological, economic, political, cultural
interrelationships. Whether one looks at the economic, cultural or media
connectivity worldwide, one has to take a much broader understanding of
society and social institutions. Sociology focuses its analytical lenses
on the flows and processes in society whether at the local, national or
global levels. In other words, sociology has a genuine claim over the
field of globalization.
Some
contemporary writers accuse sociology, an archetypical social science,
as a prisoner of nation-state. Anthony Giddens and Immanuel Wallertsien
have both lamented that sociology has been the study of modern nation
states. The definitions as well as the boundaries of society, which
sociology seeks to study, often overlap with those of nation-state.
Since the interest taken by sociologists such as Roland Robertson of
Pittsburgh and others since the late 1970s, sociology has redefined its
scope and field as the social scientific study of the global processes.
Ulrich Beck has explicitly called for the development of new concepts to
capture the new realities of interconnectedness, plurality,
multi-locality and multiplicity.
Sociology
has established its claim over globalization as a field of study
historically. A return to national society centered focus would be a
major regressive step towards objectivist, scientistic sociology and a
return to what C Wright Mills called “abstracted empiricism”. Or
worse, sociology might become a residual discipline busy picking up
areas left unattended by other social sciences. Sociology is not the
only branch of social sciences that has a claim to study society because
other branches of social sciences do study aspects of society. For
example, institutional economists deal with social structure and
cultural values to explain economic processes and market behaviors.
Political scientists such as Robert Putnam have done important
sociological studies of political processes. Such fields as political
sociology illustrate the cross over of political science and sociology
all the time. Social
sciences are tasked to analyze society in all its various aspects and
constellations.
The
long-standing relationship between sociology and globalization, gives
sociology as a discipline a unique position to study all aspects of the
field of globalization, a master process in human society. This does not
preclude the claims of other disciplines to the subject of globalization
and it reminds us the importance of each field’s autonomy to venture
out and explore using its own traditions and conceptual frames.
While
globalization as a framework is naturally biased in favor of
macro-sociological issues, questions were raised to the viability of
using this framework to study social realities on the ground. This led
to a rethink of macro-macro relationship. Glocalization as a concept
arose to help alleviate the conceptual difficulties of macro-micro
relationship.
Although it would be difficult to
trace the first user of the term “glocalization” in its original
Japanese usage, the first time the term was used in English can be
attributed to Professor Roland Robertson, a British/American
sociologist, who migrated from United Kingdom to the United States where
he spent most of his academic career at the University of Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, USA. Robertson’s original interests in sociology were in
the areas of sociology of religion, sociological theories and cultural
sociology. He also ventured into areas of comparative sociology and
modernization studies. His interest and knowledge of Japanese society
led him to find out the use of the term “glocalization” in Japan in
Japanese language, a term the marketing experts were using by which they
meant that products of Japanese origin should be localized – that is,
they should be suited to local taste and interests – yet, the products
are global in application and reach, hence a new term
“glocalization” was coined. Robertson and other sociologists
interested in the subject of global processes could not help noticing
that many of the social categories and practices assume a local flavor
or character despite the fact that these products were invented
elsewhere. Dutch sociologist Jan Nederveen Pieterse has for some time
used terms such as mélange, hybridity, syncretism to capture similar
processes with regard to culture. According to Nederveen Pieterse,
(2004) there are three views on the issue of globalization of cultures.
The first view is the clash of cultures view expressed in terms of clash
of the civilizations by writers like Samuel Huntington. The second
notion is best expressed in the phrase of “McDonaldization” of the
world (Ritzer, 2000). This view obviously suggests a homogenized world,
a world dominated by a single culture that erases differences of local
cultures. The third view is that of hybridization or synthesis. Much of
human evolution of culture can be seen as exchanges, diffusion, etc.
where cross-breeding, borrowing and adjusting to the local needs and so
on were very common. I argue below that although glocalization belongs
to the same genre or has resonance with those categories there are some
important differences as well.
According
to the dictionary meaning, the term “glocal” and the process noun
“glocalization” are “formed by telescoping global and local to
make a blend” (The Oxford
Dictionary of New Words, 1991:134 quoted in Robertson, 1995:28). The
term was modeled on Japanese word dochakuka,
which originally meant adapting farming technique to one’s own local
condition. In the business world the idea was adopted to refer to global
localization. The word as well as the idea came from Japan (Robertson,
1995:28). According to Wordspy, glocalization means “the creation of
products or services intended for the global market, but customized to
suit the local cultures.” (http://www.wordspy.com/words/).
Although the term glocalization has come to frequent use since the late
1980s, there were several related terms that social scientists used and
continue to use. One such related word, which has been in use in social
sciences and related fields for quite some time is, indigenization.
Some
social scientists claimed that social sciences such as sociology and
political science, even psychology were products of western social
experiences therefore when these fields of inquiry were transported and
transplanted to non-European or non-western contexts such as Latin
America, Asia or Africa there was a need for indigenization of these
subjects. The idea of indigenization has created quite a controversy
among social scientists because it raises fundamental questions about
the applicability of social scientific ideas and concepts. However,
indigenization can be seen as similar to localization. In both these
concepts, there is an assumption of an original or authentic
“locality” or “indigenous system”. One of the consequences of
globalization is that it opens up doubts about the originality and
authenticity of cultures. If one takes a long-term view of
globalization, “locality” or “local” itself is a consequence of
globalization. There are hardly any sites or cultures that can be seen
as isolated or unconnected from the global processes.
Robertson,
one of the pioneers in the study of globalization, did not view
globalization as a recent phenomenon nor did he see it as a consequence
of modernization. The theories of modernization came under serious
attack in sociology because of such assumptions as unilinearity and
convergence. As our knowledge of the world increased, many writers
pointed out that the cultural differences are not all that superficial
and nonlinearity and mutiliniearity are better descriptions of global
modernity. Besides divergence rather than convergence seems to have been
the consequence of modernization. Yet the divergent cultures and
societies can be studied with the help of a globalized social science
and there was no need for diverse, indigenized social sciences. Social
sciences to claim scientific status could not afford to forfeit its
claim to universality and universal knowledge. Social sciences must be
context sensitive but not context dependent. It is in this context that
Robertson conceptualized
globalization in the twentieth century as “the
interpenetration of the universalization of particularization and the
particularization of universalism” (Robertson, 1992:100 emphasis
in the original). Khondker (1994) building on Robertson’s framework
argued that globalization or glocalization should be seen as an
interdependent process. “The problem of simultaneous globalization of
the local and the localization of globality can be expressed as the twin
processes of macro-localization
and micro-globalization.
Macro-localization involves expanding the boundaries locality as well as
making some local ideas, practices, institutions global. The rise of
world wide religious or ethnic revivalist movements can be seen as
examples of macro-localization. Micro-globalization involves
incorporating certain global processes into the local setting. Consider
social movements such as the feminist movements or ecological movements
or consider new production techniques or marketing strategies which
emerge in a certain local context and over a period these practices
spread far beyond that locality into a larger spatial and historical
arena. Consider print industry or computer industry with a specific
location of its emergence has now become a global phenomena. Overcoming
space is globalization. In this view of globalization, globalization is
glocalization. This view is
somewhat different from the way Giddens conceptualizes the relationship
between the global and the local. Globalization, for Giddens, “is the
reason for the revival of local cultural identities in different parts
of the world” (Giddens, 2000:31). While in this view local is the
provider of the response to the forces that are global, we argue that
local itself is constituted globally. Ritzer in discussing glocalization
has added another – should I say, redundant – convoluted term
“grobalization” to refer to what he calls “growth imperatives
[pushing] organizations and nations to expand globally and to impose
themselves on the local” (2004:xiii). For Ritzer, globalization is the
sum total of glocalization and “grobalization”.
Wong
argues, following Wind (1998), that a global company does not mean that
it has gone global all the way. There are companies that are part
global, part regional or part local involving different domains such as
portfolio, supply chain, research and development and business
processes. In terms of mode of business practices, there could be
independent operations, joint venture or alliances (Wong, 1998:156).
The
main propositions of gloclaization are not too different from the main
arguments of a sophisticated version of globalization. 1. Diversity is
the essence of social life; 2. Globalization does not erase all
differences; 3. Autonomy of history and culture give a sense of
uniqueness to the experiences of groups of people whether we define them
as cultures, societies or nations; 4. Glocalization is the notion that
removes the fear from many that globalization is like a tidal wave
erasing all the differences. A number of books and articles on the
subject of globalization give the impression that it is a force that
creates a uniform world, a world where barriers disappear and cultures
become amalgamated into a global whole. The tensions and conflicts
between cultures are nothing but the problems of a transitory phase.
Ironically, the phase of transition has been around for a long
period of time. And as we have entered the third millennia many of the
age-old problems of differences of cultures and religion remain. 5.
Glocalizaton does not promise a world free from conflicts and tensions
but a more historically grounded understanding of the complicated –
yet, pragmatic view of the world.
Some writers view globalization as
the worldwide spread of “westernization”. This view is either
erroneous or contains only partial truth. From a superficial point of
view, various processes outwardly seem that the world is, indeed,
becoming westernized. One could see the popularity of the western music,
movies, and “McDonalds” as examples of westernization. More and more
countries are seeing the opening of McDonalds. More and more countries
playing the top chart of the pop list of USA and Hollywood movies and
US-made television serials (such as, Friends
and The Simpsons are becoming
ubiquitous to the extent that some writers even use the term
“Americanization” to describe these processes of cultural
transmission. However, a closer look will reveal that these cultural
goods have different meanings in different societal and cultural
contexts with uneven impact on classes and age-groups. Some of the
products are consumed without any modification, others are modified and
indigenized to suit the local contexts and there are exceptional
situations where the intentions are completely inverted.
In the past, many writers found it
necessary to distinguish modernization from westernization.
Modernization was believed to be a set of cultural practices and social
institutional features that historically evolved in Europe and North
America, commonly referred to as the West. The need to separate
westernization from modernization (in the past) was motivated more by
nationalism than pure intellectual reasons, because historically
speaking, most of the modern cultural traits began in the West, a
historical fact which was difficult to accommodate in a nationalistic
political culture. The Western scholars in the nineteenth century were
also guilty of making exaggerated claims of western superiority. Max
Weber, a German sociologist was correct to claim that the western
rationality and science had become universal but his denigration of
non-western cultures did not sit well among the larger intellectual
community. Many Indian sociologists took pains to delineate the
differences between modernization and westernization. Similar
discussions exist with regard to so-called westernization of the Ottoman
Empire, modernization of Japan since the Meiji restoration of 1868 or
modernization of China in the early part of the 20th century
such as the May 4th Movement of 1919. In the modernization
process, many of the late modernizing societies were borrowing ideas and
knowledge and technology most of which were generated in the early
modernized societies in Europe. The geography of the West kept shifting.
In the nineteenth century, when Germany was modernizing, the idea of the
West was limited to Western Europe only (mainly Britain and France). In
some post-colonial situations the demarcation was based more on
political expedience than logical or intellectual merits. Good
westernization came to be regarded as modernization and bad
modernization was designated as westernization. The distancing from
westernization can also be understood as a reaction to centuries of
domination and exploitation of the colonies by the western (mainly
European) powers. However, over time a more objective consideration of
history indicate that many of the traits that spread worldwide
originated in certain geographical regions yet as these traits were
transplanted elsewhere, they became mutated and assumed different forms
in different contexts. For example, parliamentary democracy evolved in
England, with roots that go back to Magna
Carta of 1215. However, as Westminster-style parliamentary democracy
was institutionalized in India, Malaysia, and other former British
colonies, they mutated in light of the local milieu.
Westernization as a term is not
equivalent to globalization. Nevertheless, westernization can be seen as
an aspect of globalization. Certain institutional features and cultural
traits that originated in the west were put in place in many other
geographical regions lock stock and barrel under the framework of global
interconnections and diffusion or forced implantation under colonial
age. Yet, over time these institutions and practices mutated and assumed
new meanings. Therefore, westernization can be seen as the beginning of
the process. The cultural features borrowed or imitated themselves
mutate in the source countries. Thus, westernization as a category has
limited conceptual value. One can associate certain literary forms,
genres, and traits as part of the cultural zone we vaguely call “the
west”, yet these are mere influences as one can see in artistic,
literary, architectural styles. For example, the great Indian film maker
late Satyajit Ray was influenced by Hollywood films and the art of film
making, but he did not want to replicate Hollywood movies in Calcutta.
His movies were modern capturing local themes which he projected with a
modern art form and technology. Hence it was truly global, or more
appropriately, glocal. Presently, Singapore is establishing linkages
with both Bollywood and Indian film industries as well seeking to play
the role of an outsourced location for hi-tech Hollywood productions.
Globalization, like modernization, is often a fusion.
Westernization as a concept has some value if used only as a descriptive
rather than analytic category. As an analytic category it is rather
limited.
Writers such as John Meyer have used
the idea of isomorphism (a term borrowed from science, botany, in
particular) which means replication of the same form yet separated from
the main source. His research has shown that modern education – not
western education though it was perhaps modified and institutionalized
in the west – has spread worldwide and a similar set of values and
practices have emerged in diverse settings. For example, college
graduates command more social prestige and respect almost regardless of
cultural contexts. Some cultures can give more rewards than others.
Globalization shows tendencies towards isomorphism, yet some people may
continue to mistake this process for westernization.
In the context of Singapore, the
first generation leaders always emphasized the fact that although
Singapore’s economic development was dependent on western technology
and capital, and it was reliant on multinational corporations to foster
economic growth, the state maintained a certain degree of autonomy and
formulated broad social development strategy.
In
the discussion of glocalization some writers tend to conflate it with
hybridization. This may be somewhat misleading. Glocalization involves
blending, mixing adapting of two or more processes one of which must be
local. But one can accept a hybrid version that does not involve local.
In the context of higher education in Singapore a hybridized version
comprising the original British model and the US model was accepted. One
could find many such examples in matters of technology and business
practices where two different systems or modes are combined for better
results. Glocalization to be meaningful must include at least one
component that addresses the local culture, system of values and
practices and so on. One of the areas in Singapore where the evidence of
glocalization is quite visible is the area of mass communication and
especially in the area of television programming. From televised drama,
sitcoms, and even “reality shows” one finds attempts of
glocalization. Although some attempts are not always successful and
there are instances when one can see unabashed imitation, by and large
the idea of glocalization and fusion remain appealing to many
Singaporeans.
Singapore, located in Southeast
Asia, has attained the developed country status or High Income Economy
according to the World Bank classification. Having experienced rapid
state-led economic development under a favorable global economic
climate, Singapore has been pursuing the goal of creating a
knowledge-based economy since 1990s. Singapore’s economic growth since
her emergence in 1965 as an independent state entailed heavy investment
in education and development of human resource in science and
technology. Singapore’s advancement in areas of knowledge and high
technology is dependent to a large extent on international
collaboration. Two aspects of Singapore’s growth are striking:
linkage with global market and a highly rational approach to
governance, which is often evidenced by a near-absence of corruption.
These two aspects have direct bearing on the issues of technological
developments in Singapore. An additional factor that one has to take
into account is the cultural diversity of Singapore’s population.
Singapore is both a multiethnic and multi-religious society, which
provides an added dimension to the context of formulation of ethical
standards. Its 4 million people (in 2004) comprise 76% Chinese, 14%
Malay, 7% Indian, and 3% others. As many as one quarter of Singapore’s
population is non-citizens which indicate Singapore’s reliance on
foreign human resources both at working class jobs as well as high end
knowledge workers. Multicultural population-base and the varying
sensitivity of various groups have influenced policies concerning
biotechnology.
According
to Stephen Haggard, “Singapore had already broken away from the
typical policy pattern of a developing country as early as 1970. By the
1980s Singaporean policymakers were identifying the country with small
European economies such as Switzerland” (Haggard, 1999:355). It has
been noted by a number of writers (Rodan, 1989; Wade, 1990 and Haggard,
1999) that Singapore’s economic development and social modernization
did not take place following a pure free market model. Singapore state
was very much involved in guiding the market forces.
On the one hand Singapore has relied heavily for multinational
corporations to launch economic growth but it also built a high rate of
savings through central Provident Fund. Singapore’s development model
showed certain mixed or hybrid quality.
Soon after Singapore’s independence, policymakers began to focus attention on development in sciences and technology. The strive for such development was aided in the process by close relationship with the Multinational Corporations who brought investments and employed technically qualified Singaporeans. Right from the early days of national development, Singapore was well integrated with not only the international economic system bit also with global knowledge systems. Singapore’s export-oriented economic development in the 1980s was dominated by IT and computer peripherals. In the 1990s emphasis on biotechnology followed an earlier emphasis on IT.
Singapore’s
development since her independence in 1965 can be described as a
transformation from a Third World society to a First World economy. Much
of that development can be attributed to Singapore’s adoption of
modern technology. Choices of technology were not always preceded by
controversies and debates. Both the government and the general public
showed a great deal of pragmatism in the choice of technology. Although
in most instances, technology was adopted without much modification, the
mode of use, and so on there were imprints of adaptation and
glocalization. One such area is in the area of electronic road pricing
system. The technology of monitoring cars from a scanner fitted in a
gantry was not a Singaporean invention, but they way that technology was
used was very Singaporean. Because of the drive to catch up, Singapore
has always been ahead in adopting new technology. It is in recent years
having achieved the developed status; some Singaporeans are showing
concern with issues of privacy and so on because some of the new
technology is intrusive. Singapore’s love affairs with technology is
evident in the fact that Singapore ranks among the top three countries
in the world in terms usage of personal computers as well as hand
phones. The only country ahead of Singapore in the number of Short
Messaging Service (SMS) is Hong Kong.
Whenever a new technology is invented, Singapore would be one of
the first places where that technology would show up. Singaporeans have
a favorable attitude towards technology. Singapore International
Airlines as well as Port Authority of Singapore (PSA) remain equipped
with the state of the art technology. ATM machines in Singapore were
introduced in the early 1980s. Singapore’s public transport system is
another place where one would find a great many applications of new
technology. However, all cases of adaptation technology may not be seen
as examples of glocalization. In many instances, for example, computer
technology in Singapore was implemented without any modifications.
However as Singapore entered a new phase of research in the
1990s, namely in the area of biotechnology we fins evidence of
glocalization. Biotechnological research calls for a careful
consideration of and orientation towards local cultural and ethical
contexts. A good deal of attention has been given to these areas in
Singapore.
Another area where examples of
glocalization can be found in both Malaysia and Singapore is the area of
architectural designs. In the post-socialist world, Singapore remains a
unique society where 90% of the population lives in the houses built and
then sold to the citizens. When Singapore was embarked on massive public
housing program, it borrowed the so-called international style of very
basic and practical designs, yet a new concept of public space –
though limited to the residents of the housing blocs – evolved. These
spaces known as void-decks were places for wedding, funeral or any such
communal gatherings. New designs blending the western and local motifs
emerged in Singapore.
Although the initial architectural
thrust of Singapore can be viewed as “brutalism” driven by a sheer
pragmatic consideration, over the years more attention has been given to
the notions of fusion and hybridity, or in other words glocalization.
Singapore’s development experience,
which was underpinned by appropriate science and technology policies,
provides a convincing example of the effectiveness of glocalization as a
conscious development strategy. Although
the strategy was not always perfect and there were lapses from time to
time but on the whole Singapore has shown that cultural fusion can be an
asset if properly harnessed for the objective of attaining socioeconomic
growth without creating gross inequality and social dislocation.
The sociological concepts of globalization in general
and glocalization in particular can be of great value in understanding
the dynamic social transformation in Southeast Asia, especially in
Singapore and Malaysia. It is always possible to be carried away with
“methodological nationalism”, a position that says each country or
society should be examined in light of its own context through the
devices of its own homegrown methodology.
Such a position would lead to intellectual closure foreclosing
dialogue and understanding between societies. In the globalized world
such discourses have limited value. Yet, it is important to take the
local context and variables and not to fall into the trap of blind
imitation or aping of western ideas and concepts. However, in the end
what is needed is a set of globally valid concepts that will help us
examine processes of social transformation that is inextricably
connected with global transformation.
Albrow,
Martin and Elizabeth King [Ed] (1990) Globalization,
Knowledge , and Society. London: Sage
Giddens,
Anthony (2000) Runaway World.
New York: Routledge
Haggard,
S (1999) “An External View of Singapore’s Development Status”,
Linda Low (Ed) Singapore: Towards
a Developed Status. Singapore: Oxford University Press,
pp. 345-375
Khondker,
Habibul (1994) “Globalization Theory: A Critical Analysis”
Department of Sociology Working Paper, National University of Singapore.
Meyer,
J. W. (1980) “The World Polity and the Authority of the Nation
State” in A. Bergesen (ed) Studies
of the Modern World System. New York: Academic Press
Moore,
W.E. (1966)
“Global Sociology: The World as a Singular System” American Journal of Sociology, 71 (5)
Nederveen
Pieterse, Jan, (2004) Globalization and Culture, Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland.
Ritzer,
G (2000) The McDonaldization of
Society, Thousand Oaks, California: Pine Forge,
Ritzer,
G (2004) The Globalization of
Nothing. Thousand Oaks, California: Pine Forge
Robertson,
Roland 1983a) “Religion, Global Complexity and the Human Condition”
in Absolute Values and the
Creation of the New World, Volume 1. New York; International
Cultural Foundation
Robertson,
Roland (1983b) “Interpreting Globality” in World
Realities and International Studies Today. Glenside, PA:
Pennsylvania Council on International Education
Robertson,
Roland. (1995) “Glocalization: Time-space and Homogeneity-
heterogeneity”, M. Featherstone et al (ed) Global Modernities, London: Sage. pp. 25-44
Robertson,
Roland (1992) Globalization:
Social Theory and Global Culture.
London: Sage.
Rodan,
Gary (1989) The Political Economy
of Singapore’s Industrialization, London:
Macmillan
Wade,
R (1990) Governing the Market:
Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian
Industrialization, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press
Waters,
Malcolm (1995) Globalization.
London: Routledge
Wong,
Y.Y. (2000) “The Coming Challenge: An Entrepreneurial Pathway for the
21st Century” in a. Mahizhnan and Lee Tsao Yuan (Ed)
Singapore: Re-engineering Success, Singapore: Oxford University Press,
pp. 152-162
·
Department
of Sociology, National University of Singapore, Habib@nus.edu.sg