3

! I

f I ~ , f l ~

_________..,......e-_____ CHAPTER 1 • THE SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPEcnVE. GLOBAL PROBLEMS. AND GLOBALlZAnON

spano!. The company-sponsored course promises I am going to learn Espano\. In just 12 weeks I will be able to speak Span­ish well enough to negotiate a business

meeting in Peru. I'm game for learning new lingo. Latin American

work assignments could be in my future. However, the promise of knowing more than how to order a cold beer after just 24 lessons reminds me of the claim, 'Flat abs in 30 days.'

Steve, the English-speaking Berlitz instructor, tells the class we will succeed if we follow the program. I knew there was a catch. The program. Total immer­sion, repetition, tapes and picture books. No written words allowed in this learning process.

Jose, the real instructor, stands silently to the side. Steve says Jose may only speak in the target language. Jose will teach us words for images and actions using oversized picture books. We will listen, repeat, re­spond and role play. No one mentioned role playing before. I'll do it to be fluent, but I start to sweat.

Jose introduces himself-I think. His words are to our ears what headlights are to a deer crossing the road.

Decisive managers turn into startled students in face of Jose's Spanish. Who cares about fluency, just tell me how to yell 'help!' He indicates he wants a re­sponse by waving his arm as if he could pull the right words out of us. He waves and pulls until we finally understand it's our time to speak, 'Mi nombre es Julia.'

'Bueno: he responds. Great. I made it through my name.

Next comes counting. 'Uno, dos, trrray, , I say. He waves his hands and says something like 'traysss.'

'TRRRAY: I repeat. 'Traysss,' he waves again. I realize instead of saying

three I'm saying 'very' with a very nice French ac­cent. Who would have thought I could remember how to trill my r's like the French? Certainly not my French teacher.

Jose tries to show me where my r's should be orig­inating-somewhere between throaty French and mouthy English. I count again with mixed results. Uno, dos, tres (YEAH!), quatro, cinco, six, seven, ocho, something that sounds like nuevo but with more of a "b" sound than a "v" and ten.

We move to the picture book family-Miguel, Ana, Lucia, and Alberto. 'Es este Miguel?' Jose asks, pointing to Alberto. I want to say, 'No, that's not Miguel,' but cannot find the Spanish words.

'How do you say "confused?'" I ask in English, only to be reminded no English is allowed.

Jose moves to a map of Latin America and points to unmarked land masses. With time I am sure I will be able to discern Cuba from Puerto Rico. Once again my French trill interferes. Let's just say I shouldn't ask for directions to Peru and expect to get there.

Then Jose asks, 'Is Buenos Aires the capital of Chile?' Of course not, I think.

But then I wonder. Thinking in Spanish makes me wonder about everything. I wonder if mistaking Ecuador for Venezuela would derail my career or just my luggage.

Will I ruin business deals by speaking Spanish with a French accent or just sound multilingual? Will I ever learn Spanish or should I ask for a domestic as­signment now?

I leave class with many tapes and a couple of reve­lations: (I) Teaching this old dog a new trick is going to take longer than a short course; and (2) I really need a course for the geographically disadvantaged.

Oh well, as they say in French 'que sera, sera.' Or is that Italian?"

Source: Julie Davis. "To Learn the Lingo, You Gotta Get with el programa. Chicago Tribune, May 31, 1998: 6.1.

Copyright © 1998 by Chicago Tribune Company. All rights reserved. Used with permission.

Ii-- ---aAMERICAN PROBLEMS

AND THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY

This vignette illustrates a major theme of this book: Although Americans often choose to remain igno­rant of the fact, we are living in a progressively global community. That is, many lifestyle choices, concerns, and problems we see as uniquely "ours" are actually immersed in an international context. Consequently, U.S, problems are not only often "caused by" conditions abroad-or at the very least have parallels in other countries-but are frequently aggravated by planetwide forces. Conversely, prob­lems in other parts of the world are often related to the political and economic policies of the United States and the lifestyle choices of ordinary American citizens. Whether we like it or not, the nations of the world are both interrelated (connected to one an­other) and interdependent (rely on one another).

This fact is recognized in the popular media by phrases like "the global village:' which refers to the

5 CHAPTER 1 • TIfE SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTlVE, GLOBAL PROBLEMS, AND GLOBALIZATION

most sought-after items in markets as far-flung as Cairo, Moscow, and Buenos Aires. Similarly. scien­tific knowledge and technological innovation are shared internationally. For example, the global sci­entific research establishment is working together to solve a variety of problems, from dealing with the dangers of environmental waste to curing and treat­ing Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). In sports too we see many examples of our being part of a global community. For example. American basketball players play in the European league, whereas Europeans play in the National Basketball Association (NBA) or on U.S. college teams. None of these exchanges, even the most popular and positive, are typically without attendant problems, as we note throughout this book.

Ii-- THE SOClOLOGlCAL PERSPEcnVE ---i1 One of the criticisms of the U.S. education system is that it does not adequately prepare young people to participate in the global village. Increased awareness has caused educators to begin to correct this lack of attention by insisting on globalizing the curriculum. By bringing the unique perspective of sociology to Dear on the study of global issues, this book is part of that trend. To assist students in understanding this new perspective, we define sociology, present the concept of social construction of reality, and discuss the sociological imagination.

Sociology Defined Sociology is the disciplined study of patterns of human social interaction and their effects on human thought and conduct. Most sociologists, including the authors, believe that sociology is a science be­cause it applies the scientific method to the study of human behavior. Not only does being scientific re­quire careful, disciplined study, it also requires sub­scribing to the standards of science when conducting research. These standards include (1) trying not to let biases influence conclusions, (2) systematically collecting evidence to support conclusions, (3) com­mitting to the unfettered search for truth, (4) sub­mitting research findings to the larger scientific community for review, and (5) constantly question­ing and revising what is accepted as "truth."

The main goal of sociology is to understand human behavior. Many sociologists argue that sociology is a pure science because it seeks knowledge for its own

sake-the knowledge obtained does not have to have practical application. We agree with this view but also agree that much knowledge obtained by pure research turns out to have practical applications. For example, the information sociologists acquire by studying mass behavior simply to learn more about it may have a practical use in controlling urban riots. Or, perhaps more obviously. research into the causes of crime may turn out to be employed by police to devise more effective crime prevention. In this book we go one step further by suggesting that the meth­ods and findings of sociological research not only can, but should be. used to improve the conditions underlying global problems.

Human Beings as Social Creatures The focus of sociology on understanding the social influences on behavior is vital because human be­ings are social creatures. We are born because two people mated. usually after courtship rituals and customs prescribed by their social group. We de­velop our identities as individuals, gendered people, members of families and social classes, citizens of countries, and believers of religious faiths as we in­teract with others. We learn to speak the language of our families, friends, and peers. We receive our education, choose our mates, give birth to our chil­dren, make our living, grow old, die, and are carried to our graves (or launched to sea in a burning Viking shipl) according to the prescriptions of our particu­lar society.

In sum, we are immersed in the social web-the complex net of social relations stemming from the interlocking relationships among various groups to which we belong-at almost every moment from birth to death. Within this social web our personali­ties develop, we learn what is supposed to make us happy, or we experience frustrations that cause our lives to be nearly unbearable.

Within, and by means of, this web we create the meanings, structures, and patterns that enable us to live in what often appears to be a chaotic universe. Yet because human beings cannot live in a disorderly and unpredictable world, we engage in a process that allows us to impose order on our environment. The process of interaction that creates a shared reality is known as the social construction of reality (Berger and Luckmann, 1967). This reality includes everything from entire cosmologies (complex sets of ideas about how the universe was formed and functions) to shared definitions of how people are

7 CHAPTER 1 • TIlE SOC10LOGlCAL PERSPECTIVE. GLOBAL PROBLEMS, AND GLOBALIZATION

and other new members of society and serves as a blueprint by which members of society construct their lives.

In addition, culture provides the symbols, shared understandings, and structures that make communi­cation possible. Suppose, for example, you are at a ball game sitting several seats from the aisle. As a hot dog vendor passes, she yells, "Hot dogs! Hot dogs! Get your dogs here!" You raise your hand. She stops and asks, "How many?" You raise your index finger. She passes down a "dog," then raises two fingers. People in the row between you and her pass the "dog" until it reaches you. You then pass back a "five.· Upon receiving it, she sends over three "ones." You start to eat your treat while she contin­ues down the aisle in pursuit of the next sale.

A thorough analysis of all of the ways culture makes this small transaction possible would take several pages. We describe only several to stimulate your thinking. Our mention of a ball game, an aisle, and a hot dog vendor immediately establishes a par­ticular context for your understanding of the sym­bols, meanings, and normative patterns attached to this anecdote. First, let us look at the sounds uttered. If we had placed you at a dog race on a torrid sum­mer day rather than at a ball game, this change of setting would cause you to assign an entirely differ­ent meaning to "hot dogs" and "eating a dog"! The fact that you and the other people present at the ball game share a particular understanding of "hot dogs"

and the other words spoken shows that there is social agreement on the meaning of the sounds uttered. Next, consider the various hand gestures employed. Raising your hand in a classroom usually means you want to ask or answer a question. But within the context of a ball game, raising your hand in a care­fully prescribed manner means you want to pur­chase one or more hot dogs.

In addition, your raising your hand and the ven­dor's response of stopping placed you both within the context of a commercial transaction. It also de­fined your role as the buyer and her role as the seller. To perform these roles in a transaction that lasted only a minute or two, both of you had to depend on a very complex systems of norms, values, and as­sumptions you share as Americans. In this context, raising your index figure (a symbol) indicated to her that you wanted to buy one hot dog. Lifting another finger (another symbol) could have had an entirely different shared meaning. But in your encounter when the vendor raised two fingers (still another symbol), you rightly assumed that the cost was two dollars.

A complex system of norms also came into play during this exchange. When the vendor passed one hot dog to you, you knew you were expected to pass in return at least two dollars to her. When she re­ceived a five-dollar bill from you, she knew not to simply pocket the money and leave but to return to you three dollars in change. Moreover, the spectators

Culture provides the symbols, shared understandings, and structures that make communication possible. The interactions between you and a vendor at a baseball game, as you signal what you want, pay for it, and get change and your purchase back, all depend on basic understandings between you, the vendor, and the crowd that are part ofour culture.

9 CHAPTER , • THE SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE. GLOBAL PROBLEMS, AND GLOBALIZATION

and different from global problems. Then we de­velop theoretical concepts to encourage your under­standing of social problems within the context of globalization.

SOC1AL PROBLEMS --I] AND GLOBAL PROBLEMS

So far we have provided some background by dis­cussing the reality of globali zation and reviewing the sociological perspective. We now come directly to the focus of this book by examining issues related to the nature of global problems. We first discuss a widely used definition of social problems and show some implications of this definition for studying global problems. We next ask whether global prob­lems are qualitatively different from traditional so­cial problems. Finally, we present our own definition of global problems.

Global Problems 3S an Extension of Social Problems A traditional area of sociological investigation has been the study of national social problems. For ex­ample, many books have been written and courses taught about such problems as racism, poverty, sex­ism, and unemployment in the United States. We may, to some degree, see global social problems as a quantitative extension of this national-oriented ap­proach. That is, it is possible to view global problems as social problems that are bigger than national problems. As such, global problems affect not only social systems, but also massive numbers of people. From such a perspective it is obvious that many of the same dynamics operating in national social prob­lems are present in global problems. We illustrate this conclusion by examining a widely used defini­tion of social problems. Sociologists Paul Horton, Gerald Leslie, Richard Larson, and Robert Horton define a sodal problem as "a condition affecting a significant number of people in a way considered ad­verse about which it is thought something can be done through collective social action" (1994:2). Let us look more carefully at the implications of this definition.

Objective Condition and Subjective Definition. One implication is that social problems involve ob­jective (real) conditions affecting significant num­bers of people. If some condition is not present, then

it would be nearly impossible to convince people that a problem exists. We agree, but caution that the relationship between what is real and what is perceived to be real can be complex. Indeed, some­times people define conditions in ways that do not "square" with the facts, often with disastrous conse­quences. For example, during the 1950s Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy instituted a widespread persecution, alleging that many Americans were involved with communist plots to overthrow the U.S. government. Artists. actors, directors, authors, educators, homosexuals, persons who opposed Mc­Carthy, "strange" individuals, and ordinary citizens accused of leftist sympathies were ordered to testify about their communist leanings at Senate hearings, were publicly humiliated, and suffered ruined ca­reers. Despite the reality that most of the accused in­dividuals had no involvement with communism and that communism itself has never posed a serious threat to this country, McCarthyism was, neverthe­less, a response to an objective set of conditions. That is, it arose during the Cold War (1950-1991) between the Soviet Union and its allies and the United States and its allies.

During this era both sides possessed nuclear weapons that they threatened to use to obliterate each other. Both sides also angrily confronted each other in such international forums as the United Na­tions and used or allied with surrogates in "hot" wars around the world. For example, U.S. soldiers fought with South Korean soldiers against North (Communist) Korea in the Korean War, 1950-1953. During the Cold War some external threat to the United States from the Soviet Union may have ex­isted, although its likelihood was probably exagger­ated. As for the internal threat to the United States, historians generally agree that it came more from fear of communism than from communism itself. It was, however, this condition of fear that led many Americans to perceive a communist menace from within. And it was the same fear that also led to McCarthyite attacks on loyal citizens.

The same types of dynamics used during the McCarthy witchhunt years apply to global problems. ObViously, global problems are conditions that affect massive numbers of persons in different parts of the world. But how many people must be affected for the problem to be seen as global remains unclear. We may say that it is not necessary that everyone in the world be affected for a condition to be viewed as a global problem. Still, enough persons must adversely

11 CHAPTER 1 • ll-lE SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE, GLOBAL PROBLEMS, AND GLOBALIZATION

Everything You Read"). For example, it is common to define conflicts centering on social issues as a zero-sum game, a process by which the gains of some groups must be subtracted from the assets of other groups. By pitting groups against each another, we therefore discourage the compromises necessary for finding workable resolutions. Although situations do exist in which the gains of some must come at the cost of others, this is not always the case. In fact. the improvement of conditions associated with social problems frequently benefit all concerned. For in­stance, the business community often argues that the passage of laws requiring safer work conditions for workers will drive up costs and perhaps will force the closing of entire industries. Yet, not only do workers benefit from safer working conditions, but businesses also gain because of fewer injuries to workers, which results in fewer absences from work. lower premiums on insurance, fewer law suits for injury, and better worker morale.

Value Conflicts. Defining conditions as affecting people in a way considered undesirable implies a value judgment, an assessment of conditions or sit­uations based on deeply held values. Sociologists have traditionally contended that values and value judgments are intimately involved in social problems

The way society defines social problems has implications for their solution. For example, in the nineteenth century. poverty was looked an as a moral weakness on the part ofpoor immigrant families such as these, and as a result their children were often removed from the parents and placed in workhouses or shipped to the country to be reared in 0 suitable environment. By the early part of the twentieth century. states started providing "mother's pensions" to enable destitute women to keep their children with them in their homes.

(Fuller and Meyer, 1941a, 194Ib; Waller, 1936). In fact, value conflicts-disagreements between groups over which set of values should dominate­are influential in generating social problems as well as in preventing resolution of these issues. An exam­ple is the lengthy and continuing debate in the United States over abortion, in which people who want to limit abortion call themselves "pro-life," whereas those who want women to continue to have comparatively easy access to abortion call them­selves "pro-choice." The key to the debate between the two factions is whose rights should dominate. "Pro-lifers" hold that the unborn infant's "right to life" must be protected at all costs; "pro-choicers" contend that the mother's right of choice in control­ling her own body is primary. As the abortion debate shows, many values cannot be "proven" as superior to other values by methods upon which all parties can agree. Because it is not possible to demonstrate conclusively which side is "correct." the abortion controversy will probably rage indefinitely.

Sociologists have been reluctant to try to settle value disputes because values appear to vary so widely among groups in a given society, as well as among the many cultures in the world, and because of the lack of a means to objectively decide which values should dominate. Frequently, sociologists

CHAPTER 1 • lliE SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECllVE, GLOBAL PROBLEMS, AND GLOBALIZATION 13

strong efforts to identify their positions and assump­tions and to limit explicitly the interpretation of their findings within this position. Still, we need to recognize it is impossible for them (or for anybody else) to be truly value-free and objective when deal­ing with social problems. Even so, as sociologists we must strive to base our conclusions on well-founded and, in so far as possible, unbiased evidence.

In addition, the ultimate goal of sociology, we sug­gest, is not merely to analyze problems but to help create better societies and a better global comm unity. In taking this position, we are following what sociol­ogist Sal Restivo calls the "high tradition" in sociol­ogy: "The high tradition in sociology and in the world of learning in general has always been directed si­multaneously toward learning about the world and making it more livable" (Restivo, 1991:193).

The same dynamic also applies on a global scale to social problems. Like conditions on the national scale, global conditions must still be brought to the public awareness, at which point they can be defined as adverse. The way conditions are understood affects the type of solutions proposed. If competing values make the resolution of national problems difficult, we can easily see that different value orientations can create a quagmire on the global scene. Neverthe­less, sociologists can and, we believe, should make value judgments, deciding which conditions-even global ones-are "desirable."

Doing Something through Collective Action. Even when people do define conditions as negative, corrective action is not the inevitable consequence. One factor inhibiting such action is a widely held per­ception among people that they can do nothing to change things. People simply suffer difficult situa­tions when they believe that change is impossible. The responses to the possibility of-and the reality of­many natural disasters underline this phenomenon. For example, people living in areas subject to hurri­canes typically believe that little can be done to pre­vent these storms. Therefore, what they usually do when a hurricane approaches is prepare their prop­erty to withstand nature's onslaught, ride out the storm, and pick up the pieces when it is over. Yet when people believe they can prevent a natural disas­ter, the belief itself encourages them to take positive actions. For example, a growing belief in the United States during the 1930s that the periodic and devas­tating flooding around most major riverways could be controlled resulted in massive public works programs

to build dams, levies, floodgates, and reservoirs. It is important to recognize then that people must believe something can be done to prevent, improve, correct, or eliminate a negative condition before action will occur to improve the condition. It is not necessary that something be done to prevent or completely fix it. For example, flood control methods seem to be rel­atively effective in ordinary years. But in the summer of 1993 prodigious rains in the Midwest overloaded the river system. The resulting massive flooding may have been more disastrous than it would have been if nature had been left alone. Certainly, the human costs were higher because people had been encour­aged by the relative protection of the flood control measures to move into areas vulnerable to flooding.

What can be said of natural disasters can also be said of various human issues. People have to believe that something can be done before they are likely to become involved in efforts to improve or solve social problems. People who believe that "you can't fight city hall" or that a given set of conditions are too overwhelming ("poverty will always exist") are un­likely to take action. This attitude explains why res­ignation is a common reaction to national, much less global, social problems.

Another attribute of social problems is relevant to their study and solution: People must understand that collective social action is necessary to alleviate the particular adverse condition. Numerous problems exist that do not require collective action to solve ("I missed class all week because I overslept and am now in danger of failing, so I'm buying an alarm clock"). None of these types of problems could be termed social problems because the very nature of social problems generates group involvement. Soci­ologist Irvin Tallman (1976) contends that the value conflicts apparent in social problems stir strong feel­ings that stimulate people to act together to produce change or to resist it. Without the passions generated by value conflicts, people are unlikely to act on something; in such a situation, we can say that no social problem exists.

Finally, the strong passions associated with social problems frequently generate social movements (Mauss, 1976). Social movements are organized collective behaviors aimed at producing or preventing change in existing social structures. Participants in so­cial movements attempt to create pressure on political bodies, the media, and public opinion to gain advan­tages for their positions. Social movement partici­pants frequently create organizations to further their

CHAPTER 1 • llIE SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE, GLOBAL PROBLEMS, AND GLOBALIZATION 15

political (Chapter 7) and economic (Chapter 8) sys­tems, and so forth.

Similarly, dealing with global problems involves cutting across a range of disciplines-from the social sciences to the biological sciences. Traditional ap­proaches that work from within the framework of a single discipline cannot encompass the complexities of contemporary global problems. For example, be­cause environmental problems (ecology) have their roots (history) in population growth (sociology, technology, and medicine), capitalism (economics and sociology), and industrialization (technology, economics, sociology, and anthropology), to study them from the point of view of ecology alone would be short-sighted. Many different fields of study must be consulted about any particular issue. No one can be an expert in all the areas of study necessary to understand global problems, but we can draw as needed on the expertise of people from a variety of relevant disciplines. We can insist on a comprehen­sive approach that takes into account the complexity of global problems rather than merely seeing them from the narrow confines of a single discipline.

Negative Effects Threatening Humankind. Global problems are the consequence of negative ef­fects of relations within the sociosphere and the biosphere. The sociosphere and biosphere are both essential for human survival. Traditionally, many of the conditions identified as social problems focused solely on relations within the sociosphere, such as economic or racial exploitation. Although these interactions still occur, we are more aware that destructive social systems also negatively affect eco­logical systems. Many of the issues commonly iden­tified as global problems were created because the social systems human beings have created in the modern era are often in direct conflict with the eco­logical systems necessary to maintain life. For exam­ple, we are now more aware that warring societies may, besides killing each other in direct combat, pol­lute ecological systems such as lakes, their fish, and the birds that eat the fish. We discuss in detail the nature of these negative interactions at a number of points throughout this book.

Another key factor in the dynamics of global prob­lems is the threat they pose to large segments (if not all) of humanity. Although we recognize that the sub­jective element operates in defining global problems as it does with social problems, widespread agree­ment exists among physical and social scientists, as

well as governmental and business leaders, that many of the conditions we address in this text repre­sent a grave threat to the well-being and, perhaps, the continued existence of humans (Barney, 1980). Perhaps nowhere is this more obvious than in war­fare and environmental conditions. Human beings have always had a remarkable propensity for vio­lence. War is one way this tendency expresses itself. Whereas war itself is not new, modern technology has made us much more efficient killers.

This efficiency has reached its apex with the inven­tion of nuclear weapons, which give humans the ca­pacity to annihilate their enemies. For more than forty years-from the development of nuclear weapons by the former Soviet Union to compete with the United States' arsenal until the dissolution of Eu­ropean communism-the world lived under the mili­tary/political doctrine known as MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Since then, however, the world is not necessarily a safer place. Some argue that the possible nuclear proliferation into the hands of non­developed nations and/or terrorists may actually make the current situation more dangerous than things were at the height of Cold War competition. Chapter 7 discusses these issues.

The testing of ecological limits brought about by the combined workings of industrial society and population growth represents another agreed on threat to human existence. This is apparent in a host of problems such as the depletion of natural re­sources, pollution, the destruction of rain forests, and global warming, as discussed in Chapter 6. Pos­sibly less obvious is the seriousness of the threat to humankind caused by economic exploitation (see Chapter 8) combined with violations of human rights reviewed in Chapter 2. We term this a threat to humankind because it affects directly the welfare of a significant portion of the world's peoples. The same social, economic, and political systems causing exploitation and rights violations also create the conditions for warfare, ecological disaster, and de­pletion of natural resources that may additionally menace human survival on this planet.

Relief Requires Coordinated Multinational Ac­tion. The final characteristic of a global problem is that its resolution depends on coordinated multi­national action. No one government or even an al­liance of governments can unilaterally resolve these conditions. Many of them literally demand global changes (Barney, 1980). Two additional points need to be made at this juncture.

17 CHAPTER 1 • TIlE SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPEC1lVE, GLOBAL PROBLEMS, AND GLOBALIZATION

The Historical Phases ofModern Globalization In his book Globalization: Social Theory and Global Cul­

ture (1992), Roland Robertson, a leading thinker in this area, says that the modern globalization process has gone through five phases. Each phase has produced sweeping political, social, economic, and ideological changes. And each in turn has made a significant contri­bution to the globalization process.

Phase I: The Germinal Phase-Phase I, or the Germinal Phase, lasted from the early fifteenth to the mid-eigh­teenth centuries. During this time nations began to form as the "internationalism" of the medieval period waned. What we conceive of as nations did not exist during the medieval period. People had ethnic loyalty but came to see themselves as a larger Europa (Eu­rope) held together by loyalty to a common faith, Chris­tianity. Toward the end of the fifteenth century, Spain and Portugal began to emerge as nations under a united monarchy. England and France, among others, followed, organizing themselves into nation-states in the sixteenth century. In addition, new concepts of the individual and of humanity were formed. The heliocen­tric (sun-centered) model of the solar system came to dominate, and the Gregorian calendar, still our way of reckoning dates, was developed.

Phase II: The Incipient Phase-Phase II, or the Incipient Phase, extended from the mid-eighteenth century to 1870. During this period the concept of a homoge­neous, unified national government (or "state") was formed. The concepts of formalized relationships be­tween nations and of the individual as a citizen of a na­tion were crystallized. These new concepts gave rise to a new sense of identity based on membership in the nation. The problem of whether or not non-European nations should be admitted to "international society" became important, as did the issue of nationalism (pri­mary commitment to one's own nation) versus interna­tionalism (primary commitment to the larger society of nations).

Phase III: The Takeoff Phase-Phase III, or the Takeoff Phase, lasted from 1870 to the mid-1920s. Tendencies that were more submerged in previous eras formed a more coherent and unified pattern of globalization. There was a new focus on the entity of the nation-state,

an increasing focus on the"generic" human individual (with an emphasis on the masculine gender), a dnve to­ward forming an international society, and a further de­velopment of the concept of "humanity. " The "problems" of the modern period became a topic of discussion. Issues of national and personal identity be­come important themes. Asian and other non­European societies were "recognized" by Europeans if they met a code of "civilization," based on Western values. Although the code of civilization was an imposi­tion of foreign standards on Asian cultures, it involved a recognition of the possibility of a universal standard of conduct and of citizen rights The variety, speed, and means of global communication also increased during this era. World time zones were established, and the Gregorian calendar became almost universally used. In­ternational competitions such as the Nobel Prize and the modern Olympic Games were established. World War I was waged.

Phase IV: The Struggle-for-Hegemony Phase-Phase IV, or the Struggle-for-Hegemony Phase, extended from the 1920s to the late 1960s. According to Robert­son, the wars and political struggles of this phase, in­cluding the Cold War and the anticolonial wars, were struggles over the terms of the globalization process it­self. There was resistance to modernism (defined by Robertson as an orientation toward the rational manip­ulation of nature and society in the interests of prog­ress) in the form of Fascist and Nazi regimes. After their defeat in World War II, the struggle became one between different versions of modernism, the Soviet (or socialist) version and the American/Western Euro­pean version (or capitalism). During this time the League of Nations was formed as the first international political institution and, after it failed, the United Na­tions was established. The Nazi-engineered Holocaust and the invention of nuclear weapons focused in­creased concern on the nature of humanity and the question of its ultimate survival. The concept of the "Third World," referring to poor societies of the south­ern hemisphere with only limited industrialization, was invented.

(continued)

-CHAPTER 1 • lliE SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE, GLOBAL PROBLEMS, AND GLOBALIZATION 19

The technology ofcommunication and information, including computers and satellite television, is increasing the frequency of human interactions at an exponential rate. The speed ofsocial change is itselfpartly a function of the speed and ease of these interactions.

everyone today, a new development in human history. The depth of inquiry and the scope of dialogue now possible are unprecedented, as is the perceived need for shared answers to con­temporary issues. Because this quest for shared understanding is engaging some of the best and most creative minds, its results may prove to be among the most enduring contributions of globalization.

Discourse, Culture, and Subjective Globalization According to anthropologist Kay Milton (1996), we need to modify the picture we have of a humanity divided by invisible walls made up of cultural differ­ences. Rather, we should view human culture today as consisting of numerous "discourses." Discourse refers to the way knowledge (our sense of what is real) is formed and supported in the activity of com­munication. In today's world, cultural elements­ideas, values, worldviews, practices, beliefs-cross

boundaries previously thought to be impenetrable barriers to communication. These cultural "objects," or elements, are part of the ongoing discourse-in­ternational conferences, books, televised events, and conversations on the Internet. as well as other pat­terns of interaction-comprising much of the global­ization process. Such cultural interactions are too numerous and too elusive to be directly observed. Therefore, we must attempt, Milton contends, to un­derstand the perspectives of the participants in cul­tural interactions by examining the many written and spoken statements and actions they generate. These discourses naturally focus on various themes. And it is these themes that make up the core of sub­jective globalization.

ldentity as a Theme of Subjective Globalization One of the most fundamental themes of subjective globalization concerns changing or forming new identities and boundaries. The processes of objective globalization have brought about conditions in which many persons are asked to reexamine their senses of self, of group membership, and of their place in the larger world. In our definition, identi­ties are individuals' sense of what or who they are in relationship to the surrounding world in which they perceive themselves to live. Boundaries are sym­bolic limits that separate one person, group, or species from other people, groups, or species. These identities and boundaries emerge out of interaction between the individual and the various groups to which she or he may belong and among groups themselves. Identities and boundaries are rather ar­bitrary and require social recognition and support if they are to be effective. During today's ongoing pro­cess of globalization, identities and boundaries are being redefined at three levels: (1) self and group, (2) the intergroup level (Le., the global community), and (3) our identity as a species.

At the first, or self and group leveL the person may, as a result of globalization, begin to Question his or her responsibilities to the group and its traditions. A person might feel compelled to ask, "Am I first and foremost a part of the group, and, if so, do lowe it my full allegiance? Or am I primarily a distinct psy­chological being, a self, with special rights apart from the group? For example, if my group imposes on me a set of duties that I find burdensome,

CHAPTER 1 • TI-lE SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE. GLOBAL PROBLEMS. AND GLOBALIZATION 21

claim the right to challenge practices of their group on the basis of universal expectations. An illustra­tion of this basic conflict is found in the previously discussed practice of female genital mutilation. Those societies practicing female genital mutilation may claim that their way of life must not be chal­lenged, but it may be challenged from within by activists emphasizing universal standards. Such soci­eties also might listen to arguments based on mem­bership in the inclusive community of many groups (nations) and traditions that comprise the global community. These issues are further complicated by the fact that the values and norms that currently are dominant in the global community are those derived from Western Europe. Many persons reared in soci­eties with, for example, a Confucian or Islamic base question whether European values and norms should be used to judge behaviors in their non­European cultures. Chapter 9 discusses female geni­tal mutilation in more detail.

The third, or species level, of redefining identities and boundaries involves our seeing ourselves as a species (the human species) among other species. In other words, it brings to our attention our rela­tionship with something that we call "nature." The idea of what it means to be human and how this re­lates to the rest of the world varies tremendously from culture to culture. The modern Western world

International disaster relief is an example af the cooperation ofdiverse groups across national boundaries.

believes that human beings are distinct from the rest of nature. From this belief it follows that we must (and can) control and dominate nature. The awe­some power of modern technology has made this approach to nature a problem, not only for Euro­pean-based societies like our own, but also for all of humanity, perhaps for all forms of life on this planet. Yet many other cultures do not share this view that humans are distinct from the rest of nature. That is, they do not recognize what we call "nature," the "environment." or the "ecology" as different from human beings and their sociosphere. This situation is changing, however, as the rest of the world's cultures are becoming caught up in our definition of human identity and our perception of its effects. Thus, they are also becoming influenced by our need to redefine our relationship to the planet. It may turn out that the contribution of other cultures to our search for a global understanding on this issue will be immensely signi fican t.

Social Perspective Taking and Globalization Underlying the process of discourse (or dialogue) is social perspective taking, the process of taking into account the point of view of others. When we learn to take into account other perspectives, we

CHAPTER 1 • THE SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE, GLOBAL PROBLEMS, AND GLOBALIZATION 23

institutions are only part of the ongoing dis­course that constitutes global cultural processes today. They are likely to become less important and less persuasive as globalization progresses. For example. the Western idea of separation of church and state has been increasingly chal­lenged by Islamic ideas of the intertwining of church and state.

• Homocentrism: The practice of placing the inter­ests and well-being of the human species before that of any other species or the biosphere itself is called homocentrism. We discussed earlier the notion of treating nature and culture (human beings) as distinct and separate and as such to assume that human beings need to con­trol and master nature. This perspective derives from modern European thought. in which human culture is seen as purposive and, when led by modern science and technology, rational. Nature, in contrast, is viewed as without pur­pose or meaning, indifferent to human life and values. Although homocentrism remains a powerful influence within the global commu­nity, other ideas are challenging it. One such opposing idea is that if humans are to survive they will have to be more nurturing of the en­vironment (e.g., the movement to save the Brazilian rain forest).

• Dominance hierarchies and empowerment: The centralized, top-down control structures char­acteristic of androcentric or patriarchal culture are called dominance hierarchies. Govern­ment bureaucracies and corporations have adopted these methods of organization and control throughout much of the modern pe­riod. They are very much the types of structure used in mass production and industrialization until fairly recent decades. Today's information technology, trends in networking and coopera­tive organization, and our growing understand­ing of the way ecosystems are organized may continue to contribute to the global erosion of hierarchical structures.

• Mechanistic worldview: The view that the world (and ourselves) can best be viewed as complex machines that are essentially lifeless, purpose­less, and unconnected with human values and goals is called the mechanistic worldview.

This view, mainly the product of Western sci­ence, has been extremely influentiaL leading to among other things the dependence on ma­chines ("Without a car, I don't know how we'd survive"). Today many of the most power­ful challenges to this view have come from within the sciences themselves. Modern quan­tum physics undermines the idea that a mate­rial universe exists apart from the conscious observer. The development and spread of the global environmental movement increasingly challenges the machine model, substituting a view of the universe based on the model of liv­ing organisms and conscious interaction among these living organisms (see Chapter 5 for a more detailed discussion of these concepts). Consciousness itself plays a key role in defining and creating the "material world."

Many of the specific themes we have touched on are developed throughout this book. For now it is important to understand what an all-inclusive pro­cess globalization is. In this discussion we simply suggest the acceleration of social interdependence across the cultural and political boundaries and the increasing recognition that all of humanity is af­fected by the same general forces. Globalization is a multifaceted process; it is not limited to economic and trade relations or to war and diplomacy. For the last five hundred years, modern Western European civilization has significantly influenced globalization in both its objective and subjective aspects.

16-- DEF1N1NG THE DES1RED STATE

The ongoing evolution of the emerging world culture (or the ways in which it is being negotiated) forms the context in which national issues and global prob­lems must be addressed. To deal effectively with global problems, we must have some common con­cept of a desired state. By desired state we mean that condition or situation to which a society or the planet should be aspiring. The desired state also may be used as a norm by which contemporary conditions are judged. For example, when dealing with racial discrimination, many experts at least implicitly advo­cate the desirability of a society without discrimina­tion. Thus, they may judge current situations on the basis of the degree of racial discrimination compared to the desired state of no discrimination or advocate

II

CHAPTER 1 • lllE SOOOLOGlCAL PERSPEClWE, GLOBAL PROBLEMS, AND GLOBALIZATION 25

Classifying Global Inequality A number of schemes have been proposed to define

the categories for discussion of solutions to global in­equities. Although they are commonly used, all of these schemes have some defects. One frequently used con­cept is the idea of "three worlds." The First World is comprised of the capitalistic, industrialized, Western na­tions of the Cold War period. The Second World is com­prised of the Commonwealth of Independent States (the former Soviet Union) and its East European allies. The Third World consists of those nations-in Asia, Africa, and Latin America-that are not yet industrialized or are in the process of industrializing. This division re­mains the most widely used scheme, but it has serious drawbacks.

One difficulty with this typology is that it is a relic of the Cold War. In describing the First World this typology is ob­solete in one major way: The Soviet bloc it describes no longer exists. Nevertheless, the economies that make up the former Soviet bloc do share common dilemmas. For example, many of these nations have terrible environ­mental problems that were compounded under socialist regimes. Additionally, many of their industrial plants are obsolete and cannot compete effectively in the global marketplace. Most of these nations also face the specter of mass unemployment as inefficient state-supported industries lose their subsidies, close, or are forced to streamline their workforce to become competitive.

Another problem with this typology is that a wide diver­sity of conditions is found among Third World countries. Some of these countries are rapidly improving their lot, while others are slipping into an ever deepening quag­mire. Possibly for this reason some observers now speak

,-­====:::::'======

support (at least nominally) the idea of the equality of men and women. In contrast, societies dominated by traditional values originating, for example, in many African cultures or in Islamic fundamental­ism, consider male dominance to be the norm. When looking at such examples, it is not difficult to see that the cultures of the world are very different.

of the Fourth World, made up of those nations whose economies are in such disarray that they have little hope of participating in the global trading system, let alone of dealing with the myriad of social and political problems plaguing them. Ethiopia and Bangladesh are examples of Fourth World countries.

Another scheme distinguishes among advanced indus­trial, industrial, industrializing, and nonindustrial nations. Advanced industrial nations (also called postindustrial nations) are those countries that have been industrialized the longest but are shifting the preponderance of their workforces from manufacturing sectors to service and in­formation sectors. By service sector we mean those jobs providing some service to other people. Included in this category are salesclerks, teachers, lawyers, social work­ers, counselors, financial planners, and medical person­nel. The information sector consists of companies and organizations that engage largely in creating, gathering, or distributing various kinds of data. These include enter­prises focusing on researching and developing, but not manufacturing, new products. Other organizations in the information sector generate, collect, and distribute scien­tific, financial, and governmental information.

Industrialized nations are those in which the heaviest portion of their workforce is engaged in manufacturing some type of goods. Industrializing nations have begun a movement of their workforces from agricultural work and other occupations that meet the basic needs of their populations to industrial manufacturing. In contrast, the workforces of nonindustrialized nations have yet to make any movement from work that meets basic needs to the manufacture of goods.

,.====::::",:::====

The great differences among cultures, then, is an­other reason that some sociologists argue that it is impossible to objectively choose between competing values, norms, and interests on both the global and national scale. According to this viewpoint, it is diffi­cult to decide which set of standards should domi­nate in determining Mdesirable" outcomes in social

CHAPTER 1 • ruE SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE, GLOBAL PROBLEMS, AND GLOBAUZAll0N 27 •

among nations, as well as among ethnic groups­pe~ple sharing a culture within contemporary natIOn-states.

The major social transformation in Western society associated with the rise of modernism has informed the emerging global culture. The values and stan­dards of Western Europe have spread worldwide through exploration, colonization, commerce, and intellectual dialogue. Conversely, Western ideas have undergone modification as they interacted with non-Western traditions.

Out of this interchange certain acceptable stan­dards have emerged by which we may establish de­sirable conditions in the global community as well as in individual nations. One of these standards is quite simple-situations or actions must be judged by their contribution to the long-term survival of the human race. Driven by population pressures and the ecolog­icallimits of the earth, people around the world are starting to examine the long-range impact of con­temporary actions. For example, in the short run, in­dustries that pollute the environment may be beneficial, providing jobs and improving the eco­nomic status of workers. Historically, people have ac­cepted pollution as a tolerable side effect of the prosperity industry can bring. But now people often question whether the short-term gains associated with polluting industries outweigh the long-term risks to the health of employees and their families and whether the short-term benefits outweigh the long-term risks of destroying the biosphere that sup­ports us all. The question of whether a given action or policy contributes to long-term human survival is increasingly becoming a factor in national decisions. Some even argue that the current generation must make sacrifices for future generations. This so-called fourth-generation of human rights is discussed in greater length in Chapter 2.

Restivo (1991) argues that science itself has pro­vided significant mechanisms for the emergence of a common world culture. The norms of science such as (1) striving for objectivity; (2) eliminating bias in assessing objectives (or situations) studied; (3) pre­senting logical, tangible evidence for conclusions drawn; (4) conducting open inquiry; and (5) ques­tioning everything, including authorities, traditions, and previously accepted scientific propositions are widely accepted as ~proper" rules for determining truth. Societies that operate according to scientific principles have come to be increasingly seen by most

social scientists and social critics as ~desirable"

whereas those that operate on unscientific prin~i­pies are increasingly considered "undesirable."

Universal Declaration of Rights. The United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights (see Appendix A) is an extremely significant docu­ment for establishing the standards of the "desirable state" in the global community. The Universal Decla­ration was written in 1948 for the United Nations by an international committee chaired by U.S. dele­gate to the UN Eleanor Roosevelt (1884-1962). The declaration was a response to the Nazi atrocities of World War II, which resulted in the perceived need for acceptable standards of behavior in the world community. But the declaration, a resolution of the UN, did not bind member states to obey its articles. This situation was corrected in 1966 by the Interna­tional Human Rights Covenants (treaties), which were considered binding on those nations ratifying them. Most of the nations of the world have subse­quently signed the covenants. The covenants are used by the international community to judge situa­tions in nation-states whether they have ratified the covenants or not. The Universal Declaration and the covenants implementing it are generally called the International Bill of Rights (see Chapter 2 for more discussion of these documents).

The Universal Declaration is by far the most signif­icant human rights standard in modern history, and the Human Rights Covenants represent elaborations on its basic tenets. Most of the subsequent major presentations of rights such as various UN resolu­tions, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the Charter of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) are based on the Universal Declaration. Moreover, numerous other attempts to protect rights of minori­ties, women, children, and other exploited groups worldwide represent an extension of the declara­tion's articles to specific populations. Finally, the Universal Declaration has been the foundation for most of the constitutions of the new nations that have been formed since the end of World War II in 1945.

Political and Social Rights. Most Americans are likely to think of human rights in terms of political rights. However, one of the remarkable features of the Universal Declaration is that it contends that both political/civil and social/economic rights are

CHAPTER 1 • THE SOOOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE, GLOBAL PROBLEMS, AND GLOBALIZATION 29

and the Human Rights Covenant. Chapter 2 de­scribes these obstacles in detail. A few words about some of these issues should suffice here.

First, despite the objections of numerous groups that argue that these standards should not be applied to them, these rights criteria are being employed throughout the global community to define "civi­lized behavior." Nations or groups not conforming to these standards are frequently labeled "outlaws" by the international community through such organi­zations as the United Nations, human rights NGOs, the news media, and even global sports organiza­tions such as the International Olympic Committee. Such labeling frequently has negative moral, eco­nomic, politicaL and/or military ramifications. For example, for more than a decade South Africa was isolated by most of the global community because of its racially discriminatory policies. News media brought international moral pressure to bear on South Africa's government to change its discrimina­tory practices. Trade with the country was severely

SUMMARY

1. Increasingly, we are living in a global commu­nity. A consequence is that many problems we perceive as uniquely "ours" are actually em­bedded in an international context.

2. Sociology is the study of social influences on human behavior. Humans are embedded in a social web (a complex net of social relations) from birth to death. By forming a social con­struction of reality, people develop explana­tions of reality and definitions of appropriate behavior.

3. While most sociologists teach cultural rela­tivism (judging a culture by its own standards), most people practice ethnocentrism (judging other cultures by the standards of their own).

4. Having the sociological imagination (the ability to place our own biographies in histori ­cal context) involves awareness of the transfor­mative powers of history, or history's impact on individuals.

S. A social problem is a condition adversely af­fecting a significant number of people. Defining a social problem implies a value judgment, an

limited. South Africa could not fully participate in international organizations like the UN. Its athletes were barred from participation in international sports. Exports of military goods to South Africa were restricted. This pressure helped to peacefully end the racist white government and replace it with a democratic government that better represented the interests of white and black South Africans alike.

Second, despite the international community's fre­quent difficulty in ensuring a nation's compliance with them, these rights still have a moral impact worldwide and remain the sought-after "desired state" for assessing the way countries handle internal problems. Finally, we are not claiming these rights are ultimate-either in the sense that they reflect cosmic values or in the sense that they cannot be questioned. We are suggesting, however, that they are a readily available tool for assessing and dealing with conflicts concerning the various global and U.S. problems studied in this book.

assessment based on values. A global problem consists of identifiable conditions threatening a significant number of people, resulting from negative effects of relations with the socio­sphere and the biosphere, relief from which requires coordinated multinational action.

6. Objective globalization is the growing plane­tary interconnectedness of human social activ­ity. Subjective globalization, or the shared meaning people assign to themselves and to others as a result of the globalization process, involves the redefinition of identities and boundaries on three levels: (1) self and group, (2) intergroup, and (3) our identity as a species.

7. Social perspective taking, taking into account others' points of view, extends our mental and social boundaries and expands our views of the world and self. The tendency to view the world from a culturally masculine point of view is called andocentrism. Eurocentrism is the as­sumption that European culture is the norm for the world. Homocentrism places the interests of the human species before that of any other.