Preliminary Exam 2006

Question 3: ‘Globalisation disconnects the world’. Do you agree?

Detractors of globalisation, perhaps apprehensive about its seemingly inexorable

spread in the modern world we inhabit, have vehemently chastised this phenomenon,
understood in this essay as the increased interconnectedness of virtually every nation on
economic, political and cultural spheres, for its flagrant failure to unite everyone for a
common cause. Globalisation, these activists opine, is divisive rather than cohesive,
unlike what advocates of this phenomenon seem to insist. While there exists a modicum
of truth in this line of argument, the irrefutable fact remains that it is too sweeping to
truly do justice to the importance of globalisation, and to imply, as these ardent anti-
globalisation activists do, that this phenomenon should be resisted based upon the shaky
ground that it disconnects the world is at best naïve and at worst fraudulent.

To begin with, it should be acknowledged, albeit with some reservation, that die-
hard anti-globalisation activists are not too far off the mark in their contention that
globalisation has, in fact, disconnected the world that it purports to link. After all, the
polarity inextricably tied with the entire phenomenon is hardly anything new – even pro-
globalisation magazines such as The Economist have openly conceded that one of the
most worrisome impacts of globalisation is its propensity to widen the already substantial
income gap, thus dividing the world into two separate groups, the bountifully rich and the
desperately poor. The reason is simple: globalisation arises from the breathtaking
progress of science and technology, which indubitably allows for a considerably greater
flow of information, capital as well as labour. While such an enhanced flow of vital
resources is often touted by many a globalist, it is scarcely without drawbacks, the most
patent of which is a global downward trend in the wages of unskilled labours, whose
glaring lack of technological know-how has ineluctably put them to an undeniable
disadvantage. The proliferation of sweatshops in cheap-labour countries such as the
Philippines, Bangladesh and China, where illiterate children toil from dawn to dusk just
to eke out outrageously low wages; the soaring inequality in many countries ranging from
sub-Saharan nations to Singapore, as attested to by their escalating Gini coefficients,
which measure the severity of income disparity; the extent to which the poor are mired in
misery around the world – all seem to stand out as unwholesome monuments to the
seemingly divisive nature of globalisation. This being the case, anti-globalisation activists
seem justified in their scathing criticism that globalisation disconnects the world.

On the political sphere, where globalisation is generally perceived as the spread of

values and ideals such as democracy to countries plagued with oppressive governments
such as Cuba and Laos, the same criticism seems to hold sway as well. True,
globalisation, by virtue of increased technological skills amongst the public, has made it
practically impossible for despotic rulers to conceal unpleasant truths from the people and
enforced the need for these authoritarian nations to open up to democratic ideals and
adopt the free market system in exchange of economic benefits; however, it has also
given rise to incontestably hostile sentiments – most notably religious extremism.
Perhaps alarmed by what they see as a rapid erosion of the (sometimes conservative and
dated) values that they cherish, these religious fundamentalists have resorted to outright
condemnation, or even downright violent means, to make their voice heard and to resist
the spread of globalisation. The protests put up by reactionary Muslims in Indonesia in
objection to the publication of ‘Playboy’ magazine bears this out. Again, this seems to
attest to the plausibility, however insignificant, of anti-globalisation activists’ argument
that globalisation, far from uniting, actually disconnects modern society.

That said, it is perhaps overly simplistic to render globalisation as inherently

divisive. After all, the very word ‘globalisation’ itself implies the phenomenon is more
binding than it is divisive, and rightly so, because the greater harmonisation in the world
has indeed brought us much closer together than our forbearers could have possibly
imagined. On the economic front, it is globalisation that has mercilessly eradicated the
barriers hindering the flow of important goods and services amongst nations, and
doubtlessly paved the way for greater cooperation regionally and internationally – a fact
no doubt testified by the existence of organisations such as ASEAN and EU, which are
planning for even more integration in the future. It is also globalisation, manifesting in
the greater exposure each country had to the multifarious cultures developed and held
dear by others, that has brought diversity to the cultural scene of numerous countries, and
enhanced the mutual appreciation of each other’s culture. Consider, for instance, how
‘pho’, a uniquely Vietnamese cuisine has added flavour, both metaphorically and
literally, to the culinary cultures in countries such as America and Korea. Politically, the
spread of democratic ideals, while unavoidably tinged with setbacks as argued above, has
also gone a long way towards ameliorating the welfare of millions of people in the world
who still dwell in the misery inflicted by suppressive political systems such as those in
Rwanda and Congo. No doubt this goes to show the crucial role of globalisation in
linking the world, despite prevalent pretence to the contrary by anti-globalisation
advocates.

Furthermore, it is also possible to take this argument one step further and
scrutinise its inherent assumption that globalisation is the chief culprit that should bear
the blame for the greater conflicts and disunity in the world. Nothing, of course, could be
further from the truth. Even without globalisation, the world in which we live has already
been beset with raging trans-national disputes, since time immemorial. Indeed, the lack of
globalisation may very well turn out to be remarkably more divisive than globalisation
itself – after all, as Paul Krugman and numerous other scholars have noted, prior to the
spread of globalisation, national autonomy was all that mattered in the formulation of
policies that are of paramount importance. It is all too simple to make globalisation the
scapegoat for the disjoint state of today’s world, but to do so would be extremely
inadvisable, even naively crass. That is to say, the premise upon which the assertion in
the question rests is unequivocally dubious, and the assertion, therefore, should not be
agreed upon wholeheartedly.

In conclusion, while there is no denying that the arguments brought forth by anti-
globalisation activists are not entirely baseless and illogical, it remains too reductionistic
to avow that globalisation is only capable of dividing the world. Frankly speaking, while
globalisation may be imperfect, an adamant resistance to this phenomenon, which has
become ‘a fact of life’ (Kofi Anan), may turn out more divisive and detrimental to global
prosperity than globalisation does. Essentially, it boils down to a matter of choice, not
between good and evil, but between two evils, both of which are potentially deleterious,
yet one is indubitably more inimical than the other. Faced with such a choice, it would
certainly serve us well to accept globalisation as a necessary evil that can benefit us
tremendously, rather than look down on it with sheer contempt.

Content: 23
Language: 17
Total: 40

Examiner’s remark:
An excellent essay; some sharp insights and original opinions. Good structure and use of
knowledge to support your stand. One crucial part missing in your thesis though: explore
the idea of loneliness – disconnection on an individual level – arising due to life in a
crowded, connected metropolis. Excellent command of the language, but some simple
errors; be more careful.