A Flat World
9 January 2013
Tony E Dillon-Hansen
There are many people who like to describe the world as
“flat”, notably New York Times
columnist, Thomas Friedman. This is supposed to describe globalization as a
measure of the growing competitiveness and interdependence between cultures and
countries of the world that has been a feature of modern society. This supposedly
indicates that cultures are working together more relegating national borders
to mere dots on a map. In contrast, others suggest that these claims are quite
exaggerated compared to actual data. Their assertion is that there are relatively
small interactions between cultures and countries. This presents an interesting discussion about
the nature of globalization and cultural interactions both globally and locally
because we do not have to look far to see that true global interaction is far
from realized.
The points made by Mr. Friedman’s allies have been readily
absorbed by many in academics, economics and politicians. With some empirical observation
and interviews with a few entrepreneurs, we can see the world through the eyes
of those who work on a global level. Through these, we see how some markets
have changed from local to supra-national markets that span OECD countries as
well as some non-OECD countries. We can
see vast supply chains that stretch across the globe whereas the previous
generation tended to keep those supply chains within domestic borders.
These long supply chains require a consideration of foreign
disruptions, competitions, and government policies that differ from local
markets. American companies (doing
business overseas) along with government had to change how they managed competition
and economics due to the rapid expanse of foreign companies and governments. We
should find this to be curious when capital markets have spread the chain (or
web) across unfriendly and competitive regions of the globe when the ultimate
sale is local. The supply chain may be spread across the globe, however, the
places people go to buy the finished product is local, and conversations we
have are with our selected communities.
Friedman, using his showcase stories, argues that the
current globalization trend is driven by individuals creating and collaborating
primarily using a “common” flat technology platform spanning vast
networks. With the explosion of social
media, interactivity and connections span multiple continents between billions
of people that previously were unable to connect. There is reason to believe
that people are much more connected globally as well as locally. This is a bit
of overstatement and generalization based upon perceptions.
The exaggerated perception shows in how Americans perceive
larger budget portions dedicated to foreign aid versus actual figures or even
in comparison to domestic aid and spending. We can see the changes in news
reporting over the years that contain dwindling amounts of international news
(unless you listen to NPR).
As well, we can consider the quick action of making a
connection via social media versus actually having a conversation with someone
from across the ocean. Is that connection just based upon a profitable network
opportunity or are we truly seeking to learns different ideas? We may be
crossing the globalization threshold espoused by Mr. Friedman’s allies if we
are willing to learn from others especially regardless if we agree or
comprehend the premise of their ideas. Yet, the West is more likely to visit
and to discuss news from the West, as opposed to say Central Africa, based upon
distorted notions of technical and philosophical growth. This limits our own
ingenuity, resourcefulness and expansion to ideas of supposedly superior cultural
growth and assumptions.
We can see the result of this in the rejection of the West
by Arabic countries. There are divergent opinions and priorities between people
in different parts of the country, the state, and even between churches that claim
the same denomination within a few blocks of each other. The LGBT community
cannot understand why some do not see the connection of marriage as love
between people rather than an exclusive tradition. People who have never
understood the feeling of being considered second-class do not understand the
pride of wanting to be part of the promised-land that is equality. We may live
in a world that enjoys accessibility to ideas, but we are comforted when contained
within our own familiar realm of thinking, sometimes deliberately. Whether it is called the “big sort” or “wisdom
of the flock”, people tend to get their desired information and opinions from
the selected sources and people.
Technology can help to overcome supposed localizations and
physical limitations that people have built over time (e.g. nation-state,
religion, high schools, neighborhoods, political parties). Yet, to claim that
people are using technology to actively reach across various barriers is muted
if less than 10% do the stretching. One only has to look at your own social
media to see with whom you interact, the events and the places you go. Even
more, consider how many conversations with people outside of your community
(whether LGBT, local city, school or family) that you have participated. We self-select,
intentionally or not, what places we go and with whom we interact.
We have to question Mr. Friedman’s ideas because the idea of
a flat world cannot be realized when
most people do not go beyond their realms, regardless of a global web or the
few entrepreneurs. There are issues with global impacts like climate change,
oil supply, and expansion of technology. Still, we prefer to hear solutions
from people like us. Those global
problems require global cooperation and discussions rather than simply giving
orders and expecting everyone to fall in-line. Those issues require more
drastic actions than a button click.
Globalization can teach us much about ourselves and our expectations,
but how do we go beyond our own perceptions?
The technology and capacity is ready if we are willing to expand. Of
this I agree with Mr. Friedman, we should do what we think is possible, however
improbable, because someone somewhere will do it.
No comments:
Post a Comment