Like Modernism, Globalism has more than conjugal significance, and it may or may not be imperialistic in its encounter with other customs. The question is whether its diverse cultural elements the European, Hispanic, African, Korean, Chinese, Japanese, and other cultural heritages of Los Angeles, for instance can keep their reliability in a Global culture or whether they are transformed into a homogeneous stew with little specific integrity.
The consequences are too untimely to be definitive. The most harmonious result of the current cultural encounter is one where values from customary civilizations such as a reverence for the past, communal identities, and the demand for morality in public life can be joined with the more salutary aspects of Modernism, including a respect for normal decisions, equal treatment before the law, a toleration of differences, and the defense of the rights of minorities and individuals.
And from both kinds of civilizations, this optimistic result of Globalism would keep a spirit of progress concerning the future. But even the majority positive vision of a single, shared Global civilization is not automatically a formula for peace. All through history some of the most violent wars have been within civilizations family quarrels, like the one between two great Modernist powers, the United Kingdom and USSR.
Yet the global sharing of fundamental values can be a foundation for at least a modicum of cooperation between diverse parts of the world, and allow for a more or less logical evolution to new patterns of economic, social, and political involvement that will transform and in some cases reinstate the nation-state. A development of the United Nations’ role in peacekeeping, human rights, economic regulation, and ecological protection, for example, would be the rational extension of shared global values. It is not a dubious outcome, but this scenario will have to contend with the others for primacy in the coming decades.
If it is potential to counterfeit a common denominator among the diverse cultural traditions, to bridle the moralism and naive sanguinity of religious civilizations and rage them with the rationality of Modernism, and to level the Modernist illusions concerning the invincibility of human knowledge with a spiritual sense of the limitations of the human condition, then it is potential to imagine the emerging multicultural culture of the twenty-first century, Globalism, granted a cultural basis for both social identity and political order.
The radical alternatives, to my mind, are dismal ones. And as the societies of the world are already forced together ever more by a technological and communications relationship, it is not too hard a leap of imagination to think of a sharing of values on a global scale as well. Conclusion Globalization in all aspects appears to involve the reorganization of individual life around processes of conceptual generation and analysis.
Ideas which took shape in reflection on the concrete processes of historic, geographically situated nation-states are given new concrete representations as foci for individual and collective action in settings detached from those historic locations. Globalization does not merely have impact on sociological concepts; it is a process in which sociological thought is an element in the overall transformation of people’s lives.
Like globalization, social class can be understood as the defining term for the dialectical relationship between cultural and material forces. In its cultural sense, it is an idea, associated with a set of codes and values; an abstract source of shared identity and social belonging. Thus, in the construction of a world-view, locality and self-identity, the individual draws upon collectivist concepts-in this case, the concept of ‘working class’ which carries with it a set of associated values; a milieu.
Adopting a viewpoint that class culture is not static, but is socially constructed by individuals drawing from the options and values available to them, which then act back on the individual through external processes, it is possible to see both globalization and class culture as originating as relatively autonomous social constructions which depend on the individual’s own life experience, and the climate of the world in which s/he lives. Under global conditions, networks become dispersed, and cultural influences become more diverse.
Yet the attraction of the ‘local’, particularly when it affirms a set of cultural codes and ? values’, remains as strong as ever.
AAhad M. Osman-Gani & Zidan, S. S. “Cross-Cultural Implications of Planned on-the- job Training. Advances in Develpoing Human Resources, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 452-460. November, 2001. Appadurai, A. (1997). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.