Unit 1: Globalization
Journal Reflection

The reading that I want to discuss in this analysis is Saskia Sassen's comment on “How to theorize globalization.” The reason why I felt that this was an important article to discuss is because of how globalization is seen in a modern world, and is being mischaracterized due to how the word “global” gets perceived.

Quote : “We have not globalized the world...” (793)

I think that this quote encapsulates the real issue with the term “globalization,” as the world isn’t truly globalized, rather, certain aspects have been made global. Globalization is assumed to be universal and seen as something beneficial for everyone. In reality, globalized items and resources are created first in certain localities under particular conditions. This quote highlights how globalization is extremely partial, even when the term “global” has positive connotations of widespread improvement. Many populations and regions are excluded, showing the contrast between powerful actors who are connected globally and marginalized groups who are constrained and often exploited in these global networks. This is highlighted through what Sassen states, “the world” does not experience the benefits of globalization equally.

In general, this quote emphasizes Saskia Sassens' comment, as she wants us to reconsider how we use the term “global”, especially when theorizing globalization and examining current social conditions. Globalization has upheld capitalist hierarchies, and many conditions that affect are seen globally have larger and more negative impacts on localities. The quote also suggests the perspective of globalization being very Eurocentric/Western-centric, as “the world” doesn't actually include everyone, as peripheral countries are excluded from this globalized world. Therefore, her emphasizing how the world has not been globalized again connects to the topic discussed in class being how selective globalization is seen in core versus periphery countries.

Personal Connection

A connection that I’ve made after reading Saskia Sassens comment is a personal connection to my grandmother's family in Singapore. Her family owned a general store in Singapore near a coastal town during the 1950s to 60s. Most of what they sold in the store was imported goods from Europe and Australia, which may seem like globalization's effects. In reality, these imported goods mainly catered to the white travellers from European and Western countries that would visit the beaches in this colony, as during this time they were still under British rule. This shows how even when something appears to be globalized, like these goods coming from Europe and Australia, and being accessible to a broader range of communities, the access was still limited, as it was selective in which travellers these items were sold to. This shows how there is always a partial nature present in globalization.

I chose this connection specifically because I always heard about this shop, and it seemed similar to what we discussed in class, where goods were shipped internationally, and cultures were connected, but there was that aspect of selective globalization. This also felt important as this connection happened in colonial-ruled Singapore and therefore reinforces one of the main themes of this class, being how colonial power and its structures affect who has access to these global goods. Even when speaking to my grandmother about this, there was always this emphasis of “wow, all these international goods are here,” contrasting with who actually was able to buy these goods, so it came to mind when speaking about globalization and its effects in different localities.

Question 1: Is globalization ever impartial, or is partiality so deeply embedded in both its creation and functionality thats its unavoidable?

Question 2: Even when goods and cultures become globalized, how do the social structures and hierarchies in these worldwide communities still limit accessibility?