IMO abstract definitions of terms like "globalization" that involve bundling a set of attributes and their implicit assumptions confuses predicated and demanded outcomes.
Simplicity is usually best, and in this case a simple definition of globalization is the diffusion of things around the world. The things diffused can be economic, cultural, or whatever...but we really just mean that people in one part of the world interact with those in another and exchange something.
Including the specific things in the globalization definition is not a good idea bc it automatically excludes others, which could have equal validity. The choice of inclusion/exclusion is endogenous in that it is a choice of the person making the definition and hence based on prior beliefs, assumptions, and desired outcome.
Finally, when passing judgment on outcomes of things diffusing across peoples, there's a big difference btw voicing an opinion vs. demanding opinion necessitates forceful disruption of what people would otherwise choose to do with their own lives. Implicit in the statement that "globalization is bad and x needs to be retained in y culture" is the demand that the people in y culture obey the order to maintain x against their will. As long as what is being diffused is done so peacefully and adopted voluntarily, I see no moral right to interfere.
Right, I agree that a simple definition is best 100% of the time. The Socratic Method gives an in depth look as too the negative implications of giving to many details or defining something in a vague manner. Limiting the idea is the perfect way of defining anything.
I don't understand where you were going with "...assumptions confuses predicated and demanded outcomes." Seeing this is an attribute of the future, whereas I was making reference to more empirical information. The thing with demand is it's necessary to know who is demanding, why they are demanding it, and how fulfilling this demand is going to go down. This is important due to the ripple effect that the operation creates in all aspects for the participants. Considering the importance we give to cognitive aspects in this day and age (human capital for example), making a wrong move in this realm can lead to a very high cost of opportunity for an entire country.
I do want to make clear though that I never had any intention as to taking a standpoint on whether it being good or bad. As a matter of fact, I believe that inevitably it was bound to happen one way or another throughout our advancements and also think it offers great possibility for progress as a whole. I’m not the type to point fingers either, I’d rather adopt and fine tune towards a more positive solution. Nontheless, the historic backdrop was more a way of mentioning some of the steps we took to finally culminate to this model & is the reason I included it in what would've been a much shorter post.
I would need you to define “Forceful disruption” to me, just so I know were on the same page but continuing on with the concept, a disruption whether it be forceful or not, is actually being given the opportunity to see a different stand-point. It’s eye opening or at least it opens a window to a different option that may not be seen on a particular individuals horizon. Choice is not entirely free, to anyone. We are all coerced into a particular situation and our possibilities are limited. Thankfully in our day and age by making an effort some can actually progress. Ignoring that we make lots of decisions due to things that aren’t in our control is just a way of turning the other cheek. Some individuals are so alienated and emerged in their day to day regimes that they become shortsighted and only do things because they consider it natural or normal. They live this way until their last breathe. Mixing moral interference in the equation makes it even more complex. Especially when considering that historically a populations growth was limited via indoctrination and other suppressive instrumentation throughout time. Their future choice in part taking in this model or any that may come about comes down to their possibilities and limitations, having them even make a decision is more of an ultimatum rather than a peaceful and voluntary choice. Something along the lines of cognitive leverage, if I may.
Appreciate your comment though! These are the types of conversations I was hoping would spark on this platform and I’m guessing Steemit did too. Also, you’ve got a new follower, I see we share similar interests so hopefully we can continue to share our points of view.
You also have a new follower :)
I appreciate the intellectual discourse...some great ideas floating around here on Steemit!
"I don't understand where you were going with '...assumptions confuses predicated and demanded outcomes.'" <--Type, sorry! Predicated should be "predicted." What i meant was that if we bundle a set of assumptions into a definition then the predicted outcomes are dependent on what we include in the bundle. Stripping definitions to the simplest form reduces this kind of error.
I didn't mean to imply you were taking a position on either side of the debate; my comment was more an addendum to what you were pointing out...i'm also rather agnostic on a lot of the outcomes of diffusion (globalization), though i tend to skew positive on the economic benefits of specialization and freedom of trade.
What i meant by "forceful disruption" would be something along the lines of a policy to prevent people from doing something, like preventing Starbucks from entering the Italian cafe market bc a policymaker has a bias towards Italian firms; i'd prefer the decision to patronize a business to rest with customers, not to create curated lists of firms allowed to compete in a given market.
Ah, I see thanks for clarifying. The Starbucks example you gave instantly reminded me of a stance Bolivia took regarding McDonalds and other foreign firms not so long ago. Pretty interesting story, if you want to look it up.
Cool, yeah that's exactly the kind of thing i meant...something a policymaker and supporters might favor, but is really just dominance in preference over consumers who might express their own preferences otherwise.