Branching from Dianna’s great discussion surrounding
alternative networks and flows of information, I would like to bring up Colin
Sparks’ essay What’s wrong with
globalization? , in which Sparks concludes that the internet cannot be a
truly global medium because much of the world does not have access to the
internet because they do not have access to electricity. He states, “no
electricity, no internet” (Sparks 152). Does it follow, then, that no internet
equals no globalization?
The Nollywood film industry, an industry which emerged from
alternative communication networks, is an example that globalization can and does
exist in the absence of the internet and other modern communication technology.
Sparks’ notion is that those who have no
access to the internet have no access to the global network through this medium.
However, although some may have no direct
access to global networks through the internet, they still obtain access and a
presence in that global network, albeit through alternative methods. Nollywood
is a perfect example of this globalization phenomenon. The directors and producers of the Nollywood
films do not use internet as a medium to distribute or advertise their films.
Far from it, they make a basic copy and distribute it by hand to their
customers. Eventually, after their customers have made several copies of the
original film and sold each one for their own profit, the copies make their way
to the internet. Someone who has obtained a copy of the film downloads it onto
the internet and viola Nollywood is in the global internet network. Nollywood,
in my opinion, proves that human desire, ambition and creativity are the
driving force behind the development of these alternative networks, as Dianna proposed in her post. People adapt
to their conditions and the technology they have access to in order to effectively
participate in globalization.
Brittany -- I am so glad that you brought this up. It really is a vexing question; can we actually separate globalization from technology? Or are the two inherently linked?
ReplyDeleteMost of the authors of our class readings have talked about globalization in terms of communication technologies (Elizabeth Hanson comes to mind as the most predominant, since that is the subject on which her whole book is based). Even my example of Karim H. Karim in my alternative network blog talks about the diaspora's use of technology! Though Jade Miller did bring up how some of the technology/lack thereof influences how Nollywood is produced and distributed, you are right to point out that it is still happening outside dominant technological channels. And that makes the concept of globalization that much more complex, because we cannot just say that it is happening with those who, as Sparks said, have access to the Internet, or satellite television, etc.
Looking back over thousands of years, humans have globalized without the use of electricity just fine. For example, as early as the second millennium BCE, Ancient Greece was already linked to Egypt, India, and China through trade routes, with artistic styles, writing, science and other cultural products all being transferred around the world. And they did all this without the help of the Internet!
Has electricity and the inventions that stemmed from it enabled globalizing at greater speeds? Most definitely. However, that does not mean that that is the only way to exchange ideas and products. Perhaps it is time to separate technology from globalization and look at the multiple facets of human existence that have gone into shaping its sudden rise to cognitive existence.
Thank you for expanding on this idea Dianna. Your discussion brings to my mind another related question: is communication technology even part of the definition of globalization?
ReplyDeleteMany times globalization is discussed in relation to media and communication technology. Of course technology influences globalization; however, it seems that when we (and the various authors we have read to date) discuss globalization we are all talking about the notion of people sharing information, ideas and cultures across distance. However, as you mention, this is a process that has been occurring for hundreds of years even before the existence of sophisticated communication technologies, albeit at a much slower pace. (An example of the slow communication sans technology of the past that comes to mind is the legend of Pheidippides – the messenger who ran 26.2 miles to deliver a message from the Battle of Marathon to Athens.) This leaves me wondering if it makes more sense to talk in terms of ‘historical globalization’ and ‘modern globalization’. For me, the defining factor of ‘modern globalization’ is really the speed by which the globalization process can happen now on account of the technology that exists in the modern era.
It definitely is worth exploring to split the definition of globalization into a "historical" one and a "modern" one - the former being less defined by technology and the pace it thrusts us into than the latter one is.
ReplyDeleteTo me, without technology there would be no globalization (people would have never crossed oceans had they not created vessels safe enough to withstand the perils of such a voyage) but the fact that we even want to explore and expand our horizon is an inherent human curiosity.
Todays globalization and internationalization lives off of that curiosity. Nollywood is successful because people are curious and they want to watch movies. It is not the internet and movie ratings that make them want to see the movies but word of mouth communication and informal networks.
Franzi at intlsmalltalk.wordpress.com
This is a great conversation! While we associate technology with globalization, I feel often times the term globalization is ambiguous, no? Some may parallel technology with "Westernization," but is Westernization necessarily Globalization? I'd argue it depends on what culture/society we're talking about. Historically, the United States has clearly carried out the message of globalization and technology going hand in hand, while at the same time many perceive this as imposing Western culture--what do you think?
ReplyDeleteAlso, I recently heard this piece about the digital divide in the United States--thought it might be relevant to some of your thoughts:
http://cnnradio.cnn.com/2012/10/05/helping-kids-cross-the-digital-divide/
In contrast, there's the MIT program "One Laptop per Child" giving laptops to children in rural areas around the world:
http://global.mit.edu/projects/project/one-laptop-per-child-olpc/
Thoughts?
-Gaby