Globalisation is (especially in the much more modern, technological sense of the word) constantly thought to be about bringing the world closer together in terms of trade, relations and so on, however it also taken in many interpretations to be about the reducing importance of the nation state, and somewhat a loss in national identity.
Perhaps these claims are channelled most 'tangibly' through individuals ability to share, trade, and communicate with less and less need to involve the state as a means of achieving the said outcomes. Indeed communication and it's tools were primarily in the mid 20th century viewed as a means of political power and international voice as it relates to the position of the nation state (Rantanen, 2005, pg 2) Think about, for instance any songs from, countries all over the world that can be readily accessed by an internet user at will; the internet does allow for virtually limitless exchange of culture through electronic means. Of course this cultural transfer is not merely limited to music but just about all forms of art, DIY international trade and a host of other factors which build the interpretation of the world emerging as one international community.
So with this thought in mind, i would like to pose a question, does this kind cross-culture saturation (more possible than ever with Globalisation) serve to undermine or alter a nation state's identity, or instead conversely help to solidify and build their identity in relation to their place in the world around them?
Rantanen, T 2005, The media and globalization, Sage, London, pp. 1–18.
I like your point about nation states being threaten by globalisation and I happen to believe that with the world being brought closer together and with the knowledge we have of the “threat” of globalisation that nations are trying harder to stand alone. Whether that is a good thing or not is as much as question as well though.
ReplyDelete