What do you think?
Rate this book
Globalization: Debunking the Myths
Debunking the Myths demystifies the rhetoric surrounding one of the most hotly debated topics among scholars, commentators, and policymakers. Presenting arguments for and against globalization, this text examines a wide range of views on the economic, political, cultural, and environmental dimensions of globalization and exposes their underlying frameworks, methodologies, and expectations. Throughout, Globalization compares rhetoric and reality and argues that there is no one way to understand this complex phenomenon. " Globalization moves the discussion of globalization beyond polemics to carve out an informed middle-ground position."–Sheila Croucher, Miami University "With an intimate knowledge of the scholarly literature, an acute awareness of the public significance of the issues, and an engaging style, Hebron and Stack tkae us through a shifting landscape..."–James Piscatori, The Australian National University " Globalization is required reading for anyone, either in academe or the general public, who wants to obtain greater understanding of the consequences of globalization."—Patrick James, University of Southern California
224 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2008
6 people are currently reading
14 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
April 29, 2012
Aside from the primary author Dr. Hebron being a professor at my Alma Mater California Maritime Academy, I must set aside a personal bias and be as objective as possible. I actually found this very short book to be a concise and excellently researched thesis of globalization and its pros and cons. Dr. Hebron provided the pros and cons and then concluded with his opinion whether either or was correct and to what degree. Opponents argue that globalization is leaving a larger segment of global population behind than it benefits, which is true in some instances but is a result more of the closed markets and political turmoil in some developing countries. Essentially it really has to do with access and if individuals do not have the access, then they do not benefit. However the author argues that if the individual has access and their respective country provides it to them, they gain from globalization. Furthermore, the author does point out that multinationals should strive to provide this access via education, philanthropy and customization - also recognizing that local cultures, values and norms differ.
Other points of globalization opponents draw and discussed here are the loss of sovereignty, culture and environment. While true that in Europe, nation state lines are blurring, there are more nation states created in the last 20 years then the previous 50, so this is not correct and highlights one can argues that due to globalization, hence access to knowledge and information via the internet is essentially formulating opportunities for certain cultures to mandate their sovereignty (look at the slave states, scots, welsh, quebecians as examples). Furthermore as globalization is dominated by Americans, that there is a feeling that culture is being lost and the world is becoming Americanized. For example of the 75 largest and most recognized global brands, 42 of them are American. However well argued by the author is that it isn't so much that American hegemony creates this, but rather Americans stand for identity, optimism, individuality and hope so a number of individuals globally gravitate to these brands which provide what they seemingly have lacked because of lack of access and individuality. Another pointed example is the English language as the global language and how that is harming local culture. Well said by the author is the adaptation of English into variations that suit the local culture such as Singlish (singapore), Taglish (phillipines), spanglish (mexico and mexican-americans), and Chinglish (china). So the author doesn't argue against anti-globalists, but rather through pragmatism, incorporates much of what they say to create a cohesive point of view that globalization is ultimately good for the world but must not ignore poverty, politics, culture and the environment. If ignored, those that feel left behind and ignored lash out (radicalism).
Other points of globalization opponents draw and discussed here are the loss of sovereignty, culture and environment. While true that in Europe, nation state lines are blurring, there are more nation states created in the last 20 years then the previous 50, so this is not correct and highlights one can argues that due to globalization, hence access to knowledge and information via the internet is essentially formulating opportunities for certain cultures to mandate their sovereignty (look at the slave states, scots, welsh, quebecians as examples). Furthermore as globalization is dominated by Americans, that there is a feeling that culture is being lost and the world is becoming Americanized. For example of the 75 largest and most recognized global brands, 42 of them are American. However well argued by the author is that it isn't so much that American hegemony creates this, but rather Americans stand for identity, optimism, individuality and hope so a number of individuals globally gravitate to these brands which provide what they seemingly have lacked because of lack of access and individuality. Another pointed example is the English language as the global language and how that is harming local culture. Well said by the author is the adaptation of English into variations that suit the local culture such as Singlish (singapore), Taglish (phillipines), spanglish (mexico and mexican-americans), and Chinglish (china). So the author doesn't argue against anti-globalists, but rather through pragmatism, incorporates much of what they say to create a cohesive point of view that globalization is ultimately good for the world but must not ignore poverty, politics, culture and the environment. If ignored, those that feel left behind and ignored lash out (radicalism).
Displaying 1 of 1 review