VERY interesting topic, we hear so much about it, but seldom do we consider the different effects of it.
Firstly, there is economic globalisation, this includes stuff like companies diversifying overseas, 24hr trading of shares through having trading across continents, etc.
Then there is political globalisation, which involves a spread of political ideas, such as what the US is doing with democracy now, trying to 'globalise' democracy and introduce it to other countries.
Thirdly, on there is social globalisation, which includes the integration of peoples and cultures, in this case, we've seen English sort of globalise the world.
I've been very broad in the definition of globalisation and sort of blended the idea of domination with globalisation, as in, english dominates in most places, and can thus be said to have been part of globalisation. Obviously, viewing globalisation from the viewpoint of a CEO of some multi-national corp. would be very different. The CEO would view globalisation as a chance to expand his manufacturing base and open up new markets.
As with have seen in other areas in modern times, anything to do with money generally develops the fastest. The same can be said of globalisation. science and technology, otherwise known as 'applied science', provided the necessary tool to enable people to carry out globalisation. But without economic benefits, there would have been no globalisation.
And because economic globalisation necessary transcends political boundaries, politicians must also do their best to enable companies from their own country to expand into other countries effectively, thus bringing with it political globalisation. Social globalisation is the result of poltical and economic globalisation, since the things that are viewed as better generally come from the more developed country, thus the culture from the developed country will eventually dominate (note the word again) the culture of the weaker one.
however, globalisation can be viewed in a positive light as well. since the system of government being globalised, 'democracy', is currently the only way known to run a large country in a way that the masses can have at least a part to play, perhaps globalising democracy isn't such a bad idea.
the advent of technology necessary for globalisation also means that aid organisations like the red cross have more access to parts of the world that need help.
globalisation screws up when large companies eventually erode away the agricultural base of many developing countries. too much of such 'erosion' will lead to food shortage in the long run. also, who will ensure that workers in poorer nations are not exploited? the corrupt system present in many third world nations today mean that if there were only economic globalisation, only the people in charge in the third world nations will benefit, rather than the masses themselves.
social globalisation cannot come about without political globalisation. however, without political globalisation, workers in countries run by strict dictatorships will continue to be exploited even with economic globalisation. yet with social globalisation, there is the obvious potential for disappearance of many native cultures, dialects and even languages.
theres also a religious dimension to globalisation, where religion will be a barrier to globalisation in pretty much the same way that different cultures will be
basically, if u can't be bothered to read everything above, globalisation is about making the world 'as one'. differences will be greatly reduced. that reduction in differences (of whatever sort) is perhaps the main concern.
hmmm, globalisation is too big to think about in one shot, need to organise some stuff out, whatever i typed is too disorganised... and anyway, its just my opinion, and my way of classifying globalisation.