ABSTRACT
The hype surrounding globalization has attracted an important counterblast; despite the often iconoclastic tone of their writings, the globalization sceptics' arguments from Hirst and Thompson (among others) are fast becoming orthodox in some circles. There is certainly plenty to challenge in the extreme or ‘hyper-globalization’ arguments, be they neo-liberal business literature or radical prophesies of the total eclipse of any space for progressive politics. Such writers do indeed cite evidence selectively, use this evidence in loose theoretical frameworks, and consequently draw highly questionable conclusions. However, the counter-evidence cited by the sceptics is often problematic itself and does not necessarily lead to the conclusions they propose. Above all, both these approaches in effect share much of the same framework: they both presuppose a unique end-point to globalization processes. Having set up this end-state as the concept of globalization, albeit by reference to the hyper-globalization literature, it is relatively easy for Hirst and Thompson to find this conception wanting as a description of reality. But this approach is problematic. It is unclear what benchmarks could be used to decide how close is close enough to such an end-point. More fundamentally it seems highly unlikely that social processes have one end-point: historical forms of globalization — both as a general social phenomenon and in their specific forms — have multiple causes and, given the likelihood of multiple equilibria, are unlikely to have a single even implied end-point. End-point analysis obscures the processes at work here. Rather, globalization is more appropriately conceived as an historical process which engenders a shift in the spatial reach of networks and systems of social relations to transcontinental (or inter-regional) patterns of human organization, activity and the exercise of social power. Ultimately Hirst and Thompson cite evidence which may refute hyper-globalization claims but which does not simply support their contention that nothing substantive has changed; however, their framework leaves them stuck between these two choices. Examining globalization as a process instead allows for multiple possible outcomes.
