ABSTRACT
A widespread and powerful definition of globalization views it as the process of growing interaction and integration worldwide. However, criticism of this definition is as old as the concept itself. The present chapter first traces the history of the concept from the perspective of its critics. From these critical voices – including postcolonial theory – the author then derives the concept’s basic shortcomings. Nonetheless, despite all criticisms, the concept should not be thrown overboard. Instead of defining globalization as an integrative process, this chapter presents two arguments: On the one hand, globalizing processes can be better understood as a contingent outcome of social practices that rely on uncontrollable actions of actors within specific “communities of practice.” These practices bring about connectivity and disconnectivity, different velocities and layers of change, contradictions, resistances, and the like. On the other hand, globalization is not only a plural phenomenon. The concept of globalization/s relies on not only manifold processes that might appear different to different historical actors but also on a directional development that can be addressed only in the singular: The growing possibility of global resonance within world society. Globalization in the singular, as a process of the growing possibility of global resonance, and globalizations as a plural phenomenon of often contradictory globalizing processes are but two sides of one coin. The approach outlined here favours practices as drivers of globalizing processes, understands globalization/s as a directional development, and stands in sharp contrast to substantial definitions of globalizing processes as growing economic and political integration.
