What we dont see when we think of Globalisation

When I envision globalisation, I see an image of the world. I see the interrelation of cultures and meshing together of various movies, brands, technologies, material possessions and so forth. What I don’t see is the crime that accompanies it, shadowed by the unessential marketing schemes that blind us of the darker aspects of what follows globalisation.

As the Group of Eight industrialized nations (G8) had stated, “Globalisation has been accompanied by a dramatic increase in transnational crime” (cited in John Morrison, 2003, p.474). This is seen in the trafficking of people, the handling contraband items such as of weapons and drugs and the abuse of technologies for the purpose of crime.

These are important factors that are affecting our society. Human trafficking is not just of men and women, it’s also of children; selling them for labour purposes and sometimes often into sex slavery, earning about 28 billion a year as a result of this exploitation and according to the UN.GIFT (United Nations Global Initiative to Fight Trafficking), 2.5 million victims are in forced labour today.

Australia has had an increase of smuggling in women for prostitution purposes from South and East Asia, Eastern Europe, China, Korea and Thailand. This is not something I would have initially come into terms with. I know it’s something that we often may see in the news and media but don’t really give a second thought to. The fact that this is happening and continuing to happen is a real issue that people don’t necessarily acknowledge.

References:
Academy for Educational Development, 2001-2006, retrieved 07/08/2012, http://www.humantrafficking.org/countries/australia.

Charis, 2010, “The Problems of Human Trafficking”, retrieved 07/08/2012, http://rightsandwrongs.pbworks.com/w/page/8788554/Human%20Trafficking.

Morrison, J 2003, ‘“The dark side of globalisation”: the criminalisation of refugees’, in R Robertson & KE White (eds), Globalization: critical concepts in sociology, Routledge, London, pp. 474–7.

UN, 1999-2007, retrieved 07/08/2012, http://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/issues_doc/labour/Forced_labour/HUMAN_TRAFFICKING_-_THE_FACTS_-_final.pdf.

Reliance and Miscommunication

It is the image created in the public mind generated by the presence and misunderstanding of the media that leads to stereotypical acknowledgements and assumptions. As Theobald had mentioned, “Technological optimism is embedded in prosperous lifestyle that blinds us to the selectivities of mainstream information”(2006, p. 57). I read this as a way of saying that basically; we rely on technology to enrich our lives even though it somewhat consumes us and desensitises what we would’ve valued centuries ago.

The reoccurring death, destruction and day to day horror that we receive in the news, despite whatever media we choose to devour it from, causes our mind to somewhat accept that violence is normal. When I watch the news and see a car crash, and I apologise in advanced if I offend anyone, but I generally don’t feel anything. I know that sounds horrible but think about it. You feel a slight pang of remorse and then you move on.  It’s terrible to feel that way, almost inhumane but the media has had a role to play in the way we feel, act and think about the tragedies that may occur.

That isn’t to say that because of this, I’ll stop consuming the technology because a part of me knows that I probably couldn’t live without my laptop, iPod, TV and so forth. I wouldn’t necessarily say that my life is enriched with these gadgets, but it certainly keeps me entertained. How about you?

References
Theobald, J 2006, ‘Mystification in the media: from “ritual murder” to the “war on terrorism”’, in JH Brinks, S Rock & Timms (eds), Nationalist myths and modern media: contested identities in the age of globalization, Tauris Academic Studies, London, pp. 55–67.

Flow with it baby!

The strength of the media is a potent taste in our cup of black coffee, one that overrides the contribution of the milk (we as society) and the role of the sugar (not giving us much of a say). That’s because black coffee doesn’t have any milk and sugar just barely makes a difference in the density of its power. We are forced to follow what the media is feeding us -from films, television and radio to the political agenda’s that shape our cultural landscape (Steven, 2003)-and moulded to transgress into siding with their interjected values.

 

We’re expected to go with the flow; flows interpolated into our culture, transpired in our capital and abundant in our physical streams. Steven mentions, although we often don’t realise this, that we do compose traces of the dominating media into our daily lives and often in our everyday communication (2003, p. 37). I had come to realise that that theory is true. Without noticing, I do talk about the latest movies, games and fashion with my friends.  I shop online, depend on my smartphone and game on my ps3 and Xbox. When listening to the radio, I quote ads such as ‘Frank Walker from National tiles…’ and ‘you’ll feel better on Swisse.’ I rely on my laptop and could possibly not function without the internet. But then again, it’s not just me, is it?

References

Steven, P 2003, The no-nonsense guide to the global media, New Internationalist, Oxford, pp. 37–59.

Why do we theorize globalisation?

One of the main and utmost important motives in why we theorize globalisation in conjunction with intensive analysis and constant discussion is because it affects us and the world we live in. We explore globalisation as it intertwines with the media in hopes to dissect the way in which it is related by each other and indivertibly, how it involves us.

It is said that, ‘The medium is the message (McLuhan and Fiore, 1967, cited by Rantanen 2005),’ meaning it doesn’t necessarily matter what the content of the message is, but the medium that is used to spread that message. This can be seen in many prospects today in society. Take the ‘KONY 2012’ swindle that was initially commenced through YouTube and spread on throughout social media, a concept that went viral within seconds of the unverified post which essentially became the talk of the town. People were infuriated by a mere video sent to them by friends, family and even strangers and felt the need to participate just as everyone else around them had.

We can come to acknowledge and accept that globalisation in itself is both good and bad. An example of this could be seen in the days in which swine flu had become a big deal. It was depicted as something worse than it actually was, causing fear and almost madness within society which was initially developed through the media. However, because of the globalisation and countries working with one another to both benefit and exchange resources, vaccinations were developed and the world made its way to help each other.
 

References:

Trill promotions group, 2012, ‘The Kony 2012 Scam And Why You Should STOP Supporting ‘Invisible Children’, retrieved 20/07/2012, http://keepittrill.com/online/2012/03/kony-2012-scam-stop-supporting-invisible-children/.

Rantanen, T 2005, ‘Theorizing media globalization’, The media and globalization, Sage, London, pp. 1–18

So… what the hell is globalisation?

For those, like me, who initially struggled to fully comprehend a simple understanding of globalisation behind the complex analysis of it, i have developed an unassuming logic with the help of Google.

In layman’s terms, globalisation is basically when something goes from local, into global! I think that fundamentally sums up Jan Nederveen Pieterse ‘Globalisation: Consensus and controversies’ article where she goes into great depth of discussion over the consequences and often sparked conflict with a globalized matter.

In fact, it is suggested in her piece that globalisation is generated by the technological changes in society, causing the nationwide debates and sparking the need to re-evaluate finances and reconfigure states.  Controversies are then developed from the consensus notions of the construction of globalisation. The disagreements question the need and value of the concept of globalisation itself. But do we need it?

I see globalization as a way to both improve the quality and diversity of our lives yet also damage the potential peace of it. Yes, it can be a way to offer convenience and advancement as seen in the technological progressions into society, however it disrupts the initial enrichment of maintaining what we already have and being happy with that. We almost somewhat transition into spoiled rich kids who thrive for more. Globalisation also looks at short term gains as opposed to long term benefits (Eria Zwingle, 2000), causing misleading suggestions of a better future.

References;
Zwingle, E 2000, Globalization, National Geographic, retrieved 10/07/2012, http://www.craigmarlatt.com/school/canada_applied/interdependence_of_nations_globalization.pdf.

Nederveen Pieterse, J 2004, ‘Globalization: consensus and controversies’, Globalization and culture: global mélange, Rowan & Littlefield, Lanham, Md., pp. 7–21.

Greetings ALC215 Peeps or perhaps randoms who happened to come across my blog…

Hi everyone and welcome to my blog! My name is Intan Lay and I’m doing a Bachelor of Arts in journalism and media and communication here at Deakin.

**

A bit about the author…

I am a strange character with big ambitions and strong opinions although I often keep to myself. I love meeting new people and making friends, however struggle to be the one to initiate conversation. I absolutely love sport from rugby to footy, soccer and volleyball, having fun is the best way to keep fit! I am very unco and often zone out midway through conversations.

Hm.. what else? Keep reading my weekly updates relating to globalisation and the media to find out more about me and my perception of the mutating world! Please feel free to drop in any comments, whether positive or negative for me to use as constructive criticsm!

Happy Blogging! 🙂