Issues with Globalization's Critiques

Globalization can be defined as a trend of increased interconnectedness, in which capital, trade, and ideas flow across borders.  Globalization has many critiques, two of them being that it causes environmental exploitation and a loss of cultural diversity.  In this post, I attempt to reveal issues with these critiques. Globalization may cause some of these phenomena, but the subjects of these critiques can be avoided without targeting globalization itself.  A changing world is bound to have growing pains.  This does not excuse the wrongdoings that occur alongside globalization.  These wrongdoings deserve to be reformed, but globalization itself does not have to be targeted.

Critics of globalization often point out that it contributes to environmental exploitation.  The Amazon rain forest and areas of Indonesia are being degraded at an astounding rate.  Each year, an area of land the size of West Virginia is deforested due to a demand for timber in the developed world.  The harmful effects that result are a loss of biodiversity and a release of greenhouse gases.  Other practices harmful to the environment include unregulated manufacturing in developing nations.  Large, multinational corporations avoid emissions restrictions by moving their manufacturing facilities to South America and parts of Asia.  As an environmentalist, I understand the magnitude and importance of these issues.  However, I feel that it is misguided to place the blame on globalization itself.  The primary cause of environmental exploitation is not interconnectedness itself, rather it is the result of irresponsible management of resources and cultural consumerism.  Targeting more specific causes of environmental problems would be more beneficial than critiquing globalization.  An anti-globalization movement is overly pessimistic, essentially foregoing the possibility of human unity due to current challenges.  There are plausible solutions to environmental problems that target specific problems.  Giving up on an interconnected world does not have to be the answer.  In fact, globalization is necessary to solve many environmental problems.  To start, the world needs something resembling internationally consistent standards for carbon emissions if corporate exploitation of the third world is to end.  We all share the same atmosphere, and climate change will affect all of us.  We cannot hide behind our national identities and pretend that this problem belongs to someone else.  A sense of global stewardship for the planet must exist.  This process implies globalization.  

Another critique of globalization is the premise that it creates cultural homogeneity.  Almost half of the languages in the world are at risk of being lost.  This cultural erosion is linked to globalization.  Throughout the world, English is becoming the dominant language due to the hegemony of western business.  Anthropologists view this as a problem because language carries with it human experience.  Thousands of languages, rich with experience and ideas, are in danger of being extinguished due to globalization.  Once again, I agree that this is an issue, but not one that can be solved by targeting globalization.  The importance of these languages lies in the fact that they can convey experience and knowledge from a unique perspective.  This relies on the assumption that cultures are able to exchange across borders and have a forum in which to share their experience.  Would it not be counter-intuitive then to target globalization?  Globalization is the only reason scholars know of these endangered languages.  A much more reasonable solution would be to allow globalization to occur, but devote institutions to preserve cultural resources.

Globalization seems to be at the center of glaring issues facing the world today, such as environmental exploitation and cultural erosion.  But critiquing globalization itself for these problems is a rather lazy and illogical practice.  Globalization may be at the center of these problems, but they have more specific causes that need to be targeted.  Reverting to isolationism would be counter-intuitive to the problems created by globalization.  It is natural that growing pains come with an advancing society.  This is no reason to halt advancement altogether.