Globalism And The Social Justice Movement example essay topic

Race, Poverty & Globalization INTRODUCTION How is poverty related to globalism, and why are people of color under the most severe threat from this process? Certainly, other people are also under a threat from this globalization process, and some would assert that democracy and capitalism itself may be undone by this process if it is not checked. To answer the above question and to understand why minorities and other marginal populations are most at risk, it is first necessary to better understand what globalism is, particularly the type of globalism that dominates today's markets. In the most general sense, globalism refers to "the process in which goods and services, including capital, move more freely within and among nations" (Greider 1997: 32). As globalism advances, national boundaries become more and more porous, and to some extent, less and less relevant.

Since many of our early industries, such as steel, were location-sensitive, there was a natural limitation to globalization. To be sure, some things remain location-sensitive, but mobility is the trend (Norwood 1999). It is assumed that liberalizing laws and structures, so that goods and services can become more globally focused, will produce more wealth, and indeed this seems to be true. Using this general understanding of globalism and globalization, it would be accurate to say this process has been developing and growing for well over a hundred years (Fishlow 1999: 5). METHODS Data Collection After searching Florida State University's (FSUs) Online Archives, I came across a reference manual that I believed would help me to compile and analyze my sociological research.

I used the work of Otto Newman and Richard de Zoysa (2001), The Promise of the Third Way: Globalization and Social Justice, as a conceptual framework for data collection. Adhering to the advice of Newman and Zoysa, the following types of data were collected in order to "maximize time and to see the same scene from different angles" (2001: 115): Documents and Literature After further searching FSUs Online Archives, I selected several books, four journal articles and an in-depth study in order to begin my literature research. I read pertinent chapters and excerpts from the books and reviewed the journals and the study. Below is a list of the literature I used: Books Greider, William. 1997.

One World, Ready or Not: The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism. New York: Simon & Schuster. Newman, Otto and de Zoysa, Richard. The Promise of the Third Way: Globalization and Social Justice. 2001. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Singh, Kavaljit. 1999. The Globalization of Finance: A Citizen's Guide. London & New York: Zed Books. JournalsFishlow, Albert.

"Review: Globalism: New Reality, Old Strategy". July 1999. American Journal of Sociology 2: 2. Kasarda, John D. Oct. 1998. "The Threat of Globalism". Race and Class.

40: 2-3. New York: Touchstone. Norwood, Janet L. July / August 1999". Global Finance in the Americas: Wealth & Hunger Revisited". NACLA Report on the Americas. 33: 1.

Yutzis, Mario J. "A Special Issue on Globalization and Discrimination". 1998. Peoples for Human Rights, IMADR Yearbook. 6. Study United Nations Development Programme.

"Human Development Report". 1999. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. Interviews Using a semi-structured interview format, I interviewed three individuals, Mary, Robert and Phil, all of whom were able to share unique perspectives on how race and poverty have been affected and / or shaped by globalism and the social justice movement. Mary, a sociology major who is now in the process of getting her Doctorate, is doing her doctoral thesis on globalism and its effect on third world countries.

Robert is a college-level professor who teaches a class that explores the correlation between race and poverty in the U.S. Phil is a published author that has written several essays on globalization, poverty and woman's suffrage. In the interviews, I was seeking to understand what globalism meant to the different interviewees. I also sought to understand how these very different perspectives fit into public opinion about race and poverty as a whole. Data Analysis Relying on the work of Newman et al. (2001), data analysis was an ongoing part of the data collection.

At regular weekly intervals, I would go over my observations, how these observations related to the research question, what questions I was formulating from the data, and what new directions I needed to pursue. Every week, I compiled my preliminary and developing understandings and sought triangulation of data from all sources. For example, I would review the data collected from the literature, my own observations, and the interviews that I had conducted. At the end of the data collection and ongoing data analysis period, I again followed the advice of Newman et al. and "maximized time" (2001: 157) by providing two other students, both of whom are sociology majors, but neither of whom were assigned this project, with my field notes and transcripts. In one three-hour sitting, my two volunteers and myself compiled all data, including my individual and collective notes. I then re-read the entire corpus of the data, starting with the interviews.

Keeping my initial question in mind, the three of us made notes of patterns, trends, and interesting cases. At the end of three hours, I was able to formulate my final question used in this research paper. In the two weeks leading up to the submission of this report, I began the process of consolidating my assertions into those that would best answer my research question. All subsequent time was spent warranting my assertions and writing the final report. All assertions were modified to account for both the confirming and dis confirming evidence.

FINDINGS My initial question-How is poverty related to globalism, and why are people of color under the most severe threat from this process? -can be divided into four sub-themes, all of which are discussed here, in the Findings section of this report. These sub-themes are: 1) Division of Color, Division of Power. As globalism grows, the division of power seemingly grows with it. This power, in turn, is creating an even further division in the labor force with people of color being virtually forced into jobs as slave laborers; 2) The U.S. as a Global Superpower. The U.S. has emerged as the world's only super power and thus has a tremendous influence in setting the terms for global trade. The style of globalism pushed by the United States has favored the free movement and protection of capital, while being at best indifferent and at worst hostile to the more place-dependent labor; 3) Democracy on the Demise.

With the spread of globalism, there seems to be a constant demise of democracy. We speak of an expanding global market, but a diminishing public space, and we hardly speak at all of citizen participation and justice. There are no organizations to protect the interests of workers, racial minorities, the environment, or women and children; 4) Undermining Social Movements. Globalism is effectively undermining the social justice movement and the very people of color that this movement is seeking to defend. Division of Color, Division of Power Today, the world economy is in a state of what is commonly viewed as unprecedented growth. But with this growth has come dangerous and destructive economic disparity.

On the one hand, we see the "impressive" economy in the Northern Hemisphere, particularly in the United States, where Silicon Valley, a region of 2.3 million people, has produced tens of thousands of millionaires, with 64 new ones every day (Singh 1999). There are regular U.S. reports of historically low unemployment rates, labor shortages and booming economy. On the other hand, many people of color, particularly those in the Southern Hemisphere, do not have enough food to eat, resulting in malnutrition and disease. They face growing inflation while their governments, which used to subsidize some aspects of their marginal living, are urged to stop subsidies for food and adopt a more market-oriented economics (Kasarda 1998). Many workers in these economies are trapped in poor working conditions with low pay. Women are often expected to do back-breaking farm and domestic work, with few rights or benefits.

Yet many of the fiscal policies pushed onto developing countries and adopted in northern countries exacerbate the problem of the most marginal while celebrating the wealth of the rich (Kasarda 1998). In the North as well, people of color often find themselves being left farther and farther behind. Even as states in the U.S. and the nation as a whole report budget surpluses, we seem unable or unwilling to provide adequate housing for the growing number of working-class and homeless families, to repair the physical structure of schools that house low-income students of color, or to provide social services or medical attention for those most in need (Yutzis 1998). Sweatshops that employ people of color working as virtual slave laborers are tolerated-even encouraged-as part of the new world trade.

The public space people of color and marginal groups are most dependent on-whether it is public hospitals, schools, parks, or a social welfare-is constantly attacked as inconsistent with the needs of capital and the market. Indeed, we are encouraged to remake public space to mimic private space with a market, anti-democratic orientation where we are consumers, not citizens (Norwood 1999). The U.S. as a Global Superpower There have been many changes in the globalization process in the last two decades that makes it distinct from earlier incarnations. The major thing being traded in today's global market is information and capital itself, rather than commodities or other products. The United States has emerged as the only world superpower.

This has allowed the U.S. tremendous influence in setting the terms for global trade (Singh 1999). The style of globalism pushed by the United States has favored the free movement and protection of capital, while being at best indifferent and at worst hostile to the more place-dependent labor. It is the dual relationship of mobile capital and fixed, unorganized and unprotected labor that has created the conditions for capital to dominate (Kasarda 1998). This has been greatly enhanced by the U.S. position toward organized labor and capital.

While the U.S. has been aggressive in protecting capital both at home and abroad, it has encouraged both the weakening of organized labor and removing protections for workers. While both Japan and Europe have aggressively pushed for globalism, each has been more willing to protect labor, the environment and certain markets-at least within their own borders (Human Development Report 1999). It is the United States that has consistently been the most radical on liberalizing capital and protecting it as it moves across boundaries, and the most hostile to protecting labor and fragile markets. Protecting labor expresses itself not only in strong unions and workers' benefits but also in a strong social welfare system (Kasarda 1998). The United States has purposefully moved toward weaker labor unions, as well as an anemic social welfare system. It has used the globalism it advocates as justification for keeping workers' jobs insecure, pay and benefits relatively low.

Workers are told that "pushing hard for benefits will cause capital to leave to another location in the country or the world where workers are willing to work for less with fewer benefits" (Greider 1997: 39). The United States and the international organizations over which it has substantial influence, such as the International Monetary Fund, have demanded protection of capital and encouraged or tolerated the suppression of labor and the environment in the weaker southern countries (Yutzis 1998). Capital is actively being directed to markets with low wages, where workers are sometimes abused and labor organizations suppressed. The wealth this globalism is creating is being forcefully subsidized by vulnerable workers and the environment, especially in the Southern Hemisphere. This logic is then used to weaken the position of labor in the North, as we are required to compete with unorganized, suppressed labor in the South (Yutzis 1998). While sweatshops and slave labor may attract capital investments, what about the futures of black welfare mothers in Detroit or the Aborigines in Australia, who need government assistance to take advantage of, say, the educational system?

How or why does U.S. -style globalism affect their needs? U.S. -style globalism not only attempts to suppress labor, but also seeks to suppress social welfare systems and support for public expenditures that do not directly benefit the expansion of capital. The social welfare system and other public services, such as schools, social services in the North and food subsidies in the South, are supported through taxes, and taxes reduce short-term benefits to capital (Norwood 1999). In the North, it is women and minorities who are most dependent on the public sector. These racial and gender correlations make it all the easier to attack the legitimacy of taxation for this purpose. Taxes are seen as undesirable because they reduce profits and interfere with the market. But the public space, including the welfare system, can only be supported by the public in the form of taxes (Yutzis 1998).

Whether we are talking about education or other public services, we are encouraged to believe that they should be as limited as possible and made to mimic the market. Those who cannot thrive in the market environment without help, especially if they are people of color, are seen as free-loaders and illegitimate. In many ways, much of the public space in the United States becomes associated with people of color (Yutzis 1998). Democracy on the Demise Public purposes and civic goods-to the extent they are even recognized-are no longer to be achieved through public institutions but are to be privatized. The democratic vision associated with public functions is to be abandoned or seriously curtailed in favor of the ideal of efficiency. There is an abiding belief that democracy must be limited because it interferes with the private decisions of market experts, thereby reducing wealth and capital (Yutzis 1998).

And anything that is perceived as interfering with the growth of capitalism-be it the social welfare system, labor unions, civil rights or government programs-is being curtailed, while government policies and structures that protect capital, including the military, are enhanced (Yutzis 1998). Although proponents of this style of globalism purport to support democracy, it is only in a role subservient to capital. In the United States, we are softly encouraged to vote, while being constantly reminded that in these global matters that shape our everyday life, we have no say. We are told that no city, state or nation can or should try to influence this powerful but uncontrollable process. We are reminded that one can regulate capital, and any attempt to do so will hurt the economy. The deregulation of capital is made to appear both good and natural.

Our attention is drawn away from the fact that there are powerful organizations supported by the U.S. government's leadership that protect and facilitate the flow of capital. These institutions include the World Bank, International Development Association, International Finance Corporation, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization, etc. (Greider 1997). Unfortunately, there are no organizations of equal stature to protect the interests of workers, racial minorities, the environment, or women and children. There are, of course, several treaties and international instruments dealing with some of these issues, such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious or Linguistic Minorities, and so forth (Greider 1997).

However, they are nearly impotent, compared with the institutions with far-reaching and substantial goals of protecting capital. When citizens try to raise such issues, it is simply asserted that making working conditions or the environment part of trade agreements would unduly interfere with free trade. American-style globalism has not just transformed the flow of capital, it has transformed the role of government and the meaning of citizenship (Singh 1999). People are now brought together as consumers but kept apart as citizens. The transformed role of government is not to protect citizens or the precious safety net of public space but to protect and facilitate the flow of capital. So today we speak of free markets but not of free labor.

This is an authoritarian vision where armies police people and nations, so capital might be free. It is very doubtful that capital, despite advances in technology, would be nearly as mobile as it is without the nationally brokered agreements that have the force of law and the coercive power of the state behind them. But while capital relies on the government to do its bidding, we enjoy freedom as individuals without the power that only comes from the collective action of informed citizens. While it might be true that cities and states, and certainly private individuals, can do little to influence globalism, it is clearly false that nations, especially the United States, are powerless in the face of globalism. Undermining Social Movements During the last part of the 20th century, the Civil Rights Movement, the women's movement and the environmental movement advanced their claims for inclusion and justice (Fishlow 1999). An attack on the public role of the state is a powerful strategy to limit the aspirations of these groups.

They are made impotent in a forum where wealth, not votes, dictates policies. These groups are marginalized in an economic arena that transforms the market, with decisions made behind closed doors, and not in public and civic spaces (Norwood 1999). Destruction of the public space also results in a decline of the public voice. In the United States, this decline in the role and scope of democracy in the relationship to the market occurred just when the Civil Rights Movement began to make significant gains in securing for blacks and other minorities real access to the political process (Fishlow 1999). CONCLUSION Globalization has been happening for over a century and will continue. It must be re-envisioned to appropriately protect capital, but also to protect labor, the environment and people of color.

These concerns must be seen as interrelated, not as separate. Furthermore, we must create the necessary international structures with transparency and accountability in order to make this vision a reality and to develop suitable remedies for the plight of marginalized peoples. These steps should not be seen as hostile to business, but as an appropriate cost of doing business in a justice-oriented and sustainable global economy. Despite the rhetoric about the unmitigated good that can come from U.S. -style globalism, there is an increasing call to look more closely at the process as it relates to people and the environment throughout the world. Some assert that U.S. -style globalism threatens democracy. Others argue that this style of globalism threatens capitalism itself.

I think that both claims may be right. I believe it is critical to look more closely at what globalism means for people in general and people of color in particular. Given its more recent history of developing a social compact that includes all people, the United States should not be championing a style of globalism that is blind to the needs of some sectors. If this process continues, we are likely to permanently re-inscribe a subordinated, life-threatening status for people of color all over the globe and rationalize it with an invisible hand. We can change this by working to make the invisible visible.

Bibliography

Fishlow, Albert. Greider, William. 1997.
40: 2-3. New York: Touchstone. 2001.
33: 1. Singh, Kavaljit. 1999.