Globalization Optimization

The, for lack of a better word, importation of modern Western values of politics, economics, science, and general decision-making into various cultures and once-alien contexts has been a continuing, although quickly increasing, feature of globalization over the last century. The desire by non-Western national elites to emulate the material success of Western states has led to the imposition of these Western values on cultures that are, if not explicitly resistant, uncomfortable with having to change sometimes centuries-old customs and systems.

As the articles for this week made clear, this is probably one of the clearest and most important aspects of modern globalization. Science, being just one Western value that has been increasingly used as justification for modifying existing indigenous cultural practices, both bears products from the process (as explored in the Kinchy article) and acts in a sort of multiplier role when combined and introduced with other social systems. Due to this, I’d agree with these authors that advanced technical products and scientific reasoning is probably the most important vehicle of the overall process of globalization.

When does this use of science become damaging to these local cultures? When do scientific products and values become detrimental to these peoples, instead of being helpful to them? Although briefly touched upon in these articles (and somewhat more directly in the Lansing and Miller articles), discovering or setting the boundaries of where these interactions take place is crucial to maximizing the benefits of the importation of certain practices and ideas and minimizing the damaging effects of the same. Although pro- and anti-globalizationists (globalizationers?) can present compelling and factual evidence demonstrating the benefits or detriments of globalized practices, intuitively it would seem that a synthesized position, taking both views into account, would allow the use of a type of cost/benefit analysis that produces a close to optimal outcome. Who would argue that better birthing practices, medicine, and a better knowledge of nutrition, all of which serve to increase life expectancy, is a bad thing for the majority of the world’s population? Additionally, it’s likely that these practices can be incorporated relatively unproblematically into already-existing traditional cultural practices with a minimal loss in effectiveness.

All too often though, these practices are imposed by elites in a given state on traditional cultures in a way that destroys social cohesion and either incorporates the traditional culture into the dominant society or destroys their ability to be politically active. This (without having the data or convincing case studies to back up the following assertion) is likely the locus at which the damaging effects of this scientific value importation can be changed. Greater consideration should be given to how elites apply globalized practices in their home states, and perhaps a ‘best practices’ method of doing this should be supplied to these elites. The desire to ‘catch up’ to the West’s material standard of living is a dominant mindset among these elites, but perhaps encouraging a judicious mindset among them could preserve the rich cultural heritages of traditional groups while improving their health and wealth.


Abby Kinchy, “Anti-Genetic Engineering Activism and Scientized Politics in the Case of „Contaminated‟ Mexican Maize,” Agriculture and Human Values 2009.