Did the Global Age Really Begin After WWII?
The argument from many scholars that takes on the perspective that the global age began during the aftermath of World War II stems from the idea that the rise of transnational banks and the establishment of various multilateral systems for economic operations (like the IMF and World Bank). Saskia Sassen, renowned sociologist, argues counterrally that although Bretton Woods was part of the history of globalization, there is a lot more beyond that generalization that occurred which was a larger part of the shift to the global age instead. The other theory is that Americanization pushed the Bretton Woods era into the global era, but this is also not true, Sassen states. Sassen proposes that the internal shifts inside of a state are more important to the process of globalization than the aftermath of World War II, Bretton Woods or Americanization were, although they were all distinctive parts of the actual history of the rise of the global age. Sassen believes that this is where the confusion over the subject of globalization and the factors surrounding its growth and progression. Personally, I do agree with her reasoning, and feel as though Americanization, for example, is too much of a generalization and doesn’t go into the details of what happened at the time in various countries around the world. I feel as though the generalization of Americanization and its effects on globalization forgets to take into consideration the many other factors such as the birth of the digital age and doesn’t acknowledge that there were larger actors and even smaller actors, equally as important to the large ones, that were at play.
Meaning that there were a lot more than just America’s pursuit of influencing the rest of the world that led to the birth of globalization. Sassen also points at the distribution of power within the state as a factor that led to the change of national and international economies, and the creation of a globally connected financial system. Sassen looks at this as well as the overall complexity of the operations of the economy, on either a national or worldwide level as the biggest push towards the power redistribution. Although I also personally believe that yes, Americanization did push many countries influenced by the U.S. to become connected on an international level, there was the work of the other superpowers that influenced globalization as well. Although China and Russia were historically isolationist and perhaps only became more globalized due to the Americanization of the world at large and their eventual decision to turn more capitalist, business friendly and working with other countries on an international level, I feel like globalization was inevitable whether attributed to Americanization or not. Although colonialism was not what caused globalization to occur, there were internal shifts during this time as well that was similar to the internal shifts during the period of Bretton Woods and Americanization. I feel like it would be impossible to talk about the beginning of globalization without mentioning the digital age, like I stated earlier above, but also due to the progression in technology in general beyond the internet. The evolution in travel in general, through a rapid air-travel system via corporate airlines was moving forward during the same time as the Bretton Woods era and the era of Americanization.
To summarize, I feel as though a generalized statement regarding Americanization as the cause of globalization forgets a lot of the larger pieces within the details of this progression. I think that Americanization is a historical piece associated with globalization due to the circumstances of the world and the rate at which technology is progressing, but it wasn’t the cause or even the biggest cause of a globalized world. I feel as though globalization was coming, regardless of Americanization or not, and it would have occurred around the same time in history under the influence of any other superpower that could have taken the place of the U.S. during the 20th century. It’s the matter of Americanization being an inaccurate way to generalize the time period of the start of globalization but forgets a lot of the other moving parts at this time that was already in progress and on an evolving path towards happening regardless of whether Americanization had ever occurred or not. To put it simply, if it had been China or even Russia or the European Union that were the main superpower of the world during the time of Americanization, and took the place of the U.S., these authorities might instead be attributed as the ones that influenced the world into becoming globalized. It’s a very compelling argument that Sassen makes against the idea that Americanization and Bretton Woods led to the start of the global age that we are now living in, and when considering all of the points she makes in pages 135–155 of The Tipping Point: Toward New Organizing Logics, I come to the conclusion that I agree with her and the above points I’ve made is my attempt to best describe and summarize her reasonings from what I’ve gathered by the reading.
References:
4. The Tipping Point: Toward New Organizing Logics | Semantic Scholar
