33 Glocalisation. . . . Global, Local and the Political

Rupali Sehgal

Introduction

Glocalisation means “the creation of products or services intended for the global market but customized to suit the local cultures.” (http: //www. wordspy. com/words/). The term was modeled on Japanese word dochakuka, which originally meant adapting farming technique to one’s own local condition. Although it would be difficult to trace the first user of the term “glocalisation” in its original Japanese usage, the first time the term was used in English can be attributed to Professor Roland Robertson (Khondker, 2004).”His interest and knowledge of Japanese society led him to find out the use of the term “glocalisation” in Japan in Japanese language, a term the marketing experts were using by which they meant that products of Japanese origin should be localized – that is, they should be suited to local taste and interests – yet, the products are global in application and reach, hence a new term “glocalisation” was coined.” (pp. 3). Robertson and others noticed that many of the social practices and commodities assume a local flavor or character despite the fact that these products/ practices were invented elsewhere. Jan Nederveen Pieterse (2004) has for some time used terms such as mélange, hybridity and syncretism to capture similar processes with regard to culture.

This module is divided into seven sections which reflects on different aspects of debates on the given theme. The first section ‘Glocalisation and its usage’ deals with the category of Glocalisation and its comparative understanding with other conceptual categories from the perspective of debates on globalisation. The second section deals ‘Key propositions of Glocalisation’ deals with different key features which distinguishes it globalisation. The next section ‘Debate on globalization according to Roland Robertson’ elaborates on his writings in this area and how different disciplines of intellectual enquiry especially sociology shape the idea of globalisation. The fourth section deals with ‘The Etymology of Glocalisation’ that how the term has evolved within certain context of time and space within different socio-economic and political context. The fifth section ‘ “Grobalisation” as a companion to Glocalisation’ deals with discussion that how these two conceptual categories deals with critical debates on issues of globalisation with parallel or alternative narratives. The next section ‘Why we need to discuss the relevance of glocalisation?’ focuses on the critical perspectives on globalisation and explains the relevance of glocalisation within this debate. The last section ‘conclusion’ finally deals with the conceptual categories of both glocalisation and globalisation and usage of these terms in different context based on discussions throughout this module.

Section-1

Glocalisation and its usage

Although the term glocalisation has come to be frequently used since the late 1980s, there were several related terms which have been in use. One such term is indigenization which is used to describe an act of making something native i. e. , what happens when locals take something from the outside and make it their own (e. g. Africanization, Indianization). However, indigenization is slightly different from glocalisation and can be seen similar to localization. Habibul Khondker (2004) argues that: “In both these concepts, there is an assumption of an original or authentic “locality” or “indigenous system”. One of the consequences of globalization is that it opens up doubts about the originality and authenticity of cultures. If one takes a long-term view of globalization, “locality” or “local” itself is a consequence of globalization. There are hardly any sites or cultures that can be seen as isolated or unconnected from the global processes.” (pp. 4)

According to Nederveen Pieterse, (2004) there are three views on the issue of globalization of cultures. The first view is expressed in terms of the clash of cultures where local cultures might resist globalized phenomenon. The second notion is best expressed in the phrase of “McDonaldization” as used by George Ritzer (2000). This view suggests a world dominated by a single homogenizing culture that erases any differences of local cultures. The third view is that of hybridization or synthesis. According to this line of thought much of human evolution of culture can be seen as exchanges, diffusion, etc. where cross-breeding, borrowing and adjustment of the local needs can be seen as very common. Khondker (2004) however argues that although glocalisation has resonance with the above mentioned categories, there are some important differences as well.

Glocalisation is also different from hybridization in the sense that glocalisation involves blending, mixing and adapting of two or more processes one of which must be local. Glocalisation to be meaningful must incorporate at least one component that addresses the local culture, system of values, practices and so on. For instance, new architectural designs blending the western and local motifs emerged in Singapore.

A popular understanding of globalization in the twentieth century as conceptualized by Robertson is that it is “the interpenetration of the universalization of particularization and the particularization of universalism” (Robertson, 1992: 100). Khondker (1994) building on Robertson’s framework argues that globalization or glocalisation should be seen as an interdependent and affiliated process.”The problem of simultaneous globalization of the local and the localization of globality can be expressed as the twin processes of macro-localization and micro-globalization.” (pp. 4) The rise of religious or ethnic revivalist movements can be seen under the rubrics of macro – localization where the local boundaries, local ideas, practices and institutions are seen to have expanded world wide. Micro globalization involves incorporating certain global processes into the local setting. Consider new production techniques, print industry, computer industry or marketing strategies with a specific location of its emergence has now become a global phenomena. Social movements such as the feminist movements or ecological movements which emerge in a certain local context and over a period these movements spread far beyond that locality into a larger spatial and historical arena.”Overcoming space is globalization. In this view of globalization, globalization is glocalisation.” (pp. 4)

This view is somewhat different from the way Giddens has conceptualized the liaison between the global and the local. Globalization, for Giddens, “is the reason for the revival of local cultural identities in different parts of the world” (2000: 31). While in Giddens’ view local is the provider of the response to the forces that are global, Khondker argues that local itself is constituted globally. Ritzer flags off yet another term – grobalization to refer to what he calls “growth imperatives [pushing] organizations and nations to expand globally and to impose themselves on the local” (2004: xiii). For Ritzer, globalization is the sum total of glocalization and “grobalization”.

Section-2

Key propositions of Glocalisation

The main propositions of glocalisation are not too different from the main arguments of globalization. Khondker (2004) argues that chief arguments of glocalisation are 1. Diversity is the essence of social life; 2. Globalization does not erase all differences; 3. Autonomy of history and culture give a sense of uniqueness to the experiences of groups of people whether we define them as cultures, societies or nations; 4. Glocalisation is the notion that removes the fear from many that globalization is like a tidal wave erasing all the differences. 5. Glocalisation does not promise a world free from conflicts and tensions but a more historically grounded understanding of the complicated – yet, pragmatic view of the world. One of the reasons for the popularity of theories of glocalisation is that they stand in stark contrast to the modernization theory (Ritzer, 2003). Some of the defining characteristics of modernization theory were its “orientation to issues of central concern in the West, the preeminence it accorded to developments there, and the idea that the rest of the world had little choice but to become increasingly like it” (pp. 194) i. e., more democratic, more capitalistic, more consumption oriented, and so on.

Section-3

Debates on globalization according to Roland Robertson

Robertson (1995) argues that discussions and debates on globalization depend upon the various perspectives generated and then how do they impact various intellectual fields. Likewise in the field of sociology and in social and cultural theory the debate begins with general topic and then how different meanings are attributed to the very idea of globalization.

Globalization as phenomena usually has been observed in a sense of large scale phenomena where there is preoccupation among sociologists to deal with macro sociological approach towards perspectives on globalization and there exist those as well who view these phenomena with micro sociological perspective. Robertson (1995: 25) borrows the idea from Ferguson (1992) ‘mythology about globalization’ referring to developments that involve triumph of culturally homogenizing forces over all others. This includes other attributions like ‘bigger is better’ that locality and even its history is gets eliminated.

This debate around globalization also involves the aspect that how this category has been reflected in broadening of the discipline of sociology itself. How the subject of sociology as a field of intellectual enquiry has shaped the understanding of globalization and how the global discourses in the field of sociology itself has got constructed and ways in which it is practiced at global level. Robertson (1995) argues that there is a proposal of Global sociology and attempt has been made in various ways by internationalizing, extending it culturally or by developing anti-ethnocentric curriculum of sociology. It is in this context that Robertson (1995: 25-26) writes: “Indeed, the problem of global sociology as a sociology which confirms and includes ‘native’ sociologies parallels the more directly analytical issue to which I have already referred. This is the problem of the relationship between homogenizing and heterogenizing thrusts in globalization theory: Many sociologists are happy – or at least not unwilling – to agree that sociology ought to be ‘internationalized’ and ‘de-ethnocentrized’, but they are apparently much less inclined to engage in direct and serious study of the empirical, historically formed, global field per se (Robertson, 1992b, 1993).”

Section- 4

The Etymology of Glocalisation

According to The Oxford Dictionary of New Words (1991: 134) the term ‘glocal’ and the process noun ‘glocalization’ are ‘formed by telescoping global and local to make a blend’ (Robertson: 1995: 28). The idea of glocalization has been ‘modelled’ on Japanese dochakuka which derives from dochaku meaning “living on one’s own land”. It means originally and relates to the agricultural principles of adapting one’s techniques to local conditions. It is also adopted in the Japanese business for global localization, a global outlook adapted to local conditions. Robertson (1995: 28) writes that it is during 1980s when the terms ‘glocal’ and ‘glocalization’ became aspects of business jargon. It is important to note here that the locus of these terms was Japan. Japan as a country has cultivated and shaped for itself the spatio-cultural significance over a long period of time. It has become again now in the words of The Oxford Dictionary of New Words (1991: 134) meaning ‘one of the main marketing buzzwords of the beginning of the nineties. ’

The idea of glocalization in economic terms refers to micromarketing which deals with the tailoring and advertising of goods and services on a global or near-global basis to increasingly differentiated local and particular markets. Robert writes (1995) “in the world of capitalistic production for increasingly global markets the adaptation to local and other particular conditions is not simply a case of business responses to existing global variety to civilizational, regional, societal, ethnic, gender and still other types of differentiated consumers as if such variety or heterogeneity existed simply ‘in itself’.

Glocalization as a process involves the construction of increasingly differentiated consumers, the ‘invention’ of ‘consumer traditions’ (of which tourism, arguably the biggest ‘industry’ of the contemporary world, is undoubtedly the most clear-cut example) and to put it simply, Robertson writes (1995: 29) ‘diversity sells’.Robertson (1995: 29) writes:“From the consumer’s point of view it can be a significant basis of cultural capital formation (Bourdieu, 1984). This, it should be emphasized, is not its only function. The proliferation of, for example, ‘ethnic’ supermarkets in California and elsewhere does to a large extent cater not so much to difference for the sake of difference, but to the desire for the familiar and/or to nostalgic wishes. On the other hand, these too can also be bases of cultural capital formation.”

Robertson (1995) argues that there is a widespread tendency to think of global-local problematic as involving a polarity referring to the claim that we live in a world of local assertions against globalizing trends, a world in which the very idea of locality is sometimes cast as a form of opposition or resistance to the hegemonically global (or one in which the assertion of ‘locality’ or Gemeinschaft is seen as the pitting of subaltern ‘universals’ against the ‘hegemonic universal’ of dominant cultures and/or classes). In this context Robertson (1995: 29) gives the example of German culture-civilization distinction at the global level: the old notion of (‘good’) culture is pitted against the (‘bad’) notion of civilization. In this traditional German perspective local culture becomes, in effect, national culture, while civilization is given a distinctively global, world-wide colouring

In reference to the local-cosmopolitan distinction Hannerz (1990: 250) has remarked that for locals diversity ‘happens to be the principle which allows all locals to stick to their respective cultures’. At the same time, cosmopolitans largely depend on ‘other people’ carving out ‘special niches’ for their cultures. Thus ‘there can be no cosmopolitans without locals’. This point has some bearing on the particular nature of the intellectual interest in and the approach to the local-global issue (Robertson: 1995). For Robertson (1995) historical conscious regarding deceptive modern or postmodern, problem of the relationship between the global and the local, the universal and the particular, and so on, is not by any means as unique to the second half of the twentieth century as many would have us believe. Referring to the work of Greenfield (1992) Robertson (1995: 30) points that recent study of the origins of nationalism in England, France, Germany, Russia and America. With the notable exception of English nationalism, she shows that the emergence of all national identities- such constituting ‘the most common and salient form of particularism in the modern world’ (Greenfield, 1992: 8) developed as a part of an ‘essentially international process’ (Greenfield, 1992: 14).

Robertson (1995) argues that from interpretative standpoint the concept of globalization has involved the simultaneity and the interpenetration of what are conventionally called the global and the local, or in more abstract vein the universal and the particular. The local-global problematic hinge upon the view that contemporary conceptions of locality are largely produced in something like global terms, but this certainly does not mean that all forms of locality are thus substantively homogenized (notwithstanding the

standardization, for example, of relatively new suburban, fortress communities). An important thing to recognize in this connection is that there is an increasingly globe-wide discourse of locality, community, home and the like. One of the ways of considering the idea of global culture is in terms of its being constituted by the increasing interconnectedness of many local cultures both large and small (Hannerz, 1990). Robertson (1995: 31) argues that global culture is entirely constituted by such interconnectedness. He argues that we should be careful not to equate the communicative and interactional connecting of such cultures including very asymmetrical forms of such communication and interaction, as well as ‘third cultures’ of mediation with the notion of homogenization of all cultures.

Robertson (1995) also elaborates his point by discussing about the conditions of both cultural pluralism (Moore: 1989) as well as geographical pluralism where he argues that the idea of locality, indeed of globality is very relative. He (1995: 31) writes: “In spatial terms a village community is of course local relative to a region of a society, while a society is local relative to a civilizational area, and so on. Relativity also arises in temporal terms. Contrasting the well-known pair consisting of locals and cosmopolitans, Hannerz (1990: 236) has written that ‘what was cosmopolitan in the early 1940s may be counted as a moderate form of localism by now’. I do not in the present context get explicitly involved in the problem of relativity (or relativism). But sensitivity to the problem does inform much of what I say.”Robertson (1995: 32) argues that there are certain conditions that are currently promoting the production of concern with the local-global problematic within the academy. In talking specifically of the spatial compression dimension of globalization King (1991: 420) remarks on the increasing numbers of ‘proto professionals from so-called “Third World” societies’ who are travelling to ‘the core’ for professional education. The educational sector of ‘core’ countries ‘depends increasingly on this input of students from the global periphery’. It is the experience of ‘flying round the world and needing schemata to make sense of what they see’ on the one hand, and encountering students from all over the world in the classroom on the other, which forms an important experiential basis for academics of what King (1991: 401-2) calls totalizing and global theories. I would maintain, however, that it is interest in ‘the local’ as much as the ‘totally global’ which is promoted in this way.

Robertson (1995) writes that in numerous contemporary accounts, then, globalizing trends are regarded as in tension with ‘local’ assertions of identity and culture. Thus ideas such as the global versus the local, the global versus the ‘tribal’, the international versus the national, and the universal versus the particular are widely promoted. For some these oppositions are puzzles, for some the second part of these opposites is reaction against the first and for some it is contradictions. In the perspective of contradiction the tension between, for example, the universal and the particular may be seen either in the dynamic sense of being a relatively progressive source of overall change or as a modality which preserves an existing global system in state. We find both views in Wallerstein’s argument that the relation between the universal and the particular is basically a product of expanding world-systemic capitalism (Wallerstein, 1991b). Robertson (1995: 33) writes “Only what Wallerstein (1991a) calls anti-systemic movements-and then only those which effectively challenge its ‘metaphysical presuppositions’-can move the world beyond the presuppositions of its present (capitalist) condition. In that light we may regard the contemporary proliferation of ‘minority discourses’ (Jan- Mohamed and Lloyd, 1990) as being encouraged by the presentation of a ‘world-system’.” It should be also noted here that many of the enthusiastic participants in the discourse of ‘minorities’ describe their intellectual practice in terms of the singular, minority discourse (JanMohamed and Lloyd, 1990). This suggests that there is indeed a potentially global mode of writing and talking on behalf of, or at least about, minorities (cf. Handler, 1994; McGrane, 1989).

Section- 5

“Grobalisation” as a companion to Glocalisation

Grobalisation – the term first propounded by George Ritzer (2003) argues that: “While it does not deny the importance of glocalisation and, in fact, complements it, grobalisation focuses on the imperialistic ambitions of nations, corporations, organizations, and other entities and their desire-indeed, their need-to impose themselves on various geographic areas. Their main interest is in seeing their power, influence, and (in some cases) profits grow (hence the term “grobalisation”) throughout the world” (pp. 194) While citing examples of grobalisation like gourmet foods, handmade crafts, custom-made clothes, and Rolling Stones concerts which are now “much more available throughout the world, and more likely to move transnationally, than ever in history”, he also indicates few limitations. There is, he argues “comparatively little affinity between grobalisation and something” (pp. 198) First, there could simply be far less demand of a local product throughout the world. One reason for this is that the distinctiveness of something tends to appeal to far more limited tastes, be it gourmet foods, handmade crafts, or Rolling Stones or Silk Road concerts. Second, the complexity of a local product especially the fact that it is likely to have many different elements, means that “it is more likely that it will have at least some characteristics that will be off-putting for or will even offend large numbers of people in many different cultures” (pp. 198). Third, the local product or its various forms are usually more expensive – frequently much more expensive than competing forms. For instance, gourmet food is much more costly than fast food. Its higher cost means, of course, that far fewer people can afford it. As a result, the global demand for expensive forms of distinct local commodities is minuscule in comparison to that for the inexpensive varieties of global products. For instance, a hamburger at McDonald’s is far cheaper than Lebanese shawarma found in any metro city. Or hand crafted pashmina shawl by Kashmiris of India is higher in price than any woolen garment found in a retail shop. Besides, not all would have a ‘taste’ for pashmina shawl or Lebanese cuisine than widely available other options. Fourth, there is a cost cutting on advertising andmarketing of local products because the prices are high and the demand is comparatively low. This serves to keep demand further low. The costs of shipping (insurance, careful packing and packaging, special transports) of gourmet foods, the van Gogh paintings, etc are usually very high, adding to the price and thereby reducing the demand. Fifth, few things are more difficult to mass-manufacture and in some cases (Silk Road concerts, van Gogh exhibitions), impossible to produce in this way. Because it is relatively scarce, the local products sometimes retain their status and distinction from mass manufactured products. Ritzer (2003) argues that: “Glocal forms of something are loaded with distinctive content. Among other things, this means that they are harder and more expensive to produce and that consumers, especially in other cultures, find them harder to understand and appreciate.” (pp. 202)

Section-VI

Why we need to discuss the relevance of glocalisation?

Discussion on glocalisation has a very different view than any of the conventional perspectives on global conflict. For instance, cultural conflict is seen as the one between homogenizing global process and the local culture under globalization debate. However, perspective offered from the viewpoint of glocalisation is somewhat different. First, globalization is far too broad a concept, encompassing as it does all transnational processes.”It needs further refinement to be useful in this context, such as the distinction between grobalisation and glocalisation. When that differentiation is made, it is clear that the broad process of globalization already encompasses important conflicting processes.” (pp. 207) Second, the local is increasingly pictured as insignificant and a marginal playerin the dynamics of globalization. What Ritzer (2003) probably meant was that the local is relegated to secondary importance in the conceptualization of cultural conflict debate. But the fact is that there is little of the local remains that has been untouched by the global.”Thus, much of what we often think of as the local is, in reality, the glocal.” In regard to the relationship between glocal and grobal he further argues that: “The interaction of the grobal and the local produces unique phenomena that are not reducible to either the grobal or the local. If the local alone is no longer the source that it once was of uniqueness, at least some of the slack has been picked up by the glocal. It is even conceivable that the glocal and the interaction among various glocalities are-or at least can be-a significant source of uniqueness and innovation” (pp. 208)

The glocalisation debate, offers us an alternative view to traditional globalization debate where local is not relegated to the periphery but catapulted to higher position. A trend to romanticize local and even glorify glocal is seen in many writings. For instance, Jonathan Friedman (1994) associates cultural pluralism with “a dehegemonizing, dehomogenizing world incapable of a formerly enforced politics of assimilation or cultural hierarchy.” Later, he links the “decline of hegemony”to“liberation of the world arena to the free play of already extant but suppressed projects and potential new projects” (pp. 252). Then James Watson’s (1997) book called McDonald’s in East Asia, which flags off ideas on glocal adaptations (and generally downplay of grobal impositions) also tends to describe the glocal phenomenon in positive terms.

Section-VII

Conclusion

Robertson’s (1995) perceive major weakness in much of the employment of the term ‘globalization’. He attempts to transcend the tendency to cast the idea of globalization as inevitably in tension with the idea of localization. Arguing his position he writes that globalization in the broadest sense referring to the idea of compression of the world has involved and increasingly involves the creation and the incorporation of locality, processes which themselves largely shape, in turn, the compression of the world as a whole.

Robertson (1995: 40) believes that it is preferable to replace it for certain purposes with the concept of glocalization. The concept of glocalization has the definite advantage of making the concern with space as important as the focus upon temporal issues. At the same time emphasis upon the global condition that is, upon globality further constrains us to make our analysis and interpretation of the contemporary world both spatial and temporal, geographical as well as historical (Soja, 1989).

References:

Berger, P. L. , Berger, B. and Kellner, H. (1973) The Homeless Mind: Modernization and Consciousness. New York: Random House.
Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.
Ferguson, M. (1992) ‘The mythology about globalization’, European Journal of Communication, 7.
Friedman, J. (1994). Cultural Identity and Global Processes. London: Sage
Greenfeld, L. (1992) Nationalism: five Roads to Modernity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Handler. R. (1994) ‘Is “identity” a useful cross-cultural concept?’, in J. R. Gillis (cd. ), Commemorations. The Politics of National Identity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hannerz, U. (1990) ‘Cosmopolitans and locals in world culture’, in M. Featherstone (ed. ), Global Culture. London: Sage. Giddens, Anthony. (2000). Runaway World. New York: Routledge

Hannen, U. (1992) Cultural Complexity: Studies in the Social Organization of Meaning. New York: Columbia University Press.
JanMohamed, A. R. and Lloyd, D. (cds) (1990) The Nature and Context of Minority Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Khondker, Habibul. (1994).”Globalization Theory: A Critical Analysis” Department of Sociology Working Paper, National University of Singapore
Khondker, Habibul Haque. (2004). Glocalization as Globalization: Evolution of a Sociological Concept. Bangladesh e-Journal of Sociology, Vol. 1. No. 2
King, A. D. (1991) ‘Introduction: spaces of culture, spaces of knowledge’, in A. D. King (ed. ), Culture, Globalization and the World-System. London: Macmillan.
McGrane, B. (1989) Beyond Anthropology: Society and the Other. New York: Columbia University Press.

Moore, S. F. (1989) ‘The production of cultural pluralism as a process’, Public Culture, 1 (2).

Nederveen Pieterse, Jan. (2004). Globalization and Culture, Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland
Oxford Dictionary of New Words, compiled by Sara Tulloch (1991) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ritzer, G. (2003). Rethinking Globalization: Glocalization/ Grobalization and Something/ Nothing. Sociological Theory, Vol. 21, No. 3: 193-209
Ritzer, G. (2004). The Globalization of Nothing. Thousand Oaks, California: Pine Forge
Robertson, Roland (1992) Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. London: Sage
Robertson, R. (1990) ‘After nostalgia? Wilful nostalgia and the phases of globalization” in B. S. Turner (ed. ), Theories of Modernity and Postmodernity. London: Sage.
Robertson, R. (1991) ‘Social theory, cultural relativity and the problem of globality’, in
A. D. King (ed. ), Culture, Globalization and the World-System. London: Macmillan.
Robertson, R (1992b) Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture, London, Sage.

Robertson, R (1993) ‘Globalization and Sociological theory’, in H. Martins (ed. ) Knowledge and Passion: Essays in honour of John Rex. London: Tauris
Robertson, R (1995) ‘Glocalization: Time-Space And HomogeneityHeterogeneity’, in Featherstone, Mike, Scott Lash, and Roland Robertson (Eds) Global Modernities, London: Sage Publications. Pg. 25-44.
Soja, E. W. (1989) Postmodern Geographies: The reassertion of space in critical social theory, London:
Wallerstein, I (1991 a) Unthinking Social Science: Limits Of 19Th Century Paradigms, Oxford: Polity Press.
Wallerstein, I (1991 b) ‘The national and the universal: Can there be such a thing as world culture? , in A. D. King (ed. ) Culture, Globalization and the world-System, London: Macmillan.
Watson, J. , ed. (1997). Golden Arches East. McDonald’s in East Asia. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press