The Complex Nature of Globalization
By definition, globalization involves a large, dynamic, and intertwined system. It spans the global and the local, as well as innumerable and constantly evolving interactions between its (natural and human-made) elements. Globalization therefore challenges us to adopt an analytic approach and an action program that can accommodate these complex interdependencies. We believe that one such approach is particularly appropriate in this conceptualization: systems thinking (cf. Hester & Adams, 2017; Meadows, 2008; Werhane, 2008). In parallel to globalization, a systems approach presumes that human perception, thinking, and action are interrelated and interconnected on various societal levels. On a fundamental level, a system refers to a complex set of self-organized elements that interact with each other, producing their own pattern of behavior (i.e., emergent effects) over time (Meadows, 2008). Consequently, any action within the system has an impact on the system by affecting (an)other element or elements, such that âalmost no phenomenon can be studied in isolation from other relationships with at least some other phenomenonâ (Wenhane, 2008, p. 467). A systems-based perspective on globalization guides us to simultaneously attend to the actions of individuals, institutions, nation states, businesses, and other entities operating in the global systemâwith their coinciding or conflicting worldviews, interests and goals. The latter, in turn, are connected on different levels of analyses, from micro structures such as neighborhoods or local environment groups up to macro structures such as global corporations and institutions.
When dealing with such complex systems, we must constantly remind ourselves that by focusing on one specific component, we run the risk of obscuring its position, function, and position in an intricate web of reciprocal relationships with other components, and indeed, the system as a whole. For example, let us consider the incredible global transformations associated with the increased centrality of social networking services (SNS; e.g., Facebook or Twitter) to contemporary social life. SNS were introduced to most of us a little more than a decade ago, as platforms designed to help us to communicate with one another, no matter how near or far. On a more communal level, they promised to help us organize new forms of communities, where people may more easily cooperate as they address issues close to their hearts. They also aimed to help people sharing their worldviews with those who might be receptive to hearing them by democratizing and decentralizing the exchange of ideas. Recently, however, the more sinister aspects of exactly these communal features of SNS life have drawn public attention and concern. You might have read about radical religious or neo-fascist groups using these platforms to organize their potentially harmful actions and to reach new members who might further disseminate their hateful messages. In more mainstream settings, the same features are used to create mass campaigns of disinformation and the systematic manipulation of public opinion. It is a mistake, therefore, to claim that SNS are either âgoodâ or âbad,â as their effects depend entirely on the way they are utilized by various actors, and interact with other elements of the system. Put simply, globalization has made many aspects of social and political life more complicated.
As we discuss these issues later in the book, we will show how these features are embedded in a particular socioeconomic system. This macrosystem creates both the opportunities and the incentives for the type of innovative thinking and remarkable technological achievements provided by SNS. At the same time, new business models were also needed to help SNS flourish within this profit-driven economic environment. As a result, SNS are constantly learning who we are, and what kind of lifestyle we follow, so that they can market to us exactly the products we are most likely to be interested in and to buy. And citizensâ data, in turn, define the directions these corporations and the internet as a whole continue to develop.
Understandably, SNSâs social architecture must accommodate these marketing goals as a means for the technology corporations to thrive. These features of the social settings of SNS both reflect and further entrench the macroeconomic system. They now serve as a perfect venue for marketers where not only products are offered to those who are most likely to buy them, but also specifically tailored ideas, ideologies, truths, and forms of political action. These latter aspects, of course, directly impact the social, economic, and regulatory environment in which SNS operate, as well as the world we live in. Nowadays, social media oftentimes have cascading geopolitical effects that are constructive or disruptive on a truly global scale (e.g., World Economic Forum, âThe Global Risks Report,â 2018). At the same time, social media have a profound impact on our thinking and acting when it comes to discussing and responding to the global issues that we face. As you will see throughout this book, there is a growing body of research addressing this.
While we aim to enrich the thinking about globalization by offering a psychological perspective, we again stress that globalization, with its plethora of interconnected phenomena, requires that we adopt various perspectives. Inspecting an issue from only one disciplinary angle will often result in an incomplete picture and a biased or even plain wrong analysis of the problem and its solution. An ancient story found in various different cultures illustrates the necessity of a systems-based, interdisciplinary view of globalization and its consequences.
This ancient parable, apparently originating from a Buddhist text (but also found in various other religious traditions), describes a group of blind men who had never encountered an elephant before. Given the opportunity to touch the elephant, each of the men feels a different part of its body. Based on this limited experience, they come to very different conclusions about what an elephant actually is. A 19th century poem by John Godfrey Saxe popularized this fable in the West:
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind
The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!
The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me âtis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!
The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
I see, quoth he, the Elephant
Is very like a snake!
The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain, quoth he;
âTis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: Even the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!?
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Then, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
I see, quoth he, the Elephant
Is very like a rope!
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
The lesson we can take from this fable and apply to the analysis of globalization (and many other systems-based phenomena) is simple: The way a system behaves cannot be inferred by knowing only about the behaviors of its constituent elements (Meadows, 2008).
Positioning globalization in a systems-based perspective reminds us that a focus on specific elements alone may not be sufficient to understand the system, and that without such systems-based understanding, it is impossible to make complete sense of any specific element. For the same reason, no single disciplinary perspective, including that of psychology, can alone account for the dynamics and effects of globalization. Nonetheless, in this book we will show why psychological processes are crucial considerations when we think about the effects of globalization. Even as we draw from a broad, multidisciplinary literature, we note that psychology itself is well positioned to define and incorporate multiple levels of analysis (e.g., Doise & Mapstone, 1986; Turner & Oakes, 1986): that of the individual, the social group, and the dynamics of society at large.
This book will try to do justice to these varying perspectives, and we hope to make clear that our psychological perspective can uniquely add to the understanding of globalization. The book will delineate how globalization affects individual dispositions and decisions. It will focus on social group processes and how globalization may contribute to developing attachments and sympathies that go beyond parochial group boundaries. Furthermore, it will examine how changes in society at large are changing humansâ lives, and how individuals contribute to societal and global change. Simply put, this book aims to bring the psychology of individual and collective behavior into the systemic equation of globalization.