Globalization is an irreversible movement. It has completely changed the trajectory of modern life and marked its presence in contemporary history. A controversial debate has risen since the rise of globalization, contemplating whether it expresses western superiority or natural progression of modernity. This report sits on the latter end of the debate, arguing that globalization is a consequent phenomenon of more states transiting into market based economy and democratic governing structure in order to adapt to the post-modern and cosmopolitan world.

This report scrutinizes the above argument in three stages: First, by identifying the globalized aspects of modern life in capitalistic and neoliberal terms, this will show the extensive interactions between free markets. Second, demonstrating globalization as the result of endogenous democratization and modernization and not the exogenous western influence. Third, explaining why globalization appears to be a Western imperialist act followed by a close view of certain ideals being misconceived as ‘western values’.

Political scientists and international relations scholars are impressed by the hegemony of economy and culture over the nation state in the era of globalization. Sociologists inspect whether the global civil society has become more or less homogenous as they question the existence of westernization. Anthropologists debate the emergence of global culture centred around McLuhan’s ‘global village’ (that is post-nationalist and postcolonial). Across the spectrum, this author stands closer to the view relating to the inevitability of globalization, provided that history continues to naturally unfold itself towards global liberalization while proceeding in the modern age.

The globalized aspect of modern life entails the hyper-connectedness between geographically distant countries. One possible explanation for the multilateral interdependence revolves around the free market and its prominence in the neoliberal world. The economy is better off trading with other economies that have a variety of comparative advantages due to the market integrations allowing more efficient utilization of resources. If a nation denies globalization, it will “reverse the gains that have been achieved” and an autarky will pay its price for adopting protectionist tariffs or other anti-liberal policies. This gradually establishes the market led ‘boundless economy’ as the orthodoxy; something inseparable with globalization to achieve a greater payoff. In essence, the ‘perfect mobility of goods, labour and capital’ does not originate from one country emitting outwards, but rather multiple economies interacting with one another.

The capitalist market drives globalization and determines its direction. This is all while the state is no longer a useful participant of the modern economy. The traditional form of economic sovereignty becomes ‘increasingly a nostalgic fiction’ and the interaction between markets transcends ‘the lines of demarcation on traditional political maps’.

The movement flows from the Global North to the Global South and more importantly, vice versa, if that is the direction the market is suggesting. The mutual gain, especially highlighting the involvement of Global South, explains why globalization is not Western imperialistic acts, but rather a natural progression of capitalism and neoliberalism expanding on a wider scale.

Secondly, globalization is closely linked to democratization. This is because of political freedoms being conducive to economically open policies. When the public desires the economic opportunities beyond traditional borders, democracy renders the leaders to adopt pro-globalization policies, such as reducing tariffs and participating in free-trade agreements. The flexible global trade correspondingly encourages political accountability and transparency, which then creates a positive feedback between democracy and globalization. The relationship is evident through Central and Eastern Europe’s participation in the global marketplace after the end of the Soviet authoritarianism and Latin America’s opening to the world economy following the wave of democratization in 1978.

Similarly, modernized states are more likely to be subject to globalization than states that are less liberalized. A modern state has internal governing structure that is instrumentally rationalized, institutionally bureaucratized and liberalized, according to Max Weber’s analysis on the ‘disenchantment’ of modern society. However, because the distinctive features of modernity are also typical characteristics of dominant western nations, globalization is often misunderstood as non-western societies homogeneously mirroring western societies. This is opposite to what is really happening: as more non-western states become modernized and liberalized, they share overlapping characteristics with western nations, which inevitably narrows the differences in values between those nations. In other words, the global community is indeed more homogenous as sociologists inspected, but this is due to the effect of endogenous social and political transition, and not because of the exogenous force of Western dominance.

Then why are certain concepts, such as capitalism, liberalization and modernization, often misconceived as ‘western values’, and consequently portray globalization as Western imperialism?  Max Weber argues that modernization and capitalism are an expression of western values because they are “the spirit of Christian asceticism” and the rationalization of religion by protestant sects that eventually produced bureaucracy and capitalism.

However, this author argues that capitalism, liberalism and modernism are considered ‘western’. This is because western societies have precedent experience in modernization, democratization and capitalistic reforms, most extensively in the 19th and 20th centuries, prior to the non-western world. The extensive globalization of the past two decades reflects non-westerners being subject to similar economic, social and political pressures that westerners once encountered in order to arrive where they currently stand. For instance, South Africa’s international trade, as the share of GDP, increased dramatically from 38% in 1992 to 64% in 2014, since it abandoned Apartheid and adopted one of the most progressive constitutions since the 1990s. Other developing countries such as Brazil and India, with the combination of democracy, liberalism and economic globalization, have unleashed impressive growth that has lifted millions out of poverty. The globalizing phenomenon is the natural progression of history reaching its economic, political and social optimum, rather than prosecution of Western superiority.

Given the multidimensional attributes of globalization, the claims of political scientists, sociologists and anthropologists are all equally valid. However, this author has argued that beyond ‘global civil society’, ‘global culture’ or ‘global village’, there is an underlying premise that globalization is an inevitable phenomenon. It is a natural progression of modern history as we continuously strive towards optimum efficiency in capitalistic markets, democratic and liberal governments, and satisfy our fundamental desire to stay connected with one another.  Globalization can be an excellent tool to foster peace within the global village but it only is what we make of it.