Kris Stanton Dr. Mabokela EAD 860 July 19, 2006

Book Critique: Runaway World Runaway World by Anthony Giddens is a powerful, though provoking little book. Giddens profiles the expansion of globalization without being verbose or over contextualizing the issue. Globalization itself, as Giddens described, is not always easy to define. Although I thought that the book was straightforward and raised many concerns pertinent to life today as we know it, I pondered several questions as I agreed with his interpretations. Then I read further and disagreed, even noting that Giddens contradicted himself a few times. Captivating and a page turner to say the least, I couldn’t help wish for one thing at the conclusion of this book: a dinner table. Hypothetically, a popular question that is often asked is “If you could invite a few people living or dead to a dinner party, who would they be?” Although he wouldn’t be on my first list, I’d love the chance to sit down with Anthony Giddens and ask him a plethora of questions and have him provide feedback to this stimulating book. I’d probably start with globalization, the term itself. Then I would move on to ask about his view that people of the world no longer listen to world leaders. I’d also ask Giddens to speak about how we are redefining ourselves in terms of our families, customs and organizational structures. Finally, we’d discuss the fight for globalization and the spread of democracy and its bitter enemy who presses on in the name of

1

Fundamentalism. These four arguments brought the book together and could just as easily be taken apart to further understand the concept of globalization. Before starting this book, I knew about the term and had an idea of what I thought it meant. I had all of the usual ideas: making the world a smaller place, communication bringing the world together, increased trade and fewer conflicts. I also conjured up visions of where the United States fits into all of this. What about outsourcing and a strengthening China and other developing nations in Asia? Is globalization a bad thing or a good thing for Americans? Throughout the book, Giddens touted the merits of democracy as it was a vehicle for globalization. Is it necessary to surrender some our nation’s success to make globalization happen? Early in the text, Giddens used the term “reverse colonization” to explain how nonwestern nations influence the developments in the west. (Giddens, 2003 p. 16) At first, this thought was a complete conundrum. I didn’t see Latvia or Luxemburg having any say about our practices but I did think about the Middle East. Through our dependency on foreign oil, the United States is at the mercy of who some call our enemies. Some of the reasons that loom large in the trade of oil come from the great demand out of burgeoning Asian nations. While financially, it may be difficult to accept but as it relates to this course, to have a global learning and sharing society, it means giving up some of the control this nation once had. We are not the only learners and soon we will not be the only super power. As China and India, specifically, continue to industrialize, America needs to accept and embrace their developments and increase communication. Rather than teach our students the old methods that worked for previous generations, we must teach them how keep up with the constant change they will be presented with in the years to come.

2

For a majority of my life, my country has been the lone super power. We know that history is usually told from the winner’s perspective and thus, through my young life I’ve come to enjoy history. I’ve learned about great and not-so-great leaders of the past and present and how they’ve led their people. I was taken back by Gidden’s comment that “…politicians have lost most of their capability to influence events, it isn’t surprising that no one respects political leaders any more, or has much interest in what they have to say.” (Giddens, 2003, pg. 8) As with most of the phrases that caught my eye and mind in this book, my thinking turned from confusion to anger to understanding and accepting upon further reflection. Giddens may be on to something. While things such as political cartoons have been around for many decades, it is staggering to see how much political satire exists in the world. Constantly, shots are taken at George W. Bush for example on television and Internet, from American sources. While his presidency has encountered many difficult situations, it occurred to me that Giddens might be on to something. Perhaps politicians have lost their ability to influence people in ways their predecessors did in the past. Is this a result of failed political reforms and wartime malaise or is it something else? Might the expansion of the Internet and increased level of trade and communication that is free of government in cyberspace caused citizens to ignore the politics of their nation? Conservative observers might signal disrespect for political dignitaries as one of the reasons why our nation’s infrastructure is crumbling. The erosion of the American family and the morals that once guided households seem to be on the brink of extinction. One of the main themes that Giddens addresses is how we are redefining ourselves in terms of our families, customs and organizational structures. Giddens does not suggest that we are throwing our values to the wind, rather he points out that these transformations go beyond the borders of any one

3

nation. (Giddens, 2003 pg. 52). Just issues such as abortion and censorship weigh heavily on the minds and tongues of Americans, there are conflicts such as the increased divorce rate in China. China, a nation known for centuries of arranged marriages. As Giddens described it, “Meet once, nod your head and marry” (Giddens, 2003 pg. 53) when referring to past Chinese methods of courtship. Just as in America, the Chinese are just as focused on maintaining the definitions of family. I disagree with Giddens’ notion that above all, the traditional family was and is an economic unit. Economic means are a byproduct of the family structure. Even in nations such as China were arranged marriages were the preferred option, human beings’ role were not to simply procreate for the addition to the nation’s labor force. Furthermore, for all his dynamite observations, Giddens missed the mark when he claimed that anthropologist surveys indicated that homosexuality has been tolerated and approved of in more places than where it has been condemned. (Giddens, 2003 pg. 56). Just as he had reached my maximum level of theoretical deniability, Giddens made an accurate argument about the term “traditional family.” He stated that the term actually reflects the American family of the mid twentieth century, when the nation was transitioning from World War II and society, especially the labor force, was dominated by males. Through sexual equality and women’s liberation, this is the incorrect phrase to use when speaking of families of the new millennium, let alone the previous forty years. Although he made several key points about the identification of marriage and the statistics to show the changes in attitudes toward family in our world, his ideas of “coupling” and “uncoupling” are weak at best. As it relates to this class, wouldn’t a society that is more disconnected on a personal and local level be less apt to survive globally? Do these trends mixed with theories of the decimation of the traditional family model

4

help us as learners? I can’t see how they would help, moreover they discredit us, especially in the eyes of fundamentalists. For the purpose of this text, fundamentalists have become the enemies. Giddens uses the term to basically replace the word “terrorist”. As he detailed the story of being in Germany at the height of the collapse of the Berlin Wall, Giddens recalled how television crews interrupted the moment to recreate and shape what was happening for their audiences. Then in a quick turn of words, Giddens contradicted himself by stating the television crews were doing the right thing, as they played an important role in the opening of the wall (Giddens, 2003 pg. 68). Fundamentalists would have never allowed this to happen, or so he might say. I gained the understanding that the role of the fundamentalist is to stop the spread of democracy and furthermore globalization. Just as Giddens described the differences in understanding and execution of democracies around the world, the same too can be said for one who considers themselves a fundamentalist. By Webster’s dictionary definition, a fundamentalist not only believes in the literal interpretation of their holy book but also forming a foundation or basis (Webster, 2000 pf. 546). Just as many in the Islamic community feel misrepresented when members of Al-Qaeda take the name of their peaceful religion, so to do I take exception to his view of fundamental people as those who try to thwart progress. One can be grounded in fundamental viewpoints and still encourage globalization and the growth of global learning communities. Giddens argument lost steam when he not only pointed to fundamentalists aims to stop democracy but fractures within democracy itself as it is becoming “marginal”. It is not necessarily a good thing if the grip on traditions are lost in democratic nations. Doesn’t that allow the so-called Fundamentalists further opposition to democracy and weaken the expansion and strength of current ones? If Giddens

5

were at my dinner table, I would ask him why he unraveled the generally strong arguments throughout the book in just a few pages at its conclusion. Overall, Giddens made many excellent points about the world we live in. He is clearly a great thinker who has not only researched his findings but in many cases, viewed and lived the experiences personally. I was disappointed that this book did not readily connect to the idea of establishing learning societies or the general concepts of this class. In a way though, the issues mentioned in this book must be talked about and developed before globalization and global learning societies can truly be present and be as effective as we need them to be. The issues presented in this book are vital to understand where we are going because just as in education, our social and governmental world seems to be in a constant state of change.

References Giddens, A. (2003) Runaway World. New York, NY: Routledge. Neufeldt,V. et al. (2000) Webster’s New World College Dictionary. New York, NY: MacMillan.

6