关于本课程 为了解释全球化是如何重构公共政策和再塑社会行为，我们将研究不同的政治、经济行为体、研究各类——公共或私人，个体或集体——社会行为体，并着眼关注到它们之间的交流和互动作用，这些行为体正在重构着国际关系。 本课程以法国社会学和历史学视角来研究国际关系。同时也提供英语版本(www.coursera.org/learn/global-studies/)、法语版本(www.coursera.org/learn/espace-mondial-fr/)和阿拉伯语版本(www.coursera.org/learn/espace-mondial-ar/)。
单一的定义？
Loading...
來自 Sciences Po 的課程
世界空间、法国视角下的国际研究
6 個評分
Explore Related Videos
At Coursera, you will find the best lectures in the world. Here are some of our personalized recommendations for you
與講師見面
Bertrand BadieProfessor
Marie-Françoise DurandProfessor
[MUSIC]
Let's move now to globalization.
Globalization is probably one of the main transformation of our world order.
It's quite new order that we are meeting with this process,
which is quite new and which is questioning really all the concepts
which have been coined for explaining the international relations.
I would say, first that globalization results in a series of paradoxes
which are challenging our conceptual vision of the international arena.
First paradox, contradiction between power and integration.
Power is the cornerstone of the traditional international order, when
integration is the main consequence
of a global order which is more and more interplaying, and interdependent.
How to combine power and interdependence?
How to combine power and integration?
Second paradox, between power and power resistance.
Globalization is providing new resources to power, and
power holders have the feeling, the intuition that globalization
is able to bring them new means, new instruments for dominating the world.
But in the meantime, interdependence is contradicting power.
And we can observe that in our present world order,
power is less and less powerful, and power is failing
in many kinds of tensions and conflict that we are meeting now,
and especially in the Middle East or in Africa.
Third contradiction, the contradiction between coexistence and interdependence.
Interdependence is the main principle of global order when
coexistence is coming from the traditional vision of sovereignty.
How to combine them?
Fourth contradiction, fourth products between market and intrusion.
Globalization is often presented as the accomplishment,
the achievement of the market,
of the kind of world market, but that's not totally true.
Market is only in free trade,
free exchanges are only one dimension of globalization.
Why, we have to take into account the other dimension,
which is connected to this process of integration and inclusion.
Fifth paradox, between global order and the fragmented order.
It would be a grave mistake to consider that
globalization results in a unification of the world.
Globalization is also boosting a fragmentation,
new particularisms that we have to take into account and
the result is that we are in a global, but also local world order.
That's to say, a kind of localization as it has been said.
Now the real question, which is at stake is how to define globalization?
And the problem of definition is probably not really solved.
It's very difficult now to give a consensual definition of globalization.
I would say that this dispute is shedding light on
some ambiguities of globalization.
Globalization doesn't mean internationalization.
Internationalization implies relations among nations states.
Globalization is not limited to relations among nation states,
but is including many other actors as we have mentioned.
Globalization doesn't mean liberalization.
That's to say, globalization can imply the development of free market,
but globalization is also shedding light on the necessity
of social integration which is different from the liberal vision and
the free market feature of the global order.
Globalization does not mean universalization,
as globalization is triggering new particularism,
which are more and more visible.
And especially when some problems, some tensions,
some conflicts take place, and globalization doesn't mean westernization.
Many people in the Western world consider
that globalization was the hand of history,
that's to say was [COUGH] resulting in the success and
the victory of a Western vision of the world order.
We see now that globalization is on the contrary,
resulting in the development and in the strengthening
of new cultures and of competing cultures.
African cultures, Arab cultures, Chinese cultures.
We are in a world which cannot be considered
as the results of a cultural unification.
So, how to define?
How to define?
I would say, first that globalization implies three symptoms,
and I would like to approach globalization through these three symptoms.
The first one is inclusion.
For the first time in the world history, we are all in the same boat.
That's to say, humanity is entirely included in the same arena,
is playing on a unique arena and this is really new.
This is really a new aspect of the world order that we
didn't meet in the precedent steps of the human history.
And that means, if we are in an including world, there is no center.
That's to say, no possibility to conceive the center,
even in the general, on this new global world.
The second symptom of globalization is to be found in mobility.
We are in the world of communication.
We are in a world of transportation.
We are in a world in which people are more and
more able to move, and also to transgress the border lines.
Mobility is a new parameter which is challenging the traditional order,
which is made of statism, of stability and of territorial stability.
We are no more in a territorial world, but in a world of mobility.
And the third symptom is interdependence.
We are depending on each other.
That means that the weak is still depending on the strong, but
that means something much more important.
That with globalization, now, the strong is also depending on the weak.
This is quite new and that's why I say that the concept of power is now
challenged, and power is getting powerless.
Can you see in a world order how a small state,
how's very weak collectivity is able
to control, to make pressure,
to contain the strengths of the strongest?
That are the symptoms of globalizations.
Where are the roots?
What is the origin of globalization?
This is a very tough question, of course, but
I would say, maybe three points.
I will make three points.
First, probably and even certainly,
globalization is coming from the transformation of technology.
So globalization was not particularly invented, particularly created.
Globalization is the result of a new technological context.
What is this technological context?
I would say, it's the revolution of communication.
We are in a world in which it's very easy for
each individual to communicate with all the others around the world.
When I was young, it was so difficult to give a call,
to telephone to US when we were settled in Europe.
Now we can do that with our cells, with our mobile phones.
It's so easy.
And so difficult, also, to control.
And so difficult to limit.
We are in a world of generalized communication.
What is a world of generalized communication?
It's a world in which distance Is getting meaningless.
We are in a world in which distance is no more organizing the world,
in which distance is no more a political resource for
the rulers, for the princes, for the governments.
And it's a world in which distance is no longer a handicap for the individual.
That's to say, for all of us, for billions of people.
So globalization is first of all,
a world of deterritorialization.
What does it mean?
It means that the traditional definition of politics which has been coined,
for instance, by Max Weber is no more relevant.
That's to say, there is a gap,
conceptual gap between the idea of politics and the idea of territory.
That's to say, the real political challenge is no more coming
from territory and the competition between territorial nation states,
but is world, often national relations, but that means something else.
In this world which is no more territorial,
there is a real risk, which is a sociological risk,
which was pointed, in its time, by Emile Durkheim.
That's to say, a world of anomie.
This world of interdependence is a world which needs to be integrated.
And with a lack of integration, there is a strong risk of anomie.
Anomie, that's to say,
a risk of destruction of the social
background of this new world.
This risk of anomie is probably explaining what it
is now taking place in matter of war and conflict.
And I would say that globalization is as I mentioned, glocalization.
That's to say, a world in which the whole is important.
But in which in the meantime, the individual is important.
That's to say, a permanent tension between
the micro unit which is constituted by the individual,
and the totality which is incarnating this new global world.
[MUSIC]
