On globalization in a post-globalization era: Reflections on the debate

Abstract

In this short commentary, the lead article's author offers his reflections on the response papers. These include an assessment of possible misunderstandings and/or departures from the lead article's main topic, as well as clarifications regarding the substantive argument. Next, the author addresses a series of remarks that address specific points in the response papers. Overall, this intellectual exchange is characterized by a bifurcation of perspectives between fellow travellers and critics of the globalization paradigm. Thus, the debate offers a snapshot of the current state of the art on globalization scholarship.

First, I would like to thank the journal's editors for the kind invitation to pen a lead article (Roudometof, 2024a, 2024b) for the inaugural issue of Dialogues in Sociology. My deep thanks also go to the contributors to the debate for their short responses to the lead article. By and large, it has been a pleasure to read their feedback, as I deeply appreciate and value their contributions to globalization scholarship.

Perhaps it is appropriate to begin by placing this exchange within the current scholarly context. In the call for papers for the 2025 interim conference of the European Sociological Association's research network on ‘Global, Cosmopolitan and Transnational Sociology’, it reads that while the ‘world can be viewed as a single interconnected place … it is also a world that is fragmented and riddled with power struggles and polarized political views’. We are further told that ‘emerging global challenges demand fresh perspectives’ amid a ‘global decline in demand for social sciences … The field of global and transnational sociology is in many ways as fragmented as the world that it examines’. The responses the lead article received embody the above remarks.

In fact, such intellectual exchanges can easily turn into an exercise in misunderstanding. For the most part, this is not the case here. Of course, Ruspini's (2024) response does not actually engage with or critique the lead article's thesis but rather uses the lead article as a springboard to articulate an original thesis regarding the relationship between women and twenty-first century globalization, with a particular focus on policymaking and the significance of intersectionality for analysing inequality. It is a paper highly relevant to the problematic of sustainable development but generally views globalization and/or post-‘globalization’ as policy regimes affecting gender relations.

Ampuja (2024) and Desai (2024) spend considerable space in their respective responses addressing global capitalism. Capitalism is not the topic of the lead article, however. Their remarks fall under a distinct subgenre of criticism where the discussion shifts from what has been stated on paper to a discussion of absences. Since absences are determined by the authors of the responses, the issues raised speak more about the authors’ priorities. Desai's (2009) work has addressed transnational feminism and gender; and this activist outlook, in large part, shapes her response. Ampuja (2012) is a long-standing critic of the entire problematic of globalization; and his remarks are consistent with his prior work. The broader issue of the terminological choice between ‘capitalism’ and ‘modernity’ is an important but conventional topic of debate with a long intellectual history (see Inglis (2024) for an interesting overview). But it is a debate that cannot be addressed here. Suffice to say, from the lead article's point of view, the heuristic value of globalization as a concept rests precisely in offering an alternative template that is less tainted by the normative assumptions of Western modernity.

Furthermore, the use of the catchphrase ‘post-“globalization”’ has been the source of some puzzlement. Axford’s (2024) response is one that, in passing, seems to contemplate seriously the notion of post-‘globalization’. ‘What is post-globalization’, the elusive subject of Roudometof's essay?’, he writes. Nederveen Pieterse (2024) also eloquently summarizes the standard academic account that makes 9/11 part of globalization, although, of course, that is largely contingent upon one's definition of globalization. Let me reiterate here that, in the lead article, I employ the expression post-‘globalization’ with the word ‘globalization’ in quotation marks to denote a major shift in the Zeitgeist. This is done precisely because of, and in anticipation to, the argument set forth by Nederveen Pieterse. Using the expression post-‘globalization’ deliberately connects academic and popular discussions about globalization – it makes academic conversations relevant to those ongoing outside the ivory tower. But this expression is a means to an end and not an end in itself. That is, the article refers to a post-‘globalization’ era and does not analyse post-globalization as a distinct process. Other phrases could also be used to signify the current conjuncture; Steger and James (2019), for example, refer to ‘unsettled times’.

The lead article does not accept that the conceptualization of globalization is settled. Its objective is to tackle the meta-narrative or grand narrative of global modernization adopted by mainstream academic approaches, or what has been labelled as the ‘Northern’ theory of globalization (Connell, 2007). Taking the critique of modernity seriously (Bhambra, 2007), then, the article probes different meta-theoretical understandings of globalization. The contrast between global modernization and the generic notion of globalization is meant to aid with the interrogation of the fault-lines between rival points of view.

Furthermore, the lead article breaks with some key ideas introduced and strongly advocated by my former mentor, the late Roland Robertson. In this regard, it might be somewhat misleading to interpret the arguments put forth in the article as mere reformulations of his interpretation. Specifically, arguing that (a) globalization should be viewed as distinct from global modernization; (b) globalization might not necessarily be the ‘central concept’; and (c) globalization and localization ought to be granted analytical autonomy (and should not be viewed as auxiliary or secondary processes) are three important departures from his interpretation. These key points pursue some novel theoretical directions and address long-standing critiques against Robertson's approach, thereby opening new avenues for future inquiry.

Now, let me turn to some points raised in the response articles regarding empirical evidence and/or the evaluation of different events. Ampuja (2024) rightly points out that Castells and others overestimate the novelty of the 1990s ‘information age’. This is a valid criticism. It is applicable not only to Castells but also to many other authors whose work was published in the 1990s (for a discussion, see Roudometof, (2023)). Nevertheless, Castells’ (1996–1998) original description of broader social and cultural trends has been vindicated, especially about the sharp juxtaposition between cosmopolitan elites and the broad public, which has been promptly exploited by twenty-first century populists. In his response, Nederveen Pieterse (2024) writes that selecting 9/11 as the most iconic date is posited but not argued – since we have lived through it, I did not think it was necessary. Perhaps I should add here that iconic events are a matter of memory, and thus the evaluation of 9/11 as such should be seen within this broader scholarly context (see Leavy, 2007; Alexander et al., 2012).

Desai (2024) mentions the 1999 ‘Battle of Seattle’ as an alternative key historical event – and as a matter of fact, I have specifically mentioned it elsewhere (Roudometof, 2016: 8) as a possible contender for marking the end of the 1990s ‘glory days’ of hyper-globalization. It is not mentioned in the lead article merely due to space restrictions. Desai offers an alternative narrative that adopts the perspective of what used to be called the ‘anti-globalization’ movement in the 1990s. As stated elsewhere (Roudometof, 2020), this movement was ineffective in its efforts to shape public policymaking. Not until Alexis Tsipras became Greece's Prime Minister was anyone affiliated with this movement in a position of actual political power. Perhaps the most surprising remark is Ampuja's commentary regarding the second edition of The Power of Identity (Castells, 2004) and Castells’ evaluation of post-9/11 events. Since I had read Castells’ trilogy (1996–1998) when it first came out, that is, between 1996 and 1998, my perception of the original argument does not incorporate later revisions.

Steger's (2024) response rightly focuses on the research agenda that explores the tensions between de-globalization and re-globalization (see Steger et al., 2023). Indeed, in their Globalization: Past, Present, Future, Steger et al. (2023) offer an illuminating analysis regarding the mixture of de-globalization and re-globalization that marks the current economic disjuncture. But this article focuses on the broad meta-theoretical parameters of the so-called ‘globalization paradigm’, and not on assessing short-term empirical trends. My theoretical stance on the notion of de-globalization has been presented elsewhere (Roudometof, 2020), and there is little to be gained from repetition. In terms of assessing the contrast between rival research agendas, global studies and post-colonial perspectives belong to opposing camps (overview in Roudometof, 2024a, 2024b). James and Steger (2023; see also Steger, 2021) have acknowledged the significance of engaging with rival viewpoints. The lead article is meant to do precisely this and to do it constructively – that is, by examining different options available for theorizing and conceptualization, comparing the pros and cons of different theoretical options, and proposing or suggesting ideas for future engagement.

Nederveen Pieterse (2024) offers an excellent synopsis of current trends and the conventional academic mainstream perspective which – as stated in the lead article – explains the very reason why ‘post-globalization’ is a fad that is unlikely to find followers among academic scholars. While in the lead article I have not used such strong language, I concur with this evaluation; my impression is that this is one of the article's main points. Substantively, Nederveen Pieterse writes that ‘globalization is local, global, glocal at the same time’, seemingly agreeing with what is stated in the lead article's last sentence. But Nederveen Pieterse also writes that ‘globalization is, so to speak, everything’, and that raises the issue of whether we ask too much of a single concept. More to the point, the conceptual strategy of turning a specific term into a master concept fails to abide by the standard scientific practice of using concepts in a bounded manner. To put it plainly, if a master concept is ‘everything’, then it also becomes vacuous or trivialized. Not that this overuse is in any way unique to globalization. After all, something very similar happened to the notion of ‘cosmopolitanism’ in the late 1990s.

Overall, this has been a quite productive and fruitful intellectual exchange. That major figures in the field of Global Studies, such as Nederveen Pieterse, Axford, and Steger, repeat and/or summarize some of the central tenets of their past scholarship is certainly predictable. Nevertheless, it is useful and constructive, because it helps readers grasp similarities and differences both vis-à-vis the lead article as well as among themselves. The input of critical perspectives is also representative of the conventional criticisms levelled against globalization scholarship. Consequently, readers can use this exchange to get a quick update on the current state of the art and the major perspectives in circulation.