Jamie Spatt
English 102: College Writing and Research
Section 056
Erik Chandler
Assignment #14

1. Sparks, Colin. Globalization, Development and the Mass Media. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE
Publications Inc., 2007.
This source seems to be a critical account of theoretical changes in communication studies from theories of development communication early on, to contemporary critiques of globalization and how that’s related. Also Sparks argues that it is important to be concerned with large scale questions of global power, as well as small scale questions of attempts to ‘win local victories.’
“The problem with globalization is not that it is simply bad social science. Like all theories, it directs attention to certain phenomena and neglects others. In the case of globalization, the theory directs attention towards international displacement and transnational exchange. These are real phenomena, and to the extent that it has sensitized us to these issues, particularly in the realm of economics, it has played a valuable role. But this focus has been at the expense of considerations of power and of inequality, which are traditional themes of social sciences…Neglect of these factors leads to a very distorted picture of the contemporary world.” (Sparks p. 185-186.)
“Anti-globalization became a major public force with ‘the Battle of Seattle’ in 2000. The protest against the straight forward globalizing agenda of the World Trade Organization brought together a wide range of social forces that have, over the following years, continued to mount protests against the gatherings of those it sees as the agents of destruction for jobs and ways of life ranging from the industrial heartlands of the USA, to the indigenous communities of the tropical rainforests…The challenge to the rosy assumptions of globalization theory has called forth a sharp reaction from repressive policing of subsequent protests to firm theoretical restatements of the benefits of global capitalism and free trade in terms of jobs and living standards.” (Sparks p. 191-192.)
This source relates to Feldman, Sekula, and other of my sources in assignment #11 because it deals with society and power and how the media has made us numb to much of what is going on elsewhere in the world. It cautions us, and asks us to question everything, and see the angles of every issue, globalization in this source, being the main focus.
I plan to use this source to reinforce my discussion of the more anti-globalization side of my research, which is what I am most curious about, and what my research will mainly deal with. It challenges readers to think things through and see that while globalization can be and is very good for the world economy, it can also be rough on issues of jobs, and living standards of certain countries.
Colin Sparks is director of Communication and Media Research Institute, at the University of Westminster. This source is a full-length book, scholarly, with many other sources mentioned that he used in writing his piece, it’s not just his opinion with no facts, he has the necessary professional references to back his opinions up.
This source is related to others on my annotated bibliography because it talks about the world’s move towards globalization, what’s good and what should be embraced and what’s not and should be examined. It discusses the media and it’s role in security and the globalizing world, and so does Feldman, Sekula, and others on my list.


2. Mackay, Hugh. “The Globalizing of Culture?” McGrew, Anthony. “Power Shift: From National Government to Global Governance?” Thompson, Grahame. “Economic Globalization?”
A Globalizing World? Culture, Economics, Politics. Ed. Held, David. New York: Routledge, 2000. 47-169.
This source’s main points are centered around trying to help people grapple with the term ‘globalization,’ what exactly that means, and what are the driving forces and changes is has and could cause. It looks at the changing forms of modern communication and culture industries, trade patterns, and financial flows of the world economy, in the context of and expanding and globalizing world.
“MTV Europe and Star television in India provide examples of the limits of globalization.” (Mackay p. 67.)
“If globalization is upon us in the way the globalists (whether the enthusiasts or those who oppose it) suggest, then it is at best a very uneven process. In as much as globalization has now become the new grand theory of the social sciences the concept probably offers much more than it can deliver.” (Thompson p. 123.)
“As globalization has intensified, the power of the national governments to tackle it appears to have declined and international bodies lack the authority to enforce agreed policies. In effect, globalization invites the real possibility of a more unruly world, as transnational forces, like the illegal drug trade, escape the control of nation states.” (McGrew p. 129.)
While this source doesn’t build 100% off Feldman, Sekula, or my other sources, it does mention media related issues in dealing with explaining globalization throughout the book. It also deals with societal and cultural issues that in their own way are tied in with governments, power, and the structure of communities they create, and how that changes with globalization.
I plan to use this source to give some specific examples of what we need to be wary of when it comes to handling our societies as globalization spreads. This source helps the audience see there is a need to recognize and question the changes that come along with a quickly globalizing world.
David Held is a professor of politics and sociology at The Open University. This is a book length source with many skilled professional references and collaborators. Hugh Mackay is a staff tutor in sociology at The Open University, where also Thompson is a Professor of Political economy and McGrew is a Professor of International Relations, at the University of South Hampton.
This source connects to other sources on my annotated bibliography because it’s focus is globalization, but it may differ in that it’s sub headings deal with culture economy and politics specifically. The book looks at many of the same factors my other sources consider, like mass media and its role in the globalizing society, the changes in governments and social structures that are happening and will happen more, and it helps us to ask questions of how, why and what can be done about it if anything can be done at all.

3. Bigman, David. Globalization and the Least Developed Countries: Potentials and Pitfalls.
Cambridge, MA: CABI North American Office, 2007.
This author provides a careful examination of poorly developed countries and their struggle to pull out of poverty via the global economy, which doesn’t guarantee a level playing field, but is dominated by trans-national corporations and regional trade agreements that aren’t necessarily fair. He also makes a point that the fact that the least developed countries benefited so little from major developments in the global economy, requires very special attention since it could have a very profound impact on our civilization.
“Prices are manipulated by monopolies, markets are not competitive and many countries still do not open their economies but impose high tariffs or various administrative restrictions, including food or safety standards. The trans-national corporations and the rich countries are the ‘imperialistic’ or ‘capitalistic’ powers in disguise that take control over their economies under the pretest of free trade, exploit their natural resources and their workers and pay their farmers a pittance for their agricultural products, on which these corporations make millions.” (Bigman p. xiii.)
“For many countries and people, globalization offers dream opportunities for success and prosperity…On the other hand, however, globalization has also widened the gap between countries and between people, and it has been particularly damaging for the people in the least developed countries, for whom it has exacerbated poverty, misery, and hopeless stagnation.” (Bigman p. 5.)
“Today for millions of people, globalization is like manna from heaven. After going through very difficult and trying times during the 1950’s and 1960’s, and wandering in the wilderness of the ‘Great Leap Forward’ with no hope of ever having a better life, the opportunities brought by the growth process, made possible by globalization gave them a new horizon to look forward to and march towards…For many other millions of people in developing countries, this cannot be the manna from heaven. At best this is a genetically modified manna produced by the transnational corporations to exploit their work. Many of them manage to nourish their family, but have great worries regarding what their future holds, and they are angry about the lack of social and economic justice that deprives them of their well-deserved share in the global affluence. Many others, mostly the people in the least developed countries, are left malnourished and are barely surviving amidst the global affluence.” (Bigman p. 303.)
This source although not exactly closely tied to Feldman, Sekula, and my other sources in assignment #11, does deal with globalization and its effects on governments, societies and the power balance within these communities. Both Feldman and Sekula, deal with governments and their control and power of the people. My other sources including Feldman and Sekula deal more with a media aspect and this source deals more with a global economy and trade aspect of government, society and power.
This source informs questions I have about what countries are suffering, how and why, under the affluence of globalization. It builds on my negative aspects of globalization part of my research and reinforces it for my audience.
David Bigman is a professor of development economics and hold the Chair for Food Security and International Trade. He has publishes nine books, 75 articles in refereed journals and books, and has written over 80 papers presented in professional meetings. He has been head of research programs and projects at several organizations including the World Bank, Isnar, IMF, and UNDP. He has been department chairman at the Hebrew University.
This source is connected to my other sources in that it deals with globalization. It’s benefits and it’s flaws, and it’s need for careful examination and critique. This source deals less with a media aspect and more with an economic outlook. The various qualities of globalization are discussed in particular, with special concern for less developed countries and their struggles with the global economy as it brings success to many countries and yet still leaves the less developed struggling.

4. McGrew, Anthony, and Nana K. Poku. Globalization, Development and Human Security.
Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2007.
This source deals with world poverty, development, campaigns of the global justice movement, the growing securitization of development in the aftermath of 9/11, the intensification of global inequality, and the perceived threats of global pandemics, migrations, and failed states, and how this contributes to a renewed sense of urgency. Debating whether or not globalization and human security are trapped in a vicious cycle or virtuous circle seems to be the chief concern of this source.
“Manifestly, the benefits are enormous, as a result of the increased sharing of ideas, cultures, life-saving technologies, and efficient production processes. Yet, the euphoria these developments generate can often serve to disguise the very real social and economic inequalities that are not merely leftovers from the past, but are results of the globalizing process. Most obviously, global welfare inequalities have mushroomed alongside the noted advancements in technological developments and the rapid expansion of trade and investment. Take, for example, the gap in income and investment patterns over the past decade. According to the United Nations Development Program, (UNDP) the gap between the richest and poorest 20% of the world has increased to 86:1 and widens every day. (UNDP 2004).” (Poku p.156.)
“The facts of global inequalities are truly staggering: The richest 25 million Americans have an income equal to that of almost 2 billion people, while the assets of the world’s three richest men, even after the recent fall of value of the stock market, is greater than the combined income of the world’s least developed countries wit ha population of 600 million (UNDP 1999; UNDP 2001). The living standards of Sierra Leone – ranked bottom of the United Nations Human Development Index – are roughly equivalent to those in the West 600 years ago. The average income per head stands at $150 a year, less than $1-a-day level that the World Bank regards as subsistence level (UNDP 2004). Not surprisingly, the resulting inequalities in the outcomes are stark. The average Sierra Leonean can expect to live until the age of forty, a life expectancy level not witnessed in Western Europe since the Industrial Revolution (Un / DESA 2005). Indeed, across the developing world, those living in absolute poverty are five times more likely to die before reaching five years of age than those in higher income groups (Whitehead et al. 2001). Moreover, poverty has a woman’s face. Of the 1.3 billion people defined by the World Health Organization as the poorest… only 30% are male. Poor women are often caught in a damaging cycle of cultural bias and gender discrimination that further exposes them to exploitation and disease (Baylies and Bujra 2000).” (Poku p.157.)
This source probably has the least to do with Feldman and Sekula of all of my sources. Still, connections, however loosely, can be made. Feldman for instance talks about ethnic violence, something plausible in the least developed countries of the world Poku speaks of, as a result, perhaps, of the widening gap between the world’s rich and the world’ poor and other global economic issues. Also it deals with societal issues in themselves, and cultural ones as well, which are also some general topics within Feldman’s essay.
I plan to use this source as a presentation of some of the shocking facts of the effects of the widening gap between impoverished peoples and the wealthy in the world, and how that might be resulting from certain globalizing developments in their current state. The quotes I chose from Poku, I think, really give good insight as to how globalization can appear a unquestionably positive thing and yet it contains under currents of poverty, violence, hunger, disease, and other awful things, that may be caused by it.
Nana K. Poku holds the John Ferguson Chair in the Development of Peace Studies, University of Bradford, and is Director of Research of the United Nations Commission on HIV/AIDS and Governance in Africa. His research interests include HIV/AIDS in Africa, critical security issues, migration, and human security. Among his recent publications are Aids in Africa: How the Poor are Dying (2005), and the co-edited The Political Economy of AIDS in Africa (2004) and Global Health and Governance (2003), both with A. Whiteside.
This source relates to others on my annotated bibliography because it deals with globalization, it’s causes and effects on society and culture and what is happening in the least developed countries of the world because of it. It deals with human security, which relates to my article by Agamben and globalization is mentioned briefly in Feldman’s essay if not Sekula’s as well as mentioned with much concern in most if not all of my external resource choices.

5. Kellner, Douglas. “Globalization, Terrorism, and Democracy: 9/11 and its Aftermath.” Contesting Empire, Globalizing Dissent: Cultural Studies after 9/11. Ed. Norman K. Denzen and Michael D. Giardina. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Pub., 2007. 53-72.
This source deals with the need for adequate conceptualizations and responses to globalization in light of the aftermath of 9/11 and the Bush Administrations response to it in Afghanistan and Iraq. It speaks of how the disclosure of powerful anti-western terrorist networks show globalization dividing while it unifies, and drawing enemies while it gathers participants.
“September 11 was obviously a global event that dramatized and interconnected and conflicted networked society where there is a constant worldwide flow of people, products, technologies, ideas, and the like. September 11 could only be a mega-event in a global media world, a society of the spectacle (Debord 1970), where the whole world is watching and participates in what Marshall McLuhan (1964) called a global village. The 9/11 terror spectacle was obviously constructed as a media event to circulate terror and to demonstrate to the world the vulnerability of the epicenter of global capitalism and American power.” (Kellner p.63.)
“Worldwide terrorism is threatening in part because globalization relentlessly divides the world into haves and have-nots, promotes conflicts and competitions, and fuels long-simmering hatreds and grievances – as well as bringing people together, creating new relations and interactions, and new hybridities. This is the objective ambiguity of globalization that both brings people together and brings them into conflict, that creates social interaction as and inclusion as well as hostilities and exclusions, and that potentially tears regions and the world apart while attempting to pull things together. Moreover, as different groups gain access to technologies, like the airplane, instruments of destruction, then dangers of unexpected terror events, any place and any time proliferate and become part of the frightening mediascape of the contemporary moment.” (Kellner p.63-64.)
This source builds on Feldman’s and Sekula’s essays in that it deals with issues of terrorism, 9/11, and the media, and their relationship to globalization. Feldman too sees the media as a major contributor to the terrorism we saw happen with 9/11. The idea of media’s ‘watchful eye’ is also characteristic of the panopticon and much of what Sekula discusses in his essay as well.
I plan to use this source as an example of Globalization’s negative effect on society. As a potential encourager of terrorism it may be more feared than accepted. As an agent of spreading positive technologies, it may be accepted more than feared. This source coincides with my controlling purpose, revealing the various paradoxical elements of globalization.
Douglas Kellner currently is the George Kneller Chair in the Philosophy of Education and Information Studies at the University of California. Los Angeles. He has published many professional books, papers, articles, and essays, and holds a Ph. D. in Philosophy from Columbia University.
This source builds on other sources on my annotated bibliography because it deals with questions of globalization, human security, and the mass media and how they are intertwined. It adds the element of how it relates to terrorism and 9/11 specifically, which also makes it different from some of my other sources.

6. Laidi, Zaki. The Great Disruption Malden, MA: Polity, 2007. 1-7. 173-205.
In this source particularly in the chapter entitled “Why does Globalization Generate Anxiety?” the focus is to explain why globalization can cause anxiousness in some people and get a little bit of a bad wrap. It states that simply put, it is because globalization refers to a considerable number of parameters which can’t really constitute any one system. It is precisely because it does not constitute a system, that it is able to cause anxiety.
“…the American Pew Research Center carried out and opinion survey on 38,000 people in forty-four different countries…62% of Americans assess the impact of globalization on their country positively, but 64% of them fear, at the same time, that their country has to protect itself and it’s way of life against foreign influence. Moreover, we find a very marked discrepancy between the evaluation that those polled make of globalization in general and the way they assess it when it is contextualized – in other words, when they view it in relation to particular social experiences, such as employment, working conditions, the spread of epidemics, inequalities, healthcare etc. For instance, 60% of French people questioned as part of this global study find the effects of globalization on their own country beneficial, but 77% of them take the view that it has a negative effect on employment and 82% that it produces greater inequality.” (Laidi p.174.)
“Surveys carried out in France confirm the radical ambivalence towards globalization within public opinion. A high proportion say they are worried about it (64%), but a similarly large group (63%) do not hesitate to name France among the winners in the globalization process. And globalization is regarded as a source of increased social inequality, yet at the same time it is also seen as a source of economic growth. Only a – significant – minority (22%) expressed a negative judgment on the three dimensions of globalization (inequalities, growth, and identity).” (Laidi p.174.)
This source relates to Feldman and Sekula because it shows how misinformed and confused citizens are about certain global issues. In Feldman it was confusion over acts of terrorism caused by the media, here it is a confusion still most likely media based, but based on globalization itself instead of terrorism or global issues stemming from globalization.
I plan to use this source as a statistical reference to show what people know about globalization, and how they feel about it. It gives some hard facts that say people are confused about whether or not globalization is helpful or harmful. It also then shows how globalization became to be the highly debated topic it is.
Zaki Laidi is a senior research fellow and Professor of International Relations at Sciences Po (Paris) and at the College of Europe in Burges (Belgium). He has extensively published on International Relation, globalization and Europe. He recently published The Great Disruption, Polity, 2007. He edited EU Foreign Policy in a Globalized World, Routledge, 2008.
This source relates to my other sources because it talks about globalization and how it can cause anxiety to some and it can appear to be such an undoubtedly positive force to others. It differs because it gives statistics of how average citizens feel about globalization, making it more relatable to an audience of a more average everyday type of people like myself and classmates.

7. Chanda, Nayan. “Runaway Globalization Without Governance.” Global Insights. 14 (2008):
119-125.
This source discusses what is to be done about trying to govern the vast interconnectedness of societies and communities after globalization takes place. It discusses problems that stem from the fact that governance often lags far behind trade, travel, and interactions caused by globalization. Also it discusses the history of governance in the wake of globalization.
“The accelerated activities of all these actors have expanded trade and travel to an unprecedented level, creating environmental and health problems. They have encouraged migration, empowered terrorists, incentivized criminals, and increased the risks of nuclear proliferation. All these global problems require the attention of a global community.” (Chanda p.120.)
“The issues of sovereignty and national security have emerged as the biggest challenges to a globalized world badly in need of global rules. The fact that the world has been increasingly connected without much governance until very recently did not seem to matter much when the world was smaller and transactions were slow and limited. Not anymore. With the world rendered virtually borderless because of high-speed transfers of goods, capital, and pathogens, and environmental consequences enveloping us all, the lack of global governance has emerged as the single most daunting challenge to globalization.” (Chanda p.123.)
This source builds on Feldman and Sekula’s essays in that it deals with the media and how it effects and changes society. This source looks at how its role in globalization is becoming hard to manage and needs careful governance. This also leads to power and the government’s role in society, especially in a globalizing world, which is also an underlying topic of Feldman and Sekula’s essays.
I plan to use this source to show that professional people like Nayan Chanda, like myself, see a need to look at globalization wit ha critical eye, seeking a more defined governance of the rapid expansions of globalization. I could also use this source to engage a historical view of globalization, as Chanda talks about the history of globalization in much of this article, and use that to more adequately set up the context of globalization in the world today for my audience.
Nayan Chanda is director of publications at the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization and the director of Yaleglobal Online. His most recent book is Bound Together: How traders, Preachers, Adventurers, and Warriors Shaped Globalization (2007).
This source is different from other sources on my list because it takes the most in depth look at globalization’s history. It is similar just because it looks at globalization, and also because it addresses concerns surrounding it, specifically a need for a stronger and more certain governance on the global scale, not merely state to state or nation to nation as has been the primary concern prior to modern times.

















Works Cited

Bigman, David. Globalization and the Least Developed Countries: Potentials and Pitfalls.
Cambridge, MA: CABI North American Office, 2007.
Chanda, Nayan. “Runaway Globalization Without Governance.” Global Insights. 14 (2008):
119-125.
Goh, Gillian H. L., David A. Kelly, and Ramkishen S. Rajan. Managing Globalization: Lessons
from China and India. New Jersey: World Scientific Publishing Co., 2006.
Kellner, Douglas. “Globalization, Terrorism, and Democracy: 9/11 and its Aftermath.”
Contesting Empire, Globalizing Dissent: Cultural Studies after 9/11. Ed. Norman K.
Denzen and Michael D. Giardina. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Pub., 2007. 53-72.
Laidi, Zaki. The Great Disruption Malden, MA: Polity, 2007. 1-7. 173-205.
Mackay, Hugh. “The Globalizing of Culture?” McGrew, Anthony. “Power Shift: From National
Government to Global Governance?” Thompson, Grahame. “Economic Globalization?”
A Globalizing World? Culture, Economics, Politics. Ed. Held, David. New York:
Routledge, 2000. 47-169.
McGrew, Anthony, and Nana K. Poku. Globalization, Development and Human Security.
Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2007.
Palma, Jose Gabriel. “Globalizing Inequality: ‘Centrifugal’ and ‘Centripetal’ Forces at Work.”
Flat World, Big Gaps. Ed. Jomo K. S. and Jacques Baudot. New York: Third World
Network, 2007. 99-136.
Sparks, Colin. Globalization, Development and the Mass Media. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE
Publications Inc., 2007.
Thomson, James W. “Consequences of Globalization.” USA Today. Sept. 2008. 137.