Up to this moment, globalization as a social science discipline remains to be a contested concept in the cultural and social science theories. Despite, the triumphant analysis regarding the spread of capital and technology around the globe to the exploration of the inequalities that the new world seems to promote, globalization has been intensively studied. However, there is much concerning the discipline that has not yet been deciphered. As Terdiman writes, he supposes that it is better to analyze globalization in a deeper than limit oneself on celebratory accounts of analysis and relationship of destruction. Terdiman calls such a subtle analysis as “media images of depredations.”

You're lucky! Use promo "samples20"
and get a custom paper on
"Global Justice/Anti-Globalization"
with 20% discount!
Order Now

His conviction is that scholars ought to interpret and analyze the discipline in a more social, historical, and political framework. Terdiman, argues that since globalization is a diverse subject then it deserves a multicultural analysis. It is only on such basis that the discipline can attract an all-inclusive concept, which Terdiman calls Bi-directional exchange. Perhaps, it is out of the works of Terdiman and his contemplators that globalization as a course incorporating several units. This paper sets out to assess the contextual meaning and utility of some of the terminologies used in globalization, ethics, and cultural Studies.

Globalization as a discipline has precisely been divided as to include cultural globalization, environmental globalization, and global justice globalization. The four classification are just a representative of several outnumbered units that still gain a ranking in globalization studies. This distinctive unit equally bares several concepts whose implications ought to be set clear. The following are some of the terminologies that need assessment, and they include but not limited to, culture heterogenization, cultural homogenization, ecological sensitivity, environmental survival, counterhegemonic globalization, and deglobalization.

To begin with, we ought to understand the cultural homogenization and heterogenization as used in culture globalization. Perhaps the best way is first to introduce the meaning of culture and globalization. Culture refers to a community’s way of life characterized by a community’s language and material culture. Conversely, globalization refers to a process of interaction and integration among people, groups, and governments of various states. This process is stimulated by international trade and facilitated by information technology (Janeen n.d). From such an understanding, we could now say that homogenization, as the word suggest implies to the process of fusing a thing into a solid unified form. Therefore, homogenous culture refers to a massive culture that invades a local culture and overcomes it, hence making the homogenous culture a dominant culture in a local area. The impact of homogeneous culture is so strong that even erodes individual’s culture and religion.

Conversely, heterogeneous globalization refers to the state of creating distinctiveness of culture in all its characteristic (Janeen n.d). Therefore, heterogenization relates to society’s culture that is discretely disseminated and accepted by other cultures and societies. This phenomenon hopes to bring a diversity of a community’s culture for the threshold interest of that culture (Harcourt 1323). Therefore, the two cultural phenomena seek to unify a community using different approaches. For instance, when homogenization works under the law of unity of purpose, the heterogeneous culture works under the principle of unity in diversity. Therefore, all the two social phenomena’s have value charge in their unique ways.

Rodman coined the term ecological sensibility. He used the phrase to refer to a cultivation of intricate patterns of perception, attitudes, and judgment that if fully developed would constitute a predisposition to an appropriate behavior by humans, hence making them rational in attending the environment resources. This concept meant that an ecosystem is a living organism that requires tendering and rational exploitation of its resources (Harcourt 1313). According to environmentalist and ecologists, the dangerous effects of the environment ranging from tsunamis, desertification, hurricanes, and global warming could at best trace its origin from human abuses of the environment (Arthur 1135). Consequently, an ecosystem is an organism that survives in the same way as other organisms do.

Conversely, environmental survival refers to the susceptibility of an environment to in keep with the perpetual demand of the economy (Arthur 1225). However, owing to the adverse damages and deterioration of the ecosystem there are changes of hunger strikes, starvation, death, and extinction of the fauna and flora. In the same way, there are chances of the environment reducing its carrying capacity. In the event of such happening, it will translate to the reduction of human and, an animal population where Darwin’s theory of natural selection might apply (Arthur 1045). Obviously, it is the affluent who will survive owing to their economic might whereas, the plebs will perish due to their impoverished state. Consequently, the environment should be conserved for the good of now and the generation to come. Counterhegemonic globalization refers to a social movement whose intention is to change the contemporary view of neoliberal globalization. The concept of counter-hegemonic maintains that transactional connections must be harnessed in the distribution of nations’ wealth and power, as opposed to neoliberal globalization that intends to monopolize global assets in the economic process (Janeen n.d). Therefore, the counter-hegemony seek to equalize the financial system of nationals so as to make them fare favorably in the economic domain.

Although, scholars argue that globalization is an irreversible process, and the concept of deglobalization as presented my critical analyst has challenged this claim. The proponent of deglobalization assumes that globalization adopts a cycle where the peak of globalization as characterized by modern, technology, transport and communication, marks the beginning of decay and retraction of the initial global progress. This is indicated by inflation, the weak demand of goods, poor economic policies, over taxation, and economic crisis that works against national’s economic progress (Scott n.d). This concept helps in the understanding of ways through which such occurrences can be safeguarded from happening since the process of reconstruction of an economy is a complex and time-consuming endeavor.