De Anza College Pillars of Global Studies by Manfred Stegar Questions Each answer should be about 100-125 words. Do not use quotations. Instead, synthesize

De Anza College Pillars of Global Studies by Manfred Stegar Questions Each answer should be about 100-125 words.
Do not use quotations. Instead, synthesize/paraphrase the author.
No bibliography needed. If necessary, use endnotes for references, and use MLA citation.
Submission format: .doc or .pdf
You will be assessed on: engagement with the reading material of the class, clarity and completeness of your answer, and thoughtfulness of your overall response.

1) When Manfred Stegar talks about the four “pillars” of Global Studies, how does he relate aspects of “space and time” to territory and sovereignty?

The four pillars of global studies presented by Manfred Stegar are: globalization, transdisciplinarity, space and time, and critical thinking.

2) Describe one of the main debates as outlined by Giles Gunn (Hyperglobalists, Skeptics, Transformationalists), and how you agree and/or disagree with this stance on globalization.

3) As described by Dilip Hiro, how is slavery an example of glocalization?

4) Describe one positive and one negative aspect of the thirteenth-century Mongol empire. Why might these be considered positive or negative? OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Wed Jul 18 2018, NEWGEN
Chapter 1
W hat Is Gl oba l St u di e s ?
Manfred B. Steger
Although scholars within the field of global studies (GS) debate over how to define the
term, most agree that it has emerged in the twenty-?first century as a multidisciplinary and
transdisciplinary field of inquiry dedicated to the exploration of the many dimensions of
globalization and other transnational phenomena. Perhaps the most important keyword
of our time, “globalization” remains a contested and open-?ended concept, especially with
respect to its normative implications. Although the phenomenon has been extensively
studied in sociology, economics, anthropology, geography, history, political science, and
other fields, it falls outside the established disciplinary framework. After all, “globalization”
is only of secondary concern in these traditional fields organized around different master
concepts: “society” in sociology, “resources” and “scarcity” in economics, “culture” in anthropology, “space” in geography, “the past” in history, “power” and “governance” in political science, and so on. By contrast, GS has placed the keyword without a firm disciplinary
home at the core of its intellectual enterprise. The rise of GS, therefore, not only represents
a clear sign of the proper recognition of new kinds of social interdependence and enhanced
forms of mobility but also demonstrates that the nineteenth-?century realities that gave birth
to the conventional disciplinary architecture are no longer ours (Jameson 1998: xi). At the
same time, however, GS is not hermetic, for it welcomes various approaches and methods
that contribute to a transnational analysis of the world as a single interactive system.
The field of GS is sometimes compared to the disciplines of international relations (IR)
and international studies (IS). Still, their differences clearly outweigh their similarities.
Mainstream IR considers the state as the principal mover of world politics and thus the central unit of analysis. This means that the actions of states—?especially with regard to security issues—?are foregrounded at the expense of other crucial areas, such as economics and
culture. By contrast, GS researchers consider the state as but one actor in today’s fluid web
of material and ideational interdependencies that includes proliferating non-?state entities,
nongovernmental organizations, transnational social movements, and other social and political forces “beyond the state.”1 This multicentric and multidimensional understanding
of our globalizing world makes GS a porous field with strong “applied” interests in public
policy. GS scholars frequently seize upon issues that are often excluded from IR—?for example, issues connected to gender, poverty, global media, public health, migration, and
ecology. This problem-?centered focus of GS encourages the forging of strong links among
01-oxfordhb-9780198747871-Part-1.indd 3
18-Jul-18 9:15:51 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Wed Jul 18 2018, NEWGEN
4???Manfred B. Steger
the worlds of academia, political organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and social
movements.
Most important, GS both embraces and exudes a certain mentalité, which I have called
the “global imaginary” (Steger 2008; Steger and James 2013). It refers to a sense of the social whole that frames our age as one shaped by the intensifying forces of globalization.
Giving its objective and subjective aspects equal consideration, GS suggests that enhanced
interconnectivity does not merely happen in the world “out there” but also operates through
our consciousness “in here.” To recognize the significance of global consciousness, however,
does not support premature proclamations of the “death of the nation-?state.” Conventional
national and local frameworks have retained significant power as well as reconfigured those
central functions. Although the nation-?state is not dying, globalization has forced it to accommodate an incipient and slowly evolving architecture of “global governance.” Hence,
it is not surprising that GS researchers show great interest in transnational educational
initiatives centered on the promotion of “global citizenship” and other “embedded” cosmopolitan visions that link the local to the global and vice versa.
In the roughly two decades of its existence, GS has attracted scores of unorthodox faculty
and unconventional students who share its sincere commitment to studying transnational
processes, interactions, and flows from multiple and transdisciplinary perspectives. Still,
there are large sections of the academic community that have either not heard of GS at all
or are still unclear about its scope and methods. So what, exactly, is GS and what does it
entail? Responding to these persistent demands for clarification, this chapter seeks to provide a general overview of the main contours and central features of GS.2 Although scores
of globalization scholars still quarrel over what themes and approaches their field should or
should not encompass, it would be a mistake to close one’s eyes to existing agreements and
common approaches that have become substantial enough to identify four central “pillars”
or “framings” of GS: globalization, transdisciplinarity, space and time, and critical thinking.
But before presenting the new field’s conceptual and thematic framework in more detail,
let us start by considering some important institutional developments that have aided its
rapid growth.
The Institutional Growth of Global Studies
Creating a special academic context for the study of globalization, GS has become gradually institutionalized in the academy. Yet, GS does not view itself as just another cog in the
disciplinary machine of contemporary higher education. Despite today’s trendy talk about
“globalizing knowledge” and “systematic internationalization”—?which is often more about
the neoliberal reinvention of the academy as “big business” than about creating new spaces
of epistemological diversity—?the traditional Western academic framework of knowledge
specialization has survived largely intact into the twenty-?first century. Often forced to make
compromises and find less than desirable accommodations with the dominant academic
order, GS challenges a fractured, Eurocentric mindset that encourages the division of knowledge into sharply demarcated areas populated by disciplinary “insiders.” Although it seeks
to blaze new trails of social inquiry, GS is not afraid of presenting itself as a fluid and porous intellectual terrain rather than a novel, well-?defined item on the dominant disciplinary
01-oxfordhb-9780198747871-Part-1.indd 4
18-Jul-18 9:15:51 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Wed Jul 18 2018, NEWGEN
What Is Global Studies???? 5
menu. To use Fredric Jameson’s (1998: xvi) felicitous term, the new field inhabits an academic “space of tension” framed by multiple disagreements and agreements in which the
very problematic of globalization itself is being continuously produced and contested.
The educational imperative to grasp the complex spatial and social dynamics of globalization animates the transdisciplinary efforts of GS to reorder human knowledge and
create innovate learning environments. Relying on conceptual and analytic perspectives
that are not anchored in a single discipline, the new field expands innovative interdisciplinary approaches pioneered in the 1970s and 1980s, such as world-?systems analysis, postcolonial studies, cultural studies, environmental and sustainability studies, and women’s
studies. The power of the rising global imaginary and its affiliated new ideologies of “market
globalism,” justice globalism, and religious globalisms goes a long way in explaining why
GS programs, departments, research institutes, and professional organizations have sprung
up in major universities throughout the world, including in the Global South (Steger 2013).
Recognizing this trend, many existing IS programs have been renamed “global studies.”
Demand for courses and undergraduate and postgraduate degrees in GS has dramatically
risen. Increasingly, we see the inclusion of the terms “global” or “globalization” in course
titles, textbooks, academic job postings, and extracurricular activities. Universities and
colleges in the United States have supported the creation of new GS initiatives that are often
funded by major government institutions and philanthropists. For example, Northwestern
University recently announced a donation of $100 million—?the largest single gift in its
history—?from the sister of the prominent investor Warren Buffett for the establishment of
the Roberta Buffett Institute for Global Studies.
Drawing on thematic and methodological resources from the social sciences and
humanities, GS now encompasses approximately 300 undergraduate and graduate
programs in the United States alone.3 Some pioneering universities, such as the University
of California, Santa Barbara or the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, house
programs that serve nearly 1,000 GS undergraduate majors. The Division of Global Affairs
at Rutgers University–?Newark and RMIT University’s (Melbourne, Australia) School of
Global, Urban, and Social Studies accommodate hundreds of master’s and doctoral students.
In 2015, the University of California, Santa Barbara launched the first doctoral program in
GS at a tier 1 research university in the United States. In addition to the creation of these
successful degree-?granting programs, there has been a phenomenal growth of scholarly literature on globalization. New journals, book series, textbooks, academic conferences, and
professional associations such as the international Global Studies Consortium or the Global
Studies Association have embraced the novel umbrella designation of “global studies.”
Clearly, the fledgling field and its associated global imaginary have come a long way in
a relatively short period of time. However, its success also depended to a significant extent
on the redirection of funding by US government and philanthropic organizations from
established IS and area studies programs to the newcomer “global studies.” Indeed, this
reorientation toward GS occurred in the ideological context of the rise of “neoliberalism,”
an economistic doctrine at the core of a comprehensive worldview I have called “market
globalism” (Steger and Roy 2010). As Isaac Kamola’s (2010) pioneering work on the subject
has demonstrated, starting in the mid-?1990s, a number of important funders announced
plans to replace “area” structures with a “global” framework. For example, the Social Science
Research Council recommended defunding “discrete and separated area committees” that
were reluctant to support scholars interested in “global” developments and policy-?relevant
01-oxfordhb-9780198747871-Part-1.indd 5
18-Jul-18 9:15:51 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Wed Jul 18 2018, NEWGEN
6???Manfred B. Steger
“global issues.” When conventional area studies experts realized that traditional sources of
funding were quickly drying up, many joined the newly emerging GS cohort of scholars
centered on the study of “globalization.” Major universities, too, reduced the level of support
for area studies teaching and research programs while developing new investment schemes
and strategic plans that provided for the creation of new “global studies” or “global affairs”
programs and centers. Major professional organizations such as the National Association
of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges and the American Association of Colleges
and Universities eagerly joined these instrumental efforts to synchronize the initiatives of
“globalizing the curriculum” and “recalibrating college learning” to the shifting economic
landscape of the “new global century” (Kamola 2010).
Convinced that GS programs will earn a more prominent place within the quickly
changing twenty-?first-?century landscape of higher education characterized by shrinking
budgets and new modes of instruction, a growing number of academics—?loosely referred
to in this chapter as “global studies scholars”—?have begun to synthesize various common
theoretical perspectives and problem-?oriented approaches. Their efforts have contributed
to the necessary mapping exercise without falling prey to the fetish of disciplinary boundary
making. Building on these efforts, I contend in this chapter that it is now possible to present GS as a reasonably holistic transdisciplinary project dedicated to exploring processes
of globalization with the aim of engaging the complex global problems the world is facing
in the twenty-?first century (McCarty 2014). To this purpose, the next four sections of this
chapter offer a general overview of the four major conceptual framings that give coherence
to the field.
The First Pillar of Global
Studies: Globalization
Globalization is the principal subject of GS and thus constitutes the first pillar of the emerging
field. At the same time, the global also serves as the conceptual framework through which
GS scholars investigate the contemporary and historical dynamics of thickening interdependence. The birth and rising fortunes of GS are inextricably linked to the emergence
of globalization as a prominent theme in late twentieth-?century public discourse. But the
buzzword was not invented ex nihilo during the neoliberal Roaring Nineties as shorthand
for the liberalization and worldwide integration of markets. In fact, it had been used as early
as the 1930s in academic fields as varied as education and psychology, society and culture,
politics and IR, and economics and business (Steger and James 2015). At the same time, the
powerful ideological and political dynamics of the 1990s served as crucial catalysts for the
cross-?fertilization of public and academic discourses on the subject. These raging globalization debates of the past decades attest to enormous interest in the academic study of globalization as a multidimensional phenomenon.
Attempts to develop objective, quantifiable assessments of the causes, contents, and
consequences of globalization have become a key issue for contemporary social science
research and social policy. Researchers have sought to develop empirical measures of globalization based on various indicators. These efforts led to the rapid proliferation of major
01-oxfordhb-9780198747871-Part-1.indd 6
18-Jul-18 9:15:51 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Wed Jul 18 2018, NEWGEN
What Is Global Studies???? 7
globalization indices such as the KOF Index of Globalization.4 Today, readers interested in
globalization can select among thousands and thousands of pertinent books, articles, and
encyclopedia entries. In our digital age, these writings can be tracked down with unprecedented speed and precision through new technologies such as the search engine Ngram,
Google’s mammoth database collated from more than 5 million digitized books available
free to the public for online searches. In 2015, the exceptionally rich Factiva database listed
355,838 publications referencing the term “globalization.” The Expanded Academic ASAP
database produced 7,737 results with “globalization” in the title, including 5,976 journal articles, 1,404 magazine articles, and 355 news items. The ISI Web of Knowledge listed a total of
8,970 references with “globalization,” the EBSCO Host Database yielded 17,188 results, and
the Proquest Newspaper Database showed 25,856 articles.
Despite continuing disagreements regarding how to define globalization, GS scholars
have put forward various definitions and collected them in comprehensive classification
tables (Al-?Rodhan and Stoudmann 2006). One major obstacle in the way of producing
useful definitions of globalization is that the term has been variously used in both academic
literature and the popular press to describe a process, a condition, a system, a force, and an
age. Given that these concepts have very different meanings, their indiscriminate usage is
often obscure and invites confusion. For example, a sloppy conflation of process and condition encourages circular definitions that explain little. The familiar truism that globalization (the process) leads to more globalization (the condition) does not allow us to draw
meaningful analytical distinctions between causes and effects. Hence, we ought to adopt
the term globality to signify a social condition characterized by extremely tight global economic, political, cultural, and environmental interconnections across national borders and
civilizational boundaries. The term globalization, by contrast, applies not to a condition but
a multidimensional set of social processes pushing toward globality.
GS scholars exploring the dynamics of globalization are particularly keen on pursuing
research questions related to themes of social change, which connect the human and natural sciences. How does globalization proceed? What is driving it? Is it one cause or a combination of factors? Is globalization a continuation of modernity or is it a radical break?
Does it create new forms of inequality and hierarchy or is it lifting millions of people out
of poverty? Is it producing cultural homogeneity or diversity? What is the role of new
technologies in accelerating and intensifying global processes? Note that the conceptualization of globalization as a dynamic process rather than as a static condition also highlights
the fact that it is an uneven process: People living in various parts of the world are affected
very differently by the transformation of social structures and cultural zones.
The principal voices in the academic globalization debates can be divided into four distinct intellectual camps: globalizers, rejectionists, skeptics, and modifiers. Most GS scholars
fall into the category of globalizers, who argue that globalization is a profoundly transformative set of social processes that is moving human societies toward unprecedented
levels of interconnectivity (Held and McGrew 2002; Mittelman 2000; Scholte 2005). While
committed to a big picture approach, globalizers nonetheless tend to focus their research
efforts on one of the principal dimensions of globalization: economics, politics, culture, or
ecology. By contrast, rejectionists contend that most of the accounts offered by globalizers
are incorrect, imprecise, or exaggerated. Arguing that such generalizations often amount to
little more than “globaloney,” they dismiss the utility of globalization for scientific academic
discourse (Veseth 2010). Their contention that just about everything that can be linked to
01-oxfordhb-9780198747871-Part-1.indd 7
18-Jul-18 9:15:51 PM
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Wed Jul 18 2018, NEWGEN
8???Manfred B. Steger
some transnational process is often cited as evidence for globalization and its growing influence. The third camp in the contemporary globalization debates consists of skeptics who
acknowledge some forms and manifestations of globalization while also emphasizing its
limited nature (Hirst et al. 2009; Rugman 2001). Usually focusing on the economic aspects
of the phenomenon, skeptics claim that the world economy is not truly global but, rather, a
regional dynamic centered on Europe, East Asia, Australia, and North America. The fourth
camp in these academic debates consists of modifiers who acknowledge the power of globalization but dispute its novelty and thus the innovate character of social theories focused on
the phenomenon. They seek to modify and assimilate globalization theories to traditional
approaches in IS, world-?system…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment