Defining Globalization 3.0?


I read the first few pages of The World Is Flat by Thomas L. Friedman. Just wanted to take a memo. Friedman uses the term Globalization 3.0 to differentiate it from Globalization 1.0; globalized nations and Globalization 2.0; globalized corporations. Globalization 3.0 is about individuals globalizing. (Please read the book to know more about what he meant. I will, too)

Although I don’t necessarily agree with making buzzwords like this (Please don’t complain about me engaging in “the law of success 2.0″), I thought his idea is noteworthy. Today, as our economy develops dramatically and consequently the number of middle class population increases, individuals are more empowered than ever before. What I mean here is not that they are becoming cleverer or better (if you’re interested in this topic, read the interview with Baroness Susan Greenfield), but instead, they just have more opportunities to compare than any time of human history.

Considering roles of individuals today, the birth of the law of success 2.0, which aims at proving that there are as many ways to be success as the number of individuals, was inevitable. (This sentence is grammatically wrong and the meaning of the sentence is pretty ambiguous too) I presume activities focusing on empowerment of individuals will constantly increase for the coming decade.

It’s not talking about individualized world (well, if I say so, Dave Snowden will tell me off). it is about how to look at the world. Our world is conceptually architected by the sum of individual cogito. And only intersubjective notions can exist as an objective (or transcendent) existence and knowledge, which as Richard Dawkins explained, are based on evidence.

I feel in this individually globalized world, we will, or already are, witnessing “differences of understanding” in a same word. “Socially good”, “internationally beneficial” – what do these words mean? At the end, these words turn back to subjective consciousness and understanding. Thus when Barack Obama says “for America” or Ban Ki-Moon focuses “on the world”, there will be discourse, discourses of understanding. Foucault taught us power is created only though discourse, and I think Globalization 3.0 will flourish this discourse to the Self-Enlightenment.

Intrinsically we are, said Andrew Oswald, creature of comparison. This comparison will make us realize that the only answer we can have is our own answer. So far this “procedure” hasn’t been possible, but now we can. We can connect, cooperate, compete and compare our notion with anyone in this world on the web with the light-speed. Oops, it is a bit of exaggeration; now “only” a third of the world population are on the web. But it will be third forth within two decades.

It is not a prediction but to make the world a better place where all human beings can achieve success I need to make Self-Enlightenment happenS as there are as many ways to achieve success as the number of population. Words need definition; until now it was based on pseudo-objectivity, from now, definition will be based on subjectivity. I’m not telling this in the same way Nietzsche and post-modernists did; there will be “demands” to set what is good or bad – but at least we need commonly have acknowledgement for our own independent opinion.