ALISON M. JAGGAR

 

 

                        

                                               IS GLOBALIZATION GOOD FOR WOMEN?

 

 

IS GLOBALIZATION GOOD for women? The answer to this question obviously depends on what one means by “globalization” and by “good” and which “women” one has in mind. After explaining briefly what I mean by “globalization” and “good” and indicating which women I have in mind, I intend to argue that globalization, as we currently know it, is not good for most women. However, I’ll suggest that the badness of the present situation is not due to globalization as such, but rather to its specific neoliberal mode of organization. I’ll identify some of the questions that globalization urgently raises for political philosophy and end by sketching one vision of an alternative form of globalization that could be very good for women—as well as for children and men.

I. Terms of discussion

What is globalization?

The term “globalization” is currently used to refer to the rapidly accelerating integration of many local and national economies into a single global market, regulated by the World Trade Organization, and to the political and cultural corollaries of this process. These developments, taken together, raise profound new questions for the humanities in general and for political philosophy in particular.

Globalization in the broadest sense is nothing new. Intercontinental travel and trade, and the mixing of cultures and populations are as old as humankind; after all, the foremothers and forefathers of everyone of us walked originally out of Africa. The contemporary form of globalization did not appear de novo in 1989, with the collapse of so-called communism. It did not even originate in 1945 at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, where the major institutions to administer the global economy were established, including the International Monetary Fund (the IMF), the World Bank, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which was the precursor to the World Trade Organization (WTO). Rather than being an unprecedented phenomenon, contemporary globalization may be seen as the culmination of long-term developments that have shaped the modern world. Specifically, for the last half millennium intercontinental trade and population migrations have mostly been connected with the pursuit of new resources and markets for the emerging capitalist economies of Western Europe and North America.

European colonization and expansion may be taken as beginning with the onslaught on the Americas in 1492 and as continuing with the colonization of India, Africa, Australasia, Oceania and much of Asia. History tells of the rise and fall of many great empires, but the greatest empires of all came to exist only in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In 1815, Britain and France together controlled over one third of the Earth’s surface, and by 1878 they controlled over two thirds. By 1914, Britain, France and the United States together controlled 85% of the Earth’s surface. It was primarily in consequence of European and U.S. expansion that the world became—and remains—a single interconnected system. European and U.S. colonialism profoundly shaped the world we inhabit today. It produced the neoliberal philosophy that provides the rules for the war game currently known as “globalization,” and it landscaped the highly uneven terrain on which that game is played.

Neoliberalism is the name given to the version of liberal political theory that currently dominates the discourse of globalization. Neoliberalism assumes that material acquisition is the normal aim of human life, and it holds that the primary function of government is to make the world safe and predictable for the participants in a market economy. Although its name suggests that it is a new variety of liberalism, neoliberalism in fact marks a retreat from the liberal social democracy of the years following World War II back toward the non-redistributive laissez-faire liberalism of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.