Why the Framing of Globalization Matters 1

Purpose of This Report

Last week we looked at the history of the social movements against elites who use globalization processes to rig political and economic systems in their favor—a sequence of protest events that draw more people together from around the world with each new wave. Common themes include everyday people versus elites and policy mechanisms used to extract and horde wealth.

Ironically, the rise of these social movements has been made possible by many of the same globalization processes. The opening of national borders to trade, meteoric adoption curves for communication technologies, and a new IT backbone (the internet) are all consequences of globalization.

How can this be? Are social justice activists REALLY opposed to globalization? It was the corporate-owned media that framed the movement as “anti-globalization”, after all. This label didn’t come into wide use until after mainstream news reports about the 1999 World Trade Organization protest in Seattle. Why were socially progressive activists framed as being against globalization?

More disconcertingly, why did many activist groups adopt this label when it was painted onto them by the very same corporate actors they oppose? The movements that are converging in this space have an identity problem. We never took the time to look at the frames of the debate. And now, we are at odds with ourselves—conceptually in the ways we describe what we are for and against—making it difficult for us to tell a compelling story that brings all of us together around a shared agenda.

This points toward the purpose of this report. A comprehensive evaluation of the entire discourse is beyond our scope. Rather I want to establish a few lines in the sand—map out the largest structures inherent in the semantic frames that help and hinder us.

Who Is Actually Against Globalization?

I have recently been exploring the systemic risks that arise from globalization. The complexities that emerge in our vastly interconnected world make it difficult to comprehend the causes for global events or assign blame when harm occurs. Specifically, I have been reading an excellent book called The Butterfly Defect: How Globalization Creates Systemic Risk and What to Do About It by Ian Goldin and Mike Mariathasan.

An argument is presented that globalization is only resisted by right-wing groups with xenophobic or protectionist sentiments. These are the people who—often motivated by insecurities about local jobs or racist sentiments—fight against open immigration policies that make it easy for workers to move across national boundaries.

These people try to shape trade agreements (and domestic policies) that serve national interests—a frame that conceals their true intentions—as a pushback against globalization of the workforce.

This begs the question, What is globalization? For a long time, it has been equated with neoliberal economic theories and expansion of corporate power. A correlation does exist. But are they the same thing?

Said another way, if an activist is against a financial elite that games the economy to benefit the super rich, does this also mean they are against open borders and global communication? I would like to suggest that this confusion comes about because the frames at play in the discourse have not been clearly (or intentionally) articulated to make the differences obvious.