Kayla Aquino SA 102

Oct. 9, 2019 Dr .S al om a - A kp ed on u

Glocalization: A Closer Look

Glocalization, as of the present, still does not have a solid framework behind it. No
methodical approach in its theory, only a handful of people who have given their own
interpretations regarding its concept and what concepts may lie under it. Victor Roudometof
attempts to make sense of the concept of glocalization by making use of two theorists with
opposing interpretations and creating his own understanding afterwards.
The first theorist that Roudometof takes into consideration in his article is Roland
Robertson. Robertson is noted to take into account the concept of monism which suggests that
different existing things may be defined by a single reality or substance; in this case, the
different things would be the local and the global and the single reality would be the global
(Roudometof, 2015). This is to say that the global interpenetrates the local, giving the global
different identities with relation to the local; multiple interpretations dependent on the location
(Roudometof, 2015). However, the single definition of the global would be insufficient in
completely explaining the intricate details that is embedded in the creation of the term glocal
due to the fact that a lot of local cultures and traditions vary exponentially with global traditions.
Furthermore, the concept of the global itself is a mixture of different cultures that have come
together into something that is universal and recognized by a big group of people. Another
important concept noted by Robertson would be the fact that he believes that global integration
is not the telos or end state of globalization (Roudometof, 2015). Globalization is often
perceived with regards to a country’s own economic integration and advancement however,
Robertson, with his use of glocalization, insisted on the involvement of both homogeneity and
heterogeneity (Roudometof, 2015). In his insistence of this, there could be difficulty in looking
for the middle ground between homogeneity and heterogeneity.
In contrast to Robertson, George Ritzer argues on cultural homogeneity being an
integral aspect or probable alternative for the upbringing of a society. Furthermore, in contrast
to Robertson’s perspective being shaped by monism, Ritzer’s perspective is shaped by dualism
wherein the key concepts he notes are pairs of binary concepts which oppose each other
(Roudometof, 2015). In this case, he makes use of the opposition of glocalization and
grocalization which he coined himself and defines as the ‘imperialistic ambitions of nations,
corporations, organisations and the like and their desire, indeed need, to impose themselves on
various geographic areas’ (Ritzer, [2004] 2006: 73). Furthermore, there is a mutual exclusive
connection between the global and local as he notes that neither one can exist without the other
moreover, once the local is incorporated under the global then the local is lost and the
incorporation morphs into glocalization; the glocal cannot be completely defined with the
characteristics of the local due to the fact that a part of it is irretrievably lost when it was
incorporated and subsumed with the global (Roudometof, 2015).
In relation to the different meanings and interpretations given by both Robertson and
Ritzer, Roudometof creates his own understanding on the concept of glocalization which he
adopted from Alexander’s (2003) strong programme of cultural sociology. Roudometof uses
Alexander’s (2003) strong programme of cultural sociology as a foundation in order to
designate a process which possesses analytical autonomy (Roudometof, 2015). According to
Roudometof (2015) it is necessary for one to properly look into the precise manner in which
the relationship between the global and local is formed; in Ritzer’s perspective he sees a
systemic manner whilst Robertson focuses on the movement of how ideas and practices spread
or don’t spread. Roudometof makes use of the images of wave transmissions in order to explain
his interpretation of glocalization after reading the different interpretations from other theorists.
In contrast to Ritzer who claims that once the local has been touched by the global then it is
impossible to define it completely as local anymore, or Robertson who says that the local is
absorbed within the global, Roudometof claims that neither of these things happen to the local
instead, there is a mutually symbiotic relationship between the local and the global and thus
shapes the result (Roudometof, 2015). In other words, the global enters the local as a light and
the local could then either refract it, like light passing through glass, or it could amplify what
the global offered and reflect it back into the world with its own variation (Roudometof, 2015).
In Roudometof’s (2015) account on glocalization he also notes that there is a possibility for
one to map out the relationship between the local and the global in terms of its power relations.
The first is the ability to create waves of its own that is capable of expanding throughout the
world stage, capable of globalizing itself from within; the second is the capability to filter out
global influences that are not desirable for their own locations; lastly, the capability to alter
outside influences, turning them into hybrids or mutations of glocalization (Roudometof, 2015).
In this sense, the glocalization concept provided by Roudometof is very relatable to the
present situation of cultures across the globe in the present time. In the past, the concept of
glocality could be considered a little vague due to the lack of globalization occurring during
that time however with the presence of social media, rise of video logs in different countries,
and just the overall connection between people miles away from each other, the concept of
glocalization is then more applicable than ever. One concrete example of the strength of
glocalization in the present time is the rise of Asian music around the world, specifically
Korean pop music. Korea was able to globalize itself throughout the world by taking the
concept of idols and music groups and amplifying it to become its own specific genre which is
now sweeping the charts of different countries. Globalization is insufficient in properly
explaining the phenomenon of Korean pop music and thus, glocalization is strong in showing
the connection that could result in a hybrid of what the global gives and what the local can
contribute into the global. Furthermore, with its ability to filter out undesirable influences
(Roudometof, 2015) the local is capable of deciding which influences they would want to
amplify with their own locale and is able to preserve their own culture.
However, on the negative side of glocalization, there could be too much alteration or
mutation. With the rising amount of mutations in cultures, there is a possibility that the local
may forget what their original culture was. Furthermore, the original could get lost and an
attempt to find the original could result in a wrong interpretation of their local culture.
Given this, we can relate the concept of glocalization with Hannerz’ concept on
cosmpolitans and locals. Hannerz introduces the concept of world culture which he notes is
created through the “increasing interconnectedness of varied local cultures, as well as through
the development of cultures without a clear anchorage in any one territory,” (Hannerz, 1990,
p. 237) which means that different cultures come together to create one diversified ‘world
culture’ and not one is completely anchored from one specific culture. Thus, in comparing the
two one could say that glocalization could lead to the creation of a world culture due to the fact
that with glocalization, the global is amplified by the local and is reflected back into the world
stage which would result in different variations of a global influence, which will then
intermingle and again, create a world culture. Secondly, the concept of the cosmopolitan and
local further helps with the creation of a glocal culture due to the immersion of an individual
with a differing background into a different local culture. The cosmopolitan who meets the
locals becomes the bridgeway for globalization to enter into the local and the
interconnectedness of this cosmopolitan leads to the individual having a change within
themselves between the local and the global which would then become the starting point for
glocalization to grow bigger. Thus, the two concepts may be interconnected in order to create
a stronger perspective about the growing connection between the local and the global and the
hybrid that they may create which is the glocal.
 REFERENCES

[1.] Roudometof, V. (2015). Theorizing glocalization: Three interpretations. European

Journal of Social Theory. DOI: 10.1177/1368431015605443

[2.] Ritzer, G. ([2004] 2006). The Globalization of Nothing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge
Press

[3.] Hannerz, U. (1990). Cosmopolitans and Locals in World Culture. Theory, Culture &
Society. Vol. 7, 237-251.