Locating the Global South
INTRODUCTION: THE STARBUCKS
AND THE SHANTY
Where does one ‘see’ globalization? Geo-
szaphers, anthropologists, and sociologists ~
those who study the ph.nomenon from the
bottom up — tell us that global interconnect-
edness is woven into the fabric of everyday
life. It is visible to those who observe.
‘One does not need to look far to see mark-
crs of global interconnectediness, even global
modernity. There are Starbucks branches in
both Melbourne and Manila, New York and
‘New Delhi. Alll these branches look more or
less the same, and they have similar menus of
espresso-based drinks. This sameness repre-
sents the cultural homogenization that many
critics have associated with globalization.
‘Yet despite the common aesthetic of these
cafes, the worlds outside them can be very dif
ferent. In Manila and New Delhi, there is a good
chance that, upon leaving the cafe, you will find
a child beggar in tatered clothes arid wom-
‘down slippers. Walk a block or two and, with
your late still hot, you may find a shantytown,
Lisandro &. Claudio
where houses are built from discarded plywood
and galvanized iron sheets. These shanties have
poor sanitation; many of its residents are
‘employed in the informal economic sector, its
children, some of whom are child laborers, can-
not afford to go to school. There is also a good
chance tht these shanties’ residents are under
threat of being evicted or having their homes
demolished to make way for a large commer-
cial development, which will service the city’s
‘middle class. Given their lack of political influ-
cence within the state, the residents of the shanty
have very few avenues for redress. They live in
so-called ‘weak states’, where governments are
too poor, Weak, COMUPG and Unst ‘Supp
Tis citizens Wi 5
—yor are unlikely to Tint New Delhi-type
shanties in New York, despite that city also
beinga site of large-scale injustice. Harlem may
be poor, but it does not have many child labor-
cers. There is something more confronting about
poverty in the global south, and the north/south
divide isa HSIBIE RS the processes OF GIODSTIZA-
at The di iS rem
‘that globalization creates undersides.Att
siubucks
Sa ETE De iba sou IF
ee tpn herpes
Se of carta ret
Sy pears the Cami OC
ey Sacet nlow aaoberineccene
tutu preset by te Src
fre sot sll sh
Eee noe canes
cess. Poverty is backward. [eis notmodem, It
a
stent sie DOS ce reg oes
pace he ates ache oad any
Se gece Se city Sox ceca
Sd oleate Be spr oes aly
Sicipandy seat marten ser ee
Cases Exiing ailhn ot deilend oor
‘nomic paradigms call the forced liberalization,
and marketization of developing economics
“elobalization™ or neoliberal. This global.
eaiety oesonel =
Gn) ne me World Bask CH) he
Sr Monty Fa (MD, aed the
\WStuTisge Ogariaton 770) stile doe
Spa Sans wn dtr whle puking pom
nemesis Se ot Boblinton a sewive
scene, 2 cai ee
fed sn gplon wr Set ere mcwer
Soe ee reopen on nai
word, Conder te double tandrd hn Ge
promis of ‘ccs fr alg socmcles
Ie ba south In ine of conoic
sisi itis common forte WET and tae
dominated by economists from the global
scrtits dnaod that dovlopin- sano
oi srcmat opening en jovernment and raise interest
‘ates 1 reduce inflation. The shrinking of the
public sector ultimately means a reduction in
Services like healthcare and the increase in
interest rates reduces domestic consumption.
The results are often catastrophic, and in
‘many cases the cure is worse than the illness.
Despite its dogmatic adherence to belt-
tightening and austerity, however, the devel-
‘oped world does not apply the same standards
‘ fel
‘THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF GLOBALIZATION
to itself: After the credit crunch of,2008, the
US Federal Reserve cut interest rates by a
third ond concocted a US$150 billion stims-
us, prompting New York Times editorial
{Poutes, 2008) to ask:
Could the be the same United States that backed
fie intewnavenal Monetary. Funds. gettough
Strategy during the emerging-market cases n the
hao. punting countries trom Asa to Latin
Aer th goverment sensing ane ae
Fegan acces lending ftom road?
From the perspective of ‘anti-globalization’
ities. the contradictions at the heart of neo-
hibcralisny cause and reinforce the endemic
Fant — ihe enforcement of the noo-Kiberal
Consensus - deepens incqualiby inthe word's
‘OOrET sountres. I is thus hat the shanty is
Fr inuch a symbol of globalization as the
Starbucks. Boverty is lized
“The above diptych reveals that globalization
creates both affluence and poverty: it pushes
‘peoples and groups into a modernity associated
‘vith Wester culture and capital, while simyl-
taneously leaving behind others. Its study,
(Geectoerequree an analysis of hace wih a
‘left behind. This chapter explores.the develop-
imenvuntardévelopment paradox of global
rerio tees eae oie
SaiN= concept, which as T show below,
panies ner various gis and aul
by multiple subjectivities. In what follows, I
begin witha brief examination of inequalities
between counties, and illustrate how these
inequalities necessitate the emergence of cate-
‘gories like the global south. Although globali-
zation challenges the dominance of the sat, it
nevertheless produces changes on the stucture
of states, and, therefore, requires responses
fiom states — crucial observation that I will
continue returming (0. Second, the chapter siti-
ates the historical emergence of the term
“elobal south’ and its antecedent forms like the
“Third World’ by looking at how inequalities
have iced through political projects
like colonization and present day neo-Tiberal
‘globalization. It also examines the various.07
LOCATING THE GLOBAL SOUTH
jain which people have respontied to these
BEET and. nthe proces, eshapod Uv erm:
‘of global political engugemer
‘The chapter ends with « discussion on the
ccontempority global south, examining, how
contemporary globalization has reshaped
some ofits contours und partially prefigured
its future, I€ makes un argument concerning
the importance of the global south relative to
‘other notions of collectivity sue ax nations
for regions. As provisional project, 1 con-
tend that the global south is less likely to fall
into the traps of static notions of identity,
which have inflected other discourses from
the margins of world PONTE
CONCEPTUALIZING WITHOUT
DEFINING
Conceiving ofthe global south is of primary
import’ those engaged in social and political
action against global inequality. Drawing
Ties between the global south and the global
nom he developed and the developing fst,
the fist and the Third World, as power
political function: I allows cities and atv=
Its to make distinctions between the benef-
Clarice of uneven systems of global power
Contemporary ees of neo-liberal global
{ation ue the slut south as a nest rally
Counties victimized by the violent economic
“Sure” of fnstiutons ie the Ineradonal
Moociary Fund. Previously, eis of cold
trae, power polities deployed the term
“Third World” of the Togie of nowalignment
in their ejection of ‘colonialism from both
the USA and the USSR.
‘Changing geopolitical circumstances
means these terms each have specific histor
Cal suances we cannot disregard, Its tue,
for instance, that “Third Worlds’ or “non
Tignment i no long tenable in ight ofthe
collapse of the Soviet Bloc or the ‘Second
Work — an issue 1 discuss below. Despite
this, all diese terms point to common phe-
nomena: the_undesevelopment_of_ certain
states/peoples_and their lack of representa:
only for this, the term jlobal south’ and
lar categories are relevant to the study of
{lobalization, And though the terminology
nay evolve. the effects of large-scale political
projects ~ from imperialism, to cold war-cra
con liberal globalization .-
make it necessary Tor scholars and activists (0
use terms like ‘ which serve as,
rhetorical anchors in a grammar that repre
ents. global difference. As Lovander_and
Miynolo (2011: 3) explait
juesfion may notb. ths
Tht for hom and under wha condons he
omc evant Say, fr
wre
dare tare, located atthe intersection of
“entangled political geographies of disposses-
sion and repossession
Sth global south 1 Thus both a realty and
a provisional work-in-progress. It is crucial,
therefore, to examine how_actors_on_the
‘ground, particularly. those L
South ise mobilize the concept. t should
Bee pen at lie ariclated
in the context of provisional and mutable
processes of political praxis. Ths allows us
{o historicize it and remain mindful of its
metres
Soares
ieee eS
ee
anal
is in a better position to document its articu-
‘Jation Father than set fs ontological Tints.
But, despite its heterogeneity, what binds
the global south and what common experi-
fences unite the countries in it? Grovogui
(2011: 176) contends that:
The Global South s not a directional designation
a point Gus south fom # fixed north is 2
Smile des gnotion meant to captare the sem:
“Bince of echtiion that emerged wen former
“GOGAT anes engage Im GOMES FORT of
GeDMTaTCT and tied toward The eahz2007
Of 8 postcoienat international ore.
‘What is necessary to add to Grovogui is that
the “former colonial entities are almost all‘nequaes "The tran “ntersiate crue,
bgsuse We are_discussing_imbalances of
aggreguie cconomie” and political power
‘bree sates THis Conceplor ofthe global
south is, of course, a simplification that
{allows for analytic consistency. Admittedly,
te focus on the state an intestne dynamics
creates a methodological narowing. which
ignores the richness of non-state, polities,
Despite thi
emphasis on the'state and interstate po!
remains polically and analytically relevant
Before discussing this, however, let us exam:
ine possible objections to my framework
‘What is occluded when we emphasize the
state?
First, there are forms of power inequality
that cannot be reduced to discussions of
state politics, Jonathan Rigg (2007), for
instance, emphasizes the everyday nature of
politics im the global south, where local
Practices sublend, transcend, and. over
Wwhelm stalecraft. Research on. peasant
‘movements has also revealed how everyday
resistances ~ dissimulation, minor acts of
illegrity and disobedience. all of which
ray lead {0 largescale sevolt ~ operate
under a political logie outside sate politics
and. institutions (eee ‘Scot, 1976, 1985;
Kerkvliet, 2002, 2005), Similarly, in study
of Middle Eastern social change, Bayat
(2010: 14) has theorized the notion of *non-
movements’ of the "quiet encroachment of
the ordinary” encapeulated in the “discreet
and prolonged ways in which the poor
struggle to survive and to beter their lives
by quietly impinging on the properied and
Powerful, and on society at large”. Noo
‘movements, though they may alter and chal-
lenge the state, are not always, direct
challenges 1o it For as long, therefore. a
one studies
‘0p, Soe cannot aveid mention of
“Gne cannot avoid mention of movements
that explicitly or implicitly
& OT pOlitcal praxis
THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF GLOBALIZATION
‘Second, not all of the formal colonial enti-
ties ar sates, Raewyn Connell (2007: 71-86),
for instance, conceives of aboriginal Austra
as integral tw the imaginary universe of the
tlobal south. despite it being formally part of
a wealthy developed state. In the sense that
‘aboriginal Australia exists in a postcoloni
temporality, solidarites can be drawn between
it and other postcolonial entities that now
define themselves as states. Similar arguments
‘can be made about other indigenous peoples
displaced by powerful, often white, setter
, 2007 Moreover, shorty alter
indoneuss rezoom fren colon, t became
1 cota’ power ie" with the annexation of
Eset tmor in 375> THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF GLOBALIZATION
REFERENCES Fukuyama F (1992) Me End of Hetry and the Last
‘Man New York: Aven Books
“Anderson B (2007) Under Thre Fags: Anarchism and Growsgu (2011) Aresluton nonetheless The global
the Ant-Colonalr-xgnation London: Verso. South 1 nematonl veatons. The Global South
Bayet A (2010) Ie As Poitcs How Onirary People 1) 175.90,
“Ghange the Mido East Avserdam Amsterdam Ha CSand ht T2009) Oayeamnng about Riza
niveray Press. {ad Tetcho on Asn as net and fantay
‘Bet WF 2006) Deghabalzanon ideas fore New World Phiippne Studles $"<), 329-88,
‘Economy Phippre edn. Quezon Ciiy. Ateneo de Hegel GWF (1975) Lectures on the Piloiophy of Word
st
Mana University Pes story Introduction Reon stony W Nisbet HE,
{Beto WE 2009) The Food Wars. London: Verso. Vol. 200, Cambridge Camere Unvesy Press.
‘Berge MT (2008) Alter the Thr Word? History des- Ho Chi Minh (1996) The path ha ed me to Lena
Ty and the fate of Ths Werldism. Th World In Chrisie I (ed) Southeast Sai the Twentieth
Century Reader gndon 8 Touts, 9074-76
utes 2541) 9-39
‘ereacont R (2000) With what must the philosophy of Hotcbawin (1992) Yatons and Nanna Since
wari story begin? On the racial bass of Hegels 1780. Programme Myth, fealty 2nd edo,
Exocentnsm Niretenth-Centuy Confers 220) Cambridge: Cambasge Unversity Press
w1-201 Hobsbawe’ (1596) The future ot the state
furkeR (2006) The competing dalague of freon’ Development and Crange 27.2) 267-78.
Human igh atthe Bandung Conference. /uman obsbaw €)(2011) ow fo Change the Wer: Mare
Fights Quarter 284): 987-65, ‘and Mans 1840-2071. London: itl, Brown,
(Cardoso FH (1972) ndustialaton, dependency and Huntington (1996) The Cash of Cilzations ad the
‘Dowerin Latin Amenca, Bereey Jounal of Socology Remaking of Word Order. New York: Touchstone.
17-7395, Ishshlom (2006) Theory ges real and the case for
Cardozo FH (1977) The consumption of dependency a normatve ethic: Rostow, mederrization theo.
theory inthe Unted Sates. (atin American Research andthe ance fr progtess. foremavonal Studies
‘Renew 126): 7-24 ‘Quarter S02) 287-31 1.