From Michael Tedori : Double-edged Sword

The first topic of The Paradox of Korean Globalization that really intrigued me was after the author had visited Korea at KMLA school Shin talks about contradictory forces. Being nationalism and globalization. This is the main topic of his essay however I feel like he neglects to really examine how the two may actually be more related than contradictory. Nationalism is pride in one’s country as I see it and protecting the best interests of your nation. While globalization is the communications and relationships that are built between nations. In reality, I see these two as globalization supporting nationalism. Shin points to the empirical data that supports the cell phone use in Asia especially in Korea and the import/export data. What Shin doesn’t realize is that globalization and nationalism do not have to be worded as right off the bat, contradictory. In reality, the way I see it, globalization has many benefits (albeit some negatives) and as long as nationalism is preserved in the process. People are quick to jump to conclusions that a country will lose its heritage from many thousands of years and rightly so to voice that opinion. However, to say that globalization is neglecting nationalistic issues is stretching it. Globalism and social Darwinism are facts of life and have been historically present for centuries. Nations need to understand that this is where the world is headed, bearing in mind as Shin brings up; there are some worries of nationalism being destroyed by globalism. I just think that overall his article is too centered on the hard facts that “over-globalism” is on the verge, when in reality the other facts are not presented.


Following up with my previous thoughts Shin on page 7 says “…conflicts over political identities and ethnic fragmentation”. Here he is saying that countries are worried about their ethnicity and political backgrounds may change with the advent of globalization. This is definitely a concern that I share with him and should be proceeded with caution for all nations. I just think that because man has become so more advanced from the early stages of life that ENTIRE globalization is inevitable. My thoughts on how to deal with this vary and there is no one answer nor is it is easy to describe. First, nations must understand that they will not be wiped off the map. It is not as if Koreans start emigrating elsewhere, start using American cell phone towers, or watching American monopolized TV shows on Korean cable; Korea will not be Korea. This angers me when people yell about the same thing in America. Yes, in America we share the same kind of globalization in a sense and outsourcing of labour and trade deficits are a concern, yet once again inevitable. My posing solutions that I might entertain would be that countries realize their role (hierarchy) as far as how they rank in GDP and so forth and make informed decisions about where to go from there, firstly.


To return back to nationalism, it is important to realize that whatever changes occur with respect to nationalism, the role of the government is tantamount and to bring back, increase, and pump up when nationalism might be going downhill or declining. Politics and government must listen to the people in order to act in their best interest. This is not only to keep them from emigrating and allowing foreign intrusions! It is the role of nationalism that is set by how patriotic and lively the government can make the nation. This may be not as related, but I feel it is like having a “pep-rally” in high school, showing the support of the school leaders riling up the community before a big football game. Imagine the game as the event of dealing with the two issues of globalization and nationalism head to head and the government being those powers that inspire (somewhat indirectly mostly) yet at the same time manage globalism.