The 'Global Dimension' of Contemporary Politics: An Argument for Taking 'Global' Seriously

S. Selchow
{"title":"The 'Global Dimension' of Contemporary Politics: An Argument for Taking 'Global' Seriously","authors":"S. Selchow","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.999295","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recent years have seen a striking proliferation of the term \"global\" in public and political discourse. The popularity of the term is a manifestation of the fact that there is a widespread notion that contemporary social reality is \"global\". The acknowledgment of this notion has important political implications and raises questions about the role played by the idea of the \"global\" in policy making. These questions, in turn, expose even more fundamental issues about whether the term \"global\" indicates a difference in kind, even an ontological shift, and, if so, how to approach it. This paper argues that the notion of \"global\", in other words the \"global dimension\", is a significant aspect of contemporary politics that needs to be investigated. The paper argues that in the globalization discourse of International Studies \"global\" is \"naturalized\", which means that it is taken for granted and assumed to be self-evident. The term \"global\" is used mainly in a descriptive way and subsumed under the rubric of \"globalization\". \"Global\" tends to be equated with transnational and/or world-wide; hence, it addresses quantitative differences in degree but not (alleged) differences in kind. In order to advance our understanding of contemporary politics, \"global\" needs to be taken seriously. This means, firstly, to understand and to conceptualize \"global\" as a social category; and, secondly, to uncover \"global\" as a \"naturalized\" concept in the Political and International Studies strand of the globalization discourse in order to rescue it for innovative new approaches in the investigation of contemporary politics. In order to do so, the paper suggests adopting a strong linguistic approach starting with the analysis of the word \"global\". Based on insights from post-structuralism as well as cognitive and general constructivist perspectives it argues that a frame-based corpus linguistic analysis offers the possibility of investigating the collective/social meaning(s) of global in order to operationalize them for the analysis of the \"global dimension\" of contemporary politics.","PeriodicalId":367470,"journal":{"name":"Political Economy (Topic)","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Economy (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.999295","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Recent years have seen a striking proliferation of the term "global" in public and political discourse. The popularity of the term is a manifestation of the fact that there is a widespread notion that contemporary social reality is "global". The acknowledgment of this notion has important political implications and raises questions about the role played by the idea of the "global" in policy making. These questions, in turn, expose even more fundamental issues about whether the term "global" indicates a difference in kind, even an ontological shift, and, if so, how to approach it. This paper argues that the notion of "global", in other words the "global dimension", is a significant aspect of contemporary politics that needs to be investigated. The paper argues that in the globalization discourse of International Studies "global" is "naturalized", which means that it is taken for granted and assumed to be self-evident. The term "global" is used mainly in a descriptive way and subsumed under the rubric of "globalization". "Global" tends to be equated with transnational and/or world-wide; hence, it addresses quantitative differences in degree but not (alleged) differences in kind. In order to advance our understanding of contemporary politics, "global" needs to be taken seriously. This means, firstly, to understand and to conceptualize "global" as a social category; and, secondly, to uncover "global" as a "naturalized" concept in the Political and International Studies strand of the globalization discourse in order to rescue it for innovative new approaches in the investigation of contemporary politics. In order to do so, the paper suggests adopting a strong linguistic approach starting with the analysis of the word "global". Based on insights from post-structuralism as well as cognitive and general constructivist perspectives it argues that a frame-based corpus linguistic analysis offers the possibility of investigating the collective/social meaning(s) of global in order to operationalize them for the analysis of the "global dimension" of contemporary politics.
当代政治的“全球维度”:一个严肃对待“全球”的论点
近年来,“全球”一词在公共和政治话语中出现了惊人的扩散。这个词的流行表明了这样一个事实,即人们普遍认为当代社会现实是“全球性的”。承认这一概念具有重要的政治意义,并提出了关于“全球”概念在政策制定中所起作用的问题。这些问题反过来又揭示了更基本的问题,即“全球”一词是否表明了种类上的差异,甚至是本体论上的转变,如果是这样,如何处理它。本文认为,“全球”的概念,换句话说,“全球维度”,是当代政治需要研究的一个重要方面。本文认为,在国际研究的全球化话语中,“全球”被“自然化”了,这意味着它被认为是理所当然的,被认为是不言而喻的。“全球”一词主要是描述性的,并被归入“全球化”的标题之下。“全球”往往等同于跨国和(或)世界范围;因此,它处理的是程度上的数量差异,而不是(所谓的)种类差异。为了增进我们对当代政治的理解,我们需要认真对待“全球”这个词。这意味着,首先,理解和概念化“全球”作为一个社会范畴;其次,揭示“全球”作为全球化话语的政治与国际研究链中的一个“自然化”概念,以便在当代政治研究中为创新的新方法提供拯救。为了做到这一点,本文建议采用强有力的语言学方法,从“全球”一词的分析开始。基于后结构主义以及认知主义和一般建构主义的观点,本文认为基于框架的语料库语言分析提供了研究全球的集体/社会意义的可能性,以便将它们用于当代政治的“全球维度”分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信