Introduction
Page 9
realist scholars, the advocacy of globalization processes by both neoliberals and their
reformist counterparts, and the questioning stance of critical poststructuralist and
historical materialist scholars (Scholte 1996:49--53). Within the broad sociological and
cultural tradition toward globalization, it is possible to distinguish between so-called
homogenizers and heterogenizers. According to Featherstone and Lash:
The homogenizers tend, ideal-typically, to subscribe to some sort of notion of world
system. They look primarily at the presence of the universal in the particular,
whether as commodification or as time-space distanciation. They would at least
implicitly invoke a scenario of convergent development. Heterogenizers would tend
to dispute that a system existed, will disclaim the distinction of the universal and
particular, and see the dominance of the West over the “rest” as that of simply one
particular over others (Featherstone and Lash 1995, 4).
Despite the multiple classifications of and perspectives on globalization, agreement has
more or less coalesced around five basic claims: 1) (late modern) capitalism is the
defining feature of and driving force behind current globalization processes, creating
time-space compression and flexible accumulation; 2) transnational corporations,
international financial institutions, and states constitute the main actors driving
globalization leading to undemocratic forms of governance; 3)new information and and
communications technologies enable and contribute to globalization through bringing
about social transformations; 4)neoliberal ideology is determining the direction of
Convention