AP Globalization Essay

Globalization often creates conflicts between national identity and universal ideals. While increased unity and cooperation among nations can benefit many, it may threaten some groups' independence and favor others. This can cause an identity crisis as people struggle to balance conservative nationalist views with progressive views embracing global cooperation. Institutions are not fully in control of globalization and how groups tolerate each other. Economic forces also play a role, with poorer countries able to sell their labor internationally and richer countries importing cheaper goods. However, opposition to changing group identities is inevitable and can pose threats, as seen in tensions between nationalists and Muslims in France's purportedly globalized state amid popular opposition. Careless generalizations that increase hatred risk destabilizing the global order.

Uploaded by

toreki

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

39 views

AP Globalization Essay

Uploaded by

toreki

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 2

Antonio Trapanese 2021/01/19

Globalization and Group Identity

In a world in which the ever growing demand for unity is considered essential in determining
the balance of power among nations (as well as perhaps bringing more improvement than
regression), national groups often happen to encounter difficulties when these ideals
threaten aspects of their independence or, in practice, favor one group over another. Thus, a
serious conflict of identity arises, in which ordinary people struggle to express both
conservative and progressive positions.

As clearly depicted in the Eastern scenario, the prospect of an autonomous yet unified
nation can sometimes remain no more than ideological. To the widespread belief that
nations should be a mirror of their citizen’s beliefs, in fact, are juxtaposed complications
derived from economic, political and ethical factors, such as “overlapping nation-state
borders [...] and systematic marginalization by the centers of economic power” (Source A).
Thus, as unfortunate as it may be, it is impossible to completely neglect the institutional
barriers which oppose what would, objectively, result in improvement for the vast majority of
citizens.

Institutions themselves are usually not the main factor in control of globalization and
tolerance. As proposed in Excerpt E’s economic analysis of globalization, in fact, most times
the opposite could be said, especially in regards to international affairs involving Western
nations. Namely, the excerpt states how poorer countries “get the chance to sell their
relatively low cost labour onto world markets” and richer ones “import lower cost goods from
abroad, leaving them with spending power to spare and a higher standard of living”. In light
of this consideration, what, then, could obstaculate people in the pursuit of identifying as part
of a globalized state?

Opposition is an ineradicable, fundamental part of any dispute, despite the threats it may
pose to the success of one’s campaigns. Ideally, one would tend to assume that the most
righteous and well-agreed hypothesis will prevail over the others, but, as has been proven
time and time again, this may not totally align with reality’s outcomes. This phenomenon is
clearly exemplified in France, where its current political situation has seen tensions among
nationalists and Muslim citizens who struggle to coexist in what looks like a globalized state
established with a significant amount of popular opposition.

One of the most dangerous habits that people seem to be adopting in nowadays’ society is
the inconsiderate analysis of events (as well as political stances) and subsequent
extrapolation of conclusions which hardly relate to objective reality. Accuses of this sort have
been directed towards a French nationalist, Marine Le Pen, who has been criticized, along
with her party, as a “Muslim-baiting, racist [...] and an anti-foreigner”(Source B). While I
believe that anyone has the freedom to express their beliefs, it also comes without saying
that one should attentively consider the repercussions of what they are proposing, especially
when, to some degree, a substantial percentage of people may emphasize with their
message regardless of its dangerous implications.

In contrast, those who are accused by these righteous and enlightened activists are repulsed
from such baseless opposition, as they could perhaps be seen as a threat to their safety and
Antonio Trapanese 2021/01/19

identity due to generalization. Simply put, hatred generates more hatred, with the result
being a more distanced global state which will, inevitably, collapse under any kind of major
tension among its groups. Thus, while it may be true that one has the freedom of choosing
which side to be on, one may not necessarily want to risk conflict, or worse, their safety over
their beliefs, especially when the option of moving to a more tolerant or ethnically similar
country is available.