Modern Globalization
In one of the lectures, the speaker stated that the idea of globalization is currently at its lowest ebb, citing the United States’ retreat from promoting the liberal model and its associated human rights issues, and noting that these matters are increasingly treated as cultural and internal affairs specific to each country, without efforts to intervene and impose them. In truth, I do not know how the doctor arrived at the conclusion that globalization is receding in this broad sense; in my view, what we are witnessing may be a decline in a particular form of globalization, not globalization itself. Rather, I believe we are moving rapidly, perhaps through a dark tunnel, toward a new form of globalization that wears different clothes and assumes a different shape. Its goal is no longer merely to make the world seem like a small village, but it may end up confining the world within a tightly sealed room, dictating its options and limiting its sphere of movement.
During the last century, global trade reached unprecedented levels of expansion and interconnection among nations. Then, at the beginning of the 21st century, the spread of the internet triggered a massive surge in the services sector. With the emergence of smartphones, globalization entered a deeper phase; it was no longer limited to the movement of goods and services between countries, but became present in people’s daily lives, continuously linking them to individuals, companies, platforms, and services around the world. Today, we are witnessing a new surge driven by artificial intelligence, as companies strive not only to provide services and products, but to penetrate various aspects of human life—sports, healthcare, science, education, and more—so that they can encompass people’s needs and life details more comprehensively than ever before. Some futuristic visions of artificial intelligence go even further, predicting that robots will significantly reduce the need for human labor.
If we ever reach a world where the need for labor diminishes, a fundamental question will arise: Who will own the new means of production, and who will provide income for humans? Will it be the state, or the companies that own artificial intelligence and robots? Another question, perhaps even more important, then emerges: What if companies themselves provide humans with the tools for work, income, health, education, communication, and entertainment? In that case, they would no longer be mere companies from which we buy a product or service, but would transform into systems upon which individuals depend for most aspects of their lives. From here, the outlines of modern globalization begin to appear in a different form; a globalization that may provide humans with most of their needs, but within the boundaries and options set by the companies themselves. This is where the danger lies, as complete dependence on a single system or a limited number of systems may make access to certain basic services, and perhaps even health or financial services, contingent on complying with the terms and conditions imposed by those entities. At this stage, the issue may no longer be merely economic or technological globalization, but a gradual shift toward the ability of large corporations to influence human movement, decisions, and the details of daily life.
We are not witnessing the retreat of globalization, but rather the beginnings of a new era of it, whose final image remains unclear: Will it be a world where multiple companies and systems compete, preserving a degree of choice and individual autonomy? Or will we reach a level of concentration that enables a limited number of companies to influence human thought, behavior, and choices on a global scale? I wish the lecturer had been more precise when speaking of the decline of globalization, distinguishing between the decline of certain traditional forms of globalization and the emergence of new, more complex and influential forms.
Abdulrahman bin Salamah
