Globalization of What?

On the subject of globalization, I personally tend to be more for it than against it, though this naturally relies heavily on what exactly it is that is being globalized.  For example, I am heavily in favor of spreading computers, the internet, and other related technologies to every single corner of the world.  This is because I believe it can do a great deal of good for many countries out there, and help them become connected to the rest of the world.  However, as another example, I am fully against the globalization of something like government.  Under no circumstances will I ever find it acceptable to place the entire planet under the rule of a single government body, as it will be destined to ignore the needs of a great deal of people (the form of government would not matter either, as even in a democracy there is always a minority which does not get what it wants any time there is a debate/conflict).  Thus, this brings me to my point:  I do not believe there should be one single term for “globalization,” as it can mean many different things.  Whenever I see the term globalization used, especially if used negatively, I always find myself asking:  Globalization of what?  After all, I’m sure most, if not all, people can agree that there are some things that would be great to spread to a global scale while there are others that would not be.

                What always amuses me in discussions of globalization, however, is the fact that there are actually anti-globalization groups.  As I have always seen it, such groups are futile in the grand scheme of things.  If one were to stand back and look at the entire issue as a whole, I do not see how someone could reasonably believe they could “stop” globalization.  Such anti-globalization groups usually claim that they are fighting to prevent a take-over of smaller, weaker cultures and governments by larger ones (usually Western governments and ideals).  Yet, this is exactly my point.  If the world’s largest, most powerful, and influential governments and corporations are attempting to do something, how can someone even reasonably believe they have a chance of doing anything?  While even I will admit that this can be a somewhat depressing view, it is also a realistic one.  Just think about it.  If the world’s most powerful corporation or government really wants to do something, it is going to do it.  Not to mention, most anti-globalization groups, as Slack and Wise mention, seem to completely ignore the idea of technological globalization.  Which, once again, raises my original point:  Globalization of what, exactly?  How can they claim to be “anti-globalization” if they do not mention, or perhaps even support, the globalization of technology?  Perhaps, then, instead of fighting against this seemingly unstoppable force, they should put their time, energy, and money into improving the process, working with it to make it better (similar to how Castells mentions creating counter networks to fight the original networks).  If you are worried about the effects of something out of your control, then you should spend your time improving whatever that may be to ensure that it has minimal negative impact.  After all, (unless you happen to be an immovable object) fighting against an unstoppable force will get you nowhere.