Globalization of Societies and The Private Security Industry
Part A
Globalization can be defined as the coming together of different cultures and creating a unique relationship that enables them to interact and formulate rule and regulations that allow for their own peaceful coexistence. Globalization is not about taking away culture or losing cultural identity, but rather; formulating frameworks that enable people to adopt in the new world where unique societal values and cultures are in constant interaction. Culture can be defined as the way in which members of a certain society perceive themselves and others within their point of view, and how they are in turn shaped to think about other people and themselves. Essentially shaping the world view as well as the cultural views. According to observers’ globalization brings about a growth of subjective cultures through connectivity with the rest of the world; this ultimately enhances productivity as such “at every step globalization is an objective as well as a subjective process” (Pieterse, 13). The best way to analyze globalization with regards to business markets, human interactions and nations is through the theory of McDonaldization. McDonaldization of cultures, identifies that globalization and cultural interactions were and will always be inevitable but the difference between the cultures will remain, and the fact that the world has always experienced instances of globalization in the past. Two important aspect of focus are born in this regard efficiency and predictability in consumerism. As such, in the era of increased cultural interaction and consumerization, McDonaldization tries to restructure societies, their culture, and identity by fostering a more rigid system that allows for people’s immediate needs. According to researchers, “globalization requires a sensitivity to how location, identity, and community are refashioned in incompletely globalized sites: […] From this perspective, globalization emerges as an incomplete, uneven and contested process: an unfinished project whose contours are shaped by locally specific social and cultural practices” (Jackson, p166). The value for efficiency overlooks cultural implications required to achieve certain services and as a result, creates a more uniform approach into consumerism across the world. Predictability requires that services or goods received and the way they are received remains the same from one moment in time to another and from one region to another. This will thus require that products, atmosphere, people, employee behavior and the general setting remain the same all around the globe. According to research, “people have come to prefer a world in which there are no surprises” (Ritzer, p10). This means that services offered in one region should remain the same across all regions if coming from the same organization as more and more people find comfort in this mode of living. Globalization is thus described as an increased interaction in business practices, societal value systems and cultures across the globe brought about by an increased state of consumerism and need for more material efficiency.
Part B
Globalization has allowed for the development and increased use of private security in international conflict since it has changed the nature of conflict all together to make the state secondary. Key to this rise is understanding clearly, the relationship between the state and its nationals and how globalization affects security of a region. Ortiz (2010) identifies that new divisions among people based on religious beliefs, cultural assumption and political opinion have brought about protracted conflict that easily go beyond their focal points of origin and are internationalized (2). This thus creates the need for newer approaches that are effective. Ortiz (2010) identifies that the traditional means of eradication of conflict can no longer be trusted to be effective as was the case with intercultural conflicts across the world such as those in Sudan (133). Security firms become the answer in a case where the role of the state would bring more complication with respect to its international policy. The state as a whole take on the back seat with regard to provision of security as more important nodes are formulated that place the larger cities and enterprises as the more dominant players. Conteh-Morgan (nd) identifies that globalization has taken more and more states to take on a liberalized policy as a form of security and as such compromise a lot with regards to conflict. This in turn creates the need to seek an alternative that adequately does not implicate the state or an individual community. Williams and Abrahamsen (2015) identify that the resulting impact is a growth of the private security industry into a multibillion dollar company, replacing the role of the state in conflict in highly politicized conflicts while at the same time being dependent on other variables such as varied state of stability in various states and unwilling nature of the state to take on a central role in conflict management. Private security are identified to take on a more assertive role and perform security functions for the state and they have grown stronger and more profitable. Williams and Abrahamsen (2015) identify that in weaker states they tend to further erode the authority of the state and as such, make the citizen view the state not as the primary guarantor of security within the state. Globalization as such, has brought the role of the state to the peripherals and offering security to enterprise and citizens in most instances of conflict and instability to private enterprises.
Part C
Globalization has come with security implication. This is because in this stage of globalized association, the expansion of companies with regards to various state is not standardized in a form that applies the same principles across the board. This is mainly due to the fact that companies place more emphasis placed on profit objectives. As such, a disorganized form of capitalism takes shape and eliminates the social contract between most governments and its people. This is emphasized greatly among the poorer countries. As such, greater understanding to social, political, cultural and religious context that govern the cultures’ value system needs to be established in the case of private security in order for them to work adequately within their situated fields. As such, Leung, Ang and Tan (2014) define cultural competence as an individual’s ability to function effectively across various cultures (490). Emphasizing on cultural competency allows for the private security firm to develop adequate communication skills for people across different cultures in order to situate their organization and perform a greater role in this regard without being roped into the dominant conflict. Oana-Antonia (2019) identifies that adequate communication ensures that the private firms have an understanding of the people’s attitudes, have relevant knowledge, greater skills for listening observing and analyzing subtext within the culture and have greater understanding for how decisions they make affect internal outcomes within the culture (265). Language barrier can be an immense escalator of conflict. Oana-Antonia (2019) argues that Linguistic complications can easily escalate to become a source of disagreement and greater disorganization in the multicultural world that private security adopt in their expansion (265). A truly global security firm will not work in one region, but a variety of regions and as such, they need to tailor each regional needs to their local problems instead of blanket solutions. Hennings (2018) identify that it will better situate the private firms in a place to understand their implication within the human context as a whole. With the rise in global conflict of asymmetrical nature, global private security firms will be able to contextualize human thoughts, attitudes and behavior, as such, greatly situate themselves in an appropriate form within a conflict for the benefit of the people within that community and for their profitability.
References
Abrahamsen, R., & Williams, M. C. (2015). Security Beyond the State: Private Security in International Politics: Globalization of Private Security. Cambridge University Press.
Conteh-Morgan. (2016). Globalization and Human Security- Conteh-Morgan. The International Journal of peace studies. https://www.gmu.edu/programs/icar/ijps/vol7_2/Contech-Morgan.htm
Jackson, Peter (nd) “Local Consumption Cultures in A Globalizing World.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 29.2 : 165-178. Web.
Hennings, John, What is Intercultural Competence and Why is it Important to Business? (August 15, 2018). 2018 Engaged Management Scholarship Conference: Philadelphia, PA. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3240922 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3240922
Leung, K., Ang, S. and Tan, M.L. (2014), ‘Intercultural Competence’, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behaviour, 1:4889-519.
Oana-Antonio. (2019). The Intercultural Competence. Developing Effective Intercultural Communication Skills. International conference KNOWLEDGE-BASED ORGANIZATION, 25(2), 264-268. https://doi.org/10.2478/kbo-2019-0092
Ortiz, C. (2010). Private Armed Forces and Global Security: A Guide to the Issues. ABC-CLIO.
Pieterse, Jan Nederveen. (2012) “Periodizing Globalization: Histories of Globalization.” New Global Studies 6.2 (2012): n. pag. Web. 5 Mar. 2019.
Ritzer, George.(2010) Mcdonaldization. Los Angeles, Calif.: Pine Forge Press,. Print.
