“What+is+critical+globalization+studies

We have misunderstood what globalization means in the past. It is, as Mittelman defines it, //both// state-centric and multi-centric, recognizing the diversity of power positions within the globalization discourse. A true understanding of globalization requires a balance of utopian thinking and critical studies. We, however, perpetuate the narrative traps and therefore confusion surrounding globaliztion. The best way to combat these traps, says Mittelman, is to consider various viewpoints within the discourse—both those that have power and those that do not have power. He sets a present and future definitive agenda with an emphasis on five distinct components of the discipline: 1. reflexivity 2. historicism 3. decentering 4. the intersection of social inquiry and other knowledge streams 5. strategic transformations At this point in time, critical globalization studies are situated in a unique space, one between “the old world order, //multilateral globalization//; the contemporary structure, //militarized globalization//; and the potential constellation, //democratic globalization//” (227). In this space, demarcated by 9/11 and the shift in globalization that followed, critical globalization studies has an important role to play that stands as very different from economism, realism, and neoliberalism as approaches to globalization. ||
 * =Title= || "What Is Critical Globalization Studies?" ||
 * =Author= || James H. Mittelman ||
 * =Date= || 2004 ||
 * =Summary By= || Sonja E. Kelly ||
 * =Summary= || Mittelman set out to define critical globalization studies, with the understanding that the conceptual value of critical studies is in the fact that it questions dominant knowledge, deconstructing it, but replacing it with new knowledge (Mittelman sees this as Gramscian: “critical thinking should not merely oppose but become part of people’s understanding of their own conditions, bringing about a new common sense” (220)).
 * =Discussion points= || Mittelman sets a very different agenda for globalization studies than what we likely previously associated with the subject matter. In its critical nature, it both questions existing frameworks and offers normative advice for moving forward. How is this re-grounding of globalization studies counter to how we intuit globalization studies, and do we agree?

Mittelman asserts that instead of ending globalization, 9/11 changed it from a system of cooperation to a system of coercion. How much is this statement a reflection of the US government in 2004, and has anything changed with administration change in the executive branch in the US?

How would a (neo)positivist respond to Mittelman's arguments? || = = = = = = = = = = = =

= = = = = = = =

= =