Abstract
“E-word of mouth” has become a global phenomenon, solving problems online users are concerned. It can make a change for transnational issues. Some critics insist that online wisdom cannot replace the existing establishments even in a democratic state. According to Scholte (2012), there has been a paradigm change to global democracy because globalization is driving constantly, and global phenomenon is being driven in a way in which collective intelligence can understand and enact people’s rule, human rights, and global concerned factors. Democracies are more open to trade and capital controls to exploit constituents’ demand. Yet, they are not likely to be manipulated in such a tendency of globalization. Hence, this essay concludes that online wisdoms in this globalizing world are necessarily competent to precipitate hope for a better future.
Introduction
In the previous compare and contrast essay, it argues that the rise of information technology globalization in recent decades heavily relies on global wisdoms to empathize with collective wills on the internet. In terms of the contemporary globalization topic it is concerned, examining the reliable relationship between online users and their possible impacts on human being is important. However, some critics demand that comments made by online users cannot be effective. They will not come to a consensus contributing the world’s people.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Hypothesis
This essay thinks of todays’ globalizing process as shaped by information technology globalization. In addition, online users are anew bestirred from idle individuals to the active opinion participants. Therefore, I argue that Globalization may herald new wisdoms that will replace existing establishments, values, democracy.
Online users make collective intelligence
Despite those overriding free will on the internet, Carter & Yeo (2018) research analysis was to interview 43 participants about the importance of online users and their reviews on various internet platforms. Their results maintain that “e-word of mouth” is one of the most major forces, that is collective intelligence (CI) which, in their study, has become an exponential belief for global innovation. In a globalization context, it is increasingly relied on internet collective intelligence. CI has become a global phenomenon that numerous online wisdoms adhere to raise problem they are concerned rather that a government does. It is because internet is used to gather an array of recently generated knowledge. Therefore, online users’ activities can somehow make a change of the transnational issues. On the other hand, another academic journal claimed that “New media genres such as online reviews challenge well-established hierarchies in culture, yet at the same time, they also reproduce some existing forms of cultural capital.” (Vasquez & Chik, 2015, p.231) Vasquez & Chik analysed users-generated reviews from two differently geographic context. They concluded that online user-generated content is useful in today’s world that individual concerned on the same matter can shares the same interests. In short, their reviews are invariably a global phenomenon in regard to a democratizing tendency and that is an alternative to an e-expanded forms, similar to e-word of mouth mentioned above, due to the abundant diversity of never-seen real opinions or expertise which can undermine the existing establishment. Therefore, a universal belief as well as collective intelligence can be found online; a significant number of world’s people believe in it, notably in both some political, civil issues rather than an authority discourse.
Online wisdoms dissolve establishments
However, a staggering number of critics insist that globalization as well as online wisdom will not replace the existing establishments even in the democratic states. Furthermore, authorities are elected by people and these represent government officials to serve the autonomous state; officials do not become obsolete and abandon the shared manipulative enactment in the democratic states. It entails falsely egalitarianism, transnational redistribution of human rights, political, and civil liberty that are oftentimes absent in the mainstream perspective, that is, democratic government is ruled of, for and by people. Scholte (2012) proclaimed that, with respect to culture, a paradigm shift from global democracy to proffer a ground-breaking principle of plurality and transculturality has underpinned diversity in the way in which globalization is driving constantly. Online users, in Scholte essay, are the key rather than upholding statism. In other words, the rise of online wisdoms in a developing state will be eager to convey diverse opinions, ideological leaning perspectives that generate multiple possibilities against existing limits. Hence, global democracy, in my view, is responded to either the mistrust or limit of existing establishments. Globalization is depended on democratization which is striving for the best sake regardless of a less developed or mature democratic states. Global democracy may have become a global phenomenon in which collective intelligence can understand and enact the people’s rules. Scholte also makes an assumption about global users’ solidarity that does constitute evermore possibilities or other national perspectives on the internet while the post-establishments have narrow side. The implication follows hereby that people’s rules, human rights are global concerned factors turning global democracy to come true across nations despite Statist deprives the existence of universal community. In all, global democracy may be a goodwill to know in today’s expeditiously globalizing process; a person even in a less developing state can access to, comment transnational events on the internet; analogically, global users can also likely hold serval nations’ identity.
Trades make democracies work
Eichengreen & Leblang (2006) scientifically statistical examining the financial openness, the data between year 1870 to 2000, finds that “the effect of democracy across these periods is positive and statistically significant… more mature democracies are more open to trade… these results again support the idea of a positive relationship running from democracy to globalization: that is, democracies are more likely to remove capital controls” (p. 19) In summary, capital controls are the instrumental method for authorities in an even democratic state to exploit the inflation, unemployment, popular mandate, constituents’ demand or satisfaction in particular and that are not likely to be manipulated in such a tendency in which globalization is proceeding. In addition, Griswold (2006) viewed global democracy exposure as reflected within trade activities which are also followed by President George., W. Bush April 2002 speech “Trade creates the habit of freedom… begin to create the expectations of democracy and demands for better democratic institution. Societies that are open to commence across their borders are more open to democracy within the borders.” Griswold heightens three states models: in less developed countries, people bribe or beg government officials for better food; developing countries require trade agreement for economic development; and mature democracy involves governmentally refined control of cultural capitals in order to consolidate its governance. Griswold consequently argues that people, who are developed in the rise of business, viz middle or educated class, will turn into the awareness of human rights and political disparity centred in the issues or influences upon and outside the government. In response to Griswold, I dissent partly with Griswold argument that online wisdoms’ responses can become a collective intelligence. That is due to the intellectually infinite knowledge gathered online; democracy is not an asset owned by wealthier, educational classes. In short, democracy gives privilege to people raising concern in different regards and internet is inevitably open for people accessing whether the global good of humankind; online wisdoms in the globalizing world are necessarily competent to precipitate hope for a better future.
Conclusion
Globalization may herald new wisdoms that will replace existing establishments; global democracy is inevitably enhanced and shaped by online users. In todays’ globalizing process, the exposure of online wisdoms may have generated cross-border knowledges. That is collective intelligence as reflected within consolidated beliefs for global innovation. Collective intelligence has become a global phenomenon together with democratizing tendency that e-expanded forms of dissemination may change the authority discourse. Some critics remain that online wisdoms cannot dissolve establishments because authorities are elected to serve the autonomous states which cannot be obsolete. I consequently argue that authorities may sometimes disregard the human rights as well as political and civil liberty if they do not value the contribution of collective intelligence. Since government is ruled by people and diverse opinions on the internet may break the ever-changing limit, global democracy has been a pivotal role in today’s globalization process rather than upholding statism.
Hence, global democracy may be due to the mistrust and modification of the existing status and that can be proceeded from mature democracy to less-developed countries. On the other hand, trade assists the idea of democracy. In fact, there is a positive correlation between democracy and globalization. Trade agreement is possibly a key in most of the countries for not just their development but posing freedom. By using transnational trade activities to develop even in a less developed countries, the outcome will turn to increase middle-class populations involving concerns in cross-border human rights and political disparities against their governments. In truth, the United Nations may regulate serval countries border clashes but cannot observe the relentlessly repetitive competition between the local human right issue of the world’s people and the rapidly changing conduct on the internet. It is believed that due to a lack of embodiment for collective intelligence; a lack of equal legal status for faulty internet behaviours; and an increasing number of internet warfare admitted by some superpowers, a new internet manifesto regulating countries inappropriate exercises should be of great urgency.
Stuck on your essay?
