鳥取大学2007年出題の問題文です。長文讀解問題が2題、和文英譯問題が1題出題されましたが、本文は最初の問題文です。月曜日と金曜日に1パラグラフづつ解説して參ります。
There are some aspects of globalization that most people will agree are good and some that most people will agree are bad. An example of the former would be the spread of medical technology. An example of the latter would be the increased global trade in illegal drugs. Events during the war in Afghanistan in 2001–2002 revealed the dramatic contrast between friends and foes of globalization. Due to the Taliban’s * rejection of many aspects of Western culture, some Afghanis* apparently buried their televisions and VCRs* in their backyards. When Kabul* was captured by U.S.-supported armies, it was reported that one Afghani anxiously retrieved his TV and VCR in order to view his copy of the film Titanic. Judging whether or not globalization is good, however, is complex.
We can identify three main areas that are affected by globalization －
politics, economics and culture. Each of these has aspects which can be considered positive and negative. A key aspect of political globalization is the weakened ability of the state to control both what crosses its borders and what goes on inside them. In other words, globalization can reduce the state’s sovereignty ( the state’s ability to govern matters within its borders ). This can be viewed as good, because undemocratic governments are finding it increasingly difficult to control the flow of information to and from outside democracy groups. E-mail and the Internet are two examples of technology that have weakened state sovereignty. But decreased state sovereignty also means that the state has difficulty controlling the entry of illegal drugs and unwanted immigrants, including terrorists.
In the area of economics, increased globalization has given consumers more choice. Also, multinational corporations are creating jobs in poor areas where people never before had such opportunities. Some critics, however, argue that increased foreign investment and trade benefit only a small group of wealthy individuals and that, as a result, the gap between rich and poor grows both within and between countries. These critics point out that the combined wealth of the fifteen richest people in the world is more than the gross domestic product (GDP)* of southern Africa. Related to this is the argument that many factory jobs are moving from the richer developed nations to the poor countries of Latin America, Africa and Asia.
At the cultural level, those who view increased cultural contact as positive say that it gives people more opportunities to learn about (and purchase goods from) other cultures. But critics of cultural globalization see things differently. Samuel Huntington has argued that the shrinking world will bring a “clash of civilizations.” In this scenario, clashes will occur among many civilizations, including the Christian countries in the West against Islam. Other critics of cultural globalization argue that the wealthy countries are guilty of cultural imperialism ― that their billion-dollar advertising budgets are destroying the cultures of non-Western areas, as illustrated by the aggressive sales strategy of some cosmetics corporations in the Amazon region. The fear of cultural imperialism is certainly a key component in the strong negative feelings of some Arabs towards the United States. Other critics are increasingly fearful that more and more national languages will disappear as foreign languages, especially English, penetrate borders.
The degree to which cultural values can be “exported” is the subject of some debate, according to Huntington. He argues that drinking Coca-Cola does not make Russians think like Americans any more than eating sushi makes Americans think like Japanese. “Throughout human history,” he says, “fashions and material goods have spread from one society to another without significantly altering the basic culture of the recipient society.” Similarly, others argue that globalization brings only superficial change. As one scholar has noted, “McDonald’s hamburger restaurants may be in nearly every country, but in Germany they sell beer, while in Japan they serve teriyaki burgers. In some countries, such as India, hamburgers are not even on the McDonald’s menu.” Thus the global product is often altered to take on a local flavor. The term “glocalization” has combined the words “global” and “local” to describe such hybrid products.
Is globalization improving human capacity to deal with global issues? Or is it making it more difficult? It is up to each one of us to make our own decisions about this. Of course, each individual’s perspective will be influenced by whether he or she evaluates these issues based on self-interest, national interest, a religious view or a global humanitarian viewpoint. For example, how can we evaluate a moral question such as, “Is free trade good or bad?” Those concerned first and foremost with self-interest will ask, “How does free trade affect me?” A national point of view will consider one’s country and the effects of free trade on it. If people identify with a religion, they will ask how their religion would instruct them on this question. Finally, the global humanitarian view would ask, “What is best for humanity in general?” Therefore, people must ask themselves which viewpoint is most important to them when evaluating globalization. 【831語】
出典： Michael T. Snarr & D. Neil Snarr (Eds.), Introducing Global Issues (Lynne Rienner, 2005, 3版). 一部を変更している。
*Taliban タリバン（アフガニスタンの原理主義武裝集団） *Afghani アフガニスタン人 *VCR ビデオカセットレコーダ *Kabul カブール（アフガニスタンの首都） *gross domestic product (GDP) 国内総生産
