Lee Hogan The difficulty regarding whether the Internet plays a pivotal role in globalization is a surprisingly contentious and debatable subject matter. Globalization, frequently defined as “the integration of economic capital markets and way of life at some stage in the sector,” is visible as an idea that has both negative as well as practical advantages. The rate of growth in the globalization of countries and geographical regions is heavily assisted by way of the rate of information expertise that the Internet presence.
However, even though, in concept, the sharing of information is supposed to be helpful toward the improvement of humanity, the Internet also gives a pathway to homogenizing lifestyle and creating an unequal gambling discipline for growing international locations. This argument can be without a doubt visible in case research of Asian nations, especially in Thailand. Hence, using the Internet and the growth of businesses at the Internet have accelerated; the question raised is that even though the era has a superior verbal exchange and know-how, has this benefit affected human beings living in growing international locations, or has the distance between the wealthy and the negative widened?
The Internet is a unique form of media. It has the strength to reach many, but this is tormented by factors that include economic reputation, technological ability, expertise, and the desire for the medium. The Internet is not necessarily suitable or possible for all of us to have. In a country like Thailand, it could be seen that the much less lucky were marginalized, mainly the uneducated and those from rural regions. For example, seventy percent of Thailand’s Internet users focus on the Bangkok Metropolitan Area (Hongladaron, 2003). Most effectively, 4 to 5 percent of Rural Thailand has got the right of entry to the Internet.
In a few of his articles, the pupil Hongladaron has also discussed the marginalization of rural Thai citizens. Hongladaron states the advantages of the Internet. However, he then confirms from his research that because these blessings are only available through the rich, the Internet may be considered a discriminatory shape of the medium due to the poor being marginalized. However, Hongladaron additionally argues that the Internet does no longer homogenize cultures. He states that “the relation between computer-mediated communication technologies and nearby cultures is characterized neither using a homogenizing impact, no longer by using an erecting of barriers separating one culture from another.” (Hongladaron, 1998).
Hongladaron concluded approximately the Internet homogenizing tradition, however only to a limited extent. With limited records being available at the approaches that Thai humans engage at the Internet or view the Internet as a medium, it’s hard to determine whether the overall effect of the Internet is homogenizing. However, it may be genuinely said that the Internet does marginalize folks who cannot apply this medium.
As the utilization of the Internet turns into extra famous, the debate of homogenizing tradition is fiercely debated. Some teachers argue that due to the fact the Internet blesses the rich and the educated, people who can use the Internet generally have a degree of intellectual functioning; for this reason, the homogenizing of lifestyle is simplest applicable to a limited volume. For instance, the Bengali tribes in Bangladesh practice sustainable living and do not value the know-how presented on the Internet. They view the Internet as a very negative shape of communication, as private touch isn’t always made. Members of the Bengali tribe stay by using the Hindu religion, and anyone inside the tribe has a pure function.
Thus, the tribe as an entire is self-enough, and individuals no longer feel the need to adopt the values and the ‘teachings’ of the Internet. Furthermore, indigenous Tibetans are any other instance where the know-how of the Internet does no longer reaches humans. Due to their belief in the Buddhist teaching of Livelihood, they agree within residing in concord with their surrounding land. Members of those indigenous communities no longer believe within the Internet as they could argue that the computer is a want and now not a desire. Hence, in thinking about the issue of whether the Internet is a device for the homogenization of subculture, even though a few might say ‘sure’ because of developing Asian international locations becoming westernized due to propaganda at the Internet, others could argue that handiest Asian groups that have already been westernized use the Internet. These teachers might say that some Asian groups, especially those in indigenous tribal groups, would now not use the Internet because of their cultural paradigm, for this reason, the Internet community is already centered on simply one institution of tradition with one institution of people sharing a commonplace belief: ‘that the Internet is a beneficial tool’.
Finally, it isn’t disputed that the Internet is an area of ‘facts sharing’. This sharing of expertise may result in positive ideologies being more outstanding and trade the mind and practices of different cultures. However, many might argue that even though this is inevitable at the Internet, the Internet cannot manage the way of life of someone’s existence and beliefs. Therefore the Internet can only gift another character’s discourse; however, it cannot force a person’s ideology to exchange.