Lee Hogan The difficulty regarding whether the Internet plays a pivotal role in globalization is surprisingly contentious and debatable. 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 with both negative and practical advantages. The rate of growth in the globalization of countries and geographical regions is heavily assisted by the rate of information expertise that the Internet presents.
However, even though, in concept, the sharing of information is supposed to be helpful toward improving humanity, the Internet also gives a pathway to homogenizing lifestyles and creating an unequal gambling discipline for growing international locations. This argument can be seen in the 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 economic reputation, technological ability, expertise, and the desire for the medium. The Internet is not necessarily suitable or possible for all of us. 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 the right to Internet entry.
In a few of his articles, the pupil Hongladaron also discusses 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 no longer homogenizes cultures. He states that “the relation between computer-mediated communication technologies and nearby cultures is characterized neither using a homogenizing impact, no longer by erecting barriers separating one culture from another.” (Hongladaron, 1998).
Hongladaron concluded that the Internet homogenizes tradition only to a limited extent. With limited records available on the approaches that Thai humans engage with 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 marginalizes folks who cannot apply this medium.
As the utilization of the Internet becomes more famous, the debate on homogenizing tradition is fiercely debated. Some teachers argue that because 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 negative communication shape, as a 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 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 no longer reaches humans. Due to their belief in the Buddhist teaching of Livelihood, they agree to reside in concord with their surrounding land. Members of those indigenous communities no longer believe in 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 on the Internet, others could argue that the 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 minds and practices of different cultures. However, many might argue that even though this is inevitable on 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 but cannot force a person’s ideology to be exchanged.