***FULL CRITIQUE AT END OF DOCUMENT***

A critique of Globalization: The Super Story by Friedman

Introduction

My critique is going to focus on the article, “Globalization: The Super Story” by Thomas

L. Friedman. Friedman works as a journalist, an author, a television commentator and an op-ed

contributor to the New York Times. He works hard to give unbiased opinions on cultural,

political and economic issues. This article is among the many works published by Friedman.

(This seems irrelevant) In his introduction, the author states that he is a big believer of the Super

Story. He defines globalization as a system that cannot explain everything but can explain and

connect more things in more places on more days than anything else. He terms globalization as a

lens, a super- story. Generally, in this article, Friedman seems to be telling us that globalization

indeed is a trend which comes in replacement of the cold war. This paper is going to focus on

how far the author proved to us that indeed globalization comes as a replacement of the cold war.

Summary

In his article, Friedman says that globalization is the unstoppable integration of markets,

transport and communication systems to a level that has never been seen before. It enables

people as well as corporations to reach around the world in a way that has never been seen

before. He differentiates globalization from the cold war in three major ways. First, he says that

the overarching feature in the cold war was division whereas the over overarching feature of

globalization is integration. He says that globalization has made the world an interwoven place.
According to him, globalization is characterized by the web. Friedman points out the way power

is structured brings out the difference between globalization and the cold war. He says that in the

cold war, the system was built around nation states. According to him, the cold war was basically

a confrontation between states, states trying to balance out each other and trying to align with

each other. In contrast, he says that globalization is built around three balances, the traditional

balance of power between nation states, the balance between nation-states and global markets

and the last one as the balance between individuals and the nation states.

In the traditional balance, the author says that the U.S. is the sole superpower while the

other nations come in as subordinates to the superpower. According to him, shifting balance

between the superpower and the other nations or even between the two the other nation is key to

the stability of the system. he describes the global markets in the second power balance as having

a huge number of investors who move money around the world by only a click of the mouse. He

says the attitudes and actions of this investors have huge impacts on nation states which could go

as far as triggering the downfall of governments. In the third balance, Friedman says that

globalization has given power to people to influence both markets and nation states. It has made

it possible for people to act on a world stage directly without the mediation of their states.

This action on a global stage has individuals who are super-empowered such as Osama

bin Laden and Jody Williams. He terms the battle between Osama and the U.S. as that between a

superpower and a super-empowered person. He concludes his article by saying that

understanding the interaction between the supermarkets, the states, and the super-empowered
individuals is key to understanding what globalization is. He says that most of the super-

empowered people are angry people.

Analysis

Reading through Friedman’s article, I can say that he well supported his points all

through the article. In the introduction he stated that he is a big believer of super story, he

supports this in the article at the point he introduces to us superpower nations, the supermarkets,

and the super-empowered individuals. He clearly highlighted the major differences between

globalization and the cold war. Something else that was clear to me was the explanation

surrounding the three balances of globalization. All this was done in a systematic way such that

even a small kid can follow through the article and have a glimpse of what it is about. I liked the

way he used the difference between the cold war and globalization to introduce to us the three

balance in globalization which ended up picking the rest of the article. This article was first

published in his book, Longitudes, and Attitudes. I feel that the audience was appropriate since

he is a high sort author and a foreign affairs columnist in the New York Times. This offers him a

perfect avenue for his article to reach his audience. He clearly puts it that he wants to highlight

some o the key thing differences between globalization and the cold war that he had previously

discussed in his book, the Lexus and the Olive Tree.

Response

In my introduction, I stated that I am going to look into whether the author satisfactorily

proved to us that globalization is a replacement of the cold war. This was well explained in the
article by the author bringing us the main differences between the cold war and globalization. He

proves to us that indeed globalization has its own rules and pressures that are and still would

affect everyone, every country, and all the companies in either a direct way or indirectly. In his

conclusion, he says “you would never understand the globalization system or the front page of a

morning paper or 9/11 unless you see each as a complex interaction between all the three actors,

the supermarkets, the states, and the super-empowered individuals.” (Friedman). Globalization

has also been referred to as a system composed of several parts that interconnect, “If a system

such as globalization is complex when it is composed of many parts that interconnect in intricate

ways then what counts is the number, nature and frequency of the interconnections, their growth

and dynamic interaction….” (Peters 241).

Conclusion

This article was one worth reading. Friedman well explained the concept of globalization

and I liked the fact that he tried to bring in some history by bringing in the idea of the cold war

and at the end of it he was able to clearly illustrate to us the indeed globalization is a trend to

watch. I think this is an appropriate article as he says, globalization literally affects everyone on

an individual level, on an organizational level as well as on the state level. I would say that

ignoring anything is at one's own peril. To me, it gives me a sense of being a human being in the

world.
References

Friedman, Thomas L. Longitudes and attitudes: Exploring the world after September 11. Farrar,

Straus and Giroux, 2002.

Peters, Michael A. "Afterword: Super Interconnectivity as Globalization?." Super Dimensions in

Globalisation and Education. Springer, Singapore, 2016. 241-245.


make the flow of your ideas a little wonky, but that can easily be worked out. In all honesty, I did

not take away the same message from this article that you did. When reading his article, I

couldn’t help but sense and underlying tone of negative feelings. He seemed to imply that

globalization has shaped the world as we know it today into what it is, whether for better or for

worse. I would argue that he believes it is for the worst, and you actually quoted a sentence that

supports that thought (I’ve underlined and highlighted this quote in green). If we are strictly

assessing whether or not you’ve substantiated your claim that the author has done what you said

he has done, I would say you’ve done an okay job. The only thing I would suggest is to make

your ideas flow a little better and support them with another quote or two. Perhaps dig a little bit

into Friedman and his politics/other literature as well, there is a lot to be said about his views on

the Middle East. He has posted a lot of content about that region of the world, and that may or

may not contribute to the article he has written.