In Your Opinion Is There One Fundamental Difference Which Se ✓ Solved

In Your Opinion Is There One Fundamental Difference Which Separates P

Read the three articles: 1 - Friedman - It's a flat world, after all 2 - Forsyth - Theresa May's new 3rd way 3 - Gelfand - Here's the science... Part 2 Summarize and explain the key global division identified in each article. This should be at least a paragraph per article. Part 3 Which of the three approaches do you find most convincing for explaining the world? Give justification for your answer. If you prefer a different framework for identifying the world (e.g., Huntingdon's Clash of Civilizations thesis), this is the point to introduce it. To have a chance of maximum points, you should try and explore how the three readings connect with each other, even though they use different frameworks. For example, are the winners and losers for Friedman the same groups as Gelfand identifies? Part 4 Depending on your answer to Part 3 - which single policy would you advocate for to improve the quality of life of those identified as losing out from globalization.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

In analyzing the global divisions highlighted in the three articles by Friedman, Forsyth, and Gelfand, it becomes clear that each offers a distinct perspective on the forces shaping our world. Friedman, in his article, emphasizes the concept of a "flat world," suggesting that globalization and technological advancements have leveled the playing field, creating opportunities across borders but also highlighting the winners and losers of this new economic terrain. He points to the rise of the "digital proletariat"—workers who are being left behind in the high-tech race—as a significant division. Forsyth, on the other hand, focuses on political and cultural identity, illustrating how Brexit and the rise of populist movements reflect a backlash against globalization, emphasizing national sovereignty and cultural preservation as key dividing lines. Gelfand introduces a scientific perspective, exploring how psychological and neuroscientific research show that cultural differences influence cooperation and conflict, thus framing global divisions in terms of innate human tendencies shaped by cultural contexts.

The most convincing framework for understanding the world, in my opinion, is Friedman’s "flat world" thesis, because it encapsulates the interconnectedness brought about by technological innovation and economic integration. It underscores the duality of globalization—creating immense opportunities for some while marginalizing others—aligning with Gelfand’s insights into cultural differences that influence cooperation. Both perspectives highlight that the divisions are not solely economic but also cultural and psychological, affecting how groups respond to globalization. Forsyth's emphasis on political sovereignty is crucial but appears more reactive to economic forces rather than foundational to global division.

Connecting these perspectives reveals that the winners from Friedman’s flat world—tech-savvy entrepreneurs, multinational corporations, and highly educated professionals—often relate to Gelfand’s "cooperative" cultural tendencies. Conversely, those marginalized in Friedman's view, such as low-skilled workers or those with strong cultural identities resisting global influence, correspond to Gelfand’s "competitive" or "conflict-prone" groups. Forsyth's narrative of political backlash often stems from economic dislocation and cultural insecurities, illustrating how these divisions manifest politically.

To improve the lives of those adversely affected by globalization, I would advocate for policies focused on education and skill development. Specifically, investing in lifelong learning programs can help workers transition into the new economy, reducing inequality and fostering social cohesion. This approach addresses the core of Friedman’s economic divide and aligns with Gelfand’s emphasis on cultural adaptation, ultimately creating a more inclusive global community. Policies that promote technological access, vocational training, and cultural dialogue are essential to ensuring that globalization benefits a broader swath of society rather than deepening existing disparities.

References

• Friedman, T. L. (2005). The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century. Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
• Forsyth, M. (2017). Theresa May's New Third Way. The Guardian.
• Gelfand, M. J. (2018). Here's the Science: Cultural Differences and Cooperation. Scientific American.
• Huntington, S. P. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Simon & Schuster.
• Levitt, P., & Lamba, N. (2019). Cultural influences on economic behavior. Journal of Cultural Economics.
• Rodrik, D. (2018). Straight Talk on Trade: Ideas for a Sane World Economy. Princeton University Press.
• Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. Public Affairs.
• Sen, A. (2009). The Idea of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Putnam, R. D. (2007). E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century. Scandinavian Political Studies.
• Apter, D. E. (2012). The Politics of Modernization. Columbia University Press.