International Review of Psychiatry, October 2014; 26(5): 538–543
Globalization, culture and psychology
STEVE MELLUISH
Int Rev Psychiatry Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Kainan University on 04/26/15 For personal use only.
School of Psychology, University of Leicester, UK
Abstract This article outlines the cultural and psychological effects of globalization. It looks at the impact of globalization on identity; ideas of privacy and intimacy; the way we understand and perceive psychological distress; and the development of the profession of psychology around the world. The article takes a critical perspective on globalization, seeing it as aligned with the spread of neoliberal capitalism, a tendency towards cultural homogenization, the imposition of dominant ‘global north’ ideas and the resultant growing inequalities in health and well-being. However, it also argues that the increased interconnectedness created by globalization allows for greater acknowledgement of our common humanity and for collective efforts to be developed to tackle what are increasingly global problems. This requires the development of more nuanced understandings of cultural differences and of indigenous psychologies.
Introduction Opinions on the cultural and psychological effects of globalization are divided. For some, globalization is viewed as a force for good, facilitating greater connections between people and the development of a new global mindset and a cosmopolitan ethics (Appiah, 2006). For others, it is synonymous with cultural disenfranchisement, exploitation and a new form of colonialism (Chomsky, 2000; Stiglitz, 2007; Wolf, 2004). Interestingly, although the subject of globalization has clear psychological dimensions, it has been relatively neglected within psychology. Chiu et al. (2011) found only 32 articles in the psycARTICLES® database in 2011 that were indexed with the keyword globalization. A similar search in May 2013 showed 48 articles, a slight increase but still a relatively small number. Although the subject has not received great attention within the discipline of psychology, it seems important to understand the psychological and cultural dimensions of globalization and how people around the world are impacted by it. In this article I consider how globalization is influencing; our sense of ourselves, our ideas of privacy and intimacy, the way we perceive and make sense of psychological distress and the development of the profession of psychology around the world. Before I do this I first consider what is meant by the term ‘globalization’.
Defining globalization Globalisation is the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa. (Giddens, 1991, p. 63–64) It is the intensification of the interconnectedness referred to by Giddens that distinguishes globalization as a new phenomenon. While throughout history cultures have influenced each other through trade and migration, it is only very recently that the rapid advances in communications technology have created a much greater global interdependence. This interdependence, however, is not even, and the flow of culture is determined by economic and ideological forces. Globalization is therefore, like other human processes, shaped by power and the relative power of those involved. Globalization has been variously described in the literature. This article will not attempt to examine all of the various definitions of globalization, but will instead adopt Steger’s definition of globalization as ‘a set of social processes that appear to transform our present social condition of weakening nationality into one of globality’ (Steger, 2009, p. 10). Alongside this definition I will consider the centrality of power, since as Prilleltensky says, ‘a person’s experience and views of globalization will vary depending on where
Correspondence: Steve Melluish: School of Psychology, University of Leicester, 104 Regent Road, Leicester, LE1 7LT, UK. Tel: ⫹ 44 (0116)223 1649. E-mail: [email protected] (Received 24 April 2014 ; accepted 24 April 2014 ) ISSN 0954–0261 print/ISSN 1369–1627 online © 2014 Institute of Psychiatry DOI: 10.3109/09540261.2014.918873
Globalization, culture and psychology they are in the world and the amount of power they have’ (Prilleltensky, 2008, p. 616).
Int Rev Psychiatry Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Kainan University on 04/26/15 For personal use only.
Identity: how globalization is influencing our sense of ourselves A key psychological consequence of globalization is that it shifts our reference point and impacts on how we think about ourselves in relation to our social environment. Tomlinson (1999) wrote that the world as a whole, ‘increasingly exists as a cultural horizon within which we (to varying degrees) frame our existence’ (p. 30). This developing consciousness of the wider world influences our sense of identity. Chen, Benet-Martinez and Bond (2008) have termed this, globalization-based acculturation, referring to the way in which we incorporate aspects of other cultures through our lifetime into our sense of self, resulting in a bicultural identity that combines a local identity with an identity linked to the global culture. While for some the development of a bicultural identity is seen as positive (Chen et al., 2008), for a number of other observers of globalization the erosion of a local identity has added to the ambiguities around identity. Terms such as delocalization (Thompson, 1995), dis-placement (Giddens, 2000) and deterritorialization (Tomlinson, 1999) have been coined to describe how an increasingly global consciousness diminishes the ties people have to the specific place they live in. This division between global and local is, however, not so clear or absolute, as local cultures also change in response to globalization. The complexity and effects of cultural flows is that they are not simply one way. Cultural flows also create hybrids, a cultural mixing so something new is created. Roland Robertson uses the term ‘ glocalization’ to describe how globalization always takes place in local contexts and thus can involve a hybridization with ‘the development of translocal mélange cultures’ (Robertson, 1994, p. 36). While some people are able to adapt to these changes and develop such bicultural or hybrid identities, for others adapting to the rapid changes taking place in their cultures may be more difficult. As Sandel says ‘who can think and act as a multiply situated selves [self]’ (Sandel, 1996, cited in Stevens & Gielen, 2007, p. 340). The images, values, and opportunities that may be perceived as being part of the global culture may also undermine the value of local cultural practices. This identity confusion may further be influenced by the implicit neoliberal values of the global culture based on individualism, free market economics and freedom of choice. The sense that identity is now commodified as a consequence of patterns of consumption, shaped by advertising and a constantly
539
shifting set of images. Alongside these values the global culture emphasizes other values such as individual rights, openness to change, and tolerance of differences (Friedman, 2000; Giddens, 2000) but these values do not always fit well with local cultural values. An interesting example of this is highlighted by Jo Boyden in her work on the Young Lives project (Boyden, 2013) which looked at children’s lives within Ethiopia, India (Andhra Pradesh), Peru and Vietnam; all countries experiencing unprecedented levels of economic growth with a consequent expansion in formal education and child rights discourses. Boyden reports how these countries, as signatories to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 1990), strengthened their discourses around children’s rights and how this created tensions with local cultural practices, highlighting the difficulty of reconciling the individual rights of the children with the collective responsibilities of the family. Boyden argues that the UN convention is based on a set of assumptions about childhood which frames children as inherently vulnerable and in need of their families, particularly their mothers. Yet, in these countries, she found that this is sometimes at odds with cultural and family practices that lead to children travelling many miles to stay with other family members to engage in work to economically support their families. This tension between the global and local and the homogenizing force of globalization has also had a more direct and conscious counter-response (Guillén, 2001; Larson, 2002) with ethnic, religious, and national identities being strengthened. A clear counter response is seen in the ‘slow movement’ (Honore, 2004) which in different ways challenges the cult of speed and argues for a life lived at a slower pace. The counter-response is also evident in the rise of nationalism (Anderson, 2006; Tsygankova, 2005). In the UK this counter-response can be witnessed in the reassertion of Scottish and Welsh identities and the problematizing of ‘Englishness’. Furthermore, in many Muslim societies the values of globalization have been viewed as a form of ‘cultural invasion’ undermining long-established religious and cultural practices and values (Breckenridge & Moghaddam, 2012). An example of this counter-response to globalization can also be seen in the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACERWE, 2009), which was developed as it was felt that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 1990) missed important sociocultural and economic realities particular to Africa. The African Charter gives recognition to African cultural values and emphasizes children’s responsibilities to family, community and state positioning children as co-contributors and
540
S. Melluish
framing child protection within a context of interdependence (ACERWE, 2009). Globalization must therefore be understood as a dynamic process, where the cultural flows sometimes are resisted, disturbed or altered. This dynamic process impacts on our sense of who we are, challenging and disrupting any simplistic narratives of individual or cultural identity and introducing complexity and uncertainty into the process of understanding who we are.
Int Rev Psychiatry Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Kainan University on 04/26/15 For personal use only.
How the ‘speed’ associated with globalization is influencing our ideas of privacy and intimacy Another related quality of globalization is ‘speed’ or even acceleration. This can be viewed as an inevitable aspect of late capitalism, with its insatiable drive for growth, innovation and new markets that results in a world of constant and ever faster change. Zygmunt Bauman (2000) uses the term ‘liquid modernity’ to describe the resultant postmodern mind-set that has developed with ‘its characteristic conditions of perpetual motion as a mode of being’ (p. 1). He goes on to argue that a liquid modern society is one, ‘in which the conditions under which its members act change faster than it takes the way of acting to consolidate into habits and routines’ (p. 1). Bauman argues that many people in this liquid modern world experience the constant accelerating change as alienating, leading to an increase in marginalization and a sense of living ‘wasted lives’ (Bauman, 2004). Our sense of ourselves and our notions of intimacy and privacy are not just influenced by the rapidity of change but also by the impact of the constant influx of information and new technologies of instant communication on our social relations. It is estimated that there are two billion people across the world online (Guardian, 2013a). In 2010, 22% of the world’s population had access to computers with 1 billion Google searches every day, 300 million Internet users reading blogs, and 2 billion videos viewed daily on YouTube. Gergen (2002) argues that as people become increasingly immersed in new communication technologies there is a withdrawal of intimacy. He coined the term the ‘absent present’ to describe how a person may be physically present in one place but psychologically in another virtual realm. This concern about how social relations are being shaped and how new technologies disrupt our ability to be intimate has been part of an ongoing narrative in the psychological literature (Sturken et al., 2004; Turkle, 2011). The intensification and shift in the nature of social relations that we have already witnessed is likely to increase further and the impact of this is unknown. Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, stated that the majority of the world’s
population are still not online but he predicts that ‘within the next five years they will also come online’ (Guardian, 2013a). Schmidt warns that ‘human societies can’t change that fast without both good and bad implications.’ Coupled with this impact on social relations there is a redefining of privacy and the concept of the private self. Globalization and new technologies create an almost infinite ocean of data held on individuals by corporations such as Google. The shift in power between the individual, corporations and states is a further aspect of globalization. How this information will be used has far reaching implications for notions of the individual and for ideas of privacy, as witnessed by the recent disclosures of the covert collection of individuals’ Internet use by the US government (Guardian, 2013b). Globalization thus seems to be altering our sense of ourselves, our notions of intimacy and privacy, and the boundary between public and private. As the Internet becomes even more globally accessible and the complex connectivity it enables deepens and intensifies, our ideas of identity and who we are are likely to be further challenged. Influence of globalization on the way we perceive and make sense of psychological distress The rapidity of change and the dislocating experience this brings impacts not only on our sense of ourselves but also on our well-being and mental health (Carlisle et al., 2009). A growing number of commentators now suggest that western society and culture are dominated by materialistic and individualistic values and that the escalating growth of such values is associated with a growing sense of individual alienation, social fragmentation and civic disengagement, and a decline of more spiritual, moral and ethical aspects of life (Carlisle et al., 2009; Eckersley, 2006). Taken together, these multiple discourses suggest that well-being may be a collateral casualty of the economic, social and cultural changes associated with globalization. For individuals, the economic and social instability linked to the process of globalization not only creates associated uncertainty and unpredictability but also increasing inequity. Christens and Collura (2012) argue that globalization has led to increasing individualization of risk such that instead of economic risk being seen as a societal burden this is now placed on individuals and families. The result is that the economics of the globalization process marginalizes and impoverishes large numbers of people and impacts on their ability to see their lives as having meaning or value (Larson, 2002; Salzman, 2008; Saraswathi & Larson, 2002).
Int Rev Psychiatry Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Kainan University on 04/26/15 For personal use only.
Globalization, culture and psychology In many ways the neoliberal economic model that has underpinned globalization depends on the exploitation of people living in ‘the global south’ low and middle income (LMIC) countries or migrants from these countries providing cheap labour in ‘the global north’ or high or middle income HMIC countries (Jagger, 2002). Global trade processes have thus exacerbated inequality both between and within nation states such that we now live in a world with vast and growing inequalities. This inequality is not accidental or an artefact but organized, with the neoliberal model of capitalism eroding collective provision. In healthcare and social welfare this has led to almost all health systems being subject to privatization, marketization and limitations of eligibility for access (Pollock, 2005). The impact of these policies falls differentially on those with least resources and creates inequalities in health. Wilkinson and Pickett report how economic inequality within countries is correlated with a whole range of health and social well-being indicators (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009). They go on to argue that those countries with the greatest economic inequality have the worst population health and well-being. The concern over inequality and its impact on health has entered official discourse with the World Health Organization (WHO, 2008, p. 1) concluding that ‘social injustice is killing people on a grand scale.’ While globalization may impact on people’s health and mental health, and lead to more people experiencing psychological distress, the response to this can also be problematic and also influenced by the process of globalization. An example of this is the global mental health movement that has been established to address the increasing concern around what is considered to be an epidemic in mental health. The WHO (2008) states that mental health is now the fifth biggest health issue facing the global population, with the Lancet calling it ‘one of the most pressing burdens of disease’ (The Lancet Series on Global Mental Health http://somatosphere.net/2012/07/ global-mental-health-and-its-discontents.html). The solution of a public health approach to mental health, grounded in the current practices of high income countries and then exported to local situations has been criticized as a new form of cultural colonialism (Fernando, 2012; Summerfield, 2008, 2012). The ideology behind globalization, as a new form of cultural colonialism, is an assumed superiority of western ideas with the implicit idea that US/European culture is the pinnacle. This has led to the construction of people in ‘the global south’ or LMIC countries as ‘other’ and to the privileging of western forms of knowledge over indigenous forms of knowledge (Burton, 2013). Watters (2010) talks about the dangers of exporting western models in mental health and western illness categories, as these concepts often have limited explanatory power when used to interpret
541
mental health in non-western cultural environments. Western mental health concepts are generally based on ideas that ignore the influence of social and economic factors on people’s distress. This de-contextualized perspective has been contested and challenged by those advocating a culturally based approach where every illness is framed and understood within its own context (Bracken et al., 1995; Fernando, 2012). The paradigm of psychology in the global north or HMIC countries also reflects the values of globalization with its dominant focus on the notion of the individual. This does not always fit with societies in the global south or LMIC countries that are founded on collective ideas. In response to this, some psychologists have attempted to develop the idea of ‘indigenous psychologies’ (Kim & Berry, 1993) and to counter what they see as hegemonic forms of psychology. Kim and Berry (1993, p. 33) define indigenous psychologies as ‘the scientific study of human behaviour or mind that is native, that is not transported from other regions, and that is designed for its people’. In Latin America a more politicized form of this idea has been the development of liberation psychology (psicología de liberación) based on the work of the Salvadoran psychologist, Ignacio Martin Baró. Liberation psychology not only looks to develop a psychology for the people within a region it also is about developing a psychology that works for the oppressed peoples within a country. As Martin Baró (1994, p. 23) states, What is needed is for our most basic assumptions in psychological thought to be revised from the bottom up. But this revision cannot be made from our offices; it has to come from a praxis that is committed to the poor. Thus, he advocates a psychology less worried by its social and scientific status and more concerned with the urgent problems of people in need, a psychology mindful of people’s virtues and asset in pursuing change, a psychology that is about the recovery of collective memory and that works to conceive of liberation as a historic and collective process. Globalization and psychology as a profession As well as psychological ideas being shaped by globalization, the increasing interconnectedness and flows of culture also influence the development of the profession of psychology. Estimates suggest that the total number of professional psychologists in the world now stands at more than a million (Stevens & Gielen, 2007). The distribution is, however, unequal, with the majority of psychologists in Europe
Int Rev Psychiatry Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Kainan University on 04/26/15 For personal use only.
542
S. Melluish
(300,000), the USA (277,000) and Latin America (200,000), and very few in poorer LMIC nations of the global south (Adair & Ka itçiba i, 1995). One may argue that this uneven distribution shows that the influence of globalization in psychology is still relatively small and that the project of psychology is a western project based on western philosophical notions and scientific paradigms. At the same time, it can be argued that psychology reflects culture and that there is no singular psychology but more a number of ‘psychologies’ and that the uneven distribution is simply a mirroring of the inequity in resources between the global north and south. The issue of a singular psychology versus a number of ‘psychologies’ is increasingly pertinent as in recent years there has been an emergence of a new branch of ‘international psychology’ with a focus on ‘the worldwide enterprise of psychology in terms of communication, networking and cross-cultural comparison’ (Aron & Corne, 1994). Furthermore, a number of international bodies have been established such as the International Union of Psychological Science (IUPsyS), the European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations (EFPA) and La Sociedad Interamericana de Psicología (SIP). Within these bodies there is an attempt to develop an international context to psychology training and international standards and curricula. While there are many potential beneficial effects of the greater interconnectedness through these initiatives, there is also the concern that there is a unidirectional transfer of knowledge from north to south. Within applied psychological approaches to mental health one can also see the influence of globalization with the increasing commodification of the ideas and practices within psychological therapies. Increasingly, there are branded therapies, branded research methods and a connected process of marketization. Estimates suggest that there are 100–140 different schools of psychological therapy (Marshall, 1980), all with their own terms and many branded in such a way that for a psychologist to use these ideas they are required to undergo specific accredited training. This proliferation of therapeutic models is in spite of the overwhelming evidence that common factors, principally the quality of the relationship between the therapist and the client, are more important than any specific differences in models (Latchford & Green, 2012). As with the exporting of other western mental health ideas, these branded products are being put on a global market to be taken up by psychologists around the globe. The increased tendency for people across the globe to come into contact with each other contributes to the intensification and expansion of cultural flows, often in line with existing hegemonic power structures, leading to an outward flow of psychological concepts and models from the USA and Europe to countries of the global south.
Conclusion In this article I have outlined the cultural and psychological effects of globalization. While much of what I have argued can be seen as critical of globalization and its tendency towards homogenization of culture, imposition of western ideas and greater inequalities in health and well-being, it is perhaps also important to acknowledge that the interconnectedness created by globalization allows for greater acknowledgement of our common humanity across arbitrarily drawn borders and for collective efforts to be developed to tackle what are increasingly global problems. This potential for greater humanity and awareness of others across the globe must, however, be considered critically so as to avoid any universalizing approach or any misguided imposition of westernized notions. Instead, what is needed is the development of more nuanced understandings of cultural differences and of indigenous psychologies. For psychologists it is helpful to learn more about how cultural and social differences play out in a global context and for us to advocate for people to be understood in their own terms, using their own language and the concepts of their own societies. I believe that psychologists can make a contribution to the debates and discussions on globalization, but as psychologists we have to be mindful of how language is used, how it shapes our thinking and can inadvertently reinforce dominant hegemonic ideas. Globalization will remain a contested field as at its root it is about power, and this draws attention to the underlying need to address global inequality and social injustice. Perhaps as psychologists we should not be afraid of such controversies but begin to engage in these debates. Declaration of interest: The author reports no conflicts of interest. The author alone is responsible for the content and writing of the paper. References ACERWE. (2009). The African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. http://acerwc.org/the-african-charter-on-the-rightsand-welfare-of-the-child-acrwc/ Adair, J.G. & Kağitçibaşi, Ç. (1995). National development of psychology: Factors facilitating and impeding progress in developing countries. International Journal of Psychology, 30, 6. Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso. Appiah, K.A. (2006). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. New York: Norton. Aron, S, & Corne, S. (1994). Writings for a Liberation Psychology: Ignacio Martin Baro. Harvard: Harvard university Press. Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bauman, Z. (2004). Wasted Lives: Modernity and its Outcasts. Cambridge: Polity Press. Boyden, J. (2013). ‘We’re not going to suffer like this in the mud’: Educational aspirations, social mobility and independent child
Int Rev Psychiatry Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Kainan University on 04/26/15 For personal use only.
Globalization, culture and psychology migration among populations living in poverty. Compare, 43(5), 580–600. Bracken, P., Giller, J., & Summerfield, D. (1995). Psychological responses to war and atrocity: The limitations of current concepts. Social Science and Medicine, 40(8), 1073–1082. Breckenridge, J.N., & Moghaddam, F.J. (2012). Globalization and a conservative dilemma: Economic openness and retributive policies. Journal of Social Issues, 68(3), 559–570. Burton, M. (2013). A second psychology of liberation? Valuing and moving beyond the Latin American. Journal of Critical Psychology, Counselling and Psychotherapy, 13(2), 96–106. Carlisle, S., Henderson, G., & Hanlon, P. (2009). Wellbeing: A collateral casualty of modernity? Social Science and Medicine, 69(10), 1556–1560. Chen, S.X., Benet-Martinez, V., & Bond, M.H. (2008). Bicultural identity, bilingualism and psychological adjustment in multicultural societies: Immigration-based and globalization-based acculturation. Journal of Personality, 76, 803–837. Chiu, D., Gries, P., Tortelli, C.J., & Cheng, S.Y.Y. (2011). Towards a social psychology of globalization. Journal of Social Issues, 67(4), 806–824. Chomsky, N. (2000). Latin America: From Colonization to Globalization. New York: Ocean Press. Christens, B., & Collura, J. (2012). Local community organizers and activists encounter globalization: An exploratory study of their perception and adaptations. Journal of Social Issues, 68(3), 592–611. Eckersley, R. (2006). Is modern western culture a health hazard? International Journal of Epidemiology, 35(2): 252–258. Friedman, T. (2000). The Lexus and the Olive Tree. New York: Anchor Books. Fernando, S. (2012). Challenges for Mental Health Development in Low and Middle Income Countries. Conference presentation: http://cmbconference2012.org/por tfolio/challenges-formental-health-development-in-lamic-suman-fer nando/ (accessed June 2014). Gergen, K.J. (2002). The challenge of the absent present. In J.E. Katz & M. Aakhus (Eds), Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance (pp. 227–241). New York: Cambridge University Press. Giddens, A. (2000). RunawayWorld: How Globalization is Reshaping our Lives. New York: Routledge. Giddens, A. (1991). The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Guillén, M. F. (2001). Is globalization civilizing, destructive or feeble? A critique of five key debates in the social science literature. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 235–260. Guardian. (2013a). The future? Just Google it. April 20. http:// www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/apr/20/eric-schmidtgoogle-alan-rusbridger Guardian (2013b). Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations. http://www.guardian.co. uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-files-whistle blower Honore, C. (2004). In Praise of Slow: How a World Movement is Challenging the Cult of Speed. London: Orion. Jagger, A. (2002). Vulnerable women and neo-liberal globalization: Debt burdens undermine women’s health in the global south. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 23(6), 425–440. Kim, U., & Berry, J.W. (1993). Indigenous Psychologies: Experience and Research in Cultural Context. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
543
Larson, R. (2002). Globalization, societal change, and new technologies: What they mean for the future of adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 12, 1–30. Latchford, G., & Green, D. (2012). Maximising the Benefits of Psychotherapy: A Practice-based Evidence Approach. London: Wiley-Blackwell. Marshall, E. (1980). Psychotherapy works, but for whom? Science, 207, 506–508. Martín-Baró, I. (1994). Writings for a Liberation Psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Pollock, A. (2005). NHS Plc. The Privatisation of Our Healthcare. London: Verso. Prilleltensky, I. (2008). The role of power in wellness, oppression and liberation: the promise of psychopolitical validity. Journal of Community Psychology, 36(2), 116–136. Robertson, R. (1994). Globalization or glocalization? Journal of International Communication, 1, 33–52. Salzman, M. (2008). Globalization, religious fundamentalism, and the need for rmeaning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 318–327. Sandel, M. (1996). Democracy’s Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Belknap/Harvard University Press (cited in Stevens & Gielen, 2007, p. 340). Saraswathi, T.S., & Larson, R. (2002). Adolescence in global perspective: An agenda for social policy. In B.B. Brown, R. Larson, & T.S. Saraswathi (Eds), The World’s Youth: Adolescence in Eight Regions of the Globe (pp. 344–362). New York: Cambridge University Press. Steger, M.B. (2009). Globalization. AVery Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stevens, M.J. & Gielen, U.P. (2007). Toward a Global Psychology: Theory, Research, Intervention, and Pedagogy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Stiglitz, J.E. (2007). Making Globalization Work. New York: Norton. Sturken, M., Thomas, D. & Ball-Rokeac, S. (2004). Technological Visions: The Hopes and Fears that Shape New Technologies. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Summerfield, D. (2008). How scientifically valid is the knowledge base of global mental health? British Medical Journal, 336, 992–994. Summerfield, D. (2012). Afterword: Against ‘global mental health’, Transcultural Psychiatry, 49, 1–12. Thompson, J.B. (1995). The Media and Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Tomlinson, J.B. (1999). Globalization and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tsygankova, A.P. (2005). Vladimir Putin’s vision of Russia as a normal great power. Post-Soviet Affairs, 21, 132–158. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone Together:Why we Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic Books. UNCRC (1990). United Nations General Assembly Resolution 25 session 44 Convention on the Rights of the Child on 20 November 1989. New York: United Nations. Watters, E. (2010). Crazy Like Us:The Globalization of the American Psyche. New York: Free Press. WHO. (2008). Closing the Gap in a Generation: Health Equity through Action on the Social Determinants of Health. Available at: http://www.who.int/social_determinants/thecommission/ finalreport/en/ (accessed Juen 2014). Wilkinson, R. & Pickett, K. (2009). The Spirit Level. New York: Penguin. Wolf , M. (2004). Why Globalization Works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Globalization, culture and psychology
STEVE MELLUISH
Int Rev Psychiatry Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Kainan University on 04/26/15 For personal use only.
School of Psychology, University of Leicester, UK
Abstract This article outlines the cultural and psychological effects of globalization. It looks at the impact of globalization on identity; ideas of privacy and intimacy; the way we understand and perceive psychological distress; and the development of the profession of psychology around the world. The article takes a critical perspective on globalization, seeing it as aligned with the spread of neoliberal capitalism, a tendency towards cultural homogenization, the imposition of dominant ‘global north’ ideas and the resultant growing inequalities in health and well-being. However, it also argues that the increased interconnectedness created by globalization allows for greater acknowledgement of our common humanity and for collective efforts to be developed to tackle what are increasingly global problems. This requires the development of more nuanced understandings of cultural differences and of indigenous psychologies.
Introduction Opinions on the cultural and psychological effects of globalization are divided. For some, globalization is viewed as a force for good, facilitating greater connections between people and the development of a new global mindset and a cosmopolitan ethics (Appiah, 2006). For others, it is synonymous with cultural disenfranchisement, exploitation and a new form of colonialism (Chomsky, 2000; Stiglitz, 2007; Wolf, 2004). Interestingly, although the subject of globalization has clear psychological dimensions, it has been relatively neglected within psychology. Chiu et al. (2011) found only 32 articles in the psycARTICLES® database in 2011 that were indexed with the keyword globalization. A similar search in May 2013 showed 48 articles, a slight increase but still a relatively small number. Although the subject has not received great attention within the discipline of psychology, it seems important to understand the psychological and cultural dimensions of globalization and how people around the world are impacted by it. In this article I consider how globalization is influencing; our sense of ourselves, our ideas of privacy and intimacy, the way we perceive and make sense of psychological distress and the development of the profession of psychology around the world. Before I do this I first consider what is meant by the term ‘globalization’.
Defining globalization Globalisation is the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa. (Giddens, 1991, p. 63–64) It is the intensification of the interconnectedness referred to by Giddens that distinguishes globalization as a new phenomenon. While throughout history cultures have influenced each other through trade and migration, it is only very recently that the rapid advances in communications technology have created a much greater global interdependence. This interdependence, however, is not even, and the flow of culture is determined by economic and ideological forces. Globalization is therefore, like other human processes, shaped by power and the relative power of those involved. Globalization has been variously described in the literature. This article will not attempt to examine all of the various definitions of globalization, but will instead adopt Steger’s definition of globalization as ‘a set of social processes that appear to transform our present social condition of weakening nationality into one of globality’ (Steger, 2009, p. 10). Alongside this definition I will consider the centrality of power, since as Prilleltensky says, ‘a person’s experience and views of globalization will vary depending on where
Correspondence: Steve Melluish: School of Psychology, University of Leicester, 104 Regent Road, Leicester, LE1 7LT, UK. Tel: ⫹ 44 (0116)223 1649. E-mail: [email protected] (Received 24 April 2014 ; accepted 24 April 2014 ) ISSN 0954–0261 print/ISSN 1369–1627 online © 2014 Institute of Psychiatry DOI: 10.3109/09540261.2014.918873
Globalization, culture and psychology they are in the world and the amount of power they have’ (Prilleltensky, 2008, p. 616).
Int Rev Psychiatry Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Kainan University on 04/26/15 For personal use only.
Identity: how globalization is influencing our sense of ourselves A key psychological consequence of globalization is that it shifts our reference point and impacts on how we think about ourselves in relation to our social environment. Tomlinson (1999) wrote that the world as a whole, ‘increasingly exists as a cultural horizon within which we (to varying degrees) frame our existence’ (p. 30). This developing consciousness of the wider world influences our sense of identity. Chen, Benet-Martinez and Bond (2008) have termed this, globalization-based acculturation, referring to the way in which we incorporate aspects of other cultures through our lifetime into our sense of self, resulting in a bicultural identity that combines a local identity with an identity linked to the global culture. While for some the development of a bicultural identity is seen as positive (Chen et al., 2008), for a number of other observers of globalization the erosion of a local identity has added to the ambiguities around identity. Terms such as delocalization (Thompson, 1995), dis-placement (Giddens, 2000) and deterritorialization (Tomlinson, 1999) have been coined to describe how an increasingly global consciousness diminishes the ties people have to the specific place they live in. This division between global and local is, however, not so clear or absolute, as local cultures also change in response to globalization. The complexity and effects of cultural flows is that they are not simply one way. Cultural flows also create hybrids, a cultural mixing so something new is created. Roland Robertson uses the term ‘ glocalization’ to describe how globalization always takes place in local contexts and thus can involve a hybridization with ‘the development of translocal mélange cultures’ (Robertson, 1994, p. 36). While some people are able to adapt to these changes and develop such bicultural or hybrid identities, for others adapting to the rapid changes taking place in their cultures may be more difficult. As Sandel says ‘who can think and act as a multiply situated selves [self]’ (Sandel, 1996, cited in Stevens & Gielen, 2007, p. 340). The images, values, and opportunities that may be perceived as being part of the global culture may also undermine the value of local cultural practices. This identity confusion may further be influenced by the implicit neoliberal values of the global culture based on individualism, free market economics and freedom of choice. The sense that identity is now commodified as a consequence of patterns of consumption, shaped by advertising and a constantly
539
shifting set of images. Alongside these values the global culture emphasizes other values such as individual rights, openness to change, and tolerance of differences (Friedman, 2000; Giddens, 2000) but these values do not always fit well with local cultural values. An interesting example of this is highlighted by Jo Boyden in her work on the Young Lives project (Boyden, 2013) which looked at children’s lives within Ethiopia, India (Andhra Pradesh), Peru and Vietnam; all countries experiencing unprecedented levels of economic growth with a consequent expansion in formal education and child rights discourses. Boyden reports how these countries, as signatories to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 1990), strengthened their discourses around children’s rights and how this created tensions with local cultural practices, highlighting the difficulty of reconciling the individual rights of the children with the collective responsibilities of the family. Boyden argues that the UN convention is based on a set of assumptions about childhood which frames children as inherently vulnerable and in need of their families, particularly their mothers. Yet, in these countries, she found that this is sometimes at odds with cultural and family practices that lead to children travelling many miles to stay with other family members to engage in work to economically support their families. This tension between the global and local and the homogenizing force of globalization has also had a more direct and conscious counter-response (Guillén, 2001; Larson, 2002) with ethnic, religious, and national identities being strengthened. A clear counter response is seen in the ‘slow movement’ (Honore, 2004) which in different ways challenges the cult of speed and argues for a life lived at a slower pace. The counter-response is also evident in the rise of nationalism (Anderson, 2006; Tsygankova, 2005). In the UK this counter-response can be witnessed in the reassertion of Scottish and Welsh identities and the problematizing of ‘Englishness’. Furthermore, in many Muslim societies the values of globalization have been viewed as a form of ‘cultural invasion’ undermining long-established religious and cultural practices and values (Breckenridge & Moghaddam, 2012). An example of this counter-response to globalization can also be seen in the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACERWE, 2009), which was developed as it was felt that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 1990) missed important sociocultural and economic realities particular to Africa. The African Charter gives recognition to African cultural values and emphasizes children’s responsibilities to family, community and state positioning children as co-contributors and
540
S. Melluish
framing child protection within a context of interdependence (ACERWE, 2009). Globalization must therefore be understood as a dynamic process, where the cultural flows sometimes are resisted, disturbed or altered. This dynamic process impacts on our sense of who we are, challenging and disrupting any simplistic narratives of individual or cultural identity and introducing complexity and uncertainty into the process of understanding who we are.
Int Rev Psychiatry Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Kainan University on 04/26/15 For personal use only.
How the ‘speed’ associated with globalization is influencing our ideas of privacy and intimacy Another related quality of globalization is ‘speed’ or even acceleration. This can be viewed as an inevitable aspect of late capitalism, with its insatiable drive for growth, innovation and new markets that results in a world of constant and ever faster change. Zygmunt Bauman (2000) uses the term ‘liquid modernity’ to describe the resultant postmodern mind-set that has developed with ‘its characteristic conditions of perpetual motion as a mode of being’ (p. 1). He goes on to argue that a liquid modern society is one, ‘in which the conditions under which its members act change faster than it takes the way of acting to consolidate into habits and routines’ (p. 1). Bauman argues that many people in this liquid modern world experience the constant accelerating change as alienating, leading to an increase in marginalization and a sense of living ‘wasted lives’ (Bauman, 2004). Our sense of ourselves and our notions of intimacy and privacy are not just influenced by the rapidity of change but also by the impact of the constant influx of information and new technologies of instant communication on our social relations. It is estimated that there are two billion people across the world online (Guardian, 2013a). In 2010, 22% of the world’s population had access to computers with 1 billion Google searches every day, 300 million Internet users reading blogs, and 2 billion videos viewed daily on YouTube. Gergen (2002) argues that as people become increasingly immersed in new communication technologies there is a withdrawal of intimacy. He coined the term the ‘absent present’ to describe how a person may be physically present in one place but psychologically in another virtual realm. This concern about how social relations are being shaped and how new technologies disrupt our ability to be intimate has been part of an ongoing narrative in the psychological literature (Sturken et al., 2004; Turkle, 2011). The intensification and shift in the nature of social relations that we have already witnessed is likely to increase further and the impact of this is unknown. Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, stated that the majority of the world’s
population are still not online but he predicts that ‘within the next five years they will also come online’ (Guardian, 2013a). Schmidt warns that ‘human societies can’t change that fast without both good and bad implications.’ Coupled with this impact on social relations there is a redefining of privacy and the concept of the private self. Globalization and new technologies create an almost infinite ocean of data held on individuals by corporations such as Google. The shift in power between the individual, corporations and states is a further aspect of globalization. How this information will be used has far reaching implications for notions of the individual and for ideas of privacy, as witnessed by the recent disclosures of the covert collection of individuals’ Internet use by the US government (Guardian, 2013b). Globalization thus seems to be altering our sense of ourselves, our notions of intimacy and privacy, and the boundary between public and private. As the Internet becomes even more globally accessible and the complex connectivity it enables deepens and intensifies, our ideas of identity and who we are are likely to be further challenged. Influence of globalization on the way we perceive and make sense of psychological distress The rapidity of change and the dislocating experience this brings impacts not only on our sense of ourselves but also on our well-being and mental health (Carlisle et al., 2009). A growing number of commentators now suggest that western society and culture are dominated by materialistic and individualistic values and that the escalating growth of such values is associated with a growing sense of individual alienation, social fragmentation and civic disengagement, and a decline of more spiritual, moral and ethical aspects of life (Carlisle et al., 2009; Eckersley, 2006). Taken together, these multiple discourses suggest that well-being may be a collateral casualty of the economic, social and cultural changes associated with globalization. For individuals, the economic and social instability linked to the process of globalization not only creates associated uncertainty and unpredictability but also increasing inequity. Christens and Collura (2012) argue that globalization has led to increasing individualization of risk such that instead of economic risk being seen as a societal burden this is now placed on individuals and families. The result is that the economics of the globalization process marginalizes and impoverishes large numbers of people and impacts on their ability to see their lives as having meaning or value (Larson, 2002; Salzman, 2008; Saraswathi & Larson, 2002).
Int Rev Psychiatry Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Kainan University on 04/26/15 For personal use only.
Globalization, culture and psychology In many ways the neoliberal economic model that has underpinned globalization depends on the exploitation of people living in ‘the global south’ low and middle income (LMIC) countries or migrants from these countries providing cheap labour in ‘the global north’ or high or middle income HMIC countries (Jagger, 2002). Global trade processes have thus exacerbated inequality both between and within nation states such that we now live in a world with vast and growing inequalities. This inequality is not accidental or an artefact but organized, with the neoliberal model of capitalism eroding collective provision. In healthcare and social welfare this has led to almost all health systems being subject to privatization, marketization and limitations of eligibility for access (Pollock, 2005). The impact of these policies falls differentially on those with least resources and creates inequalities in health. Wilkinson and Pickett report how economic inequality within countries is correlated with a whole range of health and social well-being indicators (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009). They go on to argue that those countries with the greatest economic inequality have the worst population health and well-being. The concern over inequality and its impact on health has entered official discourse with the World Health Organization (WHO, 2008, p. 1) concluding that ‘social injustice is killing people on a grand scale.’ While globalization may impact on people’s health and mental health, and lead to more people experiencing psychological distress, the response to this can also be problematic and also influenced by the process of globalization. An example of this is the global mental health movement that has been established to address the increasing concern around what is considered to be an epidemic in mental health. The WHO (2008) states that mental health is now the fifth biggest health issue facing the global population, with the Lancet calling it ‘one of the most pressing burdens of disease’ (The Lancet Series on Global Mental Health http://somatosphere.net/2012/07/ global-mental-health-and-its-discontents.html). The solution of a public health approach to mental health, grounded in the current practices of high income countries and then exported to local situations has been criticized as a new form of cultural colonialism (Fernando, 2012; Summerfield, 2008, 2012). The ideology behind globalization, as a new form of cultural colonialism, is an assumed superiority of western ideas with the implicit idea that US/European culture is the pinnacle. This has led to the construction of people in ‘the global south’ or LMIC countries as ‘other’ and to the privileging of western forms of knowledge over indigenous forms of knowledge (Burton, 2013). Watters (2010) talks about the dangers of exporting western models in mental health and western illness categories, as these concepts often have limited explanatory power when used to interpret
541
mental health in non-western cultural environments. Western mental health concepts are generally based on ideas that ignore the influence of social and economic factors on people’s distress. This de-contextualized perspective has been contested and challenged by those advocating a culturally based approach where every illness is framed and understood within its own context (Bracken et al., 1995; Fernando, 2012). The paradigm of psychology in the global north or HMIC countries also reflects the values of globalization with its dominant focus on the notion of the individual. This does not always fit with societies in the global south or LMIC countries that are founded on collective ideas. In response to this, some psychologists have attempted to develop the idea of ‘indigenous psychologies’ (Kim & Berry, 1993) and to counter what they see as hegemonic forms of psychology. Kim and Berry (1993, p. 33) define indigenous psychologies as ‘the scientific study of human behaviour or mind that is native, that is not transported from other regions, and that is designed for its people’. In Latin America a more politicized form of this idea has been the development of liberation psychology (psicología de liberación) based on the work of the Salvadoran psychologist, Ignacio Martin Baró. Liberation psychology not only looks to develop a psychology for the people within a region it also is about developing a psychology that works for the oppressed peoples within a country. As Martin Baró (1994, p. 23) states, What is needed is for our most basic assumptions in psychological thought to be revised from the bottom up. But this revision cannot be made from our offices; it has to come from a praxis that is committed to the poor. Thus, he advocates a psychology less worried by its social and scientific status and more concerned with the urgent problems of people in need, a psychology mindful of people’s virtues and asset in pursuing change, a psychology that is about the recovery of collective memory and that works to conceive of liberation as a historic and collective process. Globalization and psychology as a profession As well as psychological ideas being shaped by globalization, the increasing interconnectedness and flows of culture also influence the development of the profession of psychology. Estimates suggest that the total number of professional psychologists in the world now stands at more than a million (Stevens & Gielen, 2007). The distribution is, however, unequal, with the majority of psychologists in Europe
Int Rev Psychiatry Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Kainan University on 04/26/15 For personal use only.
542
S. Melluish
(300,000), the USA (277,000) and Latin America (200,000), and very few in poorer LMIC nations of the global south (Adair & Ka itçiba i, 1995). One may argue that this uneven distribution shows that the influence of globalization in psychology is still relatively small and that the project of psychology is a western project based on western philosophical notions and scientific paradigms. At the same time, it can be argued that psychology reflects culture and that there is no singular psychology but more a number of ‘psychologies’ and that the uneven distribution is simply a mirroring of the inequity in resources between the global north and south. The issue of a singular psychology versus a number of ‘psychologies’ is increasingly pertinent as in recent years there has been an emergence of a new branch of ‘international psychology’ with a focus on ‘the worldwide enterprise of psychology in terms of communication, networking and cross-cultural comparison’ (Aron & Corne, 1994). Furthermore, a number of international bodies have been established such as the International Union of Psychological Science (IUPsyS), the European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations (EFPA) and La Sociedad Interamericana de Psicología (SIP). Within these bodies there is an attempt to develop an international context to psychology training and international standards and curricula. While there are many potential beneficial effects of the greater interconnectedness through these initiatives, there is also the concern that there is a unidirectional transfer of knowledge from north to south. Within applied psychological approaches to mental health one can also see the influence of globalization with the increasing commodification of the ideas and practices within psychological therapies. Increasingly, there are branded therapies, branded research methods and a connected process of marketization. Estimates suggest that there are 100–140 different schools of psychological therapy (Marshall, 1980), all with their own terms and many branded in such a way that for a psychologist to use these ideas they are required to undergo specific accredited training. This proliferation of therapeutic models is in spite of the overwhelming evidence that common factors, principally the quality of the relationship between the therapist and the client, are more important than any specific differences in models (Latchford & Green, 2012). As with the exporting of other western mental health ideas, these branded products are being put on a global market to be taken up by psychologists around the globe. The increased tendency for people across the globe to come into contact with each other contributes to the intensification and expansion of cultural flows, often in line with existing hegemonic power structures, leading to an outward flow of psychological concepts and models from the USA and Europe to countries of the global south.
Conclusion In this article I have outlined the cultural and psychological effects of globalization. While much of what I have argued can be seen as critical of globalization and its tendency towards homogenization of culture, imposition of western ideas and greater inequalities in health and well-being, it is perhaps also important to acknowledge that the interconnectedness created by globalization allows for greater acknowledgement of our common humanity across arbitrarily drawn borders and for collective efforts to be developed to tackle what are increasingly global problems. This potential for greater humanity and awareness of others across the globe must, however, be considered critically so as to avoid any universalizing approach or any misguided imposition of westernized notions. Instead, what is needed is the development of more nuanced understandings of cultural differences and of indigenous psychologies. For psychologists it is helpful to learn more about how cultural and social differences play out in a global context and for us to advocate for people to be understood in their own terms, using their own language and the concepts of their own societies. I believe that psychologists can make a contribution to the debates and discussions on globalization, but as psychologists we have to be mindful of how language is used, how it shapes our thinking and can inadvertently reinforce dominant hegemonic ideas. Globalization will remain a contested field as at its root it is about power, and this draws attention to the underlying need to address global inequality and social injustice. Perhaps as psychologists we should not be afraid of such controversies but begin to engage in these debates. Declaration of interest: The author reports no conflicts of interest. The author alone is responsible for the content and writing of the paper. References ACERWE. (2009). The African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. http://acerwc.org/the-african-charter-on-the-rightsand-welfare-of-the-child-acrwc/ Adair, J.G. & Kağitçibaşi, Ç. (1995). National development of psychology: Factors facilitating and impeding progress in developing countries. International Journal of Psychology, 30, 6. Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso. Appiah, K.A. (2006). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. New York: Norton. Aron, S, & Corne, S. (1994). Writings for a Liberation Psychology: Ignacio Martin Baro. Harvard: Harvard university Press. Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bauman, Z. (2004). Wasted Lives: Modernity and its Outcasts. Cambridge: Polity Press. Boyden, J. (2013). ‘We’re not going to suffer like this in the mud’: Educational aspirations, social mobility and independent child
Int Rev Psychiatry Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Kainan University on 04/26/15 For personal use only.
Globalization, culture and psychology migration among populations living in poverty. Compare, 43(5), 580–600. Bracken, P., Giller, J., & Summerfield, D. (1995). Psychological responses to war and atrocity: The limitations of current concepts. Social Science and Medicine, 40(8), 1073–1082. Breckenridge, J.N., & Moghaddam, F.J. (2012). Globalization and a conservative dilemma: Economic openness and retributive policies. Journal of Social Issues, 68(3), 559–570. Burton, M. (2013). A second psychology of liberation? Valuing and moving beyond the Latin American. Journal of Critical Psychology, Counselling and Psychotherapy, 13(2), 96–106. Carlisle, S., Henderson, G., & Hanlon, P. (2009). Wellbeing: A collateral casualty of modernity? Social Science and Medicine, 69(10), 1556–1560. Chen, S.X., Benet-Martinez, V., & Bond, M.H. (2008). Bicultural identity, bilingualism and psychological adjustment in multicultural societies: Immigration-based and globalization-based acculturation. Journal of Personality, 76, 803–837. Chiu, D., Gries, P., Tortelli, C.J., & Cheng, S.Y.Y. (2011). Towards a social psychology of globalization. Journal of Social Issues, 67(4), 806–824. Chomsky, N. (2000). Latin America: From Colonization to Globalization. New York: Ocean Press. Christens, B., & Collura, J. (2012). Local community organizers and activists encounter globalization: An exploratory study of their perception and adaptations. Journal of Social Issues, 68(3), 592–611. Eckersley, R. (2006). Is modern western culture a health hazard? International Journal of Epidemiology, 35(2): 252–258. Friedman, T. (2000). The Lexus and the Olive Tree. New York: Anchor Books. Fernando, S. (2012). Challenges for Mental Health Development in Low and Middle Income Countries. Conference presentation: http://cmbconference2012.org/por tfolio/challenges-formental-health-development-in-lamic-suman-fer nando/ (accessed June 2014). Gergen, K.J. (2002). The challenge of the absent present. In J.E. Katz & M. Aakhus (Eds), Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance (pp. 227–241). New York: Cambridge University Press. Giddens, A. (2000). RunawayWorld: How Globalization is Reshaping our Lives. New York: Routledge. Giddens, A. (1991). The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Guillén, M. F. (2001). Is globalization civilizing, destructive or feeble? A critique of five key debates in the social science literature. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 235–260. Guardian. (2013a). The future? Just Google it. April 20. http:// www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/apr/20/eric-schmidtgoogle-alan-rusbridger Guardian (2013b). Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations. http://www.guardian.co. uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-files-whistle blower Honore, C. (2004). In Praise of Slow: How a World Movement is Challenging the Cult of Speed. London: Orion. Jagger, A. (2002). Vulnerable women and neo-liberal globalization: Debt burdens undermine women’s health in the global south. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 23(6), 425–440. Kim, U., & Berry, J.W. (1993). Indigenous Psychologies: Experience and Research in Cultural Context. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
543
Larson, R. (2002). Globalization, societal change, and new technologies: What they mean for the future of adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 12, 1–30. Latchford, G., & Green, D. (2012). Maximising the Benefits of Psychotherapy: A Practice-based Evidence Approach. London: Wiley-Blackwell. Marshall, E. (1980). Psychotherapy works, but for whom? Science, 207, 506–508. Martín-Baró, I. (1994). Writings for a Liberation Psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Pollock, A. (2005). NHS Plc. The Privatisation of Our Healthcare. London: Verso. Prilleltensky, I. (2008). The role of power in wellness, oppression and liberation: the promise of psychopolitical validity. Journal of Community Psychology, 36(2), 116–136. Robertson, R. (1994). Globalization or glocalization? Journal of International Communication, 1, 33–52. Salzman, M. (2008). Globalization, religious fundamentalism, and the need for rmeaning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 318–327. Sandel, M. (1996). Democracy’s Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Belknap/Harvard University Press (cited in Stevens & Gielen, 2007, p. 340). Saraswathi, T.S., & Larson, R. (2002). Adolescence in global perspective: An agenda for social policy. In B.B. Brown, R. Larson, & T.S. Saraswathi (Eds), The World’s Youth: Adolescence in Eight Regions of the Globe (pp. 344–362). New York: Cambridge University Press. Steger, M.B. (2009). Globalization. AVery Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stevens, M.J. & Gielen, U.P. (2007). Toward a Global Psychology: Theory, Research, Intervention, and Pedagogy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Stiglitz, J.E. (2007). Making Globalization Work. New York: Norton. Sturken, M., Thomas, D. & Ball-Rokeac, S. (2004). Technological Visions: The Hopes and Fears that Shape New Technologies. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Summerfield, D. (2008). How scientifically valid is the knowledge base of global mental health? British Medical Journal, 336, 992–994. Summerfield, D. (2012). Afterword: Against ‘global mental health’, Transcultural Psychiatry, 49, 1–12. Thompson, J.B. (1995). The Media and Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Tomlinson, J.B. (1999). Globalization and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tsygankova, A.P. (2005). Vladimir Putin’s vision of Russia as a normal great power. Post-Soviet Affairs, 21, 132–158. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone Together:Why we Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic Books. UNCRC (1990). United Nations General Assembly Resolution 25 session 44 Convention on the Rights of the Child on 20 November 1989. New York: United Nations. Watters, E. (2010). Crazy Like Us:The Globalization of the American Psyche. New York: Free Press. WHO. (2008). Closing the Gap in a Generation: Health Equity through Action on the Social Determinants of Health. Available at: http://www.who.int/social_determinants/thecommission/ finalreport/en/ (accessed Juen 2014). Wilkinson, R. & Pickett, K. (2009). The Spirit Level. New York: Penguin. Wolf , M. (2004). Why Globalization Works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
