Globalization and identity

Word	What it means
Globalization	The process by which the world's people become increasingly connected and interdependent, economically, culturally and politically.
Interdependence	Countries relying on each other, so what happens in one affects others.
Identity	How a person or group understands who they are. It can be individual and collective at once.
Collective identity	A shared sense of who we are, held by a group.
Culture	The way a group lives — what they eat, wear, speak, celebrate and believe.
Cultural homogenization	Cultures becoming more alike, often along Western lines.
Hybridization	Cultures blending and adapting rather than being replaced. The counter-argument to homogenization.
Cultural revitalization	Deliberate effort to restore a language or culture under pressure.
Acculturation / assimilation	Adapting to another culture while keeping your own; and absorption into it, losing your own.
Digital divide	Unequal access to communication technology, between and within countries.

Three dimensions, and a strong answer says which it means: economic (trade, investment, production chains), cultural (media, language, food, ideas) and political (international law, institutions, shared problems).

Not new. The Silk Road, the Columbian exchange and the age of empire all moved goods, people, ideas and diseases across continents. What is new is the speed and volume, and saying that precisely is far stronger than claiming globalization began in 1990.

Not internationalism. Internationalism is a chosen policy of cooperation between states; globalization happens with or without a decision. Sources use the two loosely, and noticing which is meant is often the point of a source question.

Not evenly distributed. The digital divide means the benefits reach people very unequally, which is the standard way to qualify a claim that globalization connects everyone.

The homogenization case. The same brands, films, language and formats appear everywhere; local languages disappear at a measurable rate; a small number of media companies own much of what most people watch.

The hybridization case. Cultures borrow and adapt rather than surrender. Food, music and language are full of the evidence, and what arrives is usually changed by the place it lands in.

A useful distinction. Globalization can increase the diversity available to any one person while reducing the diversity that exists overall. Those are different claims, and separating them is often the heart of a good answer.

The Canadian angle. Canadian content rules on radio and television are cultural protectionism: a small market next to a very large one, trying to keep a domestic voice. The argument for and against mirrors the trade argument exactly, which is worth pointing out.

Language. Dozens of Indigenous languages in Canada are endangered, largely as a result of residential schools and assimilation policy rather than of globalization alone. Immersion schools, language nests and community programs are revitalization in action.

Why land matters to identity. For many First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples, land is tied to language, ceremony, kinship and history rather than being a commodity. That is why displacement is experienced as an attack on identity itself, and understanding it requires recognising a different worldview is in play.

Francophone identity. Alberta has francophone communities with their own schools, institutions and history. Minority language survival next to a dominant one is the same structural problem, and a good answer uses a Canadian example rather than reaching abroad for one.

A workable shape. Define globalization in your own words, state a qualified position, support it with two or three specific examples, give the strongest counter-argument a fair hearing, then answer it.

Be specific. “Globalization affects culture” earns little. “Canadian content rules exist because a market of 40 million sits beside one of 340 million, and without them domestic broadcasters would find it cheaper to buy American programming than to make their own” earns a great deal more, because it can be checked.

• Treating globalization and globalism as the same word. One is a process, one is a position.
• Claiming globalization is entirely new. Say what is new about it instead.
• Refusing to take a position. “Both sides have a point” describes the question rather than answering it.
• Only non-Canadian examples. The course expects Canadian evidence and there is plenty.