By Miguel Alejandro Hayes
According to Eco, the inseparability of meaning and signifier means that, there is no synonyms at all, or at least, are not such (only the referred split in the universe of pure abstraction is possible).
However, these semiotic demands (which are valid in the narrow universes of linguists and scientists of thought) do not prevent empirical discourse (in its most common meaning) from using synonyms as a tool capable of generating theoretical images.
Then, once the danger of sign parallels has been recognized, its use should not be abandoned (always remembering the limits). Hence, given the need to refer to globalization, a first step could be the metaphor of globalization.
But to think of globalization as a phenomenon is, in good dialectics, to understand the law of existence of the totality of which it is a part. Therefore, its presence must inevitably be associated to the capitalism: globalization is a phenomenon typical of the formation of a World Capital System [WCS] (its dimensions, in a positivist key, include the economic, political, cultural, etc.) What allows, in a second moment, to pose it as the growing interconnection of the regions of the world; from which it derives, at least, in two questions: 1-) the contrary trend (regionalization), 2-) the “growing” trend of such globalization.
Regionalization vs. Globalization is one of the antinomies that language produces, therefore, one (of the many) thought dilemmas. Like all antinomies, this one is dissolved in its own ties.
In order to illustrate this, consider globalization, not in its specific version, where it is a set of specific actions and processes (investment dynamics, value chains, etc.) that are nothing, other than abstract identities, but rather as the relationship behind it. From what is stated here, globalization is rejected as its specific forms, to associate it with the fact that its regions are determined (characterized) by being in relation to another side of the WCS.
If chaining occurs, for example, or on the contrary, offshoring, both make sense (including building categories to designate them) because a system of which the regions of the world are part is previously assumed.
You can only be connected to something when you are part of the same system as that something; in the same way, one can only be “disconnected” from a something if, in the same way, one is in relation to it. In short, it can be regionalized when it is part of an articulated system, whereas the economy of a certain Earl of England in the 12th century cannot be regionalized because it has nothing to isolate.
Globalization is also, at the same time, a process of regionalización, insofar as it is always accompanied by a certain form of regionalization of the economy, and in turn all regionalization implies certain features of globalization.
Therefore, under the organic system, that is capitalism in its world conformation, each of the specific identities that shape the opposites from globalization, always coexist because each one (the global dimension or the regional dimension) implicitly leads to another, since they are nothing more than readings on different level of the same phenomenon (the globalization of the mercantile dynamics in denial of itself).
What remains hidden from the observer’s eyes is the existence of an universe that functions as an organic totality, and that any specific result is part of that whole, it is a response to causes, originating within that whole. That is the world of globalization, the one where all reaction, even indifference, has to go through the system of social relations on a planetary scale.
On the other hand, the increasing trend of such globalization is actually used as the growing magnitude of the first abstract identity (globalization), which makes sense in a certain temporality. The prevalence of one identity over another will depend on the articulations that are generated between the different capitals, on those that are dominant there, and on the accumulation needs of such capital.
Finally, it is necessary to clarify that talking about this process outside the terms of capitalism and its gestation is not only a return to ahistorical approaches to human relations, but it is meaningless because it is not possible to speak of world trends in economy in scenarios where there was no world economic system understood as organic totality, let alone economies on a smaller scale that were.
Traducido por Miguel González