Globalization and Oppression u03d1
Crystal Brown-Voeltz

Globalization, according to van Wormer (2005) is an interconnectedness of persons across the world. Globalization has the ability to move social policy into the international arena and through information technology influence human rights issues (van Wormer, 2005). Within the arguments of human rights issues can be found the issues of oppression, defined as restrictions placed on individuals, groups or institutions so that the group may be exploited and less able to compete with other groups (van Wormer, 2005) and social exclusion defined as the marginalization of people or areas and imposing barriers that restrict them from opportunities to fully integrate into society (Barker, 2003 p. 403). Munck (2005) identified several areas (e.g race, gender and class inequality) in which globalization has permeated and not always in a positive way. According to Munck (2005) globalization has increased the social distance between women worldwide. There has always been inequality in the labor force between and among women and those of differing racial backgrounds. However, with globalization and women moving more into the work force, a subordinate role has been developed for women and racial minorities (Munck, 2005). This can be seen in the influx of migrant workers who arrived on the scene to take care of the families of the women who had entered the labor force. Migrant workers, who were primarily female, entered into the much needed arena of service workers. Unfortunately, the impact has not been positive in that it has side effects that it has destroyed traditional social relations and created new ones that are just as inequitable (Munck, 2005). Another negative effect of globalization, related to gender and race, has been the global sex trade which has grown tremendously while victimizing children (Munck, 2005). Pornography and trading of women and children has been made more accessible due to the increased access of electronic communication. This has led to what is termed the “commodification” of the body (Munck, 2005). Peterson (2003) surmised that the sex trade is a related to migration and workers moving across the countries. He added that the world is moving toward a time when infants, human organs, sexualized bodies and spiritual salvation will all be for sale. In respect to race, Chua (2003) noted that those who were positive about globalization do not address the issue of race and ethnicity because the divisiveness of the issues would undermine what the optimists believe to be positive advancements. Due to the lack of regulations and social control, Chua (2003) noted that globalization has only exacerbated the already existing disparities of wealth and power between the wealthy and non-wealthy and the minorities and non-minorities. While the “elite migrants” are usually the white male managers and professionals who are skilled and highly paid, the other end is the transient migrants who are often ethnic women involved in the sex trade or mail order bride industry (Munck, 2005). What may not have been expected for foreseen were the movement of entire cultures and the changing “colors” of cities in which migrants have settled (Munck, 2005). It was further noted that through the settling of immigrants, the multicultural impact of globalization is now being seen, but notably there is now the move toward tightening border controls, seemingly resulting back to racist results of globalization (Munck, 2005). Harriett Bradley (1996) noted that in regards to class and inequality there are powerful polarization, a concentration of people at both ends of the class spectrum that has a continued widening gap between those at the top and those at the bottom, dynamics at work. Globalization at work can be seen through capitalist economy of the United States in that the richest 20 percent of Americans earn nine times more than the poorest 20 percent (Hutton, 2002. P. 187). It was further noted that while the US is near the top per capita income, it was 20th in regards to the poorest 10 percent compared to all advanced societies. Hutton (2002) stated that this was not considered strength, rather a weakness as it reduces social mobility and indicates that the rich have access to the educational qualifications needed to move up while the bottom group is stuck with low skills and low incomes. Globalization has toted that it draws the world together, yet it has shown that the connecting of the world does not mean equality for all. Postmes and Smith (2009) noted that while one would think that oppression would be a normal or natural phenomenon, where groups and people compete for scarce resources, the opposite seems true in that oppression seems functional on both the evolutionary and economic grounds. Postmes and Smith (2009) further stated that oppression includes behavior that is meant to keep low status groups in subjection and hardship. It was noted that there are several patterns of oppression, and while outright oppression and systematic exclusion can work it has its potentiality for violence. However a more effective pattern may be that of the high status group going along with acts of exclusion. This can be seen in the drive for privatization in that the welfare state, for instance, has reinforced traditional gender rules and roles. This was accomplished by reduction in social services which affects women, children and the elderly. When families cannot access services, it drives the women back into the traditional caring roles thus the ever evolving circle of oppression.

REFERENCES
Barker, R. (2003). The Social Work Dictionary (5th ed). Washington, DC: NASW Press.
Bradley, H. (1996). Fractured Identities: Changing Patterns of Inequality. Cambridge: Policy Press.
Chua, A. (2003). World on Fire: How Exporting Free-Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability. London: Heineman.
Hutton, W. (2002). The World We’re In. London: Abacus.
Munck, R. (2004). Globalization and Social Exclusion: A Transformationalist Perspective. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press, Inc.
Postmes, T. and Smith, L. (2009). Why Do the Privileged Resort to Oppression? A Look at Some Intragroup Factors. Journal of Social Issues, 65(4), 769-790. van Wormer, K. (2005). Concepts of Contemporary Social Work: Globalization, Oppression, Social Exclusion, Human Rights, Etc. Social Work & Society, 3(1), 1-10.