Similarly, Featherstone challenges sociology to “both theorize and work out modes of systematic investigation which can clarify these globalizing processes and destructive forms of social life which render problematic what has long been regarded as the basic subject matter for sociology: society conceived almost exclusively as the bounded nation-state” (1990: 2).
For the Lisbon Group, globalisation is a phase which follows after internationalisation and multinationalisation since, unlike them, it heralds the end of the national system as the central nucleus for organized human activities and strategies (Grupo de Lisboa, 1994).
A review of studies on the processes of globalisation reveals that we are facing a multifaceted phenomenon containing economic, social, political, cultural, religious and legal dimensions, all interlinked in complex fashion.
Single cause explanations and monolithic interpretations of the phenomenon therefore appear inadequate.
Referring to the dominant characteristics of globalisation may convey the idea that globalisation is not only a linear process but also a process of consensus.
This is obviously false, as will be demonstrated later. And, although false, it nonetheless contains a grain of truth.The heterogeneity created by this globalization features the already existing culture or cultures of the host country, people who fight to maintain and preserve their cultural identity by rejecting the influences of other cultures, and others who readily adopt new hybrid identities. The negotiations for an identity and the struggle for their place in the host country can be understood in the ways Zadie Smith and Junot Díaz examine their characters construction of identities under the influences of history, host country, and battling cultures. “Cultural Identity and Diaspora.” Identity: Community, Culture, Difference. In addition, the globalisation of the last three decades, instead of conforming to the modern Western model of globalisation – that is, to a homogeneous and uniform globalisation – so keenly upheld by Leibniz as well as Marx, as much in theories of modernization as in theories of dependent development, seems to combine universality and the elimination of national borders, on the one hand, with particularity, local diversity, ethnic identity and a return to communitarian values, on the other.Moreover, it interacts in very diverse ways with other, parallel transformations in the world system, such as the dramatic rise in inequality between rich and poor countries and between the rich and the poor inside each country, overpopulation, environmental disaster, ethnic conflicts, international mass migration, the emergence of new states and the collapse or decline of others, the proliferation of civil wars, globally organized crime, formal democracy as a political condition for international aid, etc.Communities that are formed from these displaced peoples result in a diaspora. Trying to define or find a paradigm for the term diaspora is a challenge as Anthropologist James Clifford discusses in his article “Diasporas.” He explores previous discourses and definitions of diaspora where he notes the criteria is impossible to fulfill for all cultural groups, he writes, “But we should be wary of constructing our working definition of a term as diaspora by recourse to an ‘ideal type,’ with the consequence that groups become identified as more or less diasporic” (306). Globalization has resulted in blurred lines of cultural identities. More people are moving across borders due to labor, immigration, and forming new spaces in their host countries. Globalisation is to be understood as a non-linear process marked by contradictory yet parallel discourses and varying levels of intensity and speed.Even states however have to adopt as the supremacy of the nation state is eroded, giving way to new transnational alliances and the convergence of the judicial systems as the supreme regulator of a globalised economy.