Franlin Foer’s book “How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization,” is not what it seems on the outside. Before reading this book, I was neither interested in the sport of soccer and its marketplace, nor did I believe that the game of soccer could possibly have in impact on the global landscape. First of all, the title as soccer being “An Unlikely Theory of Globalization” is somewhat ironic; before reading it sounds like a true assessment, but after reading Foer’s narratives, it becomes apparent that soccer actually has had the power to change global society and the societies of the individual countries within the world. Directly in the prologue, Foer clearly establishes that the book covers three different main ideas. I would like to focus on the first two of the three. The first covers “the failure of globalization to erode ancient hatreds in the game’s great rivalries” (Foer, 5). The second mainly “uses soccer to address economies” (Foer, 5).

            The most impressive aspect of the book is Foer’s ability to cover a diverse narrative of a different group or nation in each chapter. The first three chapters, specifically, employ the feeling that the reader is interacting with both Foer and the groups of people whom he assimilates himself into; which I believe is his most powerful writing strategy. For instance, he places himself within the group of Ranger fans, in particular a man named Jimmy, whose Protestant club rivals the Catholic Celtics. He partakes in buying them pints of whiskey and chanting offensive anti-Celtic phrases such as “fuck the Pope.” Jimmy teaches Foer a lot about the history and differences between the two clubs and their locations. Violence is a reoccurring theme fans of rival teams in soccer. This rivalry is not exception to this, especially in the Rangers’ home city, Glasgow, where Celtic fans will be killed for wearing a green and orange jersey of their beloved club. In Serbia, this violence has historically been the most gruesome of any other nation, where thousands have been killed because of the rising nationalism caused by the growth and pride of their soccer team, the Red Star Belgrade.

            Although the violence over soccer shows how people in different countries interact with each other, it fails to show any beneficial improvement to globalization. In fact, the shows the exact opposite, because the borders between nations become more of militarized barriers rather than friendly borders. Even though Foer’s narratives in the first part of the book convey soccer and its fans to be violent and racist, the second part tells the success stories within soccer to help boost economies and spread globalization. My main interest is in the soccer legend Pelé, who lifted Brazilian soccer from a lack of outside interest into the focus of soccer globally. With his mesmorizing dribble talent and his uncanny ability to shoot and score goals from difficult angles, Pelé attracted soccer attention to Brazil from areas that usually overlooked the country as a whole. Not only did Pelé enhance soccer globally, but in doing so, he enabled soccer to thrive in his home country. Pelé traveled to the United States, where he played and spread Brazilian soccer. Along with this, Pelé transformed into a capitalist, and eventually brought these new ideas to soccer in Brazil. Although Pelé made some questionable and unethical financial decisions regarding soccer after he retired, there is no denying his great influence on the globalization of Brazil through soccer.

            Foer’s book both shows how soccer tore down the possibilities of globalization in some countries and allowed it to flourish in others. Although soccer’s violent fans have claimed the lives of thousands of people, there is no denying that the game has brought the world together for the better. If any of us forget this, we can become easily reminded every four years at the World Cup.

Globalization and the Already Unstable Middle East

            Globalization has had profound impact on culture, consumerism and politics throughout the world, and particularly within Southwest Asia. For the most part, the Middle East has always prided itself on its tradition, culture, religion and near isolation from the outside world. However, in this growing globalized world, the Middle East has become exposed to modernization, democracy, freedom and outside cultures, which have had a significant affect on the societies that are present. While globalization is usually perceived as a positive for the world, for this region, the problems that have arisen due to increased globalization are certainly impactful on citizens within these countries, and for the rest of the world. Increased globalization in the area has done a lot in increasing the call for secularization and freedom, but it has also left an already unstable region even worse off, and oppressive regimes more likely to resort to aggressive tendencies.

            Globalization and the spread of western culture, food and ideologies to the primarily traditionally Muslim and conservative Middle East has led to significant instability in the region, with two very separate sides grappling for control of everyday life. The traditional, Muslim clerics in various countries in this region are in a constant struggle with the progressive and modernized youth who are fighting for freedom, westernization and modernization within society. Though this move towards Western ideology, democracy and freedom would seem to be in line with the American culture, and would therefore be a positive for the United States, it is leading to significant problems around the region. Today’s Middle East region is a collection of western and traditional culture and way of life, with western restaurants and movie theaters lining streets that women in Burqas are walking though. This clash of two very distinctive ways of life has caused significant clashes between traditional government and power structures and the westernized and freedom hungry younger citizens. Take Iran for example. As Franklin Foer described in his book, How Soccer Explains the World, Iran was exposed to certain detrimental aftereffects of globalization, particularly concerning the rise of theocracy and the loss of any semblance of western or liberal ideology. Specifically, Foer discusses how the Shah’s regime “pushed the country too hard, too fast” in its attempt at modernization and globalization (Foer 228). This inevitably lead to the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the rise of the theocratic regime, which pushed Iran deeper into a world of traditional and cultural closed mindedness. Foer is adamant throughout his writing that too much globalization, westernization and modernization in too quick a time is the reason for what was a newfound entrance into theocratic rule, and Muslim way of life. In this sense, globalization to the Middle East can sometimes do more in hurting the westernization and modernization movement than helping it, which can certainly be personified through what occurred in Iran in 1979.

            The inevitable tug of war that occurs between religious and cultural leaders and the liberal youth that stems from global exposure often times leads to violent resistance and genocidal tendencies. There is no doubt that countries like Libya, Syria and Egypt, which have been ravaged with Civil War, chemical weapons and violent resistance dealt with these problems because of the influence of westernization and globalization. People that are in power in these countries are usually older religious clerics that do not believe in democracy, western ideals or modernization. However, with this new generation, full of social media and communication, the younger populations are exposed to freedoms and democracy that they have never seen before. While this is usually a good thing, the violent repercussions that have sprung up because of it are terrifying and take on the look of genocide. To have globalization make a positive impact on traditional Middle Eastern society, it is important to make sure that it happens on its own time. It is inevitable that the new generation will be more inclined to embrace westernization and global change. Therefore, it is best to simply wait out the process, and slowly adapt certain aspects of western culture. It is not necessary to call for complete change, which has happened in the past. That is where globalization has failed for the Middle East in the past.

Foer, Franklin (2010). How Soccer Explains the World; An Unlikely Theory of Globalization. New York, New York; HarperCollins Publisher.

The Causes and Effects of Sports on Culture

          In his book How Soccer Explains the World, Frankilin Foer addresses how soccer impacts the world in areas ranging from A Gangster’s paradise to the overall hope of Islam. The area of his book that was most intriguing to me was his ideas on the culture wars in America and its relation to sports. As a whole the United States is not a nation of soccer enthusiasts. Outside of the interest of the sport during the World Cup, soccer is given very little attention. The game takes the backseat to sports like baseball and American football. This is an obvious fact, but it wasn’t until now that I realized it is a result of both socialization and the idea of American Exceptionalism.

            As kids we play sports to grow as individuals, to build social skills, to make friends, and to engage in recreational activities. Soccer in particular serves as a fun less competitive environment, which makes it such a popular sport for young children. However, Foer discusses how people play the sports that they do as a result of it being “the fashionable thing to do (Foer 236).” He discusses how he grew up in a family in which his family played baseball, but given the location of his upbringing soccer was the sport seen as popular. This led me to think about why individuals play the sports that they do or act the way that they do. To me, this question is answered by the socialization of an individual and the environment in which the person was raised. These external factors shape who we are and what interests us. Personally I am not an avid soccer fan, and I never played on an organized soccer team. The reason I found this important is because it allowed me to look deeper into why this was the case. I grew up playing football, baseball, and basketball because my older brother played them and so did all my friends. It was the fashionable thing to do as Foer stated. This goes along with his point that we tend to fall into groups and follow the societal norms, which in my eyes come from socialization early in life.

            Additionally, Foer discusses why Soccer is not as prevalent in the United States in terms of class and race, but his best point is displayed in his explanation of American Exceptionalism. Foer states that many believe the history and form of government in the U.S. allows us to play a unique role as a world power and that we should not submit to international laws and bodies (Foer 245). While this may be the case, I think this is seen as a negative and given a bad connotation; however, I believe that in some ways it is a positive. We are a nation rich in history and tradition, and as a U.S. citizen I am genuinely proud to be a part of it. Traditionally, the United States is a country of football and baseball, hence the claim of baseball being “America’s Pastime.” However, I do agree that it can be a negative in terms of globalization and culture wars. A prime example of this is Jim Rome, an ESPN commentator, bashing soccer and stating that he would never let his son play the sport. He even goes as far as saying that he “hates” soccer.  While saying soccer threatens the American way of life is a bit dramatic, I do believe the rich traditions found in historically American sports have played an integral role in shaping the culture of our nation. While many nations critique this mindset and American culture as a whole, it is a bit hypocritical.  He mentions American Exceptionalism, but does not address the idea of a potential European Exceptionalism. This idea exists in many areas including sports. Clearly baseball is viewed as America’s pastime, so why haven’t Europeans adopted this? It is because national pride and tradition are prevalent, making cultural change a slow and difficult process. No matter where you live, the majority of people will likely follow the norms and possess this national pride and love of tradition.

            Overall I found this argument of sports and culture to be one of great merit and extremely interesting. While my ideas do not completely match those in the book, I believe it brought up a lot of good points especially through the counterarguments provided for many of the arguments. Across the globe, people have a large amount of national pride and are socialized to accept the culture in which they are surrounded. Sports play a huge role in the development of culture, and Foer does a good job of recognizing this. 

Globalization and a Loss of Cultural Identity

Globalization is interconnectedness, interdependence, a meshing of cultures and identities, a loss of borders, and a flow of information. In an age and time period where we are depending more and more on each other for products and goods, globalization has changed the very manner in which we communicate and interact with other states. Although globalization has changed the world for the better, due to globalization, we have lost our identity in a cultural mesh.

In his book How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization, Franklin Foer uses the game of soccer to explain globalization and its effect; in particular, its failures. One of the failures is the loss of identity in society. He writes that Jewish people were once weak people that did not have athletic abilities. However, in the push for soccer, Jews were encouraged to go to the gym and become stronger (Foer, 2010). Foer uses the term assimilation to reveal that the Jews have, in one sense, forfeited their identity in order to be great soccer players (Foer, 2010). They have lost their race and identity as the world determines how they will live in it. He writes that as the team Hakoah began winning matches, the “period of Jewish inferiority in physical activities had come to an end” (Foer, 2010). It is evident that in joining the global sports family, the Jews began losing their identity that they once embraced in an attempt to be accepted by others. They began seeking after what methods to be recognized by the global community.

Although globalization has brought countries together, it has removed cultural diversity in our society. For instance, consider India. In more recent years, America has been the driving force for westernization throughout the world, changing and impacting the Indian culture. The increase in fast foods, such as McDonalds and Popeye’s, has reached as far as India, revealing a spread of diversity. In one sense, the spread of fast foods has removed an importance towards traditional foods (Deepa, 2014). In response, most Indians are likely to eat out rather than make traditional food at home, revealing a loss in cultural identity.

Furthermore, although globalization is one reason why India has grown politically and economically, it has caused India to lose its culture as well. Many years ago, Indians practiced the caste system and wore traditional clothing. Through globalization, these cultural practices are being lost. Although I am not supportive of the caste system, globalization has made it disappear. The emphasis of a classless society has encouraged Indians to abolish the caste system, thereby removing a very crucial component in the Hindu tradition (Sundaram, 2014). There has also been an increase in Western clothing, such as jeans. The loss of cultural identity and the need to express it in clothing reveals that India is losing its cultural identity by adopting practices of the West. Westernization is modifying the culture of the East, thereby making its culture disappear over time within the country and among the people.

Globalization has brought positive and negative change to the world. Although it has brought interdependence and communication across border, it has sacrificed the cultural identity and diversity of many groups of people. We should learn how to adapt to such changes. We should not be like Iran who refuses to accept the traditions of the West because it corrupts their culture. Neither should we be like India who has adopted these changes while sacrificing their own culture. Rather, as we progress, we should learn how to balance the spread of cultures while maintaining our own culture.

Work Cited

Foer, Franklin (2010).  How soccer explains the world: An unlikely theory of globalization. New York, New York; HarperCollins Publisher.

Kaushik, Deepa (2014). Globalization and its impact on Indian culture. CareerRide.com. Retrieved from http://careerride.com/view.aspx?id=15301.

Sundaram, V. (2014). Impact of globalization on Indian culture. Boloji. Retrieved from http://www.boloji.com/index.cfm?md=Content&sd=Articles&ArticleID=2458.

Nuclear Activities and Iran

        The nuclear activity of a Middle Eastern country sparks great controversy

and provides a serious threat to not only the region, but also the rest of the world.

There are various opinions as to what the result would be if Iran developed nuclear

weapons, but it is hard to see the result as a positive one. Kenneth Waltz, a Senior

Research Scholar at the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies, believes that if

Iran obtained these nuclear weapons it would have a positive effect on the Middle

East. I disagree with Waltz because he assumes that people will be rational mainly

because of the history relating to nations developing nuclear weapons.

While I can understand Waltz’s points, I don’t agree with the supporting

claims he makes for his argument. When dealing with foreign policy and the

possession and use of nuclear weapons, it is not in our best interest to take matters

lightly. Throughout his writing he provides the possibilities of Iran developing

nuclear weapons, but tends to support his claims with assumptions. I would like to

believe that we could all live in harmony, but it’s simply not realistic. It is important

to understand historical trends, but it doesn’t change the fact that there could be

large consequences to the “weaponization” of Iran. If these weapons and advanced

technology got into the wrong hands, it would be disastrous. The potential to act

aggressively is greatly increased when nuclear weapons come into play. Also, It is a

realistic fear that it could support the efforts of terrorists and terrorist groups in the

Middle East, and even be directly provided to these people. Waltz persistently

claims that they would not act irrationally in order to avoid retaliation, but if a

terrorist group were to get involved it makes retaliating difficult. As we’ve learned

and discussed, there is no return address for terrorist groups. It threatens every

single nation including Iran itself. Self-destruction and internal conflict could arise

at any moment, so it is bad for everyone involved. 

It is understandable to think that a nation would never strike with a nuclear

attack due to the fear of retaliation. For example, Waltz states that “Maoist China

became much less bellicose after acquiring nuclear weapons in 1964, and India and

Pakistan have both become more cautious since going nuclear. “ This may be true,

but Iran’s nuclear development differs from the aforementioned nations. In terms of

becoming a nuclear power, it is a case-by-case basis in terms of possibilities it

presents. Each nation and regime is characterized differently, and I believe this is

the case for Iran. Iran is seen as irrational throughout the world, and the threats of

terrorism would rise significantly if they were to develop these weapons. Waltz

makes the argument that they are not irrational as a whole. Whether they are or not,

the fact that they have this reputation speaks volumes. The negatives greatly

outweigh the positives in my mind, and to say the fears of Iran as a nuclear threat

are “unfounded” is ignorant.

While nuclear weapons serve as a form of national security, it also has the

ability to destroy a nation. I see that history has shown that stability has often

stemmed from nuclear capabilities, yet I don’t take comfort in that on its own. A

nation with constant issues developing nuclear weapons is a disaster waiting to

happen.  There are other methods that could increase security that are much less

threatening to the world and Iran. We can’t have faith solely based on the past, and

we need to be aware of the potential issues that can and will arise from this crisis. 

Nuclear Free World

In Thomas Schelling’s article, “A World Without Nuclear Weapons,” he shares a concept that embodies just that: what would the world be like without nuclear weapons? Although this idea sounds ideal to work towards a safer world, it actually contains many flaws. Since nuclear weapons became a potential resolution to war in the middle of the 20^th century, we have attempted to find ways to stabilize the amount and the usage of these weapons of mass destruction. However, the idea of a nuclear free world goes directly against the world’s way of thinking for the past sixty years. The idea of “nuclear free” would is an interesting idea worth discussion; however, it is merely a hypothetical idea rather than an actual solution towards a safer world.

            The first flaw of this concept is that it relies too much on assumptions. If you are a state with nuclear weapons that agrees to disband the owning of nuclear weapons, how can you be sure that others will follow your lead? Also, once following the initiative to either declare or to sign a document to rid your state of all nuclear weapons, actually taking them down reveals a large vulnerability in your national security. Not only do not have these weapons as leverage between yourself and another country, but you would also leave the country open to nuclear attack. If your country does not have nuclear weapons to retaliate with, then what would stop another country from attacking you with one?

The main problem with this idea is that it focuses too much on having trust in other countries. How can it be determined that all nations truly do not have nuclear weapons? It cannot, because they can only rely on trust, which is very skeptical. Even if there were some sort of international nuclear inspection, who is to say a nation could not simply just hide their nuclear weapons in a remote location. Simply put, they could not enforce checking the entire world for nuclear weapons. Schelling makes a point on how easily nuclear weapons can be made, “…enough plutonium to make a bomb could be hidden in the freezing compartment of my refrigerator, or to evade a radiation detection could be hidden at the bottom of the water in a well” (Schelling, 126). Schelling’s argument is that the only way to stop nuclear weapons is through whistle blowers or the belief that all “responsible” governments will also take action in ridding their nations of all nuclear weapons. The problem with this thinking is that not all other nations are “responsible” and therefore will not follow this. Even if a nuclear power did rid themselves of all said weapons, how could we know that they will not simply recreate the same weapons in times of crisis or war. Since they already have all of the resources, it would be easy for them to rebuild them at a rapid pace. Therefore, no power would truly be nuclear free, for they could just as easily become a nuclear power once again.

            The concept of a nuclear free world is hypothetical and in the real world not a possible solution in dealing with the control of nuclear weapons. At this point in time, we must realize that dealing nuclear weapons in international relations is inevitable. However, we must also know that this is an issue that deals with control rather than destruction. In this concept, there will still need to be trust between nations that they will not use their weapons lightly and without reasonable grounds to even use them as a threat to other nations. However, there is much more room for trust in the nuclear deterrence, which allows the trust between nations to actually work.

Schelling, Thomas C. “A World Without Nuclear Weapons.” Foreign Affairs. p. 124-129. file:///Users/markyp923/Downloads/Schelling%20Daed%202006%20(1).pdf.

Weaknesses of NAFTA and Free Trade

Throughout the years, the United States has been involved in a number of trade agreements with nations around the world, based on different necessities and different opportunities. Some of these trade agreements, including the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico, involve the use of free trade among states. This North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, and its free trade system is an arrangement that has had many positives and negatives for the US economy and social system. The basis of this trade agreement is centered on a trade bloc between the three countries, removing tariffs and blocks, allowing for economic, environmental and agricultural interactions.[1] Though good and bad, in my opinion, the negatives that come out of this free trade agreement, and free trade agreements in general, for the United States far outweigh the positives of such treaties.

            First off, I believe it is important to make it clear that the North American Free Trade Agreement has certainly had its successes, and has brought in a good amount of profit for the United States. Specifically, the agreement has sparked exports, and has led to a 45% increase in exports to both Mexico and Canada in the year 2011, which is an astronomical number.[2]  Furthermore, there is speculation that NAFTA has influenced as much as .5% increases in the US economic output yearly, leading to the assumption that NAFTA has improved the American economy. Another statistic that I think is important in describing economic success of this agreement is that the combined output of this agreement is over 17 trillion USD.[3] Just to make it easier to understand how much that is, compare it to the US national debt. That 17 trillion dollar number is nearly identical to the amount the United States owes around the world. It is without question that free trade agreements, specifically involving Mexico and Canada, have netted certain positive economic benefits for the United States. However, in my opinion, the negative affects on US and International Businesses, and the various problems that these free trade agreements create are not worth it. NAFTA and other free trade agreements should not be so prevalent, as they cause many significant issues.

            One of the major cons of certain free trade agreements, including NAFTA, is centered on the idea of domestic job opportunity, specifically in the manufacturing sector of the economy. One of the basic principles of NAFTA allows US businesses to outsource manufacturing and industrial sector jobs to Mexico, because of cheaper labor and easier opportunity for production. Domestically, this hurts the US more than it helps. As jobs leave the country, unemployment and opportunity do also, leaving Americans jobless while others are benefiting from American businesses. In 2011 it was estimated that the United States shipped over 791,000 jobs in manufacturing to Mexico, and caused the loss of over 680,000 American jobs domestically.[4]  With the job market already in a steady decline, this sharp job loss of over half a million American opportunities cripples the economy, and hinders and individual development that Americans could hope for. The outsourcing of American jobs has not only hurt the economy, but has had negative repercussions in every facet of American life. I am not saying that it is just NAFTA or other free trade agreements to blame for this phenomenon, but they have certainly contributed to the problem.

            There are not just domestic issues that are found in the United States, but also problems that have arisen throughout Mexico because of this agreement. According to a US Economy article, “NAFTA allowed government-subsidized U.S. farm products into Mexico, where local farmers could not compete with the artificially low prices.”2 Because of this, Mexican farmers have gone out of business by the thousands, forcing them to abandon their livelihoods and seek job opportunities elsewhere, including illegally migrating to the United States. One of the biggest things that NAFTA was supposed to accomplish for Mexico was the development of a real middle class. In my opinion, the opposite has occurred. Because of the presence of US subsidized farms, a significant portion of the Mexican workforce is out of work, and a large part of the working aged men and women are leaving the country in search of minimum wage jobs in the United States. This has crippled the development of the Mexican economy, doing the exact opposite of what was originally intended. 

            It is without a doubt that NAFTA and numerous free trade agreements among states around the world have their positives in terms of economic growth. However the negatives of some of these agreements, including the example of NAFTA, usually are more indicative of the reality of various situations. In my opinion, free trade agreements, specifically NAFTA, should be revisited and altered to make sure that everyone’s economy, citizens and social structures are thriving the way they were meant to be.

---

[1] Bravo, Eduardo. "NAFTA Has Fueled Job Growth." My San Antonio. Hearst Newspapers, 19 Nov. 2012. Web. 9 Nov. 2014. <http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/commentary/article/NAFTA-has-fueled-job-growth-4044746.php>.

[2] Amadeo, Kimberly. "NAFTA Pros and Cons." About News. About, 23 Aug. 2014. Web. 9 Nov. 2014. <http://useconomy.about.com/b/2008/04/24/nafta-pros-and-cons.htm>.

[3] Aguilar, Julian. "Twenty Years Later, Nafta Remains a Source of Tension." New York Times. The New York Times Company, 7 Dec. 2012. Web. 9 Nov. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/us/twenty-years-later-nafta-remains-a-source-of-tension.html?_r=0>.

[4] Strachan, Maxwell. "U.S. Economy Lost Nearly 700,000 Jobs Because Of NAFTA, EPI Says."Huffington Post. The Huffington Post, 12 May 2011. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.

2