Re: altermondialistes, altermondialisation, altermondialisme (Le

        If Evgeni is correct, and I think he is, the difference between
"globalization" as currently understood in English and "mondialisation" in
French is more than small.  I'm not sure how "globalization" is usually
translated into French these days, but "mondialisation" became a major
buzz word in French political discourse shortly after World War II, thanks
to a movement led by Robert Sarrazac, which won the support of many local
governments in France and other parts of Europe.  There was also
"mondialisme."  The movement called for people to declare themselves
citizens of the world and for governments to announce their intention to
join a world federation or some other form of global polity.  Similar
movements flourished in Britain and North America.  To this day, as for
example in a recent book by the British historian John Roberts (not the
one who wrote the famous world history textbook), "mundialism" means a
recognition of the unity of humankind and the need to register oneself as
a world "citizen."  By the same token, "mundialization" in English is the
process by which governments "mundialize," i.e., agree to transfer their
authority to a global polity, when and if it comes into existence.  So,
yes, these are political terms, having to do only marginally with
economies, cultures, and societies.  It's the old cosmopolitical vision of
Rousseau and Kant brought more or less up to date.  When we speak in
English today of "globalization," such a vision is usually the furthest
thing from our minds.

        Now we need some correspondents more versed in contemporary French
than I who can confirm or disconfirm that "mondialisation" retains that
earlier political denotation.  But as far as I know, Evgeni is right.
It's just that the difference between the two concepts is, in my eyes,
quite large.  For example, even in 2003 I doubt that humankind is much
more "globalized" than it was already in 1903, but in 1903 it was gearing
up not for world polity but for world war.  And today...?

        Warren


On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Evgeni Nikolaev wrote:

> There is a small linguistic difference between "globalisation" and
> "mondialisation".
>
> Globalisation is a process which concerns all social spheres - economics,
> politics, culture, telecommunications, etc. On the other hand,
> "mondialisation" means globalisation, but only in the political sphere. So
> it is a narrower term than the former. Therefore, "altermondialisation"
> movement could mean that its members are not against globalisation in
> general, but are opposed to the politics of leading countries towards
> developing countries, or something like that.
>
> Regards,
>
> Evgeni Nikolaev
>
>
>