The final post I wanted to write about intensification through the processes of globalisation is about of increasing reactivity in our world today. What globalisation today does is that it allowed reactions to events and phenomena be intensified.
What I mean by intensification of reactivity is not necessarily the intensified strength of the impact of an event or phenomena, but also the space and time horizon of it.
I’m going to use the case of Natasha Kampusch as an example to elaborate my point. Natascha, a young Austrian girl was kidnaped and kept captive for 8 and half years in a cellar. She was rapped and forced to work by her captor, totally isolated from the world. After exactly 3096 days Natasha seized the opportunity to escape from her captor and let the world know about a horrible crime committed not only against her in person, but also against childhood and freedom.
Now the case Natascha, the horrible crime committed against her, but most importantly her bravery, although a relatively local event, has become global. Living in the Middle East, I’m reading about the case of this Austrian girl on the website of a British newspaper, and noticing some harsh comments from the United States about the article.
The case might have been picked up by world media and become viral as the time of its happening, and whenever there have been some updates about it, but on other times it might not have made the headlines. Nevertheless is it is global, because it is accessible to every one in the world, and because it might come up in search results to any case related to children, sexual slavery, or kidnaping.
So while the case of Natascha, because of its extremeness and because of her bravery, has the potential to have a strong impact on the fight against sexual slavery and child abuse, it can have a global impact because there are many material, including a movie and book, accessible to the world. But somehow, although there might have been a time when her case was very popular in news outlets, its impact can remain, explicitly and implicitly, over history since its happening, because it is documented digitally and unlikely to be unaccasible to most of the world population.
Reactivity intensifies in time, space, and impact because of the increased connectedness and hence interactivity of our world. This is why, as Eriksen mentions in his book Globalization, although globalisation is an old phenomena, it differs entirely in our world today. International trade has existed since the Silk Road was used and even before that, and the mix of cultures was something not uncommon since the Persian, Roman, Greek, and Muslim empires. But only in the last decades the processes that lead to more connectedness, interactivity, and reactivity, have intensified, and have made us talk about globalisation as we know it today.
The butterfly effect theory might have sounded strange and unconventional when it was developed a few centuries ago. Todays world and its increasingly intensified connectedness, interactivity, and reactivity had made it something very likely, and there might be day where it becomes even common sense. Important contemporary examples being that of the Arab Spring and the Global Financial Crisis of 2007 and 2008 with an impact that is still lasting today.