Globalization as a Symbolic Form: Ernst Cassirer ’ s Philosophy of Symbolic Form as the Basis for a Theory of Globalization

: The aim of this paper is to investigate and problematize the present status of theories of globalization. Because of the actual diversity of these theories, a philosophical definition must be able to include this diversity without becom-ing meaningless. This paper claims that Ernst Cassirer ’ s philosophy of culture — especially his Philosophy of Symbolic Forms (1923 – 1929) — is particularly suitable for providing a uniform access. The first part therefore examines an understanding of such symbolic forms; it shows on the one hand the problems of classical theories, and on the other hand the advantage of a functional access of cultural production, provided through the concept of Cassirer ’ s elaboration of the conditions of possibility of culture and meaning. The paper then identifies the different aspects of globalization as a symbolic form, including the way it became a picture of the world, changed the understandings of space and time, is an inter-pretive paradigm and myth, and finally has consequences for the construction of subjectivity and identity. In a summarizing section, the paper highlights the paradoxical structure of globalization as its constituent moment. With the concept of symbolic forms, this awareness of contingency can be understood as a specific way of comprehending, related to our time and its cultural processing and man-aging strategies. In conclusion, there is much to suggest that the concept of globalization should be treated as a world image. Only then can one understand why globalization has become a symbol of our time: on the one hand, it occupies itself with universalistic claims; on the other, it is permeated by particular anxiet-ies. It has become difficult to escape the concept of globalization. Not only does it consistently shape the media and academic discourse — our lives are also directly affected by the consequences of globalization. However, more detailed inquiries reveal that the phenomena to which globalization relates vary widely. This is true for everyday use, as well as for scientific use: a uniform definition of globalization does not exist. Therefore, the aim cannot be to search for a unique definition or something that all things meant by globalization have

It has become difficult to escape the concept of globalization. Not onlyd oes it consistentlyshape the media and academic discourse-our livesare also directly affected by the consequences of globalization. However,more detailed inquiries reveal that the phenomenatowhich globalization relates vary widely. This is true for everydayu se, as well as for scientific use: auniform definition of globalization does not exist.Therefore, the aim cannot be to search for aunique definition or something that all thingsm eant by globalization have in common. Equally, the use of this terminphilosophicala pproaches is not self-evident.Instead, the question arises: what are the conditions of the possibilityofacommon meaning of globalization?
An author whose life'swork and philosophyare in exactlyt hat relationship of epistemology, conceptual theory and cultural philosophyisErnst Cassirer.He was the first Jewish director of aGermanuniversity,and he subsequentlyescaped from National Socialism,went into exile and died in New York; he fell into academic oblivion for al ong time, until his theoretical approach sawarevival from the 1980s on. This is duet oh is magnum opus, Philosophyo fS ymbolic Forms (Cassirer2010). The aim of this project wastodevelop atheory of the cognitive functions and expressionso fh uman beings. Cassirer'sa pproach is thus predestined to on the one hand, fill the methodological gapo ft he formation of ac oncept of globalization, and on the other hand, to build ab ridgeb etween culturalp hilosophya nd ethics. The question was no longer how we recognize the world, but:h ow do we understand it?
From af unctional theoryo fe xperience to the philosophy of symbolic forms Cassirer'sstarting point was acritique of the classical and formal process of abstraction, which alsof orms the starting point of knowledge for the concept of globalization. The common understanding was thatad efinitiono re ssence could be made or found by finding commonalities and differencesb etween the term-related objects, which are then constitutive for the term itself. In order to enrich the criticism in content,i ti sh elpful to show that 'classicala pproach' in reference to globalization. Roughlyu nderstood, globalization is the intensification of worldwide relations in the fields of politics, economyand culture.
Whether concerning provisions of the European Union, the Böhmermann-Erdogan debate in Germanyorthe international refugeecrisis, for all examples it is true thatt hey cannot be explained without supranational influences. Due to growinginterdependencies, the autonomyofthe nation state has reachedits limits (Osterhammel /Petersson 2007). JürgenHabermas described this as the 'postnational constellation' (Habermas 1998, p. 91). He argues that the nationals tate alone cannot fill the new gaps of legitimacy.G lobal and trans-national institutions such as the UN and the EU should undertake this task. The hope was an increasingl egalization. The most obvious discussion was the tendencyt owards universalizationi nt erms of human rights. Fore xample, Martha Nussbaum as-sumes that pre-state claims provide ap lausible foundationf or ag lobalh uman rights regime (Nussbaum 1999). This is even more noticeable in the area of economics. Production, price development,employment relationships, etc. can no longer be understood without global references. In every book about globalization, the claim is made thatt he economic constraints comprise the driving forceb ehind the delimitation movement,a nd that the market is the determining factor over all othere xisting systems (politics, social affairs, culture). It is not without cause that the renowned economist Jagdish Bhagwati defends himself against globalization critics when he highlights globalization as the "most powerful sourcef or social good in the world" (Bhagwati 2007). Fore xample, pertainingt ot he issue of child labor,i nstitutionalization can be ahelpful wayt oend it.Border crossingisnot onlyevident at the level of organizations such as WTOo rl arge globalc orporations, but also on as mall scale. Most products we buy werep roduced under completely different conditions in other countries.Not onlydoes the western market depend on extra-state production-it furthermore influences the living conditions in Third World countries,a ss candals about productions in Bangladesh (for example) show.E xploitation, cheap labor,c hild labor and poverty are consequences of global production. Hence, it seems that the economyh as developed its own dynamics and logic.Under the term 'capitalism' and in the context of the economic crisis of 2008, the problem of such trends was revealed. However,i tb ecame clear that these problems can onlybecontrolled and addressed on aglobal level.
In the field of culture, the rapid development of information and communication technologies blurs the self-containment of culturalidentities. Like the appropriation of mangas in the west or the takeover of Bavarian beer house culture in Asia, culturalp roducts are detached from their context and freef or adaptation. Byung-Chul Han therefores peaks of 'hyperculture': "The limits or fencing, to which the appearance of acultural authenticity or originality is imprinted, dissolves. Cultureisbursting at the seams." (Han 2005,p.16) Rather,cultures coexist and changeeach other at the same time. Nevertheless,attemptstospeak of a 'world society' are common (Beck 1998;L uhmann 1975). The coincidenceo ft he two viewpointsleadsnot onlytoproductive mixing and pluralization, but also to severe culturalconflicts (occident/orient), as well as to reciprocal transformation of cultures.
Overall, the lowest common denominator is thatall definition or description of globalization focuses on the delimitation thesis. They onlydiffer in that some see this as aw eakening (interdependence,g lobalization as an etwork)o r strengthening (homogenization, universalization) process. The examples given here are onlyafraction of the current discussion, but sufficientlyservet he purpose of giving an empiricism of the delimitation of boundaries.
However,itwould not be sufficient to simply follow Cassirer'scritique of the 'classical' approach of abstraction. In his view,the most general terms are those with the least content,a nd thus the importance of the phenomenon cannot be grasped. Globalizationi snots implyageneric term, but is onlyu nderstandable in the context of different concepts and theorieslike trans-nationalization, denationalization, capitalism, economization, multiculturalism or deterritorialization. Concepts,a sC assirer quite Kantianlys ays, "cannot be taken from the realm of subjectmatter that they are supposed to explain." (Paetzold 2008, p. 29) The philosophyo ft he symbolic formss eeks to clarify this overall connection between constitution (what characterizes the concept and makes it functional) and construction (the function that the concept itself takes over). Therefore, terms are representations and parts of an overall system. Following Gerald Hartung'sanalysis of Cassirer: "Insteado fatheory of scientifict hinking, an analysis of all paths is necessary on which reality is mergedinto acognitive cosmos [i. e. globalization]." (Hartung 2006,p .2 19) Symbolic forms are forms that help us to understand and to createanunderstanding of the world. Man becomes the creator of the world through his own mental activity.The comprehensive approach of the project is reflectedinthe determination of the human being as an 'animal symbolicum'.Then, culture is understood as an organic whole: "Wheneverm an becomes aware of and perceives the world, thingsa nd oneself, it requires mediation through symbolic forms." (Müller2 010,p .1 5) Therefore, the philosophyo fs ymbolic forms, understood as 'culturalc riticism',a llows us to understand different spaces of experience; in the specific language, these are myth, religion, science, technologyand lastly politics. Returning to the concept of globalization, it is true that with the concept of delimitation, the coreo ft hat movement is grasped-but this explanation is one-dimensional. That means, the moments of globalization "cannot be listed in isolation or even divided into different kinds of globalization which we then workt hrough accordingly." (Gedinat2 015,p .7)

Globalizationa sasymbolic form
It is no small claim to understand globalization as a 'symbolicf orm'.A sp art of the Cassirer-examined forms like language, myth, religion, science and technology, globalization seems not to be taken for granted. Nevertheless, so the thesis, the basic functions can alsobefound. Globalization has become aformbetween constitution and construction, through which specific phenomena of economy, technology,p olitics or society can be interpreted. In other words: globalization comes necessarilyt oo ne'sm ind when thinkinga bout such spheres.T he term is used to explain everything and thus has become an on-explanation. Everything would actuallyalreadyhavebeen said with the answer: 'It'sall about globalization'-but nothing would have been understood.
We live in the 'ageo fg lobalization' (Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie 2016), the dawning of which the BMWi dates with the year 1998, and in which processes of internationalization,a cceleration and interdependence are omnipresent.However,referenceisnot made to concrete forms of globalization, nor to the necessity that arises duet oi t -an ecessityt hat alreadycreated ad iscourse about the end of this era ( Straubhaar 2016), because internationalization set countermovementsi nm otion, which undermine the original processes of globalization (nationalism, protectionism). Nevertheless, maybe this is not the end, just the other side of the coin. If globalization is as ymbolic form, both sides can be connected in ap roductive way. It is no longer about the search for the coreo rs imilarities of all the thingsr elated to globalization, but rather the attempt to understand the meaning of the term. Such an attempt is analogous to Cassirer'si nvestigations and can be roughly divided into four levels: Globalization as aw orldview,void, myth and the consequences for the subject.

Globalization as aw orldview
Firstly, it must be discussed which function the term 'globalization' has besides a reduction to the lowest common denominator.I ti si mportant to ask how the meaningso fs pecific phenomenaw erec hanged by globalization, and thus also changed the meaning of the term itself.G lobalization is thereforen ot onlyd etermined through its differentia specifica,i ti sf urthermore an ormative pattern of interpretation-aw orldview.This view is especiallyc haracterized by its paradoxicals tructure: "Depending on the perspective,i ta ppears either positively as ad e-ideologizing, liberatingt endency, or negatively as av iolence which infiltrates the remnants of human life and completelychanges social systems and cultures." (Schweppenhäuser/Gleiter 1999,p .6 )T hisc an be easily shown by looking at the aforementioned areas of politics, economyand culture.
There was the hope that through the processes of globalization values such as democracy and human rights would spread worldwide. 'Cosmopolitanc ity', 'world system' and 'cosmopolitanism' werethe terms on which such adebate focused.Worldwide entanglementswereconsidered as possiblyproducing the civilization of the world. Thus, with the statement of the 'end of history' (Fukuyama 1992),F rancis Fukuyama represented the thesis thatw ith democracy,l iberalism and market economy, the dominant models of world order had prevailed, and alternativesn ol onger seemed plausible. That lack of alternativeso nlyl eadst o gradual distortions within the dominant system. The coreo ft hese theses can be pinpointed, on the eveo ft he popularity of globalization, to the prevailing dominance of modernization theories. Theset heories assumedt hat history has to be understood as aprogressiveand rationalprocess, which leads to social, political and economic improvements; and furthermore,thatt he movement of delimitation and globalization are among the categorieso fm odernity itself (Giddens 1995). It is stressed as ac riticism of these concepts thato nt he one hand, they hide the dark sides of globalization, like poverty or the rapid degradation of the environment,while on the other hand, an increasinglyEurocentric perspective legitimizes western hegemony( from colonialism to capitalism).
That,25y ears after the appearance of Fukuyama'st hesis, the world has not developedi nto unity illustrates the problem of such ap roject.T he crises are striking:w hether politically, such as the Ukraine crisis or the conflicts in the Middle East; economically, such as the finding that the living conditions "between and within individual worldregions and societies have remained extremely unequal or even diverging" (Debiel /R oth /U lbert 2010,p .16); or culturally, such as the lack of equalitybetween men and women. Therefore, current globalization theories try to thematizet hat contradiction.
In this sense, it is not accidental thatErnst Bloch'sdescription of the 'simultaneity of the non-simultaneous' (Bloch 1985, p. 104) gotarevival in the context of globalization. The sociologist Armin Nassehi expresses this interaction in terms of ethical questions: It [globalization] denotes both as pecter,which threatened our beautiful social peacea nd the reasonablyf unctioning model of tamed capitalism, and the possibility of reversingr egional particularisms in favorofthat statetwo hundred years ago, as mankind as an inclusion formula should provide those forces that can liberate us from self-inflicted immaturity. The talk of globalization legitimates both social atrocities in political decisions and the hope that the One World, of which the 1970sa lternative and thirdw orld movements spokea saprovocation, have now become reality. ( Nassehi 1999,p .2 1) In Robert Robertson we can find as imilar representation. In his article "Glocalization: Homogeneity and heterogeneity in space and time" (Robertson 1998),he said thatglobalization mainlycomesf rom ac oexistence of different effects and dimensions. Forexample, smartphones and internet access are now widespread worldwide, even in the poorest regions.Simultaneously, much of the production of these devices is based on the exploitation of rawm aterialsi nd eveloping countries.I ronically, amazement at the imageo farefugeew ith as martphone shows how much western thinkingi ss till arrested in the modernization paradigm.
Ulf Engel and Matthias Middell thereforeu sed the term 'fracture zones of globalization' (Engel /M iddell 2010,p .2 3) in their book about the similarities and differences among 26 globalization theorists, to represent the doubtt hat all the different phenomena can be meaningfullyb rought together. It shows a differentiated picture of delimitation, which can be onlyunderstood in its plurality and contradictoriness: [The] world in the sense of shared values and universallyaccepted principlesand standards for tacklingglobal challengeso nlyexists in ar udimentary state. Despiteg lobal communication, transnational migration, technologyt ransfer and the proliferation of Western consumption patterns, the worlds still remain alien to one another. ( Debiel /R oth /U lbert 2010,p .2 5) In recent years, the opposite trend has been particularlyclear in the rise of populist movements in the western world. They are considered as the voice of 'globalization losers' (Titz 2016)-people who understand theirl oss of work, reduced income or general slipping into precarious situations as an outcome of globalization. As the example of the smartphone and,furthermore, research on consequences of globalw arming make visible, vulnerabilities are unfairlydistributed (Reder 2009,p p. 130 -131).
It is useful to ask whether this type of 'western globalization loser' is not in fact as pecial cohort,s ince it is located within the large cohort of globalization winners. If this thesis is correct,itreveals more obviously the changed meaning of globalization. Ar ecentlyp ublished studyb yt he Bertelsmann Foundation shows thata bout half of the citizens of Europe fear globalization. The word has become ac ipher for 'automation, migration and international banking' (Titz 2016). It is no longer ap rinciple of hope, but at hreat.T he samec an be said for the United States, if the electiono fD onald Trump can be referred back to his critical positions on globalization. These examples show that globalization alsoi ncludes movements back to the local, to nationalism and protectionism.
As mentioned above, not onlyare the experiences of globalization different, but so too are the associated normative criteria. Globalization is thus not only local, in terms of acenter-periphery thesis, but also temporallyand normatively contradictory.E venm ores triking is the desire previouslya ssociated with this processo fc ontrol and security,n ow changed to the experience of fear of being out of control. Globalization standss ymbolically for aw orldviewa tt he end of the expiring twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century.Overall, the commonality is based on the experience of helplessnessand of being exposed to as tructure-one that obeys onlyi ts own logic and is beyond the control of human powers.G edinat states: "We do not control the process of globalization. Foru si ti so ut of control. At the same time it determines our living conditions in principle." (Gedinat 2015,p .16) Globalization as av oid Secondly, this implies thatglobalization contains ak ind of surplus or transcendental moment.Itisnot just the reservoir of individual phenomena-it is alsoin its entirety beyond our reach. This becomes obvious when looking at the explanations of the global financial crisis of 2008. Despite attemptst om ake the interrelations comprehensible to everyone through the use of words like 'financial bubble' or 'hedge funds',t he concrete mechanisms remain understandable to onlyavery small percentageofexperts. Rather,the traceability of whatever provoked the crisis is no longer be achievable.
The aforementioned complexity and diversity of using the term 'globalization' now becomesaproblem. The empirical process itself is withdrawn or unavailable to us. If the concept of globalization remains unavailable, whyd ow e need and use such at erm at all?A tthis point,manyassertions about anthropological questions and questions of transcendence can be made.H owever,with Cassirer'sf unctional theory of experience and aspect of meaning,t wo theses can be highlighted.
On the one hand,Cassirer emphasizes thathuman beingsare dependent on something like meaning.A lthough it is initiallyacircular argument,s ince the search for meaning is proved by the elaboration of symbolic forms, evidence can nevertheless be found in psychologya nd philosophical anthropology.P assive perceptions must primarilybetransformed in reality.A cting is not justareaction;itassumes ameaningful understanding.Onthe other hand, it should be noted that the functional necessity of as uperordinate phenomenon such as globalization is simply ar esponse to the rampant excess of information. Changed material conditions and the ever-increasingde-bordering and interconnectedness of the world lead to the development of aterm like globalization, in order to be able to understand and order them. As a 'historical apriori',the term then affects the interpretation of the singular phenomena.
Accordingt oC assirer,p reciselyt his is the function of meaningo fs ymbolic forms: In the meaningf unction these two moments,t he constant change and the constancy of things,b ecome dialectical counterpoints.
The definitions of globalization and the emphasis on its paradoxeso utlined aboves trikingly match Cassirer'sc onception. Theoretically, Hartmut Rosa'sn otion of 'acceleration' is an analogyi nw hich he describes the 'silent, normative violence' of modern life (Rosa 2005,p .481).

Globalization as am yth
Thirdly, Cassirer provides analogies of globalization and the concept of myth. This does not mean to show that globalization is am yth, which would 'negate' the mythicalu nderstanding by looking at these thingsf rom as cientific standpoint (Cassirer 1990,p.119). Rather,tounderstand myth means to develop an understandingw ithin the mythical framework. This is also true for globalization. Utilizing as trictlys cientificp erspective,w eo nlyg rasp ap art of its purpose. Even if the concept itself is empiricallyamyth, the actual use of the term is not.Without giving adetailed summary of Cassirer'stheory of myth, some points can be highlighted.
In the first place, Cassirer identifiest he sameg oal in myth as in science. Both try to develop an appropriate and reasonable understanding of the world. "Fore venm agic argues and acts upon the presupposition thati nn ature one event follows another necessarilyand invariablywithout the intervention of anyspiritual or personal agency." (Cassirer 1972, p. 76)Itisalso possibletoview globalization as aresultofforces and actions beyond the realm of human influence. Especiallyi nt he case of economics, an independent process can be identified. If Elmar Altvater writesthat "the inner pressureofglobal market is relentless" (Altvater 2009,p .2 06), then his criticism is directed against an apparent necessity or naturalness that connects globalization with al ack of alternatives.
Furthermore, essential for mythical thinkingi st he emotional nature of perception. Instead of the experience through senses, it is primarilyt he experience of passions. 'Physiognomic qualities' are in oppositionto'qualities of perception' (Cassirer 1972,p .7 7). The usual explanations of globalization inevitablyf all short,because they do treat the emotional part of this debate seriously.The political approach towardglobalization in particularisinitself evidence that emotional understanding has priority. "The world of myth is ad ramatic world-a world of actions, of forces, of conflictingp owers" (Cassirer 1972, p. 67)-much like the reactions to globalization. It also seems to be an interplayo ff orces: we do not judge from an observer'sp erspective;r ather the effectso fg lobalization are directlye xperienced.
Accordingt oC assirer, the most important point of mythological thinking is the dissolution of the interplayo ff orces to form ap icture of the whole. Myths integrate all thingsf rom social to natural phenomena: Life is not divided into classes and subclasses. It is felt as an unbrokencontinuous whole, which does not admit to anyc lean-cut and trenchant distinctions. The limits between the different spheres arenot insurmountablebarriers;they arefluent and fluctuating. (Cassirer 1972, p. 81) As imilar description can be found in booksa bout globalization. Fore xample, Giddens and Reder both show that the process of globalization is defined as a processo fb order transgression or automatic leveling.I ti sm ore ap erceived than af actual dissolution.
However,bylooking at Cassirer'st erms like 'solidarity of life', 'unity of life' and 'society of life' (Cassirer 1972, pp. 82-83), it can be doubted that myth and globalization are the same. The former refers to forms of equalitya nd support, while the latter displays al ack of solidarity.I nequality increases even more. The unity of globalization is au nity of differences.

Globalization and subjectivity
Lastly, it is necessary to ask which consequences can be drawnf or the subject from the previous.I fC assirer'sbelief that our categorieso fk nowledge and concepts form the basis of our view of the world is true, then it has to be takenf or granted that the ideao fg lobalization has an influenceo no ur self-conception.
However,g lobalization not onlym eans the dissolution of the forms described above-it alsop uts conventional ideas of 'subjectivity' and 'identity' into question. In the sense of postmodern diversity,the stabilizingunity of the subject is in danger.The idea of always being and having to be at one with oneself in this world onlyl eads to disappointment and the feelingo ff ailure. As showni nt he context of space and time, the increasing instability of the conceptsl eadst oa deterioration of values. Human beingsa re bound to physical abilities, and thus when comparedt ot echnology are no longer in ac ompetitive position. Cases like this show that people start to feelh elpless and overburdened, which is the reason for ar etreat into fixed identities. This is the attempt to preservet he individual status quo with ag reater awarenesso ft he roots of the occident,the re-discovery of religion or the Germand iscussion about ad ominant culture-thingsthat follow from a 'disorientation of the subjective world' (Figueroa 2004,p .11).
Interestingly,differenceoccurs less in alreadynon-homogeneous cities than in rural areas.Ofcourse, economic factors and education stillplayacrucial role, but roughly,through the expandedm obilitya nd the inclusion of supraregional culturalp roducts, the appropriation of new perspectivesi sm orew idespread than in history so far.Evenifthe media in the western world focuses on cultural conflicts,the changeissmall by comparison to other worldregions. The increase of migration movementsinparticularshow that with the consciousness of aglobalized world and the knowledge of the other,alife outside the regional framework and under new and better conditions is possible.
The attempt to preservethe particular is not onlyfound in arising nationalism-Colin Crouch speaks of anationalism that is itself globalized (Crouch 2017, p. 1)-but rather also as atendencyofglobalization research. Due to the danger of leveling and disorientation, it is importantt oe mphasize the individual and the special. Byung-Chul Han radicalizesthe individual approach when he understands the expanded and huge 'fund of life forms and practices' (Han 2005, p. 55) as enablinganew dimension of individualization. Hence, the new openness is not justadrive back to regional homogeneity-it is an extended possibility of freelyl iving out one'so wn ideas.
However,Cassirer'sa daptation of Ernst Kapp'sp hilosophical theses can be read similarly. Kapp'sthesis of 'organ projection' describes technology as an outsourced form of human wish fulfillment (Kapp 1877,p .3 0). As Cassirer states, technology not onlyn egatively changes the cognitivec onditions of man-it can also expand these conditions in apositive way. Technologycreates new possibilities of self-experience.I tf orms the basis of an opening to the other by exceedingt he otherwise limited communication radius. Globalization as aw orldview can be interpreted in two directions: on the one hand, as at hinking of withdrawal and delimitation; and on the otherhand,asacosmopolitan attitude and an appearance of equal individualization. This ambivalenceb ecomes obvious in the political trench fights of western societies: management of contingency vs consciousness of contingency.However,both worldviews have delimitation and associated powerlessness as ab asis. They onlyd iffer significantlyi nt heir handling of this.
Both are consequences of the break with the identity concepts proclaimed by postmodern theories and the changes in the living world through globalization. In this respect,itbelongstothe modernorpost-modern self-understanding to be variable at the core: on the one hand, to keep it consistent to be one at that moment and another in the next moment; and on the other hand,this leads to radicalizationbymaintaining and defending identity.Whether or not the individual faces the task, the question of the 'self' is no longer taken for granted. Ag ood example is Richard Rorty'sd escription of the 'liberal ironist' (Rorty 1992, pp. 14 -15). In this figure, self-creation and solidarity are equivalent and incommensurable at the samem oment.

Globalizationa saconsciousnesso fp aradox
As the concluding result, all the different aspects of globalization have to be brought together on an abstract level to understand globalization as ac oncept as such. Accordingt oC assirer,the importance of globalization can onlyb eu nderstood when we concentrate on its function in the overall system. Such aprocess allows reflection on the constitutional conditions of such at erm, and does not simplyi nterpret it as ac ollection of different phenomena.
Classically,with globalization it is said that everything is in some wayc onnected with everything.Thisi sh ow AnthonyG iddens formulates it in his book Consequences of Modernity: The term globalization can be defined in the sense of an intensification of worldwide social relationships in that remote places areconnectedinsuch away that events in one placeare influenced by events that arelocatedmanymiles away and viceversa. (Giddens 1995, p. 85) Accordingt oH amid Reza Yousefi, globalization is thus the changeo fo ne consciousness, by no longer assumingt hat singular areas can be understood on their own. As he states,they instead "overlap in manyways, contradict,complement or combat." (Yousefi 2010,p . 2 7) The striking conclusion began to spread that ap urelys ubstantive definition of globalization cannot be given. Angelika Epple recommends thatwecease trying to use the concept of globalization universally: Globalizationisconsidered apluralistic, non-linear,non-teleological and as amulti-layered and asymmetric interconnectingprocess of different speeds,which is drivenforwardbyindividual and collective actors, slowed down, transformedand changed. To analyze the different layers,i tm akes sense to use the term in plural. (Epple 2014).
Ih avea ttempted abovet oc haracterize the definitions alluded to here. Even if different authors agree in principle with the dissolution thesis, when trying to formulate it they end up with an emphasis on overlaps and contradictions. As banal as this mays ound,acertain understandingo ft he worldi se vident. As a 'connection withoutc ontour',t he meaning of globalization lacks the order that serves as am eaning-giving element.T he concepts of border crossinga nd unification remain disordered. In more complicated terms,g lobalization is an 'understandingnetwork' through which, as stated above, not aconcrete or causal relationship is understood. Rather,itgives us an awareness of what we are:on the one hand, powerless against the contingency and the changingstructures of the world; on the other hand, through the freedom of contingency empowered to act in and createt he world.
The aforementioned contourlessness then becomes morepreciselydescribed as a 'consciousness of paradox'.Whether speakingabout 'condition and process' (Osterhammel, Petersson), 'Simultaneity of the non-simultaneous' (Bloch, Nassehi), 'dismaywithout involvement' (Reder), 'overcomingthe overwhelming' (Gedinat), 'Glocalization' (Robertson), 'non-solidarity unity', 'space-dependent spatial independence' (Harvey) or 'contourless connection',itisalways necessary to refer to opposing elements to understand globalization. The emphasis on paradoxesand contradictions has now become ascientific commonsense, and is promoted as the end of the globalization paradigm. Asingular concept dissolveseverything in ac omprehensive movement,w hich is whyi to nlym akes sense to understand globalization as a 'symbolic form'-afunction of human world development.Therefore, much can be said for treating the concept of globalization as aw orldview.O nlyt hen can one understand whyg lobalization has become the symbolo fo ur time: on the one hand occupied with universalistic claims, on the other hand permeated by particularf ears. Globalization as as ymbolic form is not,aspresented in the Encyclopedia of globalization, the mere "continuation and continuity of along-standing process" (Kreff /Knoll/Gingrich 2011, p. 16). Rather,g lobalization-with the thesis of the 'historical ap riori' and the acceptance of Foucault'sa doption and further development of the philosophy of symbolic forms-is ah istoricallyc hangeable condition of possibilityo ft he visible, the expressible, the knowable. It is ap icture of our time. To refrain from au niformu nderstanding of globalization, the benefito ft he term must lie in its linguistic and meaningful assistance in communicating and understanding ap aradoxical structure.What remains doubtful is whether globalization can retain the intention of enlightenment,a sC assirerh oped.
Nevertheless,a sC assirer puts it,i ti samatter of philosophyt oa sk not just what role globalization plays,but also what role it should play. Onlyinthe analysis of asymbolic consciousness can globalization be understood and criticized. Globalization can then be understood as ataskitself. In the spirit of Cassirer,this task meanstotake globalization as self-empowerment and to take responsibility for shapingthe world positively and seriously, in order to freeoneself from powerlessness through critical reflection. As paradoxical and contradictory as the figure of globalization mayb e, it is not onlyn ecessary,b ut also changeable. Radicallys peaking,b yt he obviousness of the contradictions, one must not seek