Imagine a world in which all the rivers are connected to each other. There are many rivers and they each have their own source, and they have tides and currents that come in and go out. The waters of the rivers mix and merge to such extent that the temperature and fish populations are pretty much the same no matter where you go. The people of the world use the rivers for food, water, recreation, power and transport. They go upstream and they go downstream, they build damns, boats, and irrigation systems. You can think of Globalization as this entire system of rivers, structures, people, products, ideas, and all the processes that help or hinder the mixing of the metaphoric 'waters'. Two major aspect of globalization are; grobalization and glocalization. We can use the analogy of the rivers to explore these aspects. Imagine a world in which there are only a handful of very large mountains. These mountains are the sources of water for most of the world. The water that begins in their peaks has a very powerful current as it flows in a downward motion to the rest of the world. At first in mighty rivers that are so strong they have washed out smaller mountains in their path, they have toppled water reservoir towers and engulfed lakes and eventually come together into just one mega river that reaches entirely around the world. This river then branches out into all reaches of all the lands so that there are very few places to get water other than from this mega river. Now imagine that the people of this land no longer think much about seeking water from digging wells or other such places, but instead they build irrigation systems to help distribute the mega river's waters to farther and farther reaches of the land. The water is in every way integrated into almost every aspect of their lives. Now substitute the word mountain for corporation, nation or organization and the word water for 'products' and what you are left with is a completely 'grobalized' planet. Grobalization is a term coined by George Ritzer in his book, The McDonaldization of Society. In this analogy of grobalization, you can substitute the word river with “flow of products” and the 'current' of these rivers is the power with which the mountainously huge organizations push their products to the people. Whether that product be intellectual property, idealism, energy, or food. The current, or the power of the organizations moves the 'water' or the products to the people. The people themselves contribute to its growth through the building of irrigation systems and through accepting it as their main source or water and no longer attempting to dig wells. It may seem over simplified to compare grobalization to some giant rivers. After all no river starts at the top of a mountain as a behemoth. Rather, rivers gain strength as waters from surrounding streams feed into them as they make their way into the valleys. But it is not entirely inaccurate either as most corporations grow through merger and acquisition. Each time a smaller river mergers with the 'dominate' river, the dominate river gains strength. The one mega river represents the overall concept of a globalized planet that is dominated by grobalizing organizations that use their current of power to impose their influence on the world. The image of a river can also help us to understand another term that Ritzer calls glocalization. Glocalization is “the interpenetration of the global and the local, resulting in unique outcomes in different geographic areas.” (pg. 167) We can use the metaphoric river to think of Globalization as a current that is multi-directional. When this current flows in one direction from a hierarchal mountain (driven by its own desire to impose itself) to the valleys and out into the deserts this is grobalization. When the current is influenced by the people whose land it flows through, this is glocalization. And although this analogy has its flaws, it can help to aid in picturing these aspects of globalization and how they relate to what Ritzer calls something and nothing, Something, according to Ritzer has a uniqueness about it. To quote directly from the book: “Something is 'a social form that is generally indigenously conceived, controlled and comparatively rich in distinctive substantive content'.” (pg. 166) In contrast, Nothing has the same components of Something (conception, control and substance) but in opposite form. You can think of Nothing as the ying to something's yang. They define each other. Nothing is conceived centrally, at the main offices and or at headquarters. Local people, that is to say chain store owners, have virtually nothing to do with its conception. Nothing is controlled centrally, at corporate headquarters. And finally, Nothing has nothing about it that is distinctive. The products being sold are all clones of each other. They are virtually identical. The currents of grobalization and glocalization can be strong depending on whether they carry something or nothing. Perhaps the strongest current is that of the grobalization of nothing. Water is an excellent example of nothing. The water in the analogy is a river, flavorless and colorless, non distinctive and stemming from the central source of the mountain. The current is strong as long as it is flowing downward. Grobalization is strong as long as it is flowing from the top of the hierarchy in a downward uni-directional motion. The river passes through lands in which 'somethings' exist, but if these somethings are thrown into river, they flow downstream and therefore have no effect on the top of the mountain. If an individual (or something) wishes to travel upstream, the currents must be WEAK in order for it to do so. Thus as grobalization expands and grow its nothingness, it is strong. A real life example of the strong grobalization of nothing is the bottled water industry. Bottled water meets all the criteria of nothing. 20 years ago it was almost non existent, it is now a $100 billion a year industry and growing. (grobalizing) So why is this grobal current of nothing so strong? Four reasons: 1.) there is a great demand for nothing because it tends to be less expensive. 2.) Nothing tends to be simple and there for has a broader range of appeal. 3.) It tends to be non offensive. 4.) Organizations spend more money advertising it. One might ask; Is it even possible to grobalize something? The answer is yes, but not very easily done since in order for it to be grobal an item must come from a central source, be controlled by that source, and be obtainable globally. For the reasons mentioned above, global organizations tend not to promote somethings. The minute an attempt is made at 'growing' an industry of something globally, somethings need to be turned into nothing in order to replicate them. This relationship is the weakest of them all. Since somethings are usually controlled and conceived indigenously it is rare for them to be grobalized, but one example would be custom made very expensive luxury items. Since they are custom made, they qualify as unique and distinctive, and since few individuals have the power to produce them, they are usually produced by global organizations. Lets now return to our image of the global river. Picture a town along the river that prefers to eat rainbow trout. Imagine that all the fish in this global river are “stocked fish” (they are farm raised and then added to the rivers as needed) The people in this particular town receive rainbow trout, because it is what they prefer, the people in the next town might get brown trout. Ultimately the fish are coming from a centrally controlled source, and all the towns in all the lands have rivers with fish, which means the fishing industry in our analogy is globalized, but since each town has an influence on what kind of fish they receive, the industry is actually glocalized. (a locally influenced globalized process) In this particular case the fish are nothing. (because they are centrally controlled and conceived and do not actually have a richly distinctive quality.) The current is weak enough for the the local to influence the global. A real life example of this process would be Souvenirs of a local place, (for instance Alaska) made non locally (for instance China) and that are centrally controlled. The souvenirs may appear to be something, like totem poles but are in fact mass produced nothings. The last relationship to consider, is the glocalization of something. This is the process in which the individual has the most agency. Local people might make crafts that reflect their regional heritage or values. The crafts they make are somethings, they are indigenously conceived and controlled and are rich in distinctive characteristics. These crafts can be sold at farmers markets, or trade shows. Glocalized somethings can also be locally grown fruits used to make locally made pies that are sold at slow food restaurants. In summary grobalizing of nothing is a frighteningly strong relationship to those who value heterogeneity. Glocalization of nothing gives those who value heterogeneity the illusion that there are differences from one place to the next. It is a strong relationship but slightly weaker than grobalization of nothing because it allows for a modicum of influence from locals. Glocalization of somethings gives hope to people that personal agency can still exist, unfortunately this force isn't nearly as strong as the above forces. And lastly the weakest of them all, the grobalization of something... well that is almost nonexistent.