Learning Resources · This article discusses the skepticism over free trade and the results for American workers. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/04/opinion/sunday/our-misplaced-faith-in-freetrade.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3As%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A8%22%7D&_r=0 · A list of reviews of Thomas Piketty’s New Thoughts on Capital in the Twenty-First Century video. http://equitablegrowth.org/2014/03/25/dialogue-ten-so-far-worthwhile-reviews-of-and-reflections-on-thomas-pikettys-capital-in-the-twenty-first-century-wednesday-focus-march-26-2014/ · A video by Thomas Piketty discussing his formula for economic inequality, an existing, worsening condition with radical possible impacts. http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_piketty_new_thoughts_on_capital_in_the_twenty_first_century?language=en Module Four In this module, we focus on the evolution of the global and virtual (Web-based) societies of the twenty-first century. We begin by defining globalization—what it is and how it has developed through the increased sophistication of telecommunications and large, international financial systems. We then explore the individual's role in global society, and how roles in poor societies differ from those in rich societies. For example, we'll explore how the physical distance between these societies affects individuals' feelings of responsibility and involvement. We will then investigate a new and growing society that is essentially built on physical distance—the virtual society of the Internet. In our explorations we consider two important questions: How do we interact as individuals in a Web-based society, and how can our knowledge of sociology help us to understand this world better? Module 4 Module 4: The Individual in the Global Society Topics What Is Society? Globalization and the Chasm between the Rich and Poor The Individual in the Cyber-World The Presentation of Self on the Internet What Is Society? The very definition or perception of society has changed over the last century, as its elements and functions have changed. One hundred years ago, few individuals left the community in which they were raised. Experiences in other countries, even cities, were read about in novels or discussed as tall tales and exciting adventures by those who had the rare experience of travel. As the twentieth century wore on, jet travel and telecommunications expanded the community we all live in. We became quite familiar with the experiences of those outside of our hometown, first through motion pictures and television and then through the Internet. Cultural experiences were delivered to us through these media and broadened our view of the world and our global society, but these are virtual—not personal—experiences. Virtual living through the media has become more common in the last decade, and much of our knowledge and many of our experiences are influenced by this virtual world: It influences how we define our identities, develop our opinions, and exercise ...

1. Learning Resources
· This article discusses the skepticism over free trade and the
results for American workers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/04/opinion/sunday/our-
misplaced-faith-in-
freetrade.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3As%2C%
7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A8%22%7D&_r=0
· A list of reviews of Thomas Piketty’s New Thoughts on
Capital in the Twenty-First Century video.
http://equitablegrowth.org/2014/03/25/dialogue-ten-so-far-
worthwhile-reviews-of-and-reflections-on-thomas-pikettys-
capital-in-the-twenty-first-century-wednesday-focus-march-26-
2014/
· A video by Thomas Piketty discussing his formula for
economic inequality, an existing, worsening condition with
radical possible impacts.
http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_piketty_new_thoughts_on_cap
ital_in_the_twenty_first_century?language=en
Module Four
In this module, we focus on the evolution of the global and
virtual (Web-based) societies of the twenty-first century. We
begin by defining globalization—what it is and how it has
developed through the increased sophistication of
telecommunications and large, international financial systems.
We then explore the individual's role in global society, and how
roles in poor societies differ from those in rich societies. For
example, we'll explore how the physical distance between these
societies affects individuals' feelings of responsibility and

2. involvement.
We will then investigate a new and growing society that is
essentially built on physical distance—the virtual society of the
Internet. In our explorations we consider two important
questions: How do we interact as individuals in a Web-based
society, and how can our knowledge of sociology help us to
understand this world better?
Module 4
Module 4: The Individual in the Global Society
Topics
What Is Society?
Globalization and the Chasm between the Rich and Poor
The Individual in the Cyber-World
The Presentation of Self on the Internet
What Is Society?
The very definition or perception of society has changed over
the last century, as its elements and functions have changed.
One hundred years ago, few individuals left the community in
which they were raised. Experiences in other countries, even
cities, were read about in novels or discussed as tall tales and
exciting adventures by those who had the rare experience of
travel.
As the twentieth century wore on, jet travel and
telecommunications expanded the community we all live in. We
became quite familiar with the experiences of those outside of
our hometown, first through motion pictures and television and
then through the Internet. Cultural experiences were delivered
to us through these media and broadened our view of the world
and our global society, but these are virtual—not personal—
experiences.
Virtual living through the media has become more common in

3. the last decade, and much of our knowledge and many of our
experiences are influenced by this virtual world: It influences
how we define our identities, develop our opinions, and exercise
our values. Unlike children in the early 1900s, today's children
are influenced by far more than their homes, neighborhoods, or
schools. This new, global, and often virtual society is a brave
new world that shapes us all as individuals and affects the way
we influence and are influenced by the lives of others.
Globalization and the Chasm between the Rich and Poor
The increased ability for countries and cultures to interconnect
is one facet of globalization. Is there more to globalization,
though, than just increased global contact and awareness? In his
article on the topic, Vidya Kumar (2003) argues that countless
definitions and explanations for globalization exist across
multiple disciplines such as economics, sociology, law, and
political science. He believes that globalization encompasses:
Interconnected economies that depend on corporate ownership
rather than national identification, for example, the impact of
Coca-Cola or McDonald's throughout the world. Many
corporations that were once simply American, such as Coca-
Cola and McDonald's, are now powerful multinationals and
have economies far larger than the economies of entire nations
or even of groups of nations.
Laws, mores, or social patterns that groups of people share
based on cultural experiences (such as ethnic, religious, or
lifestyle choices) rather than national identity, for example, the
impact of religion on the global culture.
Local decisions, strategies, and choices that are made to
influence global rather than local issues, for example,
purchasing products that avoid increasing the deforestation of
the Amazon jungle even though they may be more expensive
than comparable products and do not directly affect the

4. economy of one's local town.
Global practices that have specific effects on local societies,
which essentially is the reverse of the previous point. For
example, some corporations market goods to one society that
are affordable because they are manufactured in other societies
where child labor is used.
The overall sense that the world is becoming homogenized into
a singular culture. For example, there is a sense that certain
principles such as social integration, or even democracy itself,
should be embraced by the world as a whole and not just by
certain nations.
So, what does globalization mean for the individual in society?
On one level it allows multiple, distinct, and vastly diverse
cultures to come into closer contact than at any other time in
world history. This close contact has put multiple value systems
in conflict, thus affecting the interaction between nations and
thus between individuals.
In 2001, the University of Michigan's Institute for Social
Research completed a 20-year study of the values of 65
societies around the world. The project, called the World Values
Survey, collected data from groups that represent 80 percent of
the world's population. Ronald Inglehart and Wayne Baker
(2001) analyzed data from this survey to examine the
relationship between a society's cultural values and the impact
that globalization has had on each society.
Inglehart and Baker's analysis demonstrates the difference
between the values of rich and poor societies. These societies
differ most noticeably in two areas: (1) their response to
authority and (2) their emphasis on survival versus self-
expression. Poorer, less-developed societies are more traditional
in their response to authority. These societies are more male-

5. dominated, religious, and more respectful of authority in
general. They are also more focused on survival, and thus place
less emphasis on striving for political participation, individual
rights, and self-expression.
Inglehart and Baker's article is interesting because it probes the
potential connection between globalization and "value
stability," and leads us to consider the following questions:
Does increased economic development change the cultural
values of a society? Do differing perceptions of what should be
valued in society exacerbate the culture clashes between the
rich and the poor in the world? Do the values of wealthier
nations include an ethical responsibility to those who are less
well-off?
As we noted in our earlier discussion of modernization,
inequality is built into the modern, industrial economic model
through the division of labor. Some individuals fulfill a role at
the top of the model, and others fulfill a role at the bottom. The
true challenge of globalization is to bring the advantages of free
market capitalism (increased industry, affordable goods,
widespread availability of services) to undeveloped societies
while limiting the disadvantages (dehumanization,
commoditization of the worker, unequal status among workers)
(Cassel, 2001).
Throughout much of the twentieth century, nations moderated
the freedom of corporations through federal regulation and
national laws. However, as corporations become increasingly
international, governments are increasingly dependent on
corporations to bring capital into their communities, so
corporations are allowed to regulate themselves. This puts more
responsibility in the hands of the corporate leaders to consider
the needs of the world's citizens. The readings we will be
discussing in this module explore the responsibility of the
individuals at the top of the global system (the role of business

6. ethics) and the impact of globalization on the lives of those at
the bottom (through the example of "imported" caregivers).
The distance between us—combined with the differences
between us—makes it difficult for the average individual to
address global inequality. In some cases, making changes to
help others would have a significant impact on our current
lifestyle. In other cases, changes are already occurring around
the world that force changes to our lifestyle (development in
Asia and growing competition for oil, for example). Nations
have long had to deal with the dilemma of choosing between the
economic welfare of their own people and the economic welfare
of the world at large. When our community becomes global, we
are so distanced from those at either end of the spectrum that
the leeway of the rich and the suffering of the poor are both
invisible to the average individual. Engagement in the global
process takes more effort than engagement in our local
communities, but may be more necessary as globalization
continues.
The Individual in the Cyber-World
Globalization is one example of how our modern world
distances us from the consequences of our everyday behavior.
Distance, though, has become a theme in our everyday lives, not
only because of globalization, but also because of the Internet.
Telecommuting, distance education, chat rooms, and instant
messaging are all examples of how we experience life from a
distance. In many cases, we interact online with our friends and
co-workers (through instant messaging or telecommuting), but
in other cases (distance education, for example) we form
relationships with people that we never have and perhaps never
will meet in person. This virtual classroom, for example, is a
mini-society where no one meets face-to-face. Does this society
function by the same rules and norms as other societies, or is
there something about the cyber-world that changes these
norms?

7. There is more than one way to analyze this question. Using the
tenets of postmodernism, we might look at the concepts of the
original versus the copy. Past theories and observations of
social norms are based on face-to-face interaction, what we
might call real interactions. Virtual interactions, such as those
scripted on a television show, are based on these real, face-to-
face interactions. In this sense, the copy is based on the
original.
The Internet, however, has created a society that is based on
new types of interactions. For example, witness the
development of Web pages where individuals share information
about themselves through the images and links they choose to
place on their sites. This information is not solely shared with
close friends and families, but virtually the entire world. The
sharing of personal blogs (Web-logs or online diaries) is
similarly a new way to introduce oneself to the world.
These new forms of human interaction are not based on past
face-to-face methods of introduction. They are virtual
introductions to people that we may come to feel intimate with
without any true interactive contact at all. This type of virtual
relationship is not a copy of an original, as scripted
relationships are. It is a new type of interaction that may
ultimately lead people from the virtual to the real if face-to-face
interaction follows. People now use the style of communication
learned on the Internet in their face-to-face interactions, turning
the original-to-copy relationship backwards. These new
communication methods are created in a pseudo-world, and real
actions are then copied from the non-real actions.
For example, the more we become accustomed to
communicating with text messaging, the more abbreviated our
face-to-face communications will be. In this way, we may use
fewer words and share fewer inner feelings in our face-to-face

8. communications because the use of text messaging as changed
the way we approach conversations. This leads us to copies of
copies—no originals—which is a view that many post-
modernists began to theorize about decades ago. Originally,
post-modernists associated this concept with the dissociation
and anomie that came from urban living as compared to small
town living. It is carried one step further in the new cyber-
world community of today.
Thus, the simulated world of the Internet, video games, reality
TV, and so forth becomes the norm in our culture. For some,
interactions in this world have become more frequent and more
real than interactions with family, neighbors, and others in our
physical community. What kind of impact does this have on the
individual in society? How do we define the self in this virtual
world—or does the self stay the same but the methods of
presentation simply change?
The Presentation of Self on the Internet
In 1959, the sociologist Erving Goffman wrote The Presentation
of Self in Everyday Life—a book that had major influence on
the sociological view of the individual in society. In it,
Goffman created a new approach for understanding the social
world, dubbed the "dramatalurgical approach." His approach
differed from that of most modernist sociologists because he did
not try to explain the world via social institutions or functions.
Instead, he used one-on-one social interactions as his unit of
analysis.
Goffman looks at each of these one-on-one interactions as little
dramatic scenes (hence the term dramatalurgical) in which
people assume specific social roles and follow the "script" for
these roles. In other words, Goffman argued that society works
because people know what roles and interactions are expected
of them, and they fulfill these roles properly. We learn how to
behave in our neighborhoods, schools, work sites, shopping

9. centers, and so forth by observing roles and interactions as we
grow up and then by following them as adults. These patterns
help to keep society flowing "properly," efficiently, and
effectively.
In his studies, Goffman focused on what happens to individuals
when they find themselves in the presence of others. What do
we reveal about ourselves in these situations? How much of
what we reveal is intentional? Goffman believed that we
communicate in two ways. The first way is by what we "give"
during the communication through intentionally selected words,
actions, and physical presentation. The second way is by what
we "give off," which encompasses the unintentional cues we
give others through facial expressions, body language, and the
unconscious choices we make in our conversations.
Goffman went into great detail about these parallel
communications. He spoke of how most of us have "back-room"
and "front-room" behavior. In the back room, we are more
casual, open, and free with our presentation. Conversely, our
front-room presentation is more formal, scripted, and guarded.
Think about the difference between how you act in the privacy
of your own home with a close friend or family member versus
how you act when you are in a meeting with your boss.
Sociologists have returned to Goffman's theory to help explain
the presentation of self in our new virtual world of the Internet.
Do we behave as if we are "in the presence of others" when we
are communicating online? Do we use our back-room or front-
room behavior? Clearly, we do not have many of the same cues
that we use in face-to-face interaction to make our choices. We
do not necessarily know the gender, age, or ethnicity of the
people with whom we interact on the Web. We also cannot
respond to facial expressions or verbal inflection in Web
conversation, making some types of communication (humor and
irony, for example) more difficult. So, how does one define his

10. or her virtual self and how might it differ from one's true self
(if it differs at all)? How do we manage our presentation of self
on the Internet?
Katherine Walker explores Internet identity through an
assessment of individual home pages. She asks the question, "Is
the Internet self as free, unanchored, and rootless as some
would argue, or is it simply the traditional self gussied up with
new technology?" (Walker, 2000, p. 101). The ultimate question
when analyzing the presentation of self on the Internet is: Are
we presenting a different self at all? Walker examined hundreds
of homepages and then followed up by surveying their
developers.
Walker's analysis revealed a great deal about presentation of
self on the Internet. One of her most interesting findings was
the fact that individuals view the Internet in two distinct ways:
either as a communication conduit or as a live community. More
specifically, she found that some individuals set up their home
pages to communicate with friends or family members from
afar, thus using the Internet much the way they would use the
telephone or the mail to share information with their loved ones.
Others, however, use the Internet to introduce themselves to the
World-Wide-Web-based community, which they view as a
living society peopled with community members checking in for
a visit. The home-page developers' intended presentation of self
(what they "give") differed depending on their view, but the
ultimate look and feel of their sites (what they "give off")
differed very little.
Throughout this module, we will further explore the definition
and presentation of self on the Internet. A key question in these
explorations is whether the presentation of self on the Internet
will ultimately change our presentation of self in face-to-face
interactions.

11. References
Cassel, D. (2001). Human rights and business responsibilities in
the global marketplace. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(2), pp.
261–274.
Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. E. (2001). Modernization's challenge
to traditional values: Who's afraid of Ronald McDonald? The
Futurist, 35(2) (March/April), pp. 16–21.
Kumar, V. S. A. (2003). A critical methodology of
globalization: Politics of the twenty-first century? Indiana
Journal of Global Legal Studies, 10(2) (Summer), pp. 87–111.
Walker, K. (2000). It's difficult to hide it: The presentation of
self on Internet home pages." Qualitative Sociology, 23(1), pp.
99–120.
· This article discusses the skepticism over free trade and the
results for American
workers.http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/04/opinion/sunday/ou
r-misplaced-faith-in-free-
trade.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3As%2C%7B
%221%22%3A%22RI%3A8%22%7D&_r=0
· A list of reviews of Thomas Piketty’s New Thoughts on
Capital in the Twenty-First Century video.
http://equitablegrowth.org/2014/03/25/dialogue-ten-so-far-
worthwhile-reviews-of-and-reflections-on-thomas-pikettys-
capital-in-the-twenty-first-century-wednesday-focus-march-26-
2014/
· A video by Thomas Piketty discussing his formula for
economic inequality, an existing, worsening condition with
radical possible impacts.
http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_piketty_new_thoughts_on_cap
ital_in_the_twenty_first_century?language=en