Globalisation appears to be the buzzword of the 1990s. It has spawned a large amount of controversial literature, is now a research topic spanning many academic fields, and is frequently discussed by the media and those involved in policy-making. It is generally assumed that globalisation signals a fundamental transformation of social life, and globalisation has now become one of the central themes for social theory to the point of dominance (Rosenberg 2000:1).
At the same time, many have criticised the way in which globalisation has served as a legitimising tool for many policies and actions by states and International Organisations (IOs).
It has further been argued that globalisation has become the dominant framework and discourse within which both, pro- and anti-globalisation advocates situate themselves and which has led to an increasing marginalisation of radically alternative discourses. As has been highlighted by several authors, globalisation discourse has become very powerful. Indeed, currently there seems to be a general feeling of disempowerment and loss of potential for agency among many populations, activists and writers, for which the processes of globalisation are held responsible. It seems that most anti-globalisation advocates are fighting against globalisation, without knowing very clearly who and where to attack, and where to address their concerns about the contemporary developments of the world. At the same time, however, popular uprisings and resistance seem to be on the increase, with many demonstrations and resistance actions taking place all over the world. These acts of resistance are mostly directed against multinational companies, international organisations or international meetings, which are held responsible for (the ...