We all easily and freely use the term "global village". There are quite a few pillars of meaning. Let us peep over the shoulders of social scientists for some definitions and origins.
The term fundamentally refers to the phenomenon of the world becoming more interconnected, mainly as the result of communication technologies [new things almost every day] and travel abilities [frequently, massively, into every corner of the globe].
The term was originally coined by Canadian media specialist, Marshall McLuhan - to my surprise already published and popularised from 1962 onwards. I was under the impression that it came much later. Sue Lee, in 2012, selected the main meaning as "the dominant term for expressing a global coexistence formed by transnational commerce, migration, travel and culture".
Economists of course add meaning from their perspectives. Thomas Friedman referred to "a world tied together into a single globalised market, with daily production and consumption, carried eagerly by the media to global audiences".
Individuals are able to apply new abilities on their own through the internet and other clever interconnections. Just consider by single example how Skype opened new avenues. The reality of the digital age continuously forms new social groups within cultures.
There are also warnings - messages, stories, opinions, posts, and videos may convey miscommunications.
Within the global village framework, people may transcend the micro-, meso- and macro-dynamics of their lives almost on a daily basis. They get involved in complex communities of networks stretching worldwide. The implications of the global village on human relations are yet to be comprehensively studied, primarily in terms of pattern distinctions. Electronic media has the ability to impact people differently due to the variety of background, religion, politics, business, finance, etc. Social media has, however, connected people globally as never before.
Technology fit people into digital communities; although not physically connected, they are mentally connected on a huge scale. Despite an apparent uniformity, there are still huge differences and varying opinions among the populations of the global village. Still, all the above contribute to a general perception: an overriding feeling that our world has become seriously and significantly smaller. In a certain sense - of course so.
Professor Francois Hanekom.
On the other hand, I remind us all of the physically minute smallness of us human beings against the size of this planet. Take the following comparison for its detailed implications. Go out on a clear day and stand somewhere on an open, flat land surface.
Look around you. According to the calculations of Peter Haggett, a prominent British geographer, you will be able to see only 0,0008 of one per cent of the total area of our planet [land and oceans included].
In terms of our physical size, it remains astonishing how big Earth is. What a pity that "small" humankind, instructed by the Creator to "be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth, and subdue it", is misinterpreting this instruction. Emptying it on the one hand, and overfilling it on the other hand [mainly population increase with multiple effects] are making a mess of the global village.
'We bring you the latest Garden Route, Hessequa, Karoo news'
