“If we think of globalization like a billiard ball, it annihilates the rich virtues of each culture,” remarked Jerry Mander. Despite the risk of cultural uniformity, globalization continues to advance, driven by the supposed purpose of encouraging global development and expanding access to certain freedoms. The term freedom encompasses anything from the agency to define social identity to economic prosperity and opportunity. The growth of these facets rely on the interconnectedness of several industries including trade, culture, and ideas which is made possible through the adoption of universal metrics and language frameworks. The integration of these elements must be utilized together in order to proliferate and create the unified system characterized by contemporary market economies today. However, in embracing these ideals a country risks losing sovereign agency as global norms overwhelm traditional practices and intrinsic values. The result is a uniform monoculture. This essay will explore three outcomes of globalization and their implications within the Māori community. The first is an analysis of the dichotomy between progress and preservation, particularly in the context of endangered languages. Following this, the essay will delve into the idea of authenticity when sharing knowledge. This is especially vital to consider when attempting to recognize and proliferate complex cultural systems. Finally, the essay will consider interconnectivity in Māori  communities and the trade-offs that are woven into this dynamic. To conclude, I’ll measure the effectiveness of current globalization standards in its overarching “goal” as well as ways in which progress can coexist with preservation.

1. Language 

One of the most integral elements of freedom is the use and growth of a community language. The absence of this can result in a social “unfreedom,” defined by Amartya Sen as the inability to access a particular opportunity which, in this case, is communication. Language is a medium to express identity, access an education, and establish personal agency. Thus, when a globalized language, otherwise referred to as a lingua franca, begins to dominate the space around them, an entire community’s role is diminished and stripped from them. As of 2025, there are 3,193 languages classified as endangered, with most of them originating in Native communities. In order to narrow the scope of this analysis, I’ll focus on one specific group, the Māori. The Māori people, indigenous to New Zealand, have historically experienced a significant decline in the usage of their language. The institutionalization of English within their education and politics has resulted in the systemic marginalization of the Te Reo Māori tongue. However, while their language was initially suppressed through globalization and colonization, the latter now plays a paradoxical role in its recovery. This has notably been accomplished with the usage of media broadcasting. Since its inception in 2004, Maori Television which was aired in the native Te Reo Māori language, has increased the number of Reo Māori speakers in New Zealand to 200,000. Thus, the question of whether globalization is “good” can’t necessarily receive a binary answer. Rather, we must acknowledge that the most ideal form of progression occurs in a manner that effectively balances both preservation and development. 

2. Authenticity

However, with the revitalization of indigenous language and culture systems, it’s also integral to acknowledge the results of its proliferation. While the goal of globalization is centered on the benefits it poses to society, it can also result in the commodification of Native identities. This causes a loss of agency, preventing the Te Reo Māori people from being able to accurately communicate their cultural identity on a broader, international, scale.

This marketization of cultural identity can most clearly be seen in the Vision Matauranga policy, introduced by New Zealand. Its goal was to integrate Maori knowledge into current scientific frameworks to “fashion distinctive products, processes, systems and services for the international marketplace”. In other words, Vision Matauranga aimed to commercialize Mātauranga Māori, the unique knowledge and cultural system of the Māori people. Globalization while effective in revitalizing this language has also led to the reduction of their indigenous identity to a mere product. In this regard, globalization lacks authenticity in circumstances where cultural identities are commodified instead of intrinsically valued. It’s an economically centric process that proliferates “social unfreedoms” in the place of true legitimacy.

This commodification also leads to an over simplistic depiction of the Maori identity. This can most explicitly be seen in the international practice of the Haka, a symbolic and culturally significant dance. Many celebrities, brands, and advertisements have historically painted this cultural convention as “aggressive” and framed it as a method of “releas[ing] anger”. The media reductionist portrayal of this powerful dance taps into the stereotypes of Maori culture and perpetuates a harmful worldview of them. This distortion initiates an erasure of their true culture. Thus, if their identity or language is “alive” in an unauthentic manner, is it a true revitalization? Or has globalization fostered a diluted version of it that’s more palatable to a global market? When culture is commodified for economic gain, there’s an intrinsic social aspect that’s lost with it. In this regard, globalization fails to capture the more nuanced elements that are at the heart of the Maori identity. 

3. Interconnectivity

The globalization of the Maori community, while increasing economic interconnectivity, has also led to a shift away from traditional culture. The Maori microeconomy is grounded in communal support and offers a “safety net,” that a capitalistic setting isn’t able to.  Conventional Maori economics is based on a unique system of Mana which encompasses and compiles elements including prestige, authority, control, power, influence, status, spiritual power, and charisma. Economic decisions were influenced by the amount of mana that was gained from a particular interaction or trade.  This was a distinct cultural concept that also played an integral role in shaping economic behavior. Globalization results in a dichotomous relationship between traditional economic values and contemporary markets. It eliminates the powerful combination of mana and culture within Maori traditions. Thus, the argument here is that globalization results in a diminished culture. The two cannot exist in the same context as a contemporary market economy intrinsically goes against these principles. A capitalist society strives to maximize profit while the Maori mana system prioritizes other factors such as well-being, community, and authority. This dynamic is unique to the Maori people and the loss of it presents an ethical dilemma. Is the loss of an intricate interwoven culture worth entering the global economy?

When considering this question, it’s also integral to acknowledge the economic benefits that globalization has provided to Maori communities. In 2023 their community economy nearly doubled from $17bn to $32bn. This growth has been encouraged by an entrance into the international economy, enabling increased Maori self-determination. At the same time, these economic opportunities require the Maori community to conform to a globalized economic standard.  Economic freedom is another facet that globalization aims to proliferate. However, intrinsically, the pillars that it aims to accomplish are paradoxical. Social and economic freedom, especially in the context of indigenous communities, are nearly impossible to balance.

Conclusion

Globalization is limited in its benefits, however, it does undeniably provide access to increased economic markets. Even so, this also results in a uniform monoculture. I believe that the erosion of a unique language, culture, and system is not worth the monetary gain that an international market presents. However, the most ideal development of globalization includes the coexistence of these two elements. To this end, it will still result in some sort of cultural erosion within Indigenous communities. For instance, many workplaces have begun to incorporate Maori principles into their policy, nonetheless, it’s not fully encompassing. While no solution is perfect, this is a step in the right direction. There’s also no way to fully address cultural distortions, especially regarding unique practices such as the haka. Globalization efforts to preserve these traditions render them vulnerable to appropriation and misconception. It’s an inevitable impact that comes with an entrance into an international market. 

Ultimately, globalization promotes inequality at its core. It prioritizes economic development that’s uniquely beneficial to the top quartile of individuals, at the expense of cultural preservation.  Every economic freedom is offset by another social/cultural externality that limits its effectiveness. The idea of globalization being “good” only applies to a select few who represent a cultural majority. Indigenous language, culture, and economic systems are left to feel more of the “bad” of it. Thus, globalization cannot be considered fully “good” for the world.