Conclusion : deep development or deep division?

One of the striking features of any current attempt to describe, much less analyse, globalization, is the diffuse set of understandings that underlie patterns of response. Potent illustrations of this diffusion were seen within one fortnight, in September 2001, during which Le Monde Diplomatiquecarried Susan George’s stringent critique of attempts to muzzle opponents of globalization, particularly in the aftermath of the debacle at Genoa (Le Monde Diplomatique, 2001). This was closely followed by coverage of the horrific attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Centre, some of which sought to explain some of the background to the deadly strikes as a response to tensions around rising globalization of American influences (Darwish, 2001; Fisk, 2001; Smith, 2001).1 Yet other commentary sought to imply that opponents of globalization were fellow travellers of terrorism, and hence themselves almost responsible for the catastrophe (IHT, 2001). However one understands these diverse outpourings, it is clearly the case that different models of globalization were being evoked