Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century is a book I feel quite unequipped to review. And, indeed, it has been very widely reviewed by people far more qualified than I. The reviews, which I turned to only after I had finished reading the book, are mixed. Some people feel this book is groundbreaking while others feel it rehashes old arguments simply set in a new context. It seems that the more knowledgeable the reviewer, the less enthusiasm he has for the book. I was interested to see that many of the concerns of the experts are ones I shared as well.
The author's main point is obvious and well-proven. The world is, indeed, flat. The gap between nations is quickly closing. Countless jobs from North America and other developed nations are being outsourced to China, India and beyond. Instant communication and speedy travel have made the world seem smaller and smaller. Friedman identifies ten forces that he feels are the most important contributors to this new, flat world:
- The fall of the Berlin wall
- The internet (represented by Netscape's IPO in 1995
- Workflow software
- Open source
- Outsourcing
- Offshoring
- Supply Chain Management
- Insourcing
- In-forming
- "The Steroids" digital, mobile, personal and virtual
Friedman sees three eras of globalization. The first of these began with Christopher Columbus' first journey in 1492 and lasted until sometime around 1800. At this time new lands were discovered and the world shrank from large to medium. From 1800 to 2000 industrialization made the world still smaller. And now, through the creation of a global fiber optic network, the world has shrunk to the point that we are all neighbors.
A recurring theme of the book is the number of jobs that have been outsourced from North America to India and China. Multitudes of customer service jobs have moved to India, and countless manufacturing jobs to China. In one fascinating section Friedman outlines the source of each of the components of his Dell laptop, showing how many different nations are involved in the manufacture of just one small computer, from a customer service representative based in India, to a manufacturing plant in Malaysia.
Having identified the direction the world is taking, Friedman begins to propose what American individuals and corporations must do to ensure that they are prepared and equipped for the future. And I would say that his analysis of what has happened and what forces have combined to bring about globalization are, on the whole, better than his projections of what we need to do to adapt to this world.
Because I do not feel that I can add a whole lot to the vast number of reviews already available (every major periodical has reviewed it and there are almost 900 reviews posted at Amazon) I will simply post a few of the notes I jotted down while reading or after reading the book.
In general I would say that the book is probably too long. The version I read, version 2.0, is more than 100 pages longer than the first edition and it does seem, at times, to be repetitive and at other times to spend several pages stating what could be said in only a few paragraphs. I think the book could easily have been 100 or 200 pages shorter. It probably should have.
The author refuses to allow Islam to be its own reason to drive people to commit acts of terrorism. Rather, he assumes that Islam is little different from any other reason and it is other people who pervert the religion in order to make it such a negative force. This view ignores the fact that the Koran is clearly a book that calls for violence. While not every Muslim a terrorist, it has to be admitted that there is something inherent in the religion that leads to extremism.
Some of the author's analysis is a tad strange. For example, he believes that if every country in the world had a McDonald's franchise, there would be world peace. The same would happen if every country was a part of the Dell supply chain. While these kinds of corporations do tend to set up shop in nations that have some level of political stability, to assume that such nations are beyond being able to wage war is, quite simply, to ignore human nature.
Friedman takes quite a few potshots at George W. Bush and expresses an optimism in government that strikes me as being distinctly American. Canadians and citizens of many other countries do not seem to share the American optimism in government, that the fall of one party and the rise of another will really make such a great difference. We are a pessimistic people, I suppose. But Friedman really seems to believe that America and the world would be a much different and much better place had George Bush not had two terms to delay progress and focus on the wrong issues.
A particularly good portion of the book dealt with the American educational system and the problems inherent in a system that does not push students as far or as hard as the systems of other nations. Students in many other nations are clearly learning more and faster than their American counterparts. Sooner or later this educational discrepancy will have consequences.
The first few chapters are, in my opinion, worth the price of the book. It bogs down in the middle and there are a few forgettable chapters there. By the end it regains its interest.
I was disappointed to see that, while the book often quotes other people and publications, there is not a footnote to be found.
Because the book is written about contemporary issues, and the issue of technology in particular, it already seems a little bit outdated, though it was written just two years ago (and updated early in 2006). This is the peril of writing about technology.
The book is very America-centric. It tends to focus primarily on the United States, China and India. There is not as much value in reading it for those of us in other developed nations.
At any rate, I did find it quite a fascinating though sometimes uneven read. It is certainly valuable to think about globalization and the new, flat world we live in and doubly so when do from within a Christian context. I just wish I had more to contribute to the analysis of his arguments and conclusions. I would love to hear from other Christians who have read this book and have pondered its relevance to the faith.



Comments (11) »
1. Brian
January 5, 2007
10:40 AM
I read the book lat year, but not the 2.0 version. Generally, i liked it and I think your right that the first handful of chapters really are the meat of the book. The book was gorundbreaking in a sense when it first came out, but not so much now. I would reccomend it to people though, it’s a fascinating look into the business/econminc world that few think about or see. As for the America-centric view, I’m all for it! ;)
~Brian
2. wfseube
January 5, 2007
11:29 AM
I read it because virtually every manager in my company (large computer company) has read it and quotes liberally from it, so I figured I needed to get into the club.
I found it pretty interesting. I think Friedman spends too much time lauding the flat world and little time talking about the problems and issues that it has brought about. But I suppose he figured it wasn’t worth it, since there’s really nothing that can be done about it (in his opinion).
3. Roger
January 5, 2007
10:07 PM
I read the book last spring in preparation for a presentations to teachers in our school district this fall. I am in IT and thought I was aware of the trends, but found that I was a bit behind. I taught and administered in American public schools for 35 years and can see on a daily basis how our students (the ones in our district) are not prepared or motivated to compete against the labor force arising in India and elsewhere.
How do Canadian schools compare to American in this regard?
A visiting missionary in our church last Sunday helped open my eyes to the positive aspects of the flat-world as it relates to Bible translation. Native speakers and Greek/Hebrew experts now can email portions of Scripture back and forth helping our mission funds stretch further. I was amazed at how the technology is being leveraged for the cause of Christ. In one case a country that does not allow the importation of Scripture nevertheless allows for the internal printing of it. With outside help, indigenous translators can translate and print the Scripture to be distributed within the country.
I praise God for those with the vision to see how the technology can be used for the glory of God.
4. John Lee
January 5, 2007
10:45 PM
“While not every Muslim a terrorist (sic), it has to be admitted that there is something inherent in the religion that leads to extremism.”
The same could be said of Christianity, i.e.,
“While not every Christian is a crusader, it has to be admitted that there is something inherent in the religion that leads to extremism (like the Crusades).”
Also:
[The book] “tends to focus primarily on the United States, China and India. There is not as much value in reading it for those of us in other developed nations.”
I didn’t know that China and India were so completely irrelevant and insignificant to the citizens of “other developed nations.”
Dare I say that a Eurocentric elitism is being betrayed here in this review?
Alas, the world may not be as flat as one might hope.
5. Alex Chediak
January 5, 2007
10:51 PM
What? Only 2 comments?
As a Ph.D. engineer now teaching other perspective engineers, I found his insight on the American educational system fascinating — and dead right. Yes, I got my butt kicked by my Indian and Chinese friends in grad school!
I had my students read those chapters to get a perspective on the importance of math and engineering. Friedman is right on in these regards. But you’re right Tim, he seems to have an inflated view of government and human nature. Thanks for another great review.
6. Lou S. Lots
January 6, 2007
1:56 AM
Uh, I’m not sure if you understood the basic point of Friedmans book, which is, that globalism is good. It’s about as anti-American, anti-christian as it gets. He’s basically cheering on the rapid destruction of Western Civilization, by laying out a manifesto for the ‘holy of holies’ of the radical atheist/liberals, i.e multi-culturalsim, diversity etc..,
In other words The World is Flat, is a tech manuel for a new Tower of Babel.
7. Scottie
January 6, 2007
9:11 PM
Awed by Friedman?
Watch www.mkpress.com/flatoverview.html
read more at
www.mkpress.com/flat
8. wfseube
January 6, 2007
10:36 PM
Lou wrote He’s basically cheering on the rapid destruction of Western Civilization, by laying out a manifesto for the ‘holy of holies’ of the radical atheist/liberals, i.e multi-culturalsim, diversity etc..,
And you expected different from a New York Times author?
9. Lou S. Lots
January 7, 2007
12:15 AM
“And you expected something differnet from a New York Times author?”
No, but even for the low standards of a New York Times author the book is sloppy.
The point of the book is, ‘Dont fight it. Embrace manipulation, social engineering and beuracratic corruption and revel in it’. And far too many christians and churches have gone along with this thinking. Just look at the patron saint of ‘The ends justify the means’ Rick Warren!
The book is not so much about what it’s title purports. Rather it is intorducing ‘a way of thinking’ which is, in many ways, unrealted to the subject-theme running through out the book.
If you get what Friedman is promoting here, when you finish reading the book, you’ll feel a desperate need to take take a shower.
10. brian
January 7, 2007
9:44 PM
“While not every Christian is a crusader, it has to be admitted that there is something inherent in the religion that leads to extremism (like the Crusades).”
What does this mean?
Every Christian a crusader? Don’t you mean Catholic? Also, just because one calls themselves a Christian (i.e. in the crusades) doesn’t mean they are. Men who were acting in total contradiction with what the bible says and what Jesus taught are questionably even saved. They may have done it in the name of Christendom but who is to say they were actually Christians?
11. Lou S. Lots
January 8, 2007
6:47 AM
Not a chatholic myself, none the less, there was nothing morally wrong with the crusades. For two centuries the muslims had been rampaging through out christian lands killing and conquering everything in sight. Charles Martel took the first stand in 732a.d., when muslim armies had pushed right into the heart of western Europe, but as usual, it took Europeans far too long to stand up for themselves and fight back.
I really don’t understand the need for some people to bash their own ancestors and religion through revisionist history.
And remember, one of the West’s greatest cities, Constantinople, is still being occupied by muslims to this very day.
Post Your Comment Here »