Can Globalization Be a Referential Object in Semantics or Not?

Abstract

I have tried to show that the much (ab)used concept of “globalization” is only a social fact that requires some kind of multiple intentionality, but apparently lacks any epistemological objectivity due to its inherent lack of intersubjective agreement. I was thus able to infer that the concept of ‘globalization’ is not prone to semantic inquiry based on traditional referentiality as it possesses none.

Keywords: Searle, Durkheim, globalization, referentiality, social fact, mental fact, physical fact, intersubjective agreement, multiple intentionality