Will technology bring the world closer together? Will globalization end poverty? Or, as some have suggested, will globalization bring corporate and Western imperialism? Will the Starbucks' and McDonalds' of the world destroy cultural diversity?

Globalization, the buzzword at the turn of the 21st century, has so many meanings that it has lost all meaning. People fight for or protest against this one word as if it is the road to prosperity and the road to poverty. But what are they actually talking about?

Globalization cannot be defined in one sentence because it takes on a different form depending on the context. Those who oppose globalization define it as something totally different than those who support it, and in some ways, they are both right.

Globalization can be sub-divided into three major categories: technological, cultural and economic.

Technological globalization refers to the spread of technology, such as the internet, cell phones and scientific and medical exploration. Most would agree that this form of globalization provides positive opportunities for even the poorest individuals.

On the other hand, cultural globalization has far more critics and skeptics. Those who oppose globalization often refer to this type, which has generally disseminated Western cultural symbols most associated with pop culture, commercial chains and ideas about society to other nations. And perhaps these critics have good reason to be voicing their opposition; the world would be a very boring and scary place if it had the culture of the United States. Nor would it be very sustainable.

The idea behind economic globalization is all in its name. As countries have become more dependent on each other for import and export, having similar economic systems and standards based around capitalist economies makes the world's financial transactions far easier and faster.

These multiple meanings defy the use of one word. If globalization can be positive and negative, why do we keep using the same bland word?

Despite these different meanings, the primary debate in the media and academia centers on economic globalization and the spread of Western forms of capitalism to poor nations. In support of capitalism, proponents believe globalization will alleviate poverty and provide the poor with new opportunities for survival and development.

Opponents argue that economic globalization only supports Western imperialism where the poor succumb to the whims of the rich, increasing inequality and overall poverty.

Both sides have legitimate arguments. Under the current global power structures, poor nations have few opportunities to escape Western imperialism. However, most of the supporters of economic globalization believe these power structures can be dissolved from integration with the world economy.

Those who support this theory cite China as an example, because it was able to do just that. Through integration with global capitalism, China has halved the number of people living in poverty.

Those who oppose this theory cite the countries in sub-Saharan Africa, where poverty continues to grow as nations try to join the rush toward global capitalism.

Both sides are right. So what is actually being debated? Rather than spending time debating a word or concept that can have several different conclusions, debates should center on how exactly China got rich and Africa stays poor.

The simplification of such complex processes and ideas prevents constructive debate on important global problems. This simplification also reflects the tendency of the media and our society to address complicated global problems without substantive concepts.

Opponents and proponents of globalization could learn much from each other if they bothered to listen. Then maybe the debate could focus on how development can occur in a manner that actually helps the poorest citizens of the world, because passionately arguing for or against an insignificant word is counterproductive.

It is time for people to stop throwing the word globalization around as though uttering the word itself will somehow clarify the issues that lurk behind it. It is time for new forms of articulation and debate over substantive politics. Unless we start to critically listen to the people and politicians who oversimplify complex global problems, we'll get stuck debating over meaningless words.

Reach columnist Brooke McKean at mckean@thedaily.washington.edu.