Filed under: Globalization, Government and Politics | Tags: Globalization, hegemony, marx, politics, the communist manifesto
QUESTION: Explain how either “modernity” OR “hegemony” is an issue with global dimensions.
Hegemony can be described as the predominance of one social class over others. A great example of this would be Karl Marx and his classification of people in society as part of either the bourgeois (rich) or proletarian (poor/working class.) In his famous writing, The Communist Manifesto, Marx says:
“The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization…It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves.” (p.11)
It is rather obvious Marx believes strongly in the theory that despite the reluctance of adopting new customs in an effort to sustain culture and tradition, it is the upper class, the bourgeoisie and their standards of living that are depicted as the epitome of civilization and proper lifestyle. To exist as a successful nation and to not be labeled as barbarian (referring to developing nations), you must join the bourgeoisie and become capitalistic; to not do so would be an utter catastrophe as it would inevitably lead to the nations demise by means of an unstable economy. It’s just a giant pressure put on the nations…if you do not comply and play by the rules of the bourgeoisie, you are put at a disadvantage and won’t be able to afford food for your nation’s people. All of this holds relevance globally because essentially, as obvious by said quote, hegemony causes a cultural group of people to dominate another group regardless of the benefits to society by means of a false sense of superiority through superficial materialism. One set of people and their standards of living aren’t necessarily better than another, but because of the economic pressure put forth on the other group and then the social superiority factor attached with the power brought with the economic advantage, this leads people as a whole to believe in materialism and power as being paramount and thus the proletarian strive for the status of being bourgeois themselves…and thus a new standard of cultural stereotype is procured. The gap between the wealthy and the working class is evident by everyone, educated, illiterate and children a like. I quote Barbara Trent saying:
“I tell audiences that the United States does have perhaps the freest press in the world, but it is free to the highest bidder and we know who the highest bidders are.” (p.232)
Here Trent is speaking in regards to the fact that despite the freedoms, protections and other amenities our government offers us, it is to the upper class, the wealthy, the bourgeoisie that get the best treatment. The upper class has the most power, and because of the false illusion of superiority associated with power and wealth we have procured a societal ill, a hiatus between the middle and upper class, the proletarian and bourgeois, hegemony, a global issue.
Filed under: Economics, Globalization, Government and Politics | Tags: culture, Globalization, jameson, politics, transnational corporations
QUESTION: In your opinion, are transnational corporations destroying local economies and cultures?
In Jamesons chapter ‘Globalization as Philosophical Issue’ he states:
“I believe that globalization is a communiational concept, which alternately masks and transmits cultural or economic meanings.” (p.55)
Essentially, transnational corporations such as Wal-Mart, McDonalds etc. take their home cultures and spread them around the world. The color schemes, symbols and products of said corporations are readily associated with America wherever they may be spotted. Jameson notes that globalization both masks and transmits cultural and/or economic meanings and despite the contradictory nature of this statement, it holds so true in both senses. Take for example McDonalds…the company masks culture because when there are 20 of the fast food restaurants on one street in Japan the only way you’d know you’re actually in Tokyo rather than Manhatten is that the signs are written in a completely different language (oh, and a hot dog will cost you about 100 times the amount here); the traditional aesthetic of the host country is bombarded by alien culture and thus proposes a mask or loss of originality and tradition. However on the other hand, the traditional Japanese culture would also then be more appreciated because of the invasion AND American culture would give the Japenese a more well rounded view of American culture with actual real life exposure without having to leave their home country. Little Italy, China Town, Brooklyn (Jewish areas)…all of these areas are cherished by New Yorkers and tourists a like because of the melting pot of culture. Economically transnational corporations (generally) do local economies well…they bring in a lot of people because of recognition and they help keep competition up with the smaller stores. Unfortunately many small time stores do go out of business because of large corporations but that is just the price of a free market economy and it helps consumers get better service and goods because of the competitive market.
I’d also like to point out something else about culture. As stated above, cultural imperialism has different sides which can be taken as good or bad for local economies and cultures but it is hard for anyone to honestly say what’s happening is ‘good’ or ‘bad ‘ for a ‘culture’ when culture itself is a subjective term. Mignolo feels that culture is a byproduct of civilization:
“The distinction between civilization and culture, as process and product, contributed to the internal colonialism enacted by intellectuals from colonized areas who fought against the “barbarism” of their culture in pro of the European civilization.” (p.34)
He also points out that the intellectuals from the beginning fought out against ‘barbarism’ and uncivil behavior of current cultures in recognizing that the European way of life is the ideal. If this is true than is the definition of culture not a never ending loop of trying to find what is civil and ‘right?’ Should culture be defined as one’s reality on which he/she was brought up, than culture in itself is an extremely subjective term. Because of this subjectivity it is hard to say exactly whether transnational corporations and globalizations have a good or bad impact on culture itself.
Filed under: Globalization, Government and Politics, Philosophy | Tags: Globalization, jameson, marx, Philosophy, politics, postmodernity
QUESTION: Select an author we studied and show how his claims are informed by, or that reject the thoughts of Karl Marx.
In the Communist Manifesto Karl Marx states that:
“The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.” (p.10)
This is implying that in the past family relations have been more intimate, sentimental in that relations were based more on the love of one another whereas now the ownership of private property and capital has diminished the overall worth of a families relationship as members find themselves dependant on one another for materialistic reasons. Frederick Jameson, who believes in many Marxist theories believes that:
“…The theory of postmodernity affirms a gradual de-differentiation of these levels, the economic itself gradually becoming cultural, all the while the cultural gradually becomes economic” (p.70)
Thus the two have very similar thoughts on the topic of the corruption of family (in culture) due to economics. A good example of what Jameson is saying in the above quote (in relation to Marx) would be that the ‘economic gradually becomes cultural,’ when children grow up, begin a career, perhaps get wealthy and then can help support the family which then can concentrate more on family relations and sentiment rather than work and income and then the ‘cultural gradually becomes economic,’ perhaps when children are young and cannot contribute to a low income family causing economic strain, less family time and more dependence on each other for financial reasons.
Another issue both Jameson and Marx feel strongly about is the struggle between the upper class (bourgeois) and working class (proletarian.) They both believe hegemony is a detriment to society and it is because of the false sense of superiority groups of people with economic power attain that many social problems arise.
Marx and Jameson share many similar ideas because they both emphasize a strong philosophical base on political issues such as the family relation and it’s relation to economics.
QUESTION: Is globalization to be characterized as uniformization, or is it rather multi-cultural? Defend your answer.
Globalization, defined as the international integration of people and nations to form a massive union mostly in regards to trade and economy is a contemporary, controversial argument that can be settled by analyzing application and relating it to concept.
Frederick Jameson once wrote:
“Now what comes to the fore is increasing identity (rather than difference): the rapid assimilation of hitherto autonomous national markets and productive zones into a single sphere, the disappearance of national subsistence (in food, for example), the forced integration of countries all over the globe into precisely that new global division of labor I mentioned before. Here what begins to infuse our thinking of globalization is a picture of standardization on an unparalleled new scale; of forced integration as well, into a world- system from which “delinking” (to use Samir Amin’s term) is henceforth impossible and even unthinkable and inconceivable.” (p.57)
Jameson, as a philosophical man, broke down the notion of globalization as a unification of nations universally into the theory that rather than the world becoming one, monotonous culture it would mix all the different traditions of the world together and create an entire new identity. Jameson describes the new identity as an, “Immense cultural plurism…difficult not to welcome.” And is this not a great thing? Perhaps one of the biggest flaws of society, racism and the reluctance to accept differentiation (not even going to relate back to hegemony what with the 500 word limit) could be solved by the bribe of world wide economic stability, technological efficiency and, subsequently, world peace…all without having to wholly sacrifice tradition and culture.
Another take on why globalization would best be described as a multi-cultural movement is because culture groups tend to hold onto their identities naturally. I quote Francis Fukuyama saying:
“Freedom understood not as the freedom of individuals but of cultural groups to protect their own group identities was not seen as a central issue by the American founders, perhaps because the new settlers of North America were relatively homogenous culturally.” (p.7)
Here Fukuyama is making the point that the new settlers of North America had a homogenous, relatively similar cultural background with no need to ‘protect’ their culture from contamination. There was/is no need for cultural identity protection because it is natural for people to hold onto tradition regardless of whether beliefs within the vicinity are homogeneous or not. If you look forward in history, from when the first settlers came until this very day America has attracted a menagerie of different people and cultures with different and sometimes obscure traditions. America is a phenomenal prototype of globalization…it’s a melting pot of culture, most of which are still distinguished and understood yet it holds one identity that is being a nation of many cultures brought together (the very concept of globalization!) It is because of this assimilation of different cultures that don’t blend ENTIRELY together that globalization can be described as multicultural rather than monotonously uniform.
Filed under: Globalization, Government and Politics | Tags: Globalization, identity, muslim culture
Discuss the following quote in detail identifying the author and explaining or mentioning any relevant or unusual terms. Put the excerpt into your own words and offer a thoughtful response:
“In a traditional Muslim society, an individual’s identity is given by that person’s parents and social environment; everything from one’s tribe and kin to the local imam to the political structure of the state, anchors one’s identity in a particular branch of Islamic faith. It is not a matter of personal choice. Like Judaism, Islam is a highly legalistic religion, meaning that religious belief consists of conformity to a set of externally determined social rules.”
This quote by Francis Fukuyama focuses on the fact that Muslims rely on their social structure including the political structure of their states governance, their imam (Islamic community leader, usually leader in the Mosque as well) and their culturally traditional communities and families to determine their entire identity. Fukuyama examines this particular culture because it in itself is a byproduct of itself. This poses a problem for the notion of globalization as a (peaceful) reality because of the fact that “religious belief consists of conformity to a set of externally determined social rules,” and the Islamic and Muslim people aren’t going to just up and drop their entire cultural belief system.
“Identity becomes problematic precisely when Muslims leave traditional Muslim societies by, for example, emigrating to Western Europe. One’s identity as a Muslim is no longer supported by the outside society; indeed, there is strong pressure to conform to the Western society’s prevailing cultural norms.” (p.10)
The above quote by Fukuyama further defends the fact that should the concept of globalization become an entire reality, some cultures such as that of the Islamic people will eventually, if not rather quickly, be lost, de-saturated by the new identity (the assimilation of all other cultures.) He also goes on later to describe his belief that the cause of the September 11th attacks (as well as other incidences) are due largely in part to the creation of radical Islamism; the product of the already coalescing cultures of the western world and Islam. Fukuyama explains that children, torn between two completely different identities with which they cannot relate wholly to either, they find an appeal in radicalism and contemporary jihadism (the new, incredibly extreme belief in Islamic religion.) Thus the creation of this identity crisis is not only a threat to the thought of globalization, but it is also a threat to any culture (especially nations with a culturally imperialistic nature) that has different beliefs and values than their own. In conclusion, Fukuyama has made it evident in the above quote, and in his writing Identity, Immigration and Democracy that although globalization and the assimilation of culture, people, economy, technology…everything…into a well rounded, peaceful group is a great conception, it is not an easily attainable reality due to crisis of identity in culture and tradition.
Filed under: Globalization, Government and Politics, Philosophy | Tags: biography, capitalism, china, culture, essay, fredric jameson, Globalization, ideology, liu kang, marxism, modernity, Philosophy, politics, revolution, xiaobing tang
Liu Kang and Fredric Jameson
Work: Politics, Ideology, and Literary Discourse in Modern China: Theoretical Interventions and Cultural Critique
Authors: Liu Kang and Xiaobing Tang (with a foreword by Fredric Jameson)
Link: http://books.google.com/books?id=0tqn4W3ohgQC&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=fredric+jameson+politics+ideology+and+literary+discourse+in+modern+china&source=web&ots=NVKrdelLP8&sig=-fBJVLQF10_Sg7OVTlii7LpsJCo&hl=en#PPP10,M1
In the work Politics, Ideology, and Literary Discourse in Modern China by Liu Kang and Xiaobing Tang, Fredric Jameson writes a forward prompting readers to look into the possibility of China starting over, reinventing its culture yet again, in an effort to warm readers up for the deep, engaging theories and philosophies of Liu Kang and Xiaobing Tang later on. Jameson points out that despite the past trend of cultural rebirths ending in cul de sacs, for China to make a fresh start now would be easier and much more inclined to succeed because of the obliteration of tradition from the past revolutions. Generally, Jameson focuses on the traditional place of hegemony in Chinese culture and China and the impact of euro-centrism stating that, “Intellectuals confront opportunities and can have a sense of mission instructively different from obtains in Eastern Europe, where a dogmatic belief in Western political and economic paradigms is coupled with an utter loss of hope in the prospects for modernization as a total social process.”
In the forward, Jameson speaks of the third world intellectuals highly and often to demonstrate his belief that they, the young generation of literary theorist scholars of the PRC (including their colleagues in Hong Kong and Taiwan), despite the effects on hegemony and the obliteration of the bourgeoisie during Mao’s communist reign, will be the ones to see fully the crippling effects of western influence from the past and use that wisdom to prevent more cultural imperialistic attacks in the future. He states that, “As for the traditions of pre modern national culture, socialism clearly broke the mould of those patterns, only later on obligingly breaking the mould of its own (Maoist) ones.” Jameson makes many predictions as to what may happen in Chinas future, especially what with the freedom of intellectuals now, but also subtly (yet lengthily) illustrates his faith in the theory that revolution is a counter analytical measure in the debate of a uniform globalistic system of modernity. Jameson, as well as Liu Kang (which is probably why he mentions Jameson so often in his essay on Modernity in China), both firmly believe that a fundamental aspect of revolution involves questioning whether the system in effect is correct and just…essentially this unrelenting curiosity debating what is best by the cultural revolutionaries eventually and inevitably leads to change, i.e. revolution.
In Kang’s essay, ‘Debates about Modernity in China’ in the book The Cultures of Globalization, Kang quotes Jameson saying that, “We need a non-Euclidean geometry to conceptualize a space where China is situated. A global or geographical term is needed for the ways in which chronological nonsynchronicity manifests itself in a spatial and even national form.” This strongly exemplifies the politically liberal character of both Kang and Jameson suggesting that China develop a political, economic and cultural structure that which is a sturdy framework yet not strictly by the book liberal or Western (to preserve the traditional culture of China and it’s lengthy history.) Essentially one of the main points both texts emphasis is the conflict presented by the culturally imperialistic ways of the West on China and the fact that modernity in some ways does exist in the country therefore there must be an alternative to Westernized, capitalistic globalization. Although some Western culture is inevitable, media should be monitored and questioned to form a semi resistance in efforts to prevent corruption of the system. Neither author pushes any one specific form of government, but rather pushes their faith in any system that uses checks and balances to prevent corrupt, fraudulent practices.
When describing revolution among many things pertaining to identity, nationalism, modernism etc…rather than audaciously advising the adoption of a set standard framework, Jameson often uses a viewpoint heavily influenced by philosophy (especially, in this text, in relation to subjectivity and political revolution.) To lead into a heavy philosophical section of subjectivity regarding political structure in his forward, Jameson first begins to explain his opinion on postmodernism with the statement, “Unlike modernism, however which was specifically Western and marked as an import, postmodernism in its very nature can and always is home-grown, its pluralist celebration of difference constituting an immediate authorization of local cultural production over imports, whether from the outside or from the national power centers themselves. Nor can the theory of postmodernism be said to be Western exactly, for it arrived in Europe as an import…” this further exemplifies (pertaining to previous statements above) his feeling that there is always, at least a partial anyway, alternative to 100% cultural, political and economic reform. When speaking of identity Jameson often speaks of the ‘center’ and explains that even “decentered” subjects may obtain a powerful identity. He later goes on to say that the center has something to learn from the outer margin and that essentially all the ‘center’ is is a constitutive blindness repressing all the utmost political importance’s within itself identified as ‘nationalisms;’ therefore Chinese national subject is a derivative of the psychic or subjective and it is because of this intervention on debates over subjectivity and identity that has led China to search for an alternative rather than look at the possibility of effective difference outside in other social formations and other systems of production.
On the Author (of the Forward)
Fredric Jameson
Fredric Jameson is a contemporary neo-Marxist writer and a literary critic with strong roots in politics and philosophy. First focusing his writing and studies on the work of Jean-Paul Sartre, Jameson developed a reputation as being an anarchist-like intellectual against the establishment of literature and structural literary criticism. Jameson began thinking outside of the box and took on a new perspective truly his own when writing and analyzing the work of others. In the 1960’s he began studying and published several works on Marxism, capitalism, postmodernity, fascism etc…he added a branch of high political tone to his intellectually blooming philosophical tree of thought. Although he emphasized many different dimensions of thought in his works, he often focused on the way literary works are placed in historical sequences and analyzed the way history affects and creates literary work…thus his works on predicting the effects of globalization by comparing the past of a country with the past of a previously similar country plus given variable plus outcome of said latter country. Jameson’s theology and overall intellect have made many important contributions to the scholarly society of politics and philosophy. He urges readers to think deeper and more abstractly about contemporary issues and justifies and rationalizes a firm case in even the most ambiguous of debates.
Filed under: Globalization, Government and Politics, History | Tags: africa, eurocentrism, Globalization, manthia diawara, postmodern
QUESTION: How did the colonial period in Africa cause the widespread political and economic instability that persists today? Give at least one example of that instability and note the countermeasure that Manthia Diawara proposes.
The most distinguishing example of instability during the colonial period in Africa pointed out by Diawara is the indecisiveness (if not weakness) in African leaders that ultimately lead to the devaluation. A cab driver once told Manthia, “African leaders are not real presidents, they are mere ambassadors who do what the ‘real presidents’ in France and America tell them to do,” (Diawara 106.) Diawara say that, “The saying goes that the West respects Japan, Hong Kong, China, and Taiwan today because these countries did not wait for the advice of the white man to jump into their own style of modernity” (Diawara 107.) These are only two lines among many involving both the leaders of Africa and the definition of the word ‘incompetent.’ The cab driver went on to express his opinion on the devaluation by saying, “Had African presidents been in charge, they would have responded to the devalutation by uniting and creating their own currency.” Why is it that the African government has been being run without regards to African citizens but, rather, for the comforts of people in America and Europe? A country, just like a business, prospers when self interest is in mind. It may seem selfish at first, but people put forth their best efforts when it’s their life on the drawing board. An economically gifted entrepreneur has a successful business because he has happy clientele…however he started that business originally with self interest in mind. To prosper at bettering himself, he had to make an effort to at least seemingly be interested in the interest of others. A country needs to look out for itself first, develop its government and national ideologies itself and get stable before it reaches out to others and begins international commerce. African leaders should not have not looked to other countries for answers…that’s why they’re called leaders…they’re supposed to lead. Eurocentric Idealists don’t understand African culture, their ways of living, values, beliefs, disagreements with other tribes and areas etc, they are in no position to relocate everyone according to their will without regards to African life and tradition. Diawara feels that to survive in the postmodern world with the new economic powers the African states need to adopt a regional imaginary and promote trade circulation and cultures and to basically go against everything the nation states are telling them not to: to face oppression and boldly refuse further abuse (Diawara 124.)
Filed under: Globalization, Government and Politics | Tags: china, eurocentrism, Globalization, honors, society
Geeta Kapur claims that
“globalization allows for the first time a freedom from the national/collective/communitarian straight jacket; freedom also from the heavily paternalistic patronage system of the state.”
What does her metaphor “straight jacket” mean? What kinds of freedom does she have in mind, specifically?
When Kapur used the word “straight jacket” she meant constraints on society. Before the advent of globalization, oppression of some countries in the trade market due to communistic societies or clashing economies/beliefs was common. Referring back to Liu Kang’s writing on China and it’s search for an alternative modernity, China’s economic and social backgrounds are the perfect example for Kapur’s metaphor. China is an extremely hegemonic country saturated in tradition and nationalism. It’s neither postmodern nor modern, it’s communistic and impartial to adopting capitalism and other western philosophies. Yet Chinas networking in global trade is phenomenal! How is it that a country, so isolated in all of it’s beliefs, can have peaceful economic relations with the rest of the world? Through globalization. Kapur later says that, “Perhaps a dispersal of the regimental movement of the Euro-American avant-garde into more differentiated moments that we can now begin to see as radical intervention in the ideologically regressive one-world-system…” (Kapur 206). She is referring of course to the world trade market opening up to other countries outside ones soaked in Eurocentrism. Kapur also briefly suggests the topic on the discourse of oppression of minorities and gender in relation to national ethics (that which with globalization may improve-and provide an even stronger sense of freedom-with frequent intercontinental relations.)
Filed under: Globalization, Government and Politics | Tags: Globalization, Government and Politics, hegemony, neocolonialism, politics, post-colonialism
QUESTION: Post-colonialism may refer to the way in which imperialist nations maintain hegemony over their ex-colonies, but neo-colonialism may have positive connotations to citizens of those ex-colonies, especially in the realm of intellectual, literary and artistic production. Discuss and don’t forget to give examples!
The discourse of nations through post colonialism and neo colonialism may be described as symbolic, first post colonialism being the strong, grounded tree in an ancient forest and second, neocolonialism being the often improved, hybridized offspring. Post colonialism can be described as the development of a national identity after establishment and neocolonialism as being a combination of current actual colonialism and the integration of modern economic practices and involvement with other nations. Imperialist nations seem to have control and maintain hegemony over ex colonies because of the need for a strong cultural identity in a stabilized country.
Nations without sound values and beliefs socially, politically and economically are hard to run smoothly. While colonized, states acquire a sense of identity through the strong, imperialist mother country. Nursing the young states into a grounded, stable form of herself, the mother country creates a hegemony in which she has direct influence over until departure when the states become countries themselves, go into post colonialism and try to establish their own national identities. Although separate, post colonialism still maintains hegemony over ex colonies because of the instilled belief system on which they were brought up. To eradicate all traces of the ex mother country’s teachings would be to obliterate any stability the former colony once had and utter chaos would be more than expected…however, an answer to the enigma of creating a unique national identity in a hegemony saturated environment may be found through neocolonialism. Progressive reform and the development of culture in a new nation is produced largely through intellectual, literary and artistic production. Geeta Kapur states that, “…societies that have undergone a long period of decolonization and developed beyond the terms of hybridity a sustained postcolonial vision that has, along with concrete manifestations, the ability to theorize on societal conditions. These societies have devised, moreover, styles of historical praxis and futures beyond postcoloniality. This may be kept in view to arrive at a more dialectically worked-out politics than a perennially in between position allows,” (Kapur 201). She believes that along with the stability the mother country instilled, the young nation must develop it’s future beyond postcolonialism if it is to prosper.
Neocolonialism may hold the key to pushing through the in between position because by integrating new values and adding diversity through intellectual, literary and artistic reform, the nation will ultimately develop a unique identity.
