Anakena Paddon - Cultural Globalization in Media and Representation

Anakena Paddon

SOC 400

Cultural Globalization: Media and Representation

            I was quite excited to re-read Jarmakani’s excerpt from “Imagining Arab Womanhood”, because I remember watching the first airing of Steve McCurry’s National Geographic documentary on the search for “his Afghan girl” when I was much younger. I was already familiar with the photograph, and this search for the subject of the photo seemed like an exciting adventure. And yet, I remember my mother being disgusted at the whole process and never really understanding why.

            Now, years later, it becomes apparent that strong forces of American cultural and political imperialism were at play in this process. Using images of women, awaiting the white/Western savior in their oppression and misery, seems to trigger a twisted nostalgia for a romanticized version of colonialism, particularly when we discuss the “civilizing trope” (where Western societies feel able to justify decades of colonial rule by arguing that they were elevating the culture to a higher level of civilization).

            The important points that Jamarkani brings to light concern several important issues. Firstly, she recognizes the lack of historical context given to the history of women in the Middle East (see slide show with photos of Iran in the 1970s and 80s, with women at university etc). They are denied any past preceding the Taliban rule, to highlight the need for their saving.

            Parallel to this is the fact that the timing of this documentary is perfectly conjoined with the news coverage of 9/11 which soon spread to women’s rights in the Middle East. It is no coincidence that Steve McCurry’s search for Gula became a feasible project only after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the outright war declaration of the USA in Afghanistan and neighboring countries.

            It seems as though the life of Gula has only been relevant when able to serve the greater purpose of turning an enormous profit and incredible fame surrounding both the original photograph of her as a young girl, the documentary of the search for the Afghan girl and the subsequent photoshoot with her covered in her burqa. Throughout the documentary, no particular attention seems to be paid to her as an individual. Rather, she is framed immediately as a rural, uneducated woman, unable to comprehend the enormity of the fame, opportunity and luck she is acquiring (as made evident by McCurry’s interpretation of her reaction “She is glad her picture was an inspiration. But I don’t think the photograph means anything to her. The only thing that matters is her husband and children”). We must remember that McCurry never even found out her name upon taking the initial shot, and that she has not received any of the profit from the worldwide spread of this photo (all the way to cities in Pakistan, where it is being sold as a postcard).

            Did he have the right to take that photograph? Artistically and aesthetically, I would definitely argue that the photo has strong and striking composition with incredible colors (particularly her infamous eyes) but it has been forever connected with McCurry’s story about her and our general impression of women in the Middle East. His work was not barrier-breaking, it served to reinforce political symbols in women in Afghanistan and Pakistan, starting in at the end of the 20^th century when the photo was taken all the way to the present. Work such as his is no doubt what inspired photographers like Annie Liebovitz to (sub)consciously make the choice to represent an Arab-American as a veiled woman, because we know no other image of them.

            Luckily, Abu-Lughod clarifies some of these misunderstandings, by setting the record straight about the quasi non-existant history of the wearing of the veil. Approaching this topic from an anthropological perspective which examines the significance of clothing in socio-cultural settings, she reminds us that the veil and the burqa were not always tied to religious meanings, but rather adopted when deemed the adequate and appropriate covering in public. The fact that we ignore the American involvement and responsibility in the rise of the Taliban explains why then the physical evidence of “control” over women (the veil, or burqa) became the representation of enemy and dangerous forces over the freedom and basic rights of women, justifying US invasion of the Middle East.

            Stabile and Kumar also confront this issue of the representation of Muslim women as victims of oppressors, waiting for saving, or, as Abu-Lughod quotes, “white men saving brown women from brown men”. Stabile and Kumar present a three-part analysis of the use of women’s rights, beginning with an overview of conflicts in Afghanistan (which serves to remind us of the proxy war that played out during the Cold War and the US’ subsequent involvement in the situation, mostly motivated by the search for oil profits). They then carry on with presenting the Afghan women as pawns in the international games and determining where they figure in wider agendas. Finally, the authors work on the current contemporary situation of Afghan women, displaying the fact that they still “endure terrible conditions” as evidence that the US foreign policy was simply using them as a tool, not actually working towards improving their living situation.

            I really enjoyed this article because it gives so much more historical context than the wider public is used to hearing about the situation in Afghanistan and how things really began heating up between world powers, and the rise of the Taliban based on funding from the US government. The history of the region and the exploration of its ties with the USA is intrinsically connected to the “damsels-in-distress” scenario, that portrays all Muslim women as weak victims of the men of their country, and desperately awaiting saving from American soldiers, news-casters, photographers (as in the case of McCurry) and politicians.

            The same tropes that once were used as a justification for colonialism (including in American colonies) are now being applied by the USA on the Middle East to secure petrol contracts and political control over the region. I think it is also important to consider that the USA never really publicizes women’s issues and abuses in the USA itself (“bad media”) but is very willing to “confront” these issues in “backwards” cultures that need help in running their own countries.

            Those three excerpts, by Stabile & Kumar, Abu-Lughod, and Jarmakani, present dire situations about the disgusting manner in which the news and media mogul empires function – how much is covered up, how much is twisted and how much is orchestrated by political will, power and money. Although it may seem more innocent, the discussions surrounding Truth Hurts’ single “Addictive” highlight at a smaller scale the influence these portrayals of foreigners have on us. The clumping of Indian music themes and instruments with the glorified, sexualized images of belly-dancing (denied all historical accuracy) from other regions in the Middle East show a clear lack of caring about the truth. While some are excited about the musical blending of styles from different areas of the world, the representation and over-simplification of the images (notably in the “Addictive” music video) essentializes multiple cultures into one simple smoothie of parts picked out by US media.

            I think that this week’s readings really highlighted the power injustices of globalization and how pervasive those injustices are in the representation of various countries, cultures and religions (and how, where there should be boundaries between those three factors, there are none). For me, it highlighted, once more, how critical we must be of all of our information intake, its provenance and the motivation for the source that produced it. 

Leah Feutz- Blog Post

Leah Feutz- Cultural Globalization: Media and Representation Blog Post

Jarmakani’s piece, “Veiled Intentions: The Cultural Mythology of Veils, Harems, and Belly Dancers in the Service of Empire, Security, and Globalization” was a very interesting read and helped me to understand more fully how cultural globalization and subsequent media and representation of culture plays out in the specific instance of “Arab and Muslim womanhood” (141). She starts off by stating that “orientalist representations of Arab womanhood” are part of an American privilege to frame discourse and a “shifting function” of these images to continuously meet policy needs (140). Especially in the context of mounting Islamophobia from at least the 1970’s, understanding how many different identities are “conflated in the contemporary U.S. imagination” is important (141). This aspect of globalization is somewhat in conflict with more idealistic views of what globalization means, in terms of increasing interconnectedness and an open, borderless world (140). I think this is an essential assertion to start her piece with, as it places her argument in a larger context of criticisms of discourses of globalization. These discourses are not communicating universal truths of what the world is like, but instead are ways to strategically market American priorities.

            Jarmakani starts her explanation of these mythologies with the example or case study of McCurry’s famous photograph for National Geographic. This is one of the most famous photographs in the world, and so it was interesting to hear a different side of the story behind this photograph apart from knowing how widely celebrated it is. Jarmakani writes how the follow-up article to the initial photograph represented a rekindled interest because of “the crisis of 11 September and the subsequent war against the Taliban” (141). This article didn’t do anything to explain how different events had impacted this woman’s life, and instead the narrative just “[reinforced] dominant U.S. notions about the passivity and victimization of all Muslim women” (141). The author’s overall point in bringing up such an example is not to say that the American media is simply ignorant, but instead that the perpetuation of this type of narrative serves a greater purpose of “[legitimizing] dominant narratives of national security and globalization” (142). This is her idea of mythology as a representation of a (false) persistent reality to serve the dominant narrative.

I was particularly struck when I read, “the mythology of the veil, or the ‘plight’ of Arab and Muslim women, has become increasingly salient in the contemporary geopolitical context” (144). I think we can all agree that these images are extremely commonplace in any media we have been consuming. I know that almost all media I have consumed as a socially, politically, or more globally conscious adult comes from the post-9/11 era. In other words, global perception has been transmitted through the context of increasing fascination with discourses concerning the “Arab and Muslim” world. Perhaps this means that people of our generation are more susceptible to accepting this type of representation as the way things always have been and continue to be. This reading helped me to be more critical of the biases in this imagery, instead of seeing it as a natural part of the media I am consuming. I do feel like I try to be skeptical of media assertion of the “flawless certainty” of oppression of Muslim women, but I think placing it within the context of cultural globalization helps me to understand this issue and be even more critical (151). This article also made me think differently about celebrated photographers like McCurry and Annie Liebovitz, and how these photographers capitalize on fascinations with other cultures and also with on the myth of what these cultures represent. As Maggie noted, there are other examples, such as the Reebok advertisements, that are more blatantly playing to stereotypes. But when the perpetuation of these myths is more subtle, it is perhaps more complicated to discern what kind of message we are receiving. I wonder how this affects artistic integrity and what this could mean for creating more responsible, ethical journalism.

Similarly, the Kumar and Stabile article starts off with a quote from George W. Bush, and an explanation of the larger framing of the ‘War on Terror’. This excerpt from the president shows how justification for going to war was partly painted as a human rights issue and, more specifically, as a way to liberate Muslim women from the oppression they were facing. In this context, the framing of the war was about selling it to the U.S. public (776). On the whole, this article discusses the way that the ‘War on Terror’ was painted in ways that served to legitimize taking military action under the guise of human rights and under this type of ‘noble ideal’ (771). The framing also perpetuated a vision of “the restricted lives of Afghan women” that exclusively demonized the Taliban and ignored “the rise of fundamentalism in 1989, as a consequence of earlier US intervention in the region” (773). I try to be aware that political discourse is full of strategic framing in order to lend credence to certain ends, and yet this type of manipulation in order to avoid undermining American power is still extremely troubling. These types of “inaccuracies and…willful manipulation” are definitely important to be sensitive to in trying to be critical consumers of news and media (778).

The “Bolly’hood Remix” and “Boom Go the Bombs, Boom Goes the Bass” articles were really interesting in their discussion of “cross-cultural sampling” (Kevin Miller Article). They also made me continue to think about issues of framing of certain issues and themes so as not to undermine one’s own larger goals or self-perception. In the case of the song “Truth Hurts”, instead of putting our discussion of cultural globalization at the forefront of my mind, I was first and foremost struck by the realization that DJ Quik had produced the song. He is definitely one of the more renowned hip-hop and rap producers who has worked with some some very notable names like Nate Dogg, Luniz, Snoop Dogg, and Talib Kweli. He also worked on some of my favorite rap albums like Tupac’s All Eyez on Me and Jay-Z’s The Black Album. So I guess kind of selfishly I thought first of how he has contributed significantly to a lot of the music I listen to, and then that made me a little more willing to try to make excuses for why he would be involved in “issues of musical integrity and cultural representation” (Miller). In this way, I was trying not to undermine my perceptions of the music I enjoyed. I think, too, that this kind of sampling is a way for the “hip hop community and form alliances with other peoples of color”, and to communicate a sense of solidarity with what artists perceive to be related struggles and experiences. After reading the articles, I was left thinking about this issue that Miller brings up: “Of course, the unspoken question remains whether it is really the responsibility of the artist to educate or enlighten the masses. Should we expect to learn lessons in geography and culture from popular music?”. In the same vein as integrity within journalism and photography, I think that it is definitely important for all forms of expression to be self-conscious in how they perpetuate, play into, criticize, etc. cultural myths and discourses. The two photo collections “Once Upon a Time in…” also brought up the same issues of the politics behind depictions of other places and cultures. However, I don’t think that this lapse in responsibility among a large number of artists of all kinds is exclusive to their experience, and is a result of the larger societal exposure to and saturation with these misrepresentations. I think it could be interesting to discuss where moral and ethical issues come into play given the American placement within a “power axis of representation” (Jarmakani 140).

Cultural Globalization Maggie Nelsen

Maggie Nelsen

2/29/12

Cultural Globalization

The two main articles for this week focused on Western perceptions of Muslim women and the Hijab, most commonly referred to by westerners as the ‘veil’. I think the more highly educated ranks of American society are aware that the hijab, and subsequently the rights of Muslim women is a predicament of cultural relativism. In the West’s defense, there is a growing number of people, typically college students and academics who recognize that values and customs differ between societies and cultures, and that foreigners need to respect that. Unfortunately however, among the west in general there is an impulse to apply deeply embedded western values onto others, without pausing to learn about and understand the social dynamics, circumstances, and customs embedded in another culture.

This is the disconnect that seems to have occurred about two decades ago with the famous National Geographic photograph of an Afghan girl (Gula), taken by Steve McCurry. The author poses a theory that there would not have been an extensive search to find the woman again years later, if it had not been for the events of 9/11 which allegedly spurred renewed interest. At face value, I didn’t find this whole story and the photograph itself to be so controversial. However, what did bother me is McCurry and other journalists and critics putting words into to the mouth of the young girl they photographed and never even spoke to. Through their interpretation of her facial expression, they assumed an entire narrative about her plight, of which they didn’t really know.  It is a very difficult situation to be politically critical of a photograph, because this image has purely artistic value and talent as a portrait as well. But, if one views it for its political message and cultural content then issues do begin to emerge. Another interesting part of this story is that the image of this woman was distributed globally and became quite well known to the general public, yet the young woman remained in her less than fortunate circumstances in Afghanistan all those years her portrait was becoming famous. This irony indeed highlights the capitalist framework which seems to control so many aspects of our world. I think the major problem with this case is National Geographic is considered to be such an authority on worldly cultures and is supposed to be introducing its readers to places and peoples we are not familiar with. Therefore, people will take this specific form of media much more seriously, which legitimizes the messages and images it releases in its publication.

What was even more problematic in my mind was the reebok advertisement, I found that whole image and concept very disturbing. Depicting a woman completely covered in the burqa, with the large caption, “Hidden Classic” is clearly using the burqa and perhaps Muslin women in general as a metaphor for something “hidden”. This image is making huge assumptions about the religion of Islam and Muslin women; it is really inappropriate to employ an important religious and cultural custom as a marketing tool—especially because it is so misused and misunderstood, thereby broadcasting an invalid and stereotypical message to thousands of Americans.

In my mind 9/11 is one of the worst events to ever happen to the Muslim community because millions of westerners have now developed negative connotations with the entire Islamic faith and Muslims in general. This sentiment no doubt plays itself out most prominently in airport security screenings. For the West, there is a huge gap in knowledge about Muslims and their religion; many have also pigeonholed Muslim women into the sole occupation of those oppressed, and confined to rigid disenfranchisement from society. While a lot of the laws and customs westerns abhor upon are true in certain Muslim communities, there is a lot more going on, a whole accompanying history that is left out of the picture. The photographs and their captions of Iran and Afghanistan from the 1960s and 1970s demonstrate how similar society was to the west at the time, and how vibrant and modern it actually was. 

The other article, Unveiling Imperialism, brought to light the way the Bush administration justified invading Afghanistan through the liberation of oppressed Muslim women. There are many problems with this philosophy and the rhetoric of that time. Firstly, the notion of Muslim women needing liberation negates their cultural identity entirely and immediately subordinates the faith of Islam under ‘Western-ism’/Christianity. Secondly, and none of the other articles mentioned this, is by running under a campaign that seeks equality for Muslim women, renders American women as equal, living in a post-feminist society—which of course is inaccurate, and not the reality that exists in the States.

The other articles about the Indian-Middle Eastern fusion music and video also presented a bit of a perplexing issue. While reading the articles, and the testimonials of Indian American youth who were simultaneously excited but also apprehensive about some version of India music becoming mainstream I began to ask myself  is some representation of another culture (in any form) better than none? I think that was the biggest question running through my mind. But after watching the video I was much more disappointed by any prospective hope. The video was not even at least trying to represent other cultures properly. The background beat did ‘sound Indian’ but the rapping and the attire of the featured male Black artist were clearly western representations plopped into a clear exaggeration and amplification of stereotypical Indian aesthetics and cultural exoticism. I think even the average westerner would recognize that.

Jane Sternbach-- Economic Globalization Response

Jane Sternbach

2/20/12

Globalizaiton

Response to Economic Globalization

            The idea that sweatshops could, in fact, be more helpful than harmful is an intriguing one, and it’s hard for me to really pass judgment because I know so little about economic theory. However, I do think that the economists who are interviewed in the Kristof, Myerson, and Stossel pieces are glossing over a large piece of the puzzle, and focusing on the short-term gains that can be achieved through these sweatshops. The fact is that these companies, mostly American and European companies, are setting up these factories in other companies in order to keep the price of their product down while simultaneously stuffing their own pockets at an increasing rate. Therefore, the people who are truly benefiting are the American capitalists, and no one else. The fact that these companies can go abroad for cheaper labor, leaves American workers without jobs. But since Americans are the main consumer market for the goods that these sweatshops are producing, Americans and America is going into debt (despite being one of the wealthiest countries in the world). The income disparity is increasing and we are finding all the power and resources concentrated in fewer and fewer American hands. Then if we look at the countries that are producing these goods in sweatshops, it seems to be a similar situation. What I do remember from microeconomics, is that the capitalist system is based on the idea that a company invests capital into a factory, and pays the workers, so that they can then go out and buy the product that they are making, but the owners of the company are looking to make a net profit only after reinvesting part of the total profit in the company and infrastructure and technology, etc. Therefore, if the owners of the companies have no real stake in the economy of the country that their factories are in, they don’t have to invest as much of the total profit to keep the cycle going, which makes their pockets deeper. In other words, these companies are really taking all of the potential wealth out of these countries and putting them in the hands of the American capitalists.

            Also, because the nature of sweatshop jobs is unskilled labor, the people performing the labor have no leverage to bargain for better conditions, hours, or wages. Since they are making below subsistence level wages, the job is maybe keeping them fed, but can’t possibly raise them out of poverty. The nature of this work is to pay just enough to force you to keep the job, but little enough to keep you from being able to attain anything better. In the Stossel piece, one economist said that these workers work in the factories for a while and then they open up their own businesses. I find this incredibly hard to believe. Working in a sweatshop does not teach you anything about owning or running you own business; it doesn’t even teach you anything about how to produce a product because all you are shown is your very specific task in the assembly line. If you are an illiterate migrant worker, there is no way that you are able to leave work in a sweatshop and become your own boss, especially when you are not even accumulating any capital  (because you are earning less than subsistence wages), let alone have no skill or know-how or education! In addition, even if such a thing were possible, and a factory worker started his/her own business, he/she wouldn’t be able to compete with the prices of the multinational corporate conglomerates, so back to the assembly line that person would go.

            Another thing that I had an issue with was the fact that these economists were surprised that anyone could consider sweatshop work exploitation. Just because sweatshop work for many of the people who are working in them is the better alternative does not mean they are not being exploited. The fact that a Javanese woman needs to work for three hours to earn enough for one bar of soap is obviously exploitation! The dictionary definition of exploitation is “the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work.” This means that if a company is not giving their workers a wage that is somewhat comparable to the value of their work to the production process, then those workers are being exploited. Exploitation is inherent in the capitalist system. The reason that the companies are decided to go abroad for labor in the first place is because exploiting Americans became too difficult. I couldn’t believe it when Kristof wrote, “One of the best things America could do for Africa would be to strengthen our program to encourage African imports, called AGOA, and nudge Europe to match it.” In other words, he is suggesting that Americans not only exploit Africans further, but encourage other countries to partake as well! This is particularly surprising because of the long history Americans have in area of exploiting African people for their labor.  I would think that it would obvious that Americans and Europeans owning and controlling African labor would be a bad thing…

            Something else that Kristof said that bothered me was, “but one result of paying above-market wages is that those in charge of hiring often demand bribes — sometimes a month’s salary — in exchange for a job.” His solution to this was that companies should clearly keep their wages down. In my mind, the obvious solution is that if market wages were raised to subsistence level, this wouldn’t be an issue! In other words, raise all the wages so there is no need to compete for these “above-market wages” (which were probably still below subsistence level). This is an idea that Stossel made the college students look stupid for asking for, but is seems perfectly logical to me. The ideal situation would be that these workers would get paid at least enough to live and support their families, the price of the product wouldn’t go up, and the American company owners would go home with their pockets a little less full.

            The fact that, as Salzinger and Wolf explain, gender is used as a justification for low wages even further proves the point that this system is in fact exploitative. If women are the justification for low wages, then the system is operating under some form of patriarchy. Who benefits from patriarchy?  Men. Why is patriarchy necessary in the first place? To perpetuate the cycle of capitalism and keep the men in the bourgeoisie with all the power, and the women oppressed as a form of cheap labor. The same reason we “need” racism.

            Something I found especially interesting about Salzinger’s analysis of the gender discourse in mexico, is how it was the exact opposite of what I was taught about gender and labor. For example, she talks about how women are the sought after workers, to the point where the companies can’t seem to find enough of them to fill their factories, and when they went on strike, demanding more pay, they brought in men as strike breakers. This is the opposite of the stories I learned in history of men fighting to organize and companies bringing in women because they were willing to work for less. 

Thomas Schrader - Economic Globalization - 2.20.2012

            It seems that what this week’s readings and video on economic globalization and mainly sweatshop/factory work, go against the popular Westernized idea that this type of work is completely negative. The ABC News special really showed a misinformed majority when it comes to discussing Third World issues that are often more complex than we accept. Seeing the self-righteous attitudes of the college students was really empowering at first, only to find out that they had failed to do the work and investigate the issue of sweatshops while they were reflecting their personal Western values on the system. I don’t think it is wrong for them to want to improve the conditions of the sweatshop workers, but the root of the problem is not happening within the factories; rather, the other articles shared that this way a life is an almost necessary result of the political and economic structures that these factories rest on. 

           Another article by ABC News that I recently stumbled on was the first glimpse into an Apple (Foxconn) factory, where many of the same harsh conditions and issues of boredom and fatigue are echoed. This report follows a recent suicide by workers from the factory complex, assumed a result of the working conditions. It might be worth a read for anyone who has time. It dives into the complexity of the issue a little bit more. Read here: http://news.yahoo.com/trip-ifactory-nightline-gets-unprecedented-glimpse-inside-apples-001926196--abc-news.html

              I found the chapter by Diane Wolf on “Factory Workers and Their Families in Rural Java” the most interesting, because the author seemed to really consider personal accounts from the factory workers and their families. What was most interesting from the article was that factory work actually seemed like more of a stepping-stone into nicer jobs, higher wages, and better lifestyles. The mere ability to get a job in a factory and make some money inspired a sense of privilege among workers. So while worker exploitation was occurring to some level, it seems that workers are actually saving most of the time for some sort of “productive investment” (Wolf:41). 

           Wolf’s calculations show that factory wages in Java for the female workers, who make up the majority, are not even subsistence-level. She finds that this is manly a result of the traditional gender hierarchies, the presence of the family, and the rural-agrarian locations of the factories. As a result of these factors, male factory workers tend to make forty percent more than the women, the women remain somewhat economically dependant on their parents, and the women, who are less educated because of the rural location, are less likely to protest for higher wages. Wolf disagrees that all is entirely bad in this system, though past researchers have made claims that female workers must support their families. Actually, very few of those interviewed gave much of their money to their families, mostly spending the savings on cash or food or long-term improvements to their homes.

            The Leslie Salzinger article on gender meanings in Mexico’s export-processing industry, introduce a public narrative on sex-differences, which put into context the these localized gender meanings in factories. There is a consistent view, within public narratives at least, that female workers are assumed to be more reliable as workers, while men seem to be increasingly considered less dependable. Women seemed to reflect such expectations, fulfilling most the jobs at the factories, as we saw in the Maquilapolis documentary. 

           Looking at three different factory locations, interactions between genders varied significantly. It was interesting, how factory floors were set up so differently. In some of the factories, there was an expectation that the female workers came in dressed a certain way and acting a certain way to encourage attention from the minority of male workers. Male workers would often make flirtatious comments at workers, and were allowed to as well. These differed very differently the final factory that was discussed, the Androgymex, where women still outnumbered men, but all workers dressed the same and were basically unidentifiable by their sex.

            Reading the New York Times article by Allen Myerson, I was surprised by the statement that there are “too few sweatshops.” (I’m sure that made some of those college students protesting cringe). As Myerson pointed out, places like Hong King, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan, have been able to lift themselves out of economic distress and eventually help many of the poor. The other NYT article by Nicholas Kristof further exposed that factory work was actually safer and more pleasant than some others types of work that could be done. More agricultural jobs leave a higher level of risk when the product is determent on weather and other conditions. What the article also pointed to, is that the bigger problem is that of poverty. Improving labor standards and “living wages” also has a negative impact on production costs and factory sustainability. 

            What the main takeaway of this week for me is that if the issue of poverty can’t be solved, in the short-term at least, then the next best thing is opening more factories and getting people into any types of jobs. Something is therefore better than nothing it can be argued. Part of me just can’t help but feel like a battle is being lost if multinational corporations continue to win big as the result of increasing sweatshops. Again, is there any right answer as to what can be done?

Anakena Paddon

22/2/2012

Economic Globalization

            Watching the documentary “Maquilapolis” set us up to be looking at the issue of factory work and sweatshops under a different lens, by presenting us with the Mexican promotoras in charge of passing on their knowledge of worker’s rights and spreading awareness about their living conditions to the masses in order to bring about change and social justice. While there was certainly a long way to go yet, it was interesting to see some form of empowerment in that community.

            These readings have continued to spin what I thought I understood about sweatshops – now I don’t really know which way is up or who has the right to determine the benefactor effects of sweatshops on Third World populations.

            Nicholas Kristof talks about sweatshops in Cambodia, where, supposedly, for most people they are a step up from a poverty-ridden life in that factories offer at least a salary, as opposed to the “Dante-like vision of hell” of the festering garbage mounds where young children and families live, trying to survive by selling old cans and bottles, risking their lives daily. At first I was very surprised by Kristof’s declaration that “the central challenge in the poorest countries is not that sweatshops exploit too many people, but that they don’t exploit enough”. While I understand the logic that he presents – it’s a case of the lesser of two evils – I am somewhat befuddled as to why he still uses the term ‘exploit’. Why would we want to /should we need to exploit more people? Shouldn’t we instead be working at finding solutions to end the need for cheap human labor?

            Discussing this scenario is somewhat naïve and idealistic. As the promotoras in “Maquilapolis” stated, whenever there is word of cheaper labor, the factories move. So when will we run out of places that offer cheaper and cheaper human labor? When will living conditions internationally be high enough that we no longer need to exploit people, as Kristof suggests in his article? Towards the end of his piece, he states that the “best way to help people in the poorest countries isn’t to campaign against sweatshops but to promote manufacturing there” – is this a realistic solution? Indeed, if poorer countries built their own manufacturing industries, they could be developing themselves from bottom-up…if only those pesky college students weren’t protesting against sweatshops and boycotting major TNC’s. But can we blame them? Or are we fighting the wrong injustice? Are sweatshops not the evil we should be opposing?

            Kristof argues that sweatshops are “only a symptom of poverty, not a cause, and banning them closes off one route out of poverty”. So perhaps college students like the one from the youtube video, who are idealists, who are trying to see their vision of an ideal world become a reality are attacking the wrong evil after all. Perhaps the fundamental mix-up occurs at a political level. But then we get into such intricate power plays, not just within a nation, but between hierarchized nations that it gets difficult to untangle the mess of injustices. So whom do we fight? And do we know why we have to fight them?

            One of the speakers in the youtube video stated that he hoped “people would think with their brain instead of their hearts”, in order to realize that sweatshops were more of a stepping stone towards better wages than the horrid nightmares people painted them out to be. When discussing teenage girls being exploited (which he put in quotes, doubting the truth of that statement), he highlighted that it was much better than turning to a life of prostitution. But why can’t it be that the living conditions are safe and livable enough that prostitution not be their only back-up plan?

            The NYT article, interviewing Jeffrey Sachs among other people seems to also support this argument that there are not enough sweatshops providing work to women. His argument is that they did allow countries such as Honk Kong to emerge as powers, and that basic subsistence wages are better than none. Then how do they transition from barely-getting-by-wages to wages that can be saved up and used for entrepreneurship and development?

            Diane Wolf’s article on women workers in Java, Indonesia presents the “complex economic relationships between factories, female workers, and their rural families in Java”. Among her extensive research, the first point that caught my eye was how careful she was to get across the point that there is no common blanket experience of globalization, not internationally, not even locally. “Class position, ethnic background, culture, and country’s position within the world market” all affect how the women will react and be able to survive in their globalized world.

            This article’s complexity, for me, arose from all these differing experiences of globalization. On the one hand, we hear of parents who complain that their daughters do nothing but spend money all day; on another hand, some families need the salary of these women to help support their families. I found the different experiences between commuters and locals to be interesting, because it really highlighted the different lived experiences of economic globalization and how it affects the age, family life and revenue of each individual.

            Interestingly, Wolf went into social explanations of why women’s salaries are so low, even relative to men working in similarly low-skilled positions – and it has everything to do with “traditional gender hierarchies”. Families in Java are dependent on the male in the family, so if a woman were to earn more than the man, then that gendered patriarchal control would become irrelevant. Here again the power plays are entirely dependent on gender roles and their enforcement by a patriarchal society.

            This issue of gender power returns in Salzinger’s article “From High Heels to Swathed Bodies: Gendered Meanings under Production in Mexico’s Export-Processing Industry”. She analyzes various different plants and the gender roles that are enforced either by the workers themselves or the management as they reproduce or contradict external gender roles.

            Part of the explanation of the gender roles lies in the fact that men are generally ostracized from factory positions, as companies seek to hire women, often perceived to be “meek, docile and dependable” workers, who do not get bored easily and who are willing to put in many hours a day in order to sustain a family. This view of women is itself very biased, socially constructed, but also self-perpetuated as women fit themselves into this mold in order to get hired and be able to work in the maquiladoras.

            I found the difference between Panoptimex and Anarchomex to be very interesting. Panoptimex highlighted the way the men in the factory, managers and those responsible for stations asserted their masculinity through flirtation games with the female workers, who in turn felt they had to play the game, dress up, wear make-up, take breaks in their work days etc. This allows them to later buy favors from plant managers (such as tardy passes, excuses for absences, etc) but does that mean that the company discriminates in their hiring process? Do they only hire attractive, young women?

            Contrary to this was the case study of Anarchomex, which was managed by an American, with a weak level of Spanish, setting himself already at a disadvantage with his workers, which perhaps explains why he distanced himself physically from them as well. In this factory, there are also major double-standards at work, as women are supposed to graciously receive the favors and flirtations of men, without making the first move, or refusing them (for there would be risk of social exclusion).