Jane Sternbach Response

Jane Sternbach

Response to Experiencing Globalization Readings

            It is not surprising to me that people would experience globalization differently due to the varying yet ubiquitous nature of globalization. I suppose that the contradictions in the experiences shouldn’t surprise me either (because Professor Jafar said that’s what globalization is about on the first day of class) but it does. The fact that people in Hong Kong can take something so stereotypically and quintessentially American as McDonald’s and normalize, even welcome it, into their culture without seeming to worry about loss of traditional culture, completely contradicts the experience that the African musicians described in Taylor’s piece. A similar theme that I did find throughout the majority of the readings was the push and pull between The West and everyone else. Most of these places are trying to reconcile the relationship between what is considered Western and modernizing, and their traditional cultures. They are having to ask themselves, “is this good for me? Is this good for my country? How much is too much? Where is the line between modern and Western?” and so on and so forth. I find myself asking very similar questions.

As a sociology student, I am always tempted to look at something like a McDonald’s in Hong Kong as a modern version of American imperialism. We are again forcing our values and beliefs on these other cultures; forcing them to conform to the American standard of “normal.” But after reading Watson’s article, I am forced to think differently. Yes, they never asked for a McDonald’s, but it hasn’t forced them to lose their culture the way imperialism would. They have had to opportunity mold the McDonald’s somewhat into something that works for them. Although the author calls the McDonald’s normalized, it seems to me to be a kind of exotic treat, the way an American would treat a Chinese restaurant. He describes the process of having to learn how and what to order, much like Americans do with a Chinese menu and chopsticks. I also liked the way the Watson brought up the fact that it seems as though McDonald’s, more than any other company, seemed to have a real vested interest in the community. The fact that McDonald’s isn’t simply exploiting its foreign consumers makes the picture a little bit rosy-er. I do, however, think that Watson’s view of McDonald’s in Hong Kong was too rosy. One thing that he mentioned about the youth being so enamored with McDonald’s that they refused to go to the traditional tea houses with their elders, is a little bit scary. If the youth take on McDonald’s as part of their identity at the expense of their heritage, what does that mean for the future of Hong Kong’s culture? Also, something that was never touched upon was the health and environmental ramifications of McDonald’s. What happens when the people of Hong Kong are consuming their daily calorie count in one meal that they deem “not-filling”? What does it to do the environment to have potatoes imported solely from Idaho for basically no reason? Finally, a gaping hole in Watson’s argument is that although he paints a picture of McDonald’s as a facet of daily life in Hong Kong, he doesn’t say how many times a week people in Hong Kong go to McDonald’s. I believe that McDonald’s is very popular, but I don’t believe that it is as popular as he makes it out to be.

Taylor’s discussion of African musicians is the opposite experience of McDonald’s in Hong Kong. Where people in Hong Kong seem to be excited about McDonald’s, the East embracing part of the West, for African musicians, doing just that leads to criticism and contempt. I find the whole discussion of whether it is better to beat the oppressor at his own game or to create your own game entirely with your own set of rules. I myself go back and forth with this. One the one hand, raising oneself up to a level of prestige that the oppressor, the West, values as prestigious garners respect from the West. With respect, will probably come autonomy and power. However, to do that, one must focus on things that the West deems important, pushing aside things that historically/traditionally/culturally were significant. So, isn’t it kind of like letting the West win by conforming? Can a balance be achieved? Is there a right way to go about it?

These questions are also ones that I pondered while reading Koh’s article on Singapore. The push and pull of the West in Singapore was very clearly articulated in Koh’s article. While Singapore is focusing on competing economically and modernizing, they are forcing a cultural identity onto their youth for fear of being too Western. But where do you draw the line? What is too Western? This was the same thing that India and especially Indian women are dealing with, according to Sengupta. Now that Indian women are leaving their homes and getting jobs in urban centers, some want to experience the same privileges that their male counterparts and the Western women have, but only to an extent. Sengupta portrays an Indian society that doesn’t know what to make of this. On the one hand, they embrace Western technologies and some facets of modernized culture, but on the other, new is uncomfortable for most people. So, what is too modern in India? Do they really want to draw that gender line? I liked the quote about people being “schizophrenic” about their attitudes towards these types of subjects. There seem to change on a whim and for no real reason at all.