Monica Butler Post #2

Monica Butler - Post #2 - 2/6/12

The readings for this week discussed how different cultures around the world, specifically non-western cultures, are recognizing globalization infiltrating their everyday lives. Each country discussed seemingly has handled globalization differently, acceptance or resistance. However, when these cultures do accept globalization, many adopt difference into their cultural routine, and therefore maintain their local culture. 

Theodore Bestor’s article “How Sushi Went Global,” discussed globalization in how people from all over the globe work together and produce a globalized product that spreads Japanese culture across the world. Rather than discussing globalization through computer connections and cell phones, as we do most often. Bestor showed we as a global community are working together on an individual level. How American researchers work with Spanish fisherman, who both work with Japanese captains, and all work with Australian developers shows how we as a globe are working together to stimulate the world economy and the economy of Japan. The article mentions how the demand for blue fin tuna may bring down the prestige of tuna in Japan, however on the contrary, the hype around the tuna has skyrocketed interest and appeal in Japan as well and brought prestige to the cuisine of the nation. 

Relating to the other articles Bestor also points out the importance of trends. Sushi has become a global fad that is now driving a mult-million dollar economy across the world and livelihoods of fisherman in small town America. Bestor hints to the importance of how trends and globalization combine benefit multiple nations. Linking to trends, other articles discussions about youth allude to a correlation between trends and youth culture in relation to globalization. 

The article by James Watson “McDonald’s in Hong Kong…” references how McDonald’s has become a place where grandparents in China bring their children, similarly to America. Watson points out that this deferral from traditional dim sam restaurants, in some communities, creates “intergenerational stress” but in others children are being accepted as full consumers and helping McDonald’s gain even more popularity. The children/youth are the people that determine the trends, they are on the cutting edge. Teens and young adults started the sushi craze in America and in China we see children teaching their elders the “proper way to eat fast food,” with their hands. 

The youth is who is buying food, going to the bars, and buying the music, in the case of “Strategic Inauthenticity.” However, this acceptance of global culture that we see with McDonald’s, the music in Africa, and the sushi across the globe, is what is scaring the Sri Ram Sena in India. Somini Sengupta discusses this clash of the two ideologies in his article. He asks Does globalization destroy a culture? I took away from the article that the Sri Ram Sena was not afraid of globalization, but they are afraid of the modern woman. They fear what the Indian woman is becoming and this is not global, but more specifically modern. The Indian woman is changing, whether this is an influence of outside culture or not it is not a direct affect. Indian women want to be independent and modern and want to control their own lives. It is more about freedom than it is about Westernization. 

Aaron Koh’s article “Disciplining Generation M” offers more evidence into this battle of globalization and local culture. The resistance in Singapore ultimately derives from the fear and uncertainty about the fragility of the Singapore culture. Singapore wants to remain open and compete in the global market, but by doing so they see their own culture slipping. Koh speaks of this idea “Go Global” but “Stay Local,” an idea that reaps the benefits of global culture but still is grounds Singapore in their own culture. While other cultures have done this successfully, from the readings we find that China is global but maintains locality. McDonald’s entered China in the 1970’s and gradually gained popularity for its uniqueness and also its value. It was a kind of cuisine that was not available to everyone before. Overtime, McDonald’s is not seen as a Western attempt to invade or globalize but a piece of America that China has adopted as their own. In China, the Chinese recognize McDonald’s as their own and part of their everyday lives, therefore China has been able to “go global” but “stay local.”

In Singapore, something is missing in the “stay local” end. They have made every attempt to aide their youth to stay local, Koh cites “National Education” (1997), but the youth of Singapore has become more global than local. The youth is unaware of history, 53% said they would emigrate, and they are enticed by western individualism. The reason China or even Africa for that matter, has been able to stay local is because of the strength of their local culture. As a nation with a turbulent history with no local resources, Singapore is forced to outsource. With this outsources comes influences that may not be wanted. Therefore, Singapore, unlike the other nations discussed, is an example of a nation that can fall victim to globalization. It is a culture that lacks the strength to defend their own locality and therefore the trends of the youth could drive out traditional Singapore history, tradition, and culture. 

All of these articles beg to ask the questions how does globalization affect a culture? Can it be positive and negative? While many of these cultures maintain local identity while accepting globalization, can they sustain their own local culture forever? But also, does globalization “dumb down” our youth, is the youth becoming so modern that they forget the lessons and the culture of the past?