Anakena Paddon

Week 2

Experiencing Globalization

            When Tom and I were preparing for our presentation this week, we decided to organize our readings according to the main themes of authenticity and identity. There was so much to say about all these readings – the questions we raised kind of got us tangled once more in the questions of what to do about the globalization phenomenon. Should it be fought? Is it good? Does it have predominantly positive effects in certain places whereas highly negative ones in other countries?

            Taylor’s article Global pop: World Music, World Markets brought up what I interpreted as an unfair double standard for African musicians, which became explicit through the case-study of Youssou N’Dour. As an anthropology major, I thought it was interesting that they began with a discussion about the term ‘culture’. Taylor says it “has been historically to denote an essentialized category of identity just as race or ethnicity” (p.126) but that today it often carries connotations of “civilization” (p.126). I would definitely tend to agree that the pressure artists like N’Dour face to remain “premodern” is largely because “of racism and western demands for authenticity” (p.126). During my research for my thesis, I read an interesting article by Bruner, who discussed the expected roles of tourists and “natives” and the common subconscious desire for the “native” to act “primitive” in search of an authentic experience in the foreign country. Why shouldn’t African musicians be invited into the globalization movement? It seems to me that music is one of those things that globalization can truly enrich, by mixing genres, styles, rhythms, and languages. So it seems like a vestige of colonization that “less developed” countries should be expected to maintain a “pure” sound, untouched by outside influences?

            Bestor’s article on How Sushi Went Global blew my mind. Who knew Japan’s tuna stock was being replenished by fishing by markets in Maine? This article was the perfect example of economic globalization, as it brings together techniques from Australia, equipment from Spain, managers from Japan and the fish then gets sold, processed and consumed worldwide. The main point that struck me was the fact that for a product that was so internationalized and consumed around the globe, it never lost any of its connection with Japan. No matter where you are eating sushi, you know it is originally Japanese. Does this essentialize the culture, boil it down to a culinary symbol? Or does it spread awareness about Japanese culture? How was sushi able to “resist” globalization and “maintain” its Japanese identity, even despite becoming such a global enterprise?

            One of the most complex articles for me to process was perhaps Sengupta’s on the Indian women. It was hard because as I was analyzing it, I had a tendency to treat it as a women’s rights issue, and lean towards agreeing with the “Talibanization” term – because how do they have the right and authority to “enforce morality” so brutally? But reading about the “schizophrenia” of Indian women, and the fact that there is such disparity within the women’s opinions themselves makes me think “is it any of my business? Am I simply enforcing my own Western point of view on this matter?” Is “Talibanization” too extreme of a word? Are Indian women at a stand-still, because they are caught in between the modernization of bar-culture etc and a more traditional lifestyle? Will the next generation be closer to “complete modernization” or will it still be so confused and caught in between, just as women are now?

            Watson’s article on McDonald’s was very interesting and made me think of how I’ve personally seen McDonald’s adapt itself – for example, there was initial research done at the beginning of the implementation of McDonald’s in France, and its popularity did not take off until a variety of salads were added to the menu. The way the physical premises of McDonald’s were both adapted to Hong Kong lifestyle and changed social habits was what really blew me away. This was also an interesting take on an article about McDonald’s, as I feel like McDonald’s is often used as the symbol of negative views of globalization.

            Koh’s article on the cultural rift between generations in Singapore was at first a little complicated for me to understand because of the tension between how the media portrays the generation and how they actually act. One of the questions I had about the resistance for Singapore to accept globalization was: why now? Singapore had little agricultural or mineral wealth at all and was able to establish itself because it functioned as “an entrepot port” of exchange and trade, and bringing together cross-roads from around the world. It may not have been called globalization at the time, but it sure sounds to me like Singapore was mainly based and developed as a by-product of globalization.