For Monday, December 7th, please read the following:
- Cowen, Tyler. Creative Destruction. Chapters 1, 2, & 3.
There’s only one more blog response opportunity after this one, so if you still need to meet your minimum 3 blog response quota for this half of the semester, be sure to do so!
Advertisement
December 6, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Creative Deconstruction
Scott Johnson
Cowen starts the book with representations of how culture takes from other cultures, with Haitian and Antillean Music, Canada and Borders, Countries like France spending money for cultural reasons. Cohen then starts to talk about trade, exchange, and how some like or resent it. “Broader markets for culture lower quality”. Cowen focuses not on the term “globalization” but on the trade in cultural products focusing on products that entertain us. Cowen claims medieval and renaissance was the “re-globalization” of the world when referring to Roman Empire and networks of trade. Also third world countries are no longer unique cultures but rather hybrids. For Cowen, more material are imported and are rarely indigenous for art. Throughout these arguments, Cowen is arguing that while global products are there, many residents in countries tend to prefer the domestic arts. Next he talks about the costs of cross cultural exchange. This is where he presents the name of his book for the first time with a term called “creative deconstruction”. For this he describes it as “while some sectors expand rapidly, others shrink and wither away”. He riddles this with examples such as China possibly deliberately opening Tibet to hurt its cultural. To Cowen though, travel is very important for cross cultural exchange. Next he talks about the idea that “basic gains-from-trade mechanism might backfire” when in relation to the benefits of cross-cultural trade. He then talks about what he tries to do as a writer to ultimately give the reader the ability to choose a personal opinion, rather than have him define it for you. He talks about trying to give 3 primary lessons throughout the book. Those 3 are “The concept of cultural diversity has multiple and sometimes divergent meanings”, “cultural homogenization and heterogenization are not alternatives or substitutes; rather, they tend to come together.” And “Finally, cross-cultural exchange, while it will alter and disrupt each society it touches, will support innovation and creative human energies”.
In chapter 2 Cowen starts off with a broad statement, that differences are what fuel trade. Through wealth and technology, ideas get spread, created, invited, or supported. In this chapter more or less he is going to talk about how wealth and technology stimulate cultural production through case studies. According to Cowen he thinks that cities are the networks for Arts which seems like a fair statement. Using Zaire as a case study he talks about the country and its cities and how they have spurred the cultural growth of the country. Zaire Dance music specifically was a product of the multicultural coming together at work places pushed by wealth, mobility and electricity. Next he goes on to talk about New World creativity. An example he uses is the Kuna and their use of western cloth and colors to create a large scale religious/cultural item called the Mola. I say religious/cultural, because it is not just gods, pagan gods, but soccer stars, films, and an assortment of items. He goes on to talk about Caribbean music and how it adapts things like steel drums to better their music, and how their music appeals to those outside of their territories. Cuba as a next example grew under the influence of Americanization when it came to their culture. Cowen’s next idea is about how technology can preserve culture such as cassettes and how recording can influence a younger generation to keep an ancient practice. For Cowen also, wealth can lead to a decline in creativity because it pulls people from sectors that pay less but may be more creative. His next big topic is Textiles in Persia, East India, and American Indians. The Persian carpets were a great show of how something can spread, and how through many years, foreign markets can declare it a high quality cultural item, giving even greater rise to its influence. For East Indian clothing, the introducing of western clothes and machines has seemed very harmful, with Gandhi strongly resenting it however Cowen makes an argument that it hasn’t claiming that while wages fell, the market expanded. Reasons behind this are infrastructure such as railways that increased the ability to support more demand. To this day, the emphasis is on the quality, a cultural rarity to those outside the country. Lastly Cowen takes a look at Navajo and their hand weavings and how technology has benefited them. According to Cowen, the Navajo learned the trade from another tribe, received sheep from the Spaniards, and received inspiration from Spanish/Mexican designs in the areas around them. While the colors declined at one point, with decline sometimes comes benefit and that was the through the refinement of the yarn and all this was supported by trade, especially access to the railways.
In chapter 3
In Chapter 2, Cowen outlined some of the benefits of technology on culture with specific case studies, in Chapter 3 he seeks to give the losses that occur. What Cowen says well, is “while this book is about what kinds of freedom are possible in the modern world, we cannot understand freedom without tragedy.” A word he uses a lot is ethos and is defined by “the special feel or flavor of a culture.” Ethos does not have to be narrow however; it can be multiple things and exists within different groups. A great example of how Ethos can be something small rather than grand is the culture out of Greece or the paintings and works of art out of Florence in relation to their tiny populations. Cowen then goes into his next topic in which he essentially states that technology and trade will ultimately give better quality goods, but culture is not always guaranteed. Technology and trade can hurt an ethos, a unique perspective of the world. Example is music and how no music is truly pure, there are elements of many genres in one. Using the former examples of the Navajo and Persia, simply put you cannot make something the same as you did before. Cowen says something I agree with strongly, Growth brings a trade-off between one set of styles and another. Another good point, is that while a man who creates religious crafts may be just “another craftsman”, if he knew this, he would not be who he is and create that cultural work. Another interesting word is uses is “artistic spoiling” that can occur with too much trade to a smaller culture, meaning their crafts could become less valuable, or the craftsman could decide to stop doing them. Next he talks about the Minerva Model, which is explained as, when 2 countries * One Rich, One Poor* there is usually a boom of culture as new resources are traded. The poorer country then pushes towards making lower quality goods to supply the richer countries. When the demand lowers, the poorer country may be forced go back to making high quality goods but may have forgotten how and he uses Hawaii as a good example. He goes into a new point saying that trade can’t always be the force to cause culture to flourish but isolation can also be a determining factor. An example would be the Jamaican islands, that while if it wasn’t for trade that originally settled the islands, and the isolation they received to a lot of the major industrialization taking place in the world, that their unique culture might not have been created. Next he makes a point on size and critical mass. Essentially, one person cannot create an ethos and that it takes a group. His example would be the Canadian Inuit’s who have a comparatively small population of only 24,000 but only use trade for means to survive, but stay isolated for the most part. Also, with critical mass, it’s the effect that tourism and travelers can corrupt a place they visit which is mostly seen in small island nations. Next Cowen talks about how ethos can merge if close enough together to form niche like scenarios. In a narrow sense one can look at football fandom, or the Silicon Valley computer and technology mentality. An example of fusing of ethos and technology to create new ethos is the science fiction boom in the 20th century. In ending the chapter Cowen talks about how ethos seem to be defined on diversity, and that in North America, Europe and Japan, you see a wide variety of many different things. Also in ending he says that commercialization will not “dry up” the 3rd world but could make them less unique in the long run. While many benefits can be seen of cross-cultural exchange, there will always be loss to culture that will happen as a result.
December 7, 2009 at 3:32 pm
How Globalization is Changing the World’s Cultures by Tyler Cowen describes how many cultures are losing their identity because of globalization. A Frenchman rents a Hollywood movie. A Thai schoolgirl mimics Madonna. Saddam Hussein chooses Frank Sinatra’s “My Way” as the theme song for his fifty-fourth birthday. These are a few examples of how globalization is shaping cultures around the world. Trade is an emotionally charged issue for several reasons, but most of all because it shapes our sense of cultural-self. More than ever before, we are aware that not everyone likes how international trade and globalization are altering today’s cultures. I lived in Bolivia for many years and I know that everything that comes from the U.S. is extremely popular. Every kid wants to wear Abercrombie and Fitch or gap. They like brands that are popular in other countries especially in the US. Globalization alters how a culture thinks; it can be positive but at the same time negative. The bright side is that now people all over the world have more options to buy things they want; the options are not limited like it used to be. On the other hand, it is not good for their economy because they refuse to buy things from their countries therefore; they do not help their economy but they encourage globalization. Numerous commentators from across the traditional political spectrum have argued that markets destroy culture and diversity. Benjamin Barber claimed that the modern world is caught between Jihad “bloody politics of identity,” and McWorld, “a bloodless economics of profit,” represented by the spread of McDonald’s and American popular culture. American popular culture is not only famous and important in the U.S. but it is important all over the world. Most teenagers around the world if they can afford cable watch MTV and American series. Most American movies are watched all over the world and they are the ones that dominate the movies industries all over the world. It is hard for the competition to succeed because American movies are famous around the world and it is a market that is shaping cultures all over the world. According to Cowen, music, literature, cinema, cuisine and the visual arts are the relevant manifestations of culture. In almost all of those aspects, people around the world like what the U.S. has to offer. This would not be possible without globalization because otherwise; the U.S. would not have that much influence in shaping cultures. I am sure that we can find Madonna’s fans a least in every country in the world. Also, everyone has watched at least one American movie. McDonald’s can be found in every continent. This just shows how cultures are being shaped by globalization around the world. Cultures have a variety of artists, food, movies and visual arts to choose from but many times, they forget about their own culture.
Trade affects societal ethos and worldview, geographically cluster production of some goods and services, and alters customer thoughtfulness and concern for quality not always for the better. Individuals who engage in cross-cultural exchange expect those transactions to make them better off, to enrich their cultural lives, and to increase their menu of choice. It is correct that trade makes countries richer in material terms; it tends to make them culturally richer as well. It broadens their options of buying more things that they couldn’t before. It definitely enriches their lives but sometimes it can affect their culture because they forget about the products that their own produce only wanting to buy things from other countries. If that is the case, those individuals are not helping their economies progress but they are contributing to globalization. The concept of cultural diversity had multiple and sometimes divergent meanings. Cross-cultural exchange tends to favor diversity within society, but to disfavor diversity across societies. Critics of globalization commonly associate diversity with the notion of cultural differentiation across geographic space. Trade tends to increase diversity over time by accelerating the pace of change and bringing new cultural good with each era of generation. There are positive and negative things about how globalization alters culture. It is evident that it accelerates the pace of change in different societies. Globalization increases their options and exposes them to popular things that are popular especially in the U.S. People around the world like the idea of having more options to choose from and like the quality of what is being offered. It is positive because it gives them an option to choose what they really want but at the same time, it does not help their economies prosper. Globalization is facilitating change of cultures around the world.
December 7, 2009 at 4:49 pm
While reading the first chapter of Cowen’s book, Creative Destruction, I instantly thought of the relationship I have with my first cousin. My cousin is a few months older than me and moved to Virginia from Pakistan about 6 years ago. She went to a British school in Pakistan but wore Nike sweaters and watched the same movies and sitcoms I did as a kid growing up here. She watched the same Disney movies as I did and listened to the same Nsync and Backstreet Boys (how embarrassing) songs. We ate at the same restaurant chains, and can talk about popular toys or games we both shared. I always forget that she grew up somewhere completely different from where I grew up but yet, we have so much in common. I think if we didn’t have these small things in common, it would’ve been a little more harder to communicate with each other and get along as well as we do now. It feels as though she grew up with me here and like she never did live in Pakistan. In a way, it’s good because we share so much together and can reminisce about the Schwinn Bikes we used to ride when we were 6 years old, even if we were oceans apart.
I do like how Cowen uses more of an optimistic view of cross-cultural exchanges rather than reading a lot of pessimistic views. I think too much of one idea is never a good thing and there should always be a balance, to show the bad effects but also good ones too. He writes about how different music coming together from all over the world and how this can broaden our knowledge about these places and open up our eyes to different cultures. In essence, it can bring people together and it has proved to have done so. Cowen states, “Wealth and technology not only bring the new, they also help cultures preserve and extend the best of their best.” He talks about Persia and their popularity of making rugs. In the late seventeenth century, it declined sharply but arose back when the West got involved. Persian rugs still remain popular, expensive and are seen in a lot of art. Cowen claims, “By the end of the eighteenth century, hand-knotted rugs were Persia’s largest export to the West and a source of Persian cultural pride.” He’s right because since I’m Afghan, it almost a necessity to have one in your home. It gives a sense of luxury and is a part of our culture that we’re proud of. Overall, his first two chapters show the benefits from vast technology bringing in wealth and giving us choices in life through cross-cult rural exchanges.
In Chapter 3, Cowen writes about the negativity pertaining to cross-cultural exchanges, showing that the same corporations (Coca Cola, Toyota, etc) are seen too much, that there really aren’t much choices after all. It seems as though, a state has to change by opening it’s borders more to become successful. For example, ever since China opened it’s boarders in the late 1970’s, they’ve become one of the top nations in the world and a sense of culture is lost. My friend recently went to Beijing and told me that she didn’t even need to know Chinese to get by. Then again, Beijing is a large city so they do get millions of tourists each day. However, she felt right at home because she saw things she was familiar with (McDonalds) and felt at ease and more comfortable. This is a good feeling but at the same time, I can see why people would want to protect their culture, for the very reason that it’s becoming more Westernized. I think if nations aren’t as “western,” less people would want to visit that country or let alone feel comfortable on their own roaming the streets. In chapter 3, I feel Cowen is pointing out that since there are these top nations, their cultures outshine others that aren’t as economically developed as the others. They have the greater advantage because they can export their products or ideas into the other regions, wiping out the culture t
December 7, 2009 at 5:12 pm
The impact that globalization has on culture is something we’ve discussed before in class (obviously, considering the course topic…) however Cowen’s approach to the topic as an economist is interesting. His “focus on the trade in cultural products across geographic space.” (Cowen, 4) through analyzing the impact that globalization has had on such artistic fields as music, literature and cinema acknowledges the criticisms of such impact as well as its beneficial effect. Likewise, he also brings attention to the fact that cultures change, that’s what Cultural Growth IS, despite the fact that some cultures will grow in a way that they progress onwards while others will “shrink and wither away (Cowen, 11).” Cultures are going to decline, that’s natural entropy and has been going on for the history of mankind, and globalization has likely had an impact on that decline over that same length of time. The problem here is the ever increasing influence of globalization as the world becomes a smaller place thanks to communication and technology.
To me, the most important and interesting point that Cowen discusses is the importance of diversity to artists and artistic development. (This is likely because I agree with him and he more than adequately synthesizes an idea which I’ve had trouble expressing in the past…) Globalization spurs creativity in that it makes ideas and technologies available to peoples who have no had access to them. Suddenly, a new field is opened up to these people, a new medium, and they may be able to express themselves in new ways that they would not have been able to before the introduction of such technology. Likewise, these new mediums may make their culture and their creativity more accessible to people from other parts of the world, carrying their culture abroad and in turn inspiring others. This is a lot of the focus of Cowen’s second chapter and is shown by a number of his examples: the use of oil drums as drums by steel bands in the Caribbean as well as the development of molas, what they depict and how they are constructed and of what, in the San Blas Islands. The introduction of technologies to such groups has also proven to lead to new perspectives: a group may take something and use it in a way that no one else, knowing and being used to it’s intended function, would have considered. Art is largely considered to be a factor of culture, but it must also be viewed as a reaction to culture and to circumstance and change. And globalization is nothing if not change.
I do however have ideological problems with the passage on preserving and extending culture in chapter two in that it discusses the “durability” of art. “Most artistic and musical products from the poorer nations were not made to be especially durable but, rather, were intended for the immediate moment (Cowen, 31).” Most art in general is not meant to be durable. It’s meant to get attention, to direct the public consciousness to an issue that the artist thinks is important, to make money or just to make something that you’re going to have to use everyday look nice. The durability of music or paintings or movies or what-have-you generally has little to do with what the artist intended and more to do with other people and if those people thought that that artwork should be preserved (unless you are dealing with artwork that has a function like…architecture, and then yes, hopefully there was some intended durability…) and so in that aspect I do agree with Cowen’s thoughts on the importance of recording technology on increasing interest and durability of traditional arts such as Tuvan throat singing.
December 7, 2009 at 5:49 pm
The sex trade has become a multi billionaire trade as it exceeds other kinds of trafficking. Unlike drug trafficking, sex trafficking has become an unprecedented way to make money quick. Different from drug trafficking, which can be sold once to a client, sex trafficking involves human beings who can be resold as much as possible for a substantial amount. This kind or reselling of human beings is disturbing because it implies that these humans have become a commodity, of which consumers can do whatever they want. Most importantly it was witnessed in the movie ‘The Day My God Died’ that these humans were being moved transnationally to be sold into another country, similar to actual commodities or goods.
Various aspects of globalization has created and increased this notorious trade, from what used to be a local or national market to what is now a regional and even international market. This sex market has existed for an extended time but unfortunately with the increase of technology such as television, internet, and airplanes, the market has increased faster. Through the use of technology now consumers, (particularly from the Global North), have access to ‘exotic’ children, girls, or women from an array of places, an aspect different from before. Through the use of technology, consumers are more aware of their ‘options’ just as they might be with any other market. Additionally, through these new technologies, different from before, the sex trade has become more diversified and quick to meet the demands of any consumer. For example, the article “Children for Sale” the American doctor was able to travel all the way to Cambodia in hopes of fulfilling his sexual desires by someone he sees as ‘exotic’. What is surprising is that the American doctor could have had his sexual fantasies done in America; however, with the increase of pornography and technology the prospect of that would have probably been silly when he can get something ‘different’ from another country.
Another aspect that is even more troubling is for some developing countries, sex trade has become a way for the country to develop. Developing countries are encouraged to promote their tourism sector in order to repay their debts to the IMF and the World Bank. Ironically, under these obligations the tourism sector has become a means to heighten the sex trade in a developing country. For example in the video it stated that although Cambodia is ‘rich in history’ many of its tourists visit it because of its notorious reputation of sex trafficking.
December 7, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Tyler Cowen first chapter starts with brief descriptions on how governments of some countries have established protective measures to avoid the alteration of their cultural trends due to the increase of international trading, for instance France invests great amount of money for cultural matters in order to preserve their uniquely French culture (2). Cowen also states that some experts argue that markets destroy culture and diversity and that not everyone likes how international trade and globalization are altering today’s cultures (2). Yet, Cowen’s central focus is on the trade in cultural products across geographic spaces, being these cultural products, mainly products that stimulate and entertain people, such as music, cinema, literature, cuisine and visual arts (4-5). Cowen also focuses on how globalization may affect creativity in industries and what kinds of freedom are available in the marketplace. Then, Cowen moves to describe multicultural products and how the exchange of ideas, communications and materials led to the development of cultural products with contributions of different places around the world. For instance he illustrates the development of the book, “paper comes from the Chinese, the Western alphabet comes from the Phoenicians, the page numbers come from the Arabs and ultimately the Indians, and printing has a heritage through Gutenberg, a German, as well as through the Chinese and Koreans” (6). Moreover, Cowen argues that the exchange of cultural ideas between countries and continents have promoted diversity and cultural hybridism. Yet, Cowen also emphasizes that multiculturalism doesn’t equal Western Imperialism, for instance in the book industry there are several non-Western writes that are also worldwide known and better than Western writes. Even though trade and globalization had brought good contributions to multiculturalism, Cowen also emphasizes that there are costs related to cross-cultural exchange. Cowen illustrates Joseph Schumpeter’s term of ‘creative destruction’ referring to idea that cultural growth, like economic development, is not a balanced process and that it allows to some sectors to expand with extreme rapidity while other shrink and fade away (11). For example the ideas, values and materials of some cultures may affect and destroy the traditional values and ideas of another culture, such as the case of the Tibet, which traditional history and values have been affected by Western icons and Western tourist. Cowen focuses on the ‘gains from trade’ model that refers to “individuals who engage in cross-cultural exchange expect those transactions to make them better off, to enrich their cultural lives, and to increase their menu of choices” (12). Yet, he also point out that cross-cultural exchange tends to favor diversity within a society because individuals in that society have more choices, but to disfavor diversity across societies because the exchangeable societies become more alike. On chapter two, Cowen examines more deeply the ‘gains from trade’ model and examines how wealth, technology and cross-cultural exchange originate many cultural blossomings. Cowen illustrates how technology and wealth are key components on the global market since technology gives the option to artist to transform their creative visions into real products, while wealth creates the buying power to fund creations. Moreover, Cowen’s main focus is on how technology and wealth can contribute and stimulate pioneering cultural production in less economically developed countries. For instance, he illustrates how the Kuna Indians, who live in the San Blas Island, have benefited from technology and cross-cultural exchange to boost their art, especially the mola art. The European contact brought them materials (clothes, scissors, and sewing needles) which made the mola production possible. Another innovative creation, such as music, has also benefited from technology and wealth in the less developed countries; Cowen states that “technologies of transportation and electronic reproduction have allowed Third World and indigenous artist to market their products to Western consumers” (27). Plus, Cowen states that technology and wealth not only promote innovation of new trends but also promote the preservation and extension of past cultures. For instance, in the case of Tuvan throat singers from Mongolia, recording, by expanding the size of the market, has stimulated Tuvan musical innovation as well as preservation of older styles (33). From another perspective, Cowen states the idea that wealth has led artisans from poorer countries to give up their creative endeavors once their societies become rich and commercializes (33). Yet, Cowen argues that economic growth and wealth usually lead to reallocation of creative activity and to new forms of innovative production. One of Cowen’s case studies is hand weaving of textiles in India, a market that have been affected by industrialization and the emergence of machines since artisans were put out of business. However, Cowen states that technologies had helped more than harmed hand weaving since artisans now have more options to create higher-quality textile products with finer and more elaborated designs that are more attractive to foreign consumers. The intrusion of machines led the artisans to develop unique products that could not be replicated by these machines and by consequence those products became more valuable for costumers. In conclusion, Cowen illustrates that technology and wealth could become means that spur human creativity and innovation of cultural products.
On chapter three, Cowen focuses on the downside of wealth, technology and cross-cultural exchange. Even though his main focus is on the kinds of freedom that are possible in the modern world, he states that we cannot understand freedom without tragedy (47). Cowen states that cross-cultural contact damages the ethos, essence of people or a community, in poorer or smaller societies and causes them to lose their uniqueness and thus weakening in their artistic creativity (47). From an economic perspective, an ethos can also be destroyed by external commercial influences, even if they improve human welfare. With globalization and more knowledge dissemination the traditional flavor or essence of a culture may fade away because of the wide range of new ideas and flavors of other cultures that at the end restrain creativity. Cowen states that “too much knowledge, or knowledge of the wrong kind, can limit creativity” (53). Plus, too much contact with nontraditional materials, products, services or ideals can jeopardize the creativity and the essence of a culture, leading to the disruption and destruction of ethos. Contrary, Cowen states that virtually every ethos owes its existence to cross-cultural contact in some way or another (60). However, along with modernization the cross-cultural exchange has contributed to the loss of culture and ethos of small groups or civilizations such as the pygmies. In conclusion, Cowen argues that cross-cultural exchange gives a diverse menu of choices and several benefits to societies, but for some that is what accounts the tragic of cultural looses on the world today (72). I consider that there are positive and negative aspect related to cross-cultural exchange, technologies and wealth. On the positive side, underdeveloped countries have benefited from new ideas that they could implement for socio-economic development. On the negative side, new generations in small cultures had loss the interest in their traditional culture and ideas since they are more in contact with external cultures that or some are mundane and destroy their cultural meaning and essence. In conclusion, I consider that it depends on the society to decide how they want and let their culture to be affected by globalization and cross-cultural exchange since these factors are the rulers of present time and they will continue to facilitate exchange of ideas and values.
December 7, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Cowen’s “Creative Destruction” takes a new, more positive/optimistic spin on the idea of whether economics and culture are mutually exclusive. After much historical and political evaluation, Cowen continues by making the point that cross-cultural trade allows for more choice and exposure, increasing artistic innovation as well as creating new blends.
I would suggest that history supports Cowen’s take on globalization and the effects of culture.
The Silk Roads, a much explored and praised exchange among Europe, Africa, Russia, the Middle East, India, and China, is one of the most outstanding examples of this. Through trade, conquest, and intermarriage, the manufacturing, music, art, architecture, clothing, and culture of the regions on the Silk Road were challenged and changed because of differences. The result was new techniques and choices for clothing, manufacturing, building, music, and art as well as an exchange of knowledge of medicines, mathematics, and astronomy like never seen before.
The Crusades, based on just war, eventually ended, but the trade lines and knowledge gained and its implications are still present today. This drive for silk, spices, and knowledge led to the European explorers and eventual colonization of Africa and the Americas.
This colonization resulted in the famous Triangle Trade with points in Eastern Africa, the Americans, and Europe. This lead to the transportation of slaves and disease, but also of foods, recipes, knowledge, and a more adapted, more broadly knowledgeable global population.
Like all things, there will be unpredictably negative results, but Cowen argues that the positive broadening of knowledge that leads to new, better ways of handling everyday activities and lives is a positive result that has greater implications and is the true diamond within the coal.
December 7, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Tyler Cowen rightly argues that cross-cultural exchanges promote innovation and creativity, but also alters the ethos of those involved in the exchange. Cowen states, “Cross-cultural exchange, while it will alter and disrupt each society it touches, will support innovation and creative human energies” (17). Most of Cowen’s examples were in music and art, but this can also be seen in the process of Japanese car production.
The Japanese have always perceived any Western influence as a disruption to their culture and have attempted to prevent this influence. Japanese car makers embraced the “coming of the West” and adopted the American assembly line. The car makers have been able to continue building cars of similar style, as well as more innovative styles, more efficiently by using a Western method. The Japanese innovation combined with the American assembly line has benefitted Japanese financially for many years and is just now beginning to benefit the failed American car companies, as they begin to adopt Japanese methods of innovation.
The Japanese example clearly had an economic impact on both Japan and the United States, so does this mean that a cross-cultural exchange is overall successful or unsuccessful based on economic factors? This again depends on the perspective of the person looking at the situation. An exchange may be considered a cultural success because cultures mixed and produced some sort of economic success, but it seems that this may be the view of an outsider, someone whose culture probably has not been affected by this cross-cultural exchange. While someone who is an insider, someone whose culture has been affected by the exchange, may consider any type of cross-cultural exchange as unsuccessful, no matter the economic result.
Obviously, the quality of culture cannot be determined based solely on economic success or failing, but can the quality of a given culture be measured at all? Cowen gives the examples of French cooking, Persian carpets, and reggae music as examples of cultural successes and all three can also be considered economic successes. Overtime these cultural successes have remained popular all over the world; does popularity over time determine the quality of culture? Some may hate the taste of French cooking, the look of Persian carpets, and the sound of reggae music; would this person be justified in believing these cultures are of poor quality? It seems that the quality of culture cannot be measured on any scale because it’s all relative. Every person has his or her own perspective and their view of their own culture would most likely determine their view of the quality of their own culture and that of others.
December 7, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Although the title suggest a negative outlook on globalization, I was pleasantly surprise at the optimistic view Cowen seems to have towards the effects of globalization. With any major change (globalization), we will always see/experience great wealth alongside great poverty, just we can see/experience great benefits alongside great disadvantages; I guess it all depends on who you ask… The innovations in technology, communication, and medicine have allowed for the mixing of cultures. Take the simple aspect of food for example, one simple dish can have spices from all over the world. Evolution is an amazing process, one can argue that globalization is the beginning of the end of cultures, but globalization has enable thousands of people to do things they would not be able to do – ever! For example, we are not the same society we were a hundred years ago; we are not the same society ten years ago. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to live the way we did a hundred years ago!
There will always be winners and losers in life; sometimes there needs to be war in order to have peace… Globalization is a broad and immense term, it encompasses many things and many variables. If the fear is the loss of cultures, then it is up to each individual to make it his or her task to maintain his or her culture. Less and less of my family members speak our “mother language”, but it’s up to the parents and the kids to keep their language alive; I still speak laotian even though I was not born in Laos!
I don’t want to go as far as stating that it is natural selection, and that only the strong survive, but I kinda do! It is just normal to evolve and get better or improve. Now, I’m not saying get with it or get run over; we can still be civilized and show compassion to all. Although we may not be able to save everyone/everything form the negative effects of globalization, we can certainly lessen the blow.
December 7, 2009 at 8:06 pm
I was thinking about the video we watched the other class on the sex trafficking of women. The film, in my opinion, was extremely educational and enlightening to many issues. Upon reading an article for another class I started to think about crimes against women in a different sense.
In the article, ‘The Women’s Crusade’, by Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn, highlights the mass marginalization of women and the violence and unequality that they face in many parts of the developing and developed world today. The article mentions that in this century, the paramount moral challenge is the brutality inflicted upon girls and women around the world. It states “Yet if the injustices that women in poor countries suffer are of paramount importance, in an economic and geopolitcal sense the oppurtunity they represent is even greater.”
The authors argue that it is no coincidence that countries where women are uneducated and unfairly treated, are also mired with poverty and ‘fundamental chaos.’ It is believed that the only way to fight global poverty and extremism, is to aid women. Whether or not this is the solution to world hunger or not, the truth is that women do make up (about) half the world’s population. In effect, they hold half of the world’s power. One could argue that by educating and mobilizing women into the work force, countries would have more people to contribute to their success and development. Also, men, no longer sole providers, would be less stressed and women would gain more power in the household. This power, would also contribute to a women’s purpose and improved equality within her home.
On example in the article, is about a women in Pakistan who was facing beatings from her husband, lack of respect from her mother-in law (for not bearing a son), and a complete lack of purpose or place within society and her household. Upon learning about resources (Kashf Foundation, a microfinance organization), she was able to take out a small loan to buy beads and cloth to embroider and sell to merchants. With her first sale she bought more supplies and eventually started her own embroidery business. She was able to pay off her husbands debts, renovate her home, and even hired women within the community to help her. Through her success, she was able to change her husband and mother-in-law’s view of her. She became useful and an equal contributer to the home. Her husband became appreciative of her, and even welcomed more daughters into the family, now seeing their purpose.
This, was a small success for women’s rights, but a huge example of what education and resources could do for a community. Perhaps naive, but allowing women to produce and to actively engage in their communities and societies could potentially improve conditions for themselves. Organizations like Kashf Foundation are investing in women and communities to allow these loan recipients to help themselves.
Now, I could go on for days about the inequalities women face and the human rights violations that occuring every minute of every day. Let me move on…
Women (as a whole) in the world are not valued. They do not have any potential in the eyes of men (generally), nor purpose beyond reproduction. Wouldn’t it be radical to invest in women?
Perhaps it could be a supportive answer to helping to pull developing nations out of extreme poverty and build a greater nation.
Yes, globalization and cultural values of societies may be at odds with one another. But, perhaps the investment of global organizations like the Kashf Foundation, and others, will truly allow the idea of globalization to really be global. The addressing of these issues could bring face to these developing countries and all that they may have to offer.
On yet another note:
There was one line from the film that I will never forget. “We are human too”, spoken by the women in charge of a brothel being searched. She points out the fact that she is human in hopes to allow herself to be seen as more moral, or trustworthy but it is spooky that she recognizes that the women that she exploits are also human (a woman) -like herself. Not only was she directly hurting someone else, but she was directly responsible for the perpetuation of the mis-treatment toward women. It is shocking to witness someone with the capacity to do such violent and morally irrehensible crimes to another human being, for personal gain. I think I had just witnessed the deepest, most evil depths of human nature.
That video just provoked some thinking, while scattered, I think the article and movie raise some important questions…
December 7, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Mr. Cohen presents his viewpoints on worldviews, cultural homogenization through imperialism, and the cultural memes that are produced via trade, all from an economical, free-trade stance, with recognition of both positive and negative impacts of globalization. Throughout the chapters he takes his time to describe the effects that trading ideas have produced among isolated cultures that are reluctant to foreign culture infringement upon traditions. He seems determined to answer the questions of whether the imposition of Western culture disrupts loyalty to the local markets of Third World and indigenous groups while still supporting diversity among those that are introduced to trade. Cohen’s example of opened trade routes in geographically isolated cultures such as Tibet, show the downside of such involvement economical expansion. The Tibetan people are treated as traitors to the state for their reluctance to conform to Chinese authority yet are exploited for their economic value. Also his speculations on the increases of innovation, wealth and technology due to cross-cultural exchange are interesting when he considers preservation of past culture and the battle of cultural loss.
He describes the fragility of poorer countries through the nature of complementarity; that in such cultures it is often a happening for one piece or part of culture is pulled away, it can impact the entire culture. I guess he means that each part is dependent on the next, and for piece of traditional culture to be curtailed, those people have to reorganize their entire structure. This point is made in the examples of handweaving transformations in East India .With the opening of the handweaving market to Western countries, demand shot up significantly and in order to meet that demand, machines were brought in that could perform similar work to the handmade craft yet machines sacrificed some of the detail. “Local textile workers were rapidly put out of business, and the village economy suffered terribly.” However, with the use of machines, more of the similar products were able to be exported and recognized in the West, but the handwoven was of greater value. Indian handweavers thus continued to improve their craft with detail and methods that machines could not replicate. Competition allowed for the handweavers’ success. These textiles then became too expensive for the local Indian who was forced to buy imported clothes from British that met their price range.
As for chapter 3: Ethos and Tragedy of Cultural Loss, Cohen explicates how freedom cannot be understood without tragedy. He states that the destruction of ethos can cause non-Western cultures to lose their uniqueness, thereby faltering in their artistic creativity. His economic definition of ethos refers to the interdependence of individual attitudes or to a “network effect” across attitudes. Ethos is unpriced, untraded input into production, collectively produced by the actions and attitudes of many human beings (49). He takes his time to express the importance of ethos within communities is not restricted to one culture (say the West), but is universal. In this chapter, it is made clear that an oversaturation of foreign ideas and trade does not guarantee the progress of culture although it might improve the economical situation. He sees the clustering of cultural knowledge as reflective of the scarcity, uniqueness, and fragility of ethos and as possible counteraction against creativity. I agree that too much knowledge can stifle creativity and be cause for over-analysis of new ideas compared to new ones. The Minerva model represents how the burst of creative flowering also brings the decline of a culture and an ethos. The new directions that cultures are able to take after acquiring new synthetic ideas, often result in formation of new cultures that overrun the old ones. Old ethos become replaced with new ones. Cohen claims that “virtually every ethos owes its existence to cross-cultural contact in some form or another” (60). This is true because with the inception of new culture and ideas, communities can determine what their values are and what works for them. Cohen has his idea of the paradox of diversity in modern commercial society as the “growing menu of choice in a particular society may limit the menu of choice for the world as a whole” (71).
December 7, 2009 at 8:14 pm
I really enjoy getting into the cultural aspect and seeing the impact globalization had or has on culture in certain areas of the world. It’s interesting how some countries/continents tried to avoid globalization because of the fear of losing their culture, for example how the French refused to expose their people to hollywood films and how Canada refused to open up Books and Borders book stores because they feared the Canadians would buy books written by american authors instead of supporting their own authors. In a way, I feel that globalization is almost out of our control like a natural effect. Just like nature, things evolve and some things become extinct, same with companies and advancment in technology. It’s hard to believe that you can stop what globalization in it’s tracks, especially with the creation of technology and internet, there is no way you can ban selling any products with the internet(I think). Chapter 1, emphasized on the development of companies and it’s many mergers and acquisitions that make or break a company. For example take Disney, how at one point they went bankrupt and with the merging of ABC it’s now one of the most successful companies in the world. What other company owns their own town, islands, cruiseships, video games,etc.
I remember a few years ago when I tried to start my own little business of making hemp jewelry and how I had to emphasize that the price was higher because it was “hand-woven”, but most consumers will buy what’s cheaper. I tried selling my jewelry to boutiques and the store managers usually had hemp jewelry coming from vendors who had machines or from a company with a sweatshop in Taiwan and charged alot cheaper for their products, than my prices. That experience helped me relate alot with the situation of the boycott of machine-made clothes in India because they corrupted their economy. It’s hard to except change when things have been done a certain way in a particular culture, for years. When everyone around you is changing and the only way to survive is to change as well, it must be hard to let go of tradition. In some situations it’s the birth of something amazing, for example the Haitan Naive Paintings became publicized by the Americans and Eurpopeans and how famous Haitian painters became rich, when before they used to paint for post cards. Or how Persian rugs became timeless because they’ll always be in demand.
When I planned my Euro-trip this summer to Barcelona, Nice and Rome, I was so excited to get out of the country and see other cultures!! I was definitely disappointed to see that these countries were pretty much the same as the US. People had blackberrys, drove nice cars, there were McDonalds restaurants and almost everyone spoke english. What was really astonishing in Nice, France were these street dance performers dancing to hiphop! It was like being in NY city! I started to think how awesome it would have been to travel to these countries when my grandma was my age, like back in the 1940′s. Then it would have been more of an experience or “culture shock”, which is what I was anticipating. Then maybe I would’ve been able to use my language dictionaries.