Since I’m posting late I had a little unfair advantage and saw that a lot of people have been talking about Castel’s ideas of global governance, a global public space and the network state. So I wonder if this give and take between the nation state and the global arena can be related/ explain the Millennium Development Goals. Aren’t the MDG’s supposed to be the ultimate symbol of nation state cooperation on a global scale, the global community cooperating by working within their own borders to make the world a better, shinier happy place? Even after four years of SIS I really don’t know that much about the MDG’s except that when they are discussed it is usually from a pessimistic point of view, as unattainable and too idealistic for even the most optimistic.
Then this morning I saw an article saying that China believes it will actually accomplish its MDG’s AND accomplish them on time! Apparently India is optimistic about reaching its goals too. I feel like these announcements just exemplified what Castel’s was trying to get at in his article. The MDG’s are global in their nature. They were created in the in the global arena, and yet in my opinion are a way for nation states to demonstrate their continued dominance. The article states, “According to UN reports, global progress on poverty reduction was largely due to the reduction of hunger in China.” Obviously China has such a large population that reduction in their poverty rates will affect the global scale, but this doesn’t mean that poverty hasn’t risen in other nations. In that way I feel like that’s why Castel ended back with the nation state. The global arena is real; it allowed the MDG’s to come to being. But the nation state remains the actual driving force. There is no way for the MDG’s to be achieved within the global arena, individual nation states have to do the legwork and then try to make the results equal a whole.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-09/18/c_13518596.htm
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Friday, September 17, 2010
Stewart's Rally
So the big buzz on the street is Jon Stewart's Rally to Restore Sanity, which he announced on his show will (hopefully) take place in DC on October 30. In making his argument for the rally Stewart argued that while the conversation in the media on our most important topic is controlled by a small percentage, most people (70-80%) are not being represented most likely because they have shit to do, but also because they “ lack the theatrical flair necessary for today's 24hr a day, seven day a week news media.” (“You may have an assault rifle, but don't think it's appropriate to bring to a rally.”)
In thinking about how a group of people is actually being left out of the conversation and being shut up, I thought of Neumann's “spiral of silence” theory. But the theory says people will remain silent when they are in the minority for fear of reprisal or isolation. If Stewart is right and it is actually the majority who is being shut out of the conversation, why would they feel they need to stay silent?
This led me to think about critical theorists of the Frankfurt school as outlined by Thussu's in his essay “Approaches to theorizing international communication,” He points out how they analyzed the production and sale of media in a capitalist economy as a cultural commodity. The theorists, he says, pinned this on the “the concentration of ownership of cultural production in a few producers.” The result is the undermining of “the critical engagement of masses with important socio-political issues” and the assurance of “a politically passive social behaviour and the subordination of the working classes to the ruling elite.”
This makes sense to me. It also reflects Stewart's claim. It is actually the media dictating the conversation by highlighting the voices of the minority. The call is then for the rest of us to speak up, and Stewart's role will be to make our voices finally heard.
I appreciate the gesture. Jon Stewart should be careful, though, how he allows himself and the media to frame his movement. An unofficial facebook page called “Jon Stewart’s Rally for Restoring Sanity” is already posting how people who attended the other rally are “stupid” and how Glenn Beck’s show is a “comedy”. The risk being run here is that those making the most noise in the media about Stewart’s rally are just as likely to alienate people as their noisy, Foxy counterparts. Will they speak for all of the people for whom this rally is “intended"? Is it actually intended for them, for the Americans who want to take a much needed rational approach to politics? I am beginning to wonder if this group will actually ever have a voice as loud as those at the poles. If the critical theories of communication hold any truth, isn’t it the case that moderate views will never sell and therefore never prevail in the media? Are they always to be undermined?
In thinking about how a group of people is actually being left out of the conversation and being shut up, I thought of Neumann's “spiral of silence” theory. But the theory says people will remain silent when they are in the minority for fear of reprisal or isolation. If Stewart is right and it is actually the majority who is being shut out of the conversation, why would they feel they need to stay silent?
This led me to think about critical theorists of the Frankfurt school as outlined by Thussu's in his essay “Approaches to theorizing international communication,” He points out how they analyzed the production and sale of media in a capitalist economy as a cultural commodity. The theorists, he says, pinned this on the “the concentration of ownership of cultural production in a few producers.” The result is the undermining of “the critical engagement of masses with important socio-political issues” and the assurance of “a politically passive social behaviour and the subordination of the working classes to the ruling elite.”
This makes sense to me. It also reflects Stewart's claim. It is actually the media dictating the conversation by highlighting the voices of the minority. The call is then for the rest of us to speak up, and Stewart's role will be to make our voices finally heard.
I appreciate the gesture. Jon Stewart should be careful, though, how he allows himself and the media to frame his movement. An unofficial facebook page called “Jon Stewart’s Rally for Restoring Sanity” is already posting how people who attended the other rally are “stupid” and how Glenn Beck’s show is a “comedy”. The risk being run here is that those making the most noise in the media about Stewart’s rally are just as likely to alienate people as their noisy, Foxy counterparts. Will they speak for all of the people for whom this rally is “intended"? Is it actually intended for them, for the Americans who want to take a much needed rational approach to politics? I am beginning to wonder if this group will actually ever have a voice as loud as those at the poles. If the critical theories of communication hold any truth, isn’t it the case that moderate views will never sell and therefore never prevail in the media? Are they always to be undermined?
World Cup fosters South African National pride
"[The South African flag is..]not as a symbol of a political party, nor of a government, but as a possession of the people - the one thing that is literally and figuratively above all else, our flag". - Nelson Mandela
The significance of this song to be able to promote and instill a strong sense of national and cultural pride is astonishing. Modern information and communication technologies combined with South Africa's unique culture helped to spark not only gave South Africans a new national identity but also showed the world that their nation is a nation of diversity that is South Africa. Coming from such a torn past of apartheid and segregation where many saw nationalism as a entity that conflicted with their own distinct cultural identity, South African's now have their own identity that they not only share among themselves but with the entire world.
Oahu-An example of deterritoralization and cultural hybridity
In John Sinclair's, "Global, supranantional institutions and Media", the concept of synergy/hybridity of culture and "glocalization" are no more present then in Oahu, Hawaii. A prime tourist spot, Hawaii brings up a fathum of images including: waves, beach, hula dancers and Leis (all cliches' aside). What often is not known is the hybrid of culture that exists, due in partial to many of the deterritorialization concepts defined by Anjun Appadura. Foreign investment from Japan is a primary example especially its economical impacting force in the late 80's and even now with the down turn of the dollar and the rise of the yen, which has induced a host of new business structures and culture adaptations.
The first example, is the catering of / and to tourism- charters and trolleys once used for travel between local cites and especially to Hilo Hattie's main store (a local proliferate of stereotypical Hawaiian gear )has been transformed into a booming network of JTB and Oli' oli' tour lines-creating a private set of trolley lines for Japanese speakers and tour groups. Stores like Shirokiya, Q-pot, Matsumoto's Shaved ice, Don Quiotes, Karaoke bars, ABC stores and Store 88' have been proliferated and revamped to focus on this sector of tourism alone. Where even the yen is as accepted as the dollar.
Stores like the newly opened Q-pot and the long known and internationally famous 88' stores. These stores are some of the most culturally isolating stores in the area but they represent a growing number of similar stores that instead of catering to their landscape's culture they choose to stand out as different. For example Q-pot is utterly void of local influences and primary focus is on Japanese clientele and those in the know in Japanese "cute" jewelry fashion with a focus on "sweet" jewelry (ie. jewelry in the form of sweets). 88'store is its predecessor with an almost all Japanese clientele, with its claims to be a famous local entity. But ask around and you will find that it is only popular with those from Japan or with Japanese ancestry yet, these stores and ones similar have been increasing in areas of Hawaii and have made a fundamental change in that they no longer wish to blend but stand out as culturally different in the landscape.
Then along side this are stores like Shirokiya and Don Quiotes who are direct imports from Japan but their identity have changed. No longer do they carry only Japanese goods, they have become host of synergy or "glocalization" with local tastes and Asian origins mixing to make up what could be said to be entirely opposite of their original intents. Don Quiotes has gone through constant reconstruction in Hawaii from being a store of mixed media full of mostly useless gadgets and assortment of tourist focused items in its home land of Japan, into a grocery store where it blends its Japanese product lines and local appeal together to market not only tourists that are familiar with the name (Japanese)but gaining the attention of locals as a trust-able grocery chain with local roots.
Thus, local shops, grocery, department stores and transportation have began to focus on tailoring products to meet the hybrid culture over time with such things as: bento lunches, spam musubi, taro mochi and green tea and chopsticks being as available and used as much as Coca cola and a fork. This isn't to say that deterritoralization is a negative thing but that its often not even noticed as unique or representative of a highly influential culture but just a way of life/ a part of the culture local individuals have grown up with.
The first example, is the catering of / and to tourism- charters and trolleys once used for travel between local cites and especially to Hilo Hattie's main store (a local proliferate of stereotypical Hawaiian gear )has been transformed into a booming network of JTB and Oli' oli' tour lines-creating a private set of trolley lines for Japanese speakers and tour groups. Stores like Shirokiya, Q-pot, Matsumoto's Shaved ice, Don Quiotes, Karaoke bars, ABC stores and Store 88' have been proliferated and revamped to focus on this sector of tourism alone. Where even the yen is as accepted as the dollar.
Stores like the newly opened Q-pot and the long known and internationally famous 88' stores. These stores are some of the most culturally isolating stores in the area but they represent a growing number of similar stores that instead of catering to their landscape's culture they choose to stand out as different. For example Q-pot is utterly void of local influences and primary focus is on Japanese clientele and those in the know in Japanese "cute" jewelry fashion with a focus on "sweet" jewelry (ie. jewelry in the form of sweets). 88'store is its predecessor with an almost all Japanese clientele, with its claims to be a famous local entity. But ask around and you will find that it is only popular with those from Japan or with Japanese ancestry yet, these stores and ones similar have been increasing in areas of Hawaii and have made a fundamental change in that they no longer wish to blend but stand out as culturally different in the landscape.
Then along side this are stores like Shirokiya and Don Quiotes who are direct imports from Japan but their identity have changed. No longer do they carry only Japanese goods, they have become host of synergy or "glocalization" with local tastes and Asian origins mixing to make up what could be said to be entirely opposite of their original intents. Don Quiotes has gone through constant reconstruction in Hawaii from being a store of mixed media full of mostly useless gadgets and assortment of tourist focused items in its home land of Japan, into a grocery store where it blends its Japanese product lines and local appeal together to market not only tourists that are familiar with the name (Japanese)but gaining the attention of locals as a trust-able grocery chain with local roots.
Thus, local shops, grocery, department stores and transportation have began to focus on tailoring products to meet the hybrid culture over time with such things as: bento lunches, spam musubi, taro mochi and green tea and chopsticks being as available and used as much as Coca cola and a fork. This isn't to say that deterritoralization is a negative thing but that its often not even noticed as unique or representative of a highly influential culture but just a way of life/ a part of the culture local individuals have grown up with.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Fish out of Water: Communication by the consumer
Dear classmates, I cannot cut and past into this box, for some reason. Please see my comment below for the actual text. Sorry for the trouble!
Truely borderless?
International communications and technology has been used to theorize a variety of controls and influences one nation has on another. Theories such as the Dependency, Cultural and Hegemony theory have been used as explanations to justify or understand one country's products, language and values having been asserted upon another nation. International communications and or communications as whole have been "viewed as a process and a technology that would sometimes for religious purposes, spread, transmit and disseminate knowledge, ideas and information...with the goal of controlling space and people." (Corey, 17).
Corey's definition states international communications in terms of imperialism of the past and soft-power of today but it is not the only concept/definition of communications to consider. "Communications" is a term that is as intangible as "Culture" is society, as a "symbolic process whereby reality is produced, maintained, repaired and transformed," as stated by Carey. Communications in this sense can be used to look at intangible components such as culture, as a way to connect to a borderless sphere, that has integrated itself into the public sphere.
Take the public sphere defined by Manuel Castells, as "a network for communicating information and points of view." By definition a social network such as Facebook and a similar network Japanese version Mixi could fit the bill as a form of public sphere gone digital. No longer are issues contained within a room, within a single nation but the information is able to be transmitted among thousands of individuals from various locations around the global, in which people from one nation can have a say into the domestic issues of another nation.
Though there are limits to this "border less" social networking. Returning to the previous example lets focus on Mixi, a Japanese social network that could be considered border less as it can be accessed by users all over the world but at the same time it has limitations, borders if you so choose to call them that. These limitations or borders are Facebook in origin, in that, to initially engage in starting up an account on Mixi, you must have a Japanese cellphone e-mail address and also you MUST be invited by a current member. Some features are strictly limited to viewers only with ISPs in Japan to view say: videos and music. Another is the network is entirely in Japanese (verses Facebook's new multi-language user interface).
While people may see this in a culture context as something distinctively Japanese (another example of in group, out group), one must hark back to Facebooks' origins when one had to have a college address to join and the user-interface was strictly in English. Hence, while technology may be built to allow border less usage, sometimes the borders are intangible things that are brought about by the various way people or social groups view their interactions, and the limits they set on their own forms and ways of communication.
Thus, is international communications truly border less if even with "national" borders gone there are still self-imposed limitations that hamper communications between groups? If so then are theories such as hegemony, cultural and dependency theory one way streets or are is there more then one entity at fault for corruption or saturation of a cultural/society?
Corey's definition states international communications in terms of imperialism of the past and soft-power of today but it is not the only concept/definition of communications to consider. "Communications" is a term that is as intangible as "Culture" is society, as a "symbolic process whereby reality is produced, maintained, repaired and transformed," as stated by Carey. Communications in this sense can be used to look at intangible components such as culture, as a way to connect to a borderless sphere, that has integrated itself into the public sphere.
Take the public sphere defined by Manuel Castells, as "a network for communicating information and points of view." By definition a social network such as Facebook and a similar network Japanese version Mixi could fit the bill as a form of public sphere gone digital. No longer are issues contained within a room, within a single nation but the information is able to be transmitted among thousands of individuals from various locations around the global, in which people from one nation can have a say into the domestic issues of another nation.
Though there are limits to this "border less" social networking. Returning to the previous example lets focus on Mixi, a Japanese social network that could be considered border less as it can be accessed by users all over the world but at the same time it has limitations, borders if you so choose to call them that. These limitations or borders are Facebook in origin, in that, to initially engage in starting up an account on Mixi, you must have a Japanese cellphone e-mail address and also you MUST be invited by a current member. Some features are strictly limited to viewers only with ISPs in Japan to view say: videos and music. Another is the network is entirely in Japanese (verses Facebook's new multi-language user interface).
While people may see this in a culture context as something distinctively Japanese (another example of in group, out group), one must hark back to Facebooks' origins when one had to have a college address to join and the user-interface was strictly in English. Hence, while technology may be built to allow border less usage, sometimes the borders are intangible things that are brought about by the various way people or social groups view their interactions, and the limits they set on their own forms and ways of communication.
Thus, is international communications truly border less if even with "national" borders gone there are still self-imposed limitations that hamper communications between groups? If so then are theories such as hegemony, cultural and dependency theory one way streets or are is there more then one entity at fault for corruption or saturation of a cultural/society?
A Little Ode to Innis
I have a professor this semester who throws around Harold Innis and Marshall McLuhan on a first name basis like Madonna and Cher so I thought I would post on Innis is his honor. Innis picked up on emerging communication monopolies and are no doubt alive and raging today. What is most interesting about Innis is how well he picked up on the effect communication has on culture. I like to think he would agree that the United States is- “unofficially”- attempting to achieve cultural domination, through our McDonalds and through our monopolization of some of the most important communication systems. Reading about Innis, and combining him with Mrs. Mead’s thoughts on what to do with a new introduction to a culture, just makes me think of Stockholm syndrome.
Are we bonding with our captors in order to survive? Technology is a captor. How many people say they are slaves to their machines? And it’s also made way for a band of new captors for the non western world to “bond” with. The spread of American culture by means of increasing communication… Has the rest of the world embraced our McDonalds because they enjoy the dollar menu or because we put them there to stay, whether anyone likes it or not?
Stockholm syndrome may be stretching things a little too far, but Innis knew what he was onto with communication monopolies and how closely tied they are to culture and politics. He with biggest monopoly wins. The West dominates the rest. I would develop Stockholm syndrome if I were them.
Are we bonding with our captors in order to survive? Technology is a captor. How many people say they are slaves to their machines? And it’s also made way for a band of new captors for the non western world to “bond” with. The spread of American culture by means of increasing communication… Has the rest of the world embraced our McDonalds because they enjoy the dollar menu or because we put them there to stay, whether anyone likes it or not?
Stockholm syndrome may be stretching things a little too far, but Innis knew what he was onto with communication monopolies and how closely tied they are to culture and politics. He with biggest monopoly wins. The West dominates the rest. I would develop Stockholm syndrome if I were them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)