Sunday, April 26, 2009

YuKun's Question about globalization

1 Different views on globalization among political economy, cultural studies and postmodernist

After reading those materials, there is a question emerging in my mind. If we focus on material level, like what political economy scholars did, we will be tended to believe cultural imperialist. Otherwise, if we focus on cultural level, we will accept hybirdity. I don’t know if I am wrong or right.

Or is there any common thinking among those different approaches? Do they all accept like what Jan Nederveen Pieterse said “Globalization as Hybridization”

2 Question about Dependency Theory or Cultural Imperialism

Dependency theory is very popular in 1970’. Many scholars from Latin America are urging scholars in this approach. NIEO(New International Economy Order) is their common slogan. Borrowing this concept from international economy, they ask to reconstruct international communication order. However, newly industrial countries in Asia in 1980’ become a counterpart disproving this approach. Is there any new subtle globalized theory to cover those two different cases? Or Dependency is just a unique case in semi-peripheral countries in Latin America and Africa.

In addition, new technologies also make those issues more complicated. In 1970’s, what scholars concerned in the field of “international” communication are distributions of radio spectrum and satellite TV and cultural sovereignty. Nowadays, with the advance of technology, it is meaningless to discuss the distribution of spectrums and control of information flows from the first world. At first, spectrum limits are being broken by new technologies. Second, cultural interaction is not just one-way flow. Ex Hybridization. But I doubt this thinking will cover the difference and inequality among national-states in international communication or actors in global communication.

3 More subtle theory in globalization or global communication

I totally agree with the concept of hybrity or hybridization to disprove rough concept about cultural imperialism. For example, in page 622 Annabelle Sreberny proposed a triangular model to disprove the bi-polar model such as globalization and localization. But I think we need more subtle theory than that. For example, how to figure out the cultural interaction among semi-peripheral is a new topic for scholars. Before, we pay too much attention on the difference between the north and the south. Nowadays we can many cultural product trading between semi-peripherals. For example, Korean dramas are popular in Asian countries. Hong Kong movies are popular in Latino channel in America cable TV.

4 Questions about Nation states in globalized world

Form page 670 to 671, Jan Nederveen Pieterse was trying to forge new theories and downplay the role of national states. In my opinion, I would say that Jan Nederveen Pieterse made the same mistakes as what the postmodernists did. At first, definition of power is changing all the time. From the “absolute power” to “relative power”, then to “soft power”, or even “smart power”. It is so romantic to say that hegemonic power of America is eroding and naton-states are declining continually. In addition, some international organization listed in pages 671 such as IMF, World Banks and UN, which are three pillars to support US hegemony after war world II. I would agree with what Joe Straubharaar said in page 700 “Nation-states stills have the power to define crucial structures for media production”.

5 Question about “Framing States…”

It is very ridiculous to read this article in 2009. At first, let me explain what happened form 1997 to 2009.

A. After 1997, facing the wave of globalization, at least in fiancé, all Asian counties are on alert. They started to sing multiple treaties on currency exchange to stabilize their currency rate. Simply speaking, they cooperated to use regionalization to replace globalization.
B. In 1997, China played a regional hegemony to stabilize financial crisis. That is the reason why Hong Kong and Taiwan were safe in 1997 financial crisis.
C. From 1990’, UK lifted most limits on international cash, and a lot of international cash such as hot cash from Russia’s oil cash flowed into UK. UK’s economy was booming, stock market in London was hot, and the market of restates was one of the hottest markets in the world.
D. In 2008, crash of US domestic house market and banking system led to financial crisis speared all over the world. United State was affected, but it has remarkable resources and US dollar is still hegemonic currency in the world.
E. Who are the worst? Answer is European countries. UK now is on the brink of bankruptcy. Due to highly interconnection with financial globalized network, without stable power in their backyard, hot cash are struggling to flow other countries form UK. Nowadays UK’s stock market is the most dangerous in the world. No investor will take this risk to throw their money in the water.
F. Because of the experience in 1997, though Asian countries’ economy is stricken by financial crisis, until now there is no country on the brink of bankruptcy.

What is the relationship between regionalization and globalization? Can we say regionalization is another form of globalization? If the answer is yes, it seems for us that we have to develop new theory on globalization, which always focused on the core and semi-peripheral or peripheral.
Finally, this article triggered my interest in doing research to compare the newspapers’ content in UK in 1997 with that in 2009 on financial crisis. I am curious with their attitude on financial globalization.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.