Analysis, week 9

This is an analysis of the book Inventing Popular Culture, written by John Storey. It is not the analysis that poses the most difficult part, but incorporating this book into U.S. economics. How can this book influence the policies and practices of Christians in terms of U.S. economics. To start, it begins by discussing what folk culture is and how it affects us in everyday life. It appears that he believes this is a mythical world, not applicable in today's society. Folk culture is classified as something which goes back to the culture of a tribal people, which we all are, even in the midst of, "industrial capitalism", (page 14). The author is attempting to establish the fact that "folklore", is core to any established society and we should not forget this. What was brought to my mind, is the gang structure mainly in Chicago, which breaks down into two different types of gangs, one being, "Folk nation" and the other "People nation". These different gangs compose most of the gangs in Chicago as well as, across the country.
I was intrigued by the quotation of T.S. Elliot, (page 26) in speaking concerning social classes, stating that, "class structure, class privilege, and class inequality, are essential conditions for the growth and for the survival of culture." Classism is today one of the biggest issues facing U.S. economic policies. In other countries, there truly are poor, in the U.S., predominant problems exist within structures of what we call a "class system." T.S. Elliot believes that these classes would possibly be imperitive to the function of society. Basically he believes that with everyone equal, no longer will education be effective in transforming society.
This leads into chapter 4, in which if hegemony is practiced, the dominant classes in society can lead others by, "moral and intellectual leadership." Dominant groups and classes, "negotiating" with and making concessions to, subordinate groups. This creates more equality in society. No longer is it made into "class warfare," where one group forever strives to dominant by force other groups.
What is the response of the Christian towards these powers or forces? Knowing that inequalities exist in society, should we create a level playing field for all people? Although all people have the inalienable rights, (civil liberties), not all people have the same access to the same things. Nor should everyone be the same. Class warfare is a dangerous societal issue.
In response to Storey's application on page 108 of globalization, I would agree that the news media grants us access to the worlds problems, and the worlds events, while all the while neglecting those events which I actually live in each day. Meaning that I care about the inequalities in Africa, but could care less that I don't know my neighbor's. The reason is that there is an attraction to events that are broadcast on a global scale, (we like major events). He does make the point that we experience globalization in what we eat and drink every day though, and that global culture permeates our cultures.
To work in the context of global culture intertwined with local culture, hybridization which it is referred to is paramount to the development of the ability to communicate within culture. As a Christian I don't want to globalize too much, because then I am ineffective as a minister in my society, but to incorporate globally and locally, I have become then as most of the society, and will be effective, I believe. U.S. economics also operates on both scales. Storey makes the claim page 112, that "Commodities do not equal culture." Multi-National Corporations will not "make" a culture disappear or Americanize the globe, because the globe is already a large part of America, which hybridization claims.
In conclusion, this was the most interesting of all the books on globalization and culture which I have read, due to the fact that it doesn't make claims, which claim the economics of the U.S. has destroyed everything that is good, and true, and decent, in the world. Storey makes the claim, which I agree that non-western cultures, have influenced the west deeply, and many cultures have invariably assimilated into our society, which is to the benefit of us all.

Analysis

This week I will again be attempting to incorporate globalization with U.S. economics. As we know concerning U.S. economics, the practices of this country influence those of other countries. Many saw the Wal-Mart movie, and although I didn't see it, I believe that many of the practices of Wal-Mart need to be addressed, which I had done a few weeks earlier, in reference to China specifically "product dumpting" for Wal-Mart in the U.S. http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm8_e.htm
Although I know that we are not using resources from Web-sites, this source from the World Trade Organization gives a brief glimpse into the practice of product dumping. My opinion of the response of a Christian to corrupt practices in corporations is not necessarily to fight and demand my rights, but to "redeem" the practices, by being involved in them.
The parable that Jesus uses to illustrate that if a person agrees to work all day for a denari, and another agrees to work an hour for a denari, why should the first man get angry at the second man, if the first agreed to work for that price. He didn't have to agree to it, but chose work for that price. Greed has no economic level, the rich want more, the poor want some, and no one is content.
In the book Global Transformations, chapter 5, gives a synopsis of how globalization developed mainly in the Industrial revolution, but also gives a brief view of the development from medievil times, of companies that were based in Italy, which imported cloth to furnish products, which they in turn the sold for profit. One of the main points I want to give to chapter 5 is trade protectionism. Whenever threat from other nations, militarily is paramount to the safety of it's citizens, most industrial societies, develop a protectionist mindset. Although this countries policies promote globalization, the 1930's are an incredible example of how protectionism developed, (page241), because of the disarray that was happening in Europe. The amount that FDI's, Foreign Direct Investment, is given in trade, is directly correlated to our military relationship with that nation at the time of investments.
Although the mass of globalization may not be able at this time to be retracted, due to what Global Transformations discussed in earlier chapter concerning the development of "invisible governmental structures," which are World banks, and World Corporations. This chapter has shown how Multi National Corporations, in the 1950's to 60's, started foreign investment through countries, such as Europe and Canada, where it was safe. The U.S. (MNC's) developed quicker than other countries, due to technological advances, that were superior to other countries. (page 243)
Page 244, gives a comparitive table of the percentage of Exports vs. Imports. The U.S. in 1995 was the same in terms of Exports and Imports. The U.S up until 1980 had been a "heavy net" foreign investor, but since 1980 it has been a major site for inward, FDI. There is a great disparity though, according the chart on page 249, for developing nations. The U.S. economy is developed, and therefore reaps the benefits of inward FDI, while the poorest nations struggle at less than 1% of inward FDI. (page249) This makes sense, but what can be done to counter this trend. Without any inward FDI, developing countries, will remain poor.
In the Globalization and Culture book, it also starts by showing the there is truly a financial global market, which thus provides "globalization on demand." Page 13, makes a percentage comparison that 14% of the worlds population accounts for 80% of investment flows and 70% of the worlds trade, in 1992. 1992 was not that long ago, so why is there such a great disparity between the worlds population and investment.
Globalization and Culture, I believe gives more of a rounded, general, but more realistic approach to globalization. I also believe by including the statement in the book that from 1870 to 1914 existed more globalization in world markets than at present, shows more of a protectionist mindset, since two World Wars have made trade relatively unsafe at various times.
It is important for structures not to monopolize and while I agree with anti-trust laws in regard to American companies to create competition, what is to be done with the disparity of inward FDI's, for third world nations. Do these "developing countries" have products to make them profitable for inward FDI's? Even if a country is not as industrialized as another, there may be other "agricultural" products that may make a developing country appealing in a globalized economy. The questions remains, "How can a third world country market itself to make it appealing for other countries to invest in it? It may not be possible, due to the lack of resources, but "handouts" from wealthy countries to poor countries, are important, but will not sustain a struggling economy? Mainly I am talking out loud to attempt to understand if anything can be done, to reduce the disparity. Empowerment of another country is more important than, "handouts." Thanks for the time.

Analysis: G.T., Ch. 5 & 6

This week will be an analysis of the next two chapters from Global Transformations. These chapters will definitely be more distinct in our group's project concerning U.S. economics, and some of the disparities trade. Page 152 states clearly that some "distributional impacts of trade,(within economies) makes some groups richer and others poorer.
Section 3.2 gives a brief historical glimpse at the nature of trade. From B.C.E, in developing nations, although mode of transportation was limited and trading routes also had the problems with mountains, trade between nations was forming. It is stated, (page 153), that a "slave triangle", between Europe, Africa, and the West Indies had become in the sixteenth century, the dominant trade route. The question is then would the industrialized nations of the world developed as they did without slavery? The answer is probably not.
This is not a justification at all of slavery, just a quandery that what we as Americans and predominantly Europeans, treasure in terms of our "free trade", which allows us to have products which we do not have to sacrifice our first born child to buy, has been built mainly on the abuses and mistreatment of other human beings. Chapter 6 of the book makes reference to the fact that less than 10 percent of the slaves were destined to the U.S., but most ended up in the Caribbean and Brazil.
Most trade though outside of the slave trade mentioned earlier was focused primarily in agriculture, within a nation. Page 154, "At the start of the nineteenth century it is estimated by Kuznets (1967) that world exports amounted to only 1-2 percent of the world GDP." Within most developing countries, world trade was limited in the nineteenth centuries. Trade though continued to grow until 1929 with the Stock Market Crash, in which a protectionist mindset prevailed. After WWII, world trade began to increase again, to what we would consider today to be a "globalized economy" of trade. Page 162 (Box 3.1) gives a brief synopsis of the affects of globalizing trade, and the cost of products, whether produced domestically or imported. The last statement that I want to make concerning trade is mentioned on page 183,"...since trade in principle produces a net welfare gain for a country, the gainers could compensate the loser and still be better off."
All this concerning trade was mentioned because in we as Christians need to know how the system has developed in order to affect structural change. Redeeming structures is more easily said than done. It can be done though. I have made the point from the beginning that redemption of structures, such as the government of El Salvadore come from within the country. Even in the slave trade as mentioned in this book, most of the African Nations sold their own people into slavery, hence the word, "trade".
Chapter 5 of the book in discussing the world financial markets, it appears as though this is the re-establishing of the "Tower of Babel" theory, which I used in last weeks analysis. It has been proven since the dawn of time that God uses man in the redemption process. Jesus came as a man to redeem. Jesus is in the natural realm, for if we deny that, it would be to deny the humanity of Christ. Involvement is key in changing the structures. As history is the basis for understanding how systems develop, it should also be looked at in history, as to where Christians failed. I am not taking a stand on military issues, because I do believe that societies progress.
The apostle Paul never would have included a Gentile in anything, but yet he died as the, "apostle to the Gentiles." Sometimes I believe that we need to move beyond what "we" think and ask God what "He" thinks. Throughout history of empire's, to nation states, to trade, to globalization, the church either is doing what is right in proclaiming the gospel on a personal level, or they need to stop saying, "this is evil, that is evil, so I will not be involved, but will make it into another issue." In terms of U.S. Economic issues, money is the "god of this nation." Rich, poor, man, woman, it makes no difference. Covetousness is still sin. The apostle Paul stated in Philippians that he was rich, poor, beaten, imprisoned, for the sake of the gospel. In the midst of this, God was redeeming every place where the gospel was planted. This is what we need to get back to. Sorry if this seems to preachy.

Analysis

My analysis this week will be on the fact that throughout history, and I will not name all the Empires, but it seems as though, when God scattered the people at the Tower of Babel in Gen. 11:1-9, people have been attempting to get back to the status of one. From nation attempting to conquer nation, and one individual person dominating another person, humans beings want to "rule over others." This book is fascinating, because it shows the progression of how essentially, these European nations developed from small political regimes, swallowing the smaller regimes in their path, to nation states, then to global empires.
One of the statements made from the book, that the nation state 'pacifies' it's people, before ruling over them is true, but the laws that a nation establishes should benefit the people that live in that country. If a person doesn't like the laws that are in that one country, there are other choices besides revolt to change the laws, and if that doesn't work, move to another country. When the statement was made to pacify people, the author didn't further explain, so the assumption may be made that if they weren't pacified, a revolt of the governing authorities would occur.
We have seen even in the past one hundred years how military globalization only ends up in the destruction of lives. Is Germany any more dominant (militarily) in 2005 than they were in 1941? Military power in globalization from what the authors portray, has almost been the means to the end. The end was an "invisible" global structure, made up of banks, corporations, and money. Although, becoming a "superpower" in terms of a country was determined by the military structure of the nation. It is quoted on page 93, that 'the leading nations possessed resources 50 to 100 times greater than those at the bottom.'
As a Christian, am I to engage in any global activity? Any type of global activity, (Armed Forces, consumerism, World Banks, etc.) will in some way affect those that have been oppressed by the "superpowers" of the world, in gaining global dominance. I think it is impossible not to be involved in some way, shape, or form, in globalization. The quote from Genesis at the beginning, I believe shows that as a follower of God, He wants us to learn from another's culture, adapt to their behavior, in essence, get along with other people, that are not necessarily like you. God thought it wasn't a good thing that all the people were the same, with one language. I think that we as the Church, definitely need to learn this concept. So, the response of the church should be to participate and "get our hands a little dirty."

Resources for this week:

Global Transformation, (David Held, Anthony McGrew, David Goldblatt, and Jonathan Perraton)
1) 1.1.2 Page 36-Absolutism in the development of European Nation States.
The statement made was the absolutism within these developing nation states produced more social, political differences between the states, producing a nationalistic identity. (Tilly, 1975, p. 19) Absolutism was defined as the larger political structure, swallowing up the smaller structures, to bring them into their regime.
2) 1.1.4 Page39-The book makes reference to the centralization of political power, expansion of state administration, territorial rule, the diplomatic system, and the emergence of regular, standing armies. As the European Nation States gave rise to their central governments developing, as with any nation, given the opportunity it will claim more.
3) 1.1.4 Page 39-The statement made in the book which references the main point that as Europe developed into powerful nation states, certain states who are naturally more powerful, will want to transform back into an Empire. "The colonies became the 'jewels in the crown' of the new empires. Certain European states as they became stronger, decided that globalization would add to their power, and would, "enhance the demand for organizations that would be capable of operating on such a scale." (p.39)
4)1.1.5 Page 45-The modern nation state, has become so powerful through the 'pacification' of people. It states that the breaking down of rival centres of power and authority within the nation state. In nineteenth century Europe, this was achieved. This statement from the book is absolutely true. It makes mention of a standing army and the police, as the means of ruling the nation state from within, which is true.
5)2.3.2 Page93-To quote from the book, "Regions and civilizations which had so far eluded European control experienced first hand its military might." This was in the mid to late nineteenth century, when Europe was attempting to globalize the New World and mainly Asia. The industrialization of warfare was developing and thus making the arms market a free market system of developing the best weapons.