In Conclusion: My Final Thoughts On Globalization

Oh, globalization… It’s one of those dirty terms that have become something other than what it really means. For example, there’s a controversial question about whether globalization is a good thing or not, but that doesn’t make any sense because the term globalization is defined as the spread of something worldwide. So what lacks in the question about whether globalization is a good thing or not is what it is that is being globalized. Is it industry? Standards of living? Culture? Hamburgers? Without specifying, the question is empty. But let’s look at the question with a blank like this: is ______ globalization a good thing? Now we can insert anything we want and the question changes drastically.

First, let’s ask the question in consideration of culture. America is the perfect example of the result of cultural globalization. Our nation is the result of millions of immigrants claiming new lives in the land of opportunity. Many have claimed that America was a symbolic “melting pot” that fused cultures together, forming an all new culture that is unique to our country. This, however, isn’t the case. Large cities, such as San Francisco and New York have districts or sections that reflect another nation’s culture, such as China Town or Little Italy. Of course, these small sections many not be a complete replica of a Chinese town or look like the streets of Italy, but they are definitely holding onto a tradition that is unique and identifiable. This makes more for a “stew” instead of a “melting pot.” It’s a mix of cultures that complement each other with the “simultaneous embrace of both the local and the global” (Burton, 132)  I remember going to Europe a little over a year ago with my family and stopping at many different countries, all very different in culture from each other and a completely different world when compared to the culture of Chico, California, which I’ve become immersed in. What made this trip so enjoyable was the unfamiliar through my perspective, or as Rob Burton would call, my narrative.

What creates one’s narrative is everything that they carry with them that builds their identity, including culture and family. These things help focus our frame or how we view the world and process it. Rob Burton’s book Artists of the Floating World explores the idea that “many of us grow up without realizing (or without being given a chance to realize) that the frames we were born into are, in fact, ideological constructions” (Burton, 62).  In Burton’s opinion, and I completely agree, we are born into these frames without our choosing but it’s how we deal with these frames that are our responsibility. For example, in Ishiguro’s An Artist of the Floating World, the main character, Ono, has a damaged narrative because he refuses to adapt his frame. The book is in the aftermath of WWII and the rebuilding and redefining of Japan and we learn that Ono is a retired artist. But throughout Ono’s narrative, the reader can’t help a growing sense that their being kept from some dark secret that Ono doesn’t want to accept himself. We find out towards the end that he feels guilty that he betrayed one of his pupils during the war, being the cause of his arrest, and because of this, he denies anything that would remind him of how he was “responsible for the terrible things that happened” (123). Ono’s frame isn’t a clear picture of his world and he is stuck in the world before the war while everyone else, including his own family has moved on with the changes the war has brought. Since he won’t adapt to the changing of times and the evolution of the culture, separate from the “floating world,” as Burton describes the ebb and flow of an ever changing and diverse existence. Ishiguro is “…sensitive to and aware of the fragility, hybridity, and evanescence of the floating world” (54), showing that someone with Ono’s frame and narrative could never be aware or appreciate the floating world. So what does this have to do with globalization? Well, part of being in the floating world includes the growing ability of travel, which Burton discusses in his book, and travel means cultures coming into contact with each other with great ease. This goes back to what I was saying about going to Europe and how I brought my culture into Europe, looking at new cultures through the frame my own. This is a beautiful thing to take part in, and something I will remember for the rest of my life, but I realize this wouldn’t have been possible with a damaged frame like Ono’s.

However, this view of floating in the world implies a peaceful existence and coexistence that does not impose one’s narrative upon another’s. This brings into question whether or not globalization of industry is a good thing. As I ranted (and even got a little heated about, so I’m sorry for the offense) in a recent post, the globalization of telecommunication jobs to India is an example of how a seemingly helpful act of providing new jobs in a new country can be dangerous. I’ll recap: American companies have outsourced jobs to other nations, saying this is a great thing because it provides them with a better way of life, according to a video by Thomas Friedman called The Word is Flat. How are we measuring what is better? Is it better because their lives better reflect American life? In the video, the employees of these American outsourced jobs are instructed to immolate the American dialect and are encouraged to buy from American companies such as Nike. Their culture isn’t being encouraged, rather, it’s being imposed upon by the common corporate narrative and the eventual spread of this narrative would result in a soggy slop of a singular world culture. This reminds me of Salmon Rushdie’s short story called “The Auction of the Ruby Slippers” in East, West that takes place in a market driven world. The ruby slippers from The Wizard of Oz bring everyone, a rare occurrence since everyone is paranoid to come out of their homes. But the narrator defines the world he lives in when he says “the Grand Saleroom of the Auctioneers is the beating heart of the earth” (98).  Isn’t this the same fate that we face if we continue the globalization of industry?

 It’s hard to see this as an issue through the frame and narrative of being American, since so much emphasis is put on the free market and our way of life depending on it. In fact, it’s caused such tunnel vision that we believe it’s the only way of life so we forcibly impose it on other nations, as we are imposing it upon Iraq, claiming that free market will bring democracy and freedom. The answer isn’t to change a culture and conform it to our own, but to appreciate it and enable it to flourish. There are many ways we can do this such as providing aid to those who need it and acting fairly in world affairs, such as in the UN. The United States, being one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, holds the highest number of vetoes for movements that involve settling disputes and ending conflict, and these vetoes greatly outnumber those of the rest of the members. The United States has also declared its willingness to act against the UN’s approval as it sees fit. What gives us this right to be above the rest? That our form of government is the best and we must implement it elsewhere? We’ve attempted to do just in Vietnam and Cuba, along with many other nations, but we failed miserably and it’s all tied into our globalization of industry.

Instead of trying to focus on spreading our way of life elsewhere, we should focus on perfecting our own and solving our own problems. It’s an old idea but a good idea still. This way we have more potential to stretch our creative minds and frames of narrative to enrich our own culture so that when we visit the culture unlike our own it remains a unique experience, and traveling to new places will be as fulfilling as my trip to Europe was for me.

Cheers!