In the article, the author discussed the disjunctures on the general theory of global cultural processes. He used 5 dimensions of global cultural flows to explain the disjuctures, namely, the ethnoscapes that constitutes “the shifting world in which we live”, the technoscapes to be “the global configuration of technology that moves at high speeds across various kinds of previously impervious boundaries”, the financescapes to mean “the disposition of global capital that is more mysterious, rapid, and difficult to follow”, the mediascapes that refer to “the distribution of the electronic capabilities to produce and disseminate information”, and the ideoscapes that are “concatenations of images that are directly political and that have to do with the ideologies of states and counterideologies of movements”.
Appadurai proposed the “dynamics of global cultural systems as driven by the relationships among flows of persons, technologies, finance, information, and ideology.” He argued that these set of terms, these dynamic flows, intersect and overlap creating instability and disjuncture in patterns of globalization leading to the complex interactions between relationships of difference and sameness that are context-dependent.
On the specifics, the author talked about the “the tension on cultural homogenization and cultural heterogenization.” He critiqued the idea of “Americanization” of Filipinos arguing that “the United States is no longer the puppeteer of a world system of images but is only one node of a complex transnational construction of imaginary landscapes.” He discussed the idea of “imagined worlds” similar to Benedict Anderson’s “imagined communities” to argue that we live in a universe of multiple imagined worlds that are constituted by “historically situated imaginations of persons and groups spread across the globe.”
Appadurai connected his idea of cultural flows to deterritorialization. That deterritorialization is “one of the central forces of the modern world.” It creates a venue, termed by the author as “new markets,” for the things that constitute the characteristics of the different “landscapes” such as film, art, travel, food, clothing to meet the desires of deterritorialized populations for contact with their homelands.
With the author’s discussion on the politics of global cultural flows centered on “Americanization”, I was struck with the term he borrowed from Fredric Jameson, the “nostalgia for the present,” of “nostalgia without memory.” This is in reference to Filipinos’ affinity for American popular music. In the context of CAR, this can be observed by the country music heard being played by a friend, a neighboring house, in bars, radio stations, even the audio tapes played over and over again when riding a bus along Halsema H-way. Indeed, the contents of such songs are not the history of a local person, but the playing of such songs invokes nostalgia to that person picturing a somewhat similar experience. All the same, it is the nostalgia of a past that that will remain to be a memory. Whether it is an “Americanization” or otherwise, the point is, such scenario is subsumed in the “imagination as a social practice in the global cultural processes.”
The arguments in the article are somewhat similar to the views of Mathews on the “global cultural supermarket.” Having arrays of choices, and easy access to most through technology and public media, it breaks the distinction of other people in other places. This leads to having a global identity that transcends cultural identity through the different global cultural processes that transcends national boundaries.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Thursday, July 3, 2008
An Article Review on the” Global Culture/Individual Identity” of Gordon Mathews
It is the proposition of the author to combine the opposing definition of culture, the culture as “the way of life of a people” and the culture as “the information and identities available from the global cultural supermarket.” The first definition alludes to “culture shaped by the state and the second one refers to “culture shaped by the market.” He went on to discuss the theory on cultural shaping of self and then investigated the questions on cultural identity.
I agree with the idea of the author that both definitions of culture are problematic in the presence of expanding diversity, interrelations and the arrays of choices. It is sad to note that at present culture is reduced to “a matter of personal taste,” a mere picking from the wide variety of choices. Although, as mentioned in the article, the freedom to choose is curtailed by factors in the social world such as class, gender, age, economic status and nationality.
Going deeper on the idea of culture shaped by the state, the author implied that culture is manipulated and may even be invented by the state to justify its existence. For its legitimization, the education and media is used to facilitate and shape nationalism or having a national identity, when before such claim, there is no such thing as a nation, only groups. However, there is a resurgence of ethnicity and ethnic identity that may pose as a threat to the identity of the nation as a whole, though; this is insignificant to the strength of market identity of the cultural supermarket. Compared with the forceful exploitation of the state, the manipulation of the cultural supermarket is more of seduction with the glitters of advertising. In a way, it is a subtle way of persuasion that is difficult to refuse.
In the author’s discussion of “cultural shaping of self,” he mentioned three levels; the deep shaping, middle-level shaping and the shallow shaping. It is the distinction of actions done “without thinking,” actions done “because you have to,” and actions done “because you choose to,” respectively. He linked these to the definitions of culture, in which he categorized the 2 deepest levels of the self’s cultural shaping to be under culture as “the way of life of a people,” and the shallowest level is under culture as “the global cultural supermarket.”
He made an exception, though, for those in the upper economic strata wherein, it is the realm of the cultural supermarket that is taken for granted because of the notion that one is free to choose. Accordingly, the two contradictory principles discussed in the article, that of the state and that of the market, is not seen as contradictory by most affluent people because it is in the taken-for-granted level, that of the shallow stage.
Retracing Mathews’ discussion in the limitation of our choices based on the make-up of our social world, I think this is a precursor to having a global identity that transcends national or cultural identity. Having arrays of seductive choices, and easy access to most, it breaks the distinction of other people in other places. But, this may also be detrimental in a sense that it may lead to the slow but cannot be stopped erosion of acknowledging roots and history. Except, of course, for those who chose to leave and migrate to other countries and still consider themselves Filipinos, acknowledging that this is their home country.
I find the article refreshing to read and I agree to most of the discussions. The bias I saw, though, is how the author chose his respondents for his study. He chose only “those of the elite in their societies, and in the world.” This is with the positivist assumption that “their struggles resonate throughout their societies.” I just want to point out that there should have been a balance of getting both the perspectives of what the author consider as the “intellectual and economic elites” and what he consider as “less well-off people in their societies and in the world.”
I agree with the idea of the author that both definitions of culture are problematic in the presence of expanding diversity, interrelations and the arrays of choices. It is sad to note that at present culture is reduced to “a matter of personal taste,” a mere picking from the wide variety of choices. Although, as mentioned in the article, the freedom to choose is curtailed by factors in the social world such as class, gender, age, economic status and nationality.
Going deeper on the idea of culture shaped by the state, the author implied that culture is manipulated and may even be invented by the state to justify its existence. For its legitimization, the education and media is used to facilitate and shape nationalism or having a national identity, when before such claim, there is no such thing as a nation, only groups. However, there is a resurgence of ethnicity and ethnic identity that may pose as a threat to the identity of the nation as a whole, though; this is insignificant to the strength of market identity of the cultural supermarket. Compared with the forceful exploitation of the state, the manipulation of the cultural supermarket is more of seduction with the glitters of advertising. In a way, it is a subtle way of persuasion that is difficult to refuse.
In the author’s discussion of “cultural shaping of self,” he mentioned three levels; the deep shaping, middle-level shaping and the shallow shaping. It is the distinction of actions done “without thinking,” actions done “because you have to,” and actions done “because you choose to,” respectively. He linked these to the definitions of culture, in which he categorized the 2 deepest levels of the self’s cultural shaping to be under culture as “the way of life of a people,” and the shallowest level is under culture as “the global cultural supermarket.”
He made an exception, though, for those in the upper economic strata wherein, it is the realm of the cultural supermarket that is taken for granted because of the notion that one is free to choose. Accordingly, the two contradictory principles discussed in the article, that of the state and that of the market, is not seen as contradictory by most affluent people because it is in the taken-for-granted level, that of the shallow stage.
Retracing Mathews’ discussion in the limitation of our choices based on the make-up of our social world, I think this is a precursor to having a global identity that transcends national or cultural identity. Having arrays of seductive choices, and easy access to most, it breaks the distinction of other people in other places. But, this may also be detrimental in a sense that it may lead to the slow but cannot be stopped erosion of acknowledging roots and history. Except, of course, for those who chose to leave and migrate to other countries and still consider themselves Filipinos, acknowledging that this is their home country.
I find the article refreshing to read and I agree to most of the discussions. The bias I saw, though, is how the author chose his respondents for his study. He chose only “those of the elite in their societies, and in the world.” This is with the positivist assumption that “their struggles resonate throughout their societies.” I just want to point out that there should have been a balance of getting both the perspectives of what the author consider as the “intellectual and economic elites” and what he consider as “less well-off people in their societies and in the world.”
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Reflections and Insights on the Article by Lincoln and Guba on the Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences
How the authors presented their views is appreciated with the displayed openness/accommodation in their presentation of the different paradigms, despite mentioning their position in the earlier passage of the article. The fact that they accommodated other paradigms such as the participatory paradigm, despite their outright stand of being constructivists, it indicates that the proposition holds a bearing in social research. Although it cannot be denied that participatory paradigm is much nearer to constructivism that the authors allude to.
To help comprehend and give credit to what I suppose is the paradigm/s I am inclined to, I would like to include my insights or biases on some of the controversies discussed in the reading. I would like to start with the inclusion of values in social inquiry. With the increasing interest of researchers to the interpretative realm of human behavior with socio-cultural interaction, new paradigm inquirers are moving away from the clinical, faceless, emotionless state of research to the inclusion of spirituality and spiritual concerns. The move towards the so-called subjective realm creates issues between paradigms.
With the issue on commensurability, It was mentioned in the article that, “social phenomena are consist of the meaning-making activities of groups and individuals” (Guba and Lincoln, 2000). As such, social inquiry is consists of understanding the meaning-making activities happening. The authors believe that there is the possibility of ‘confluence,’ of ‘shifting boundaries of paradigms,’ the ‘blurring of genres.’ And so different methodologies can be used, depending to what is responsive to the problem. With this in mind, there should be no issue on commensurability.
The second issue raised is on the role of action in research. It is interesting to note that hard-line positivists believe actions as ‘taints’ in research outputs. On this matter, I would be inclined to side with post-positivists that actions are part and parcel of research results and process (Guba and Lincoln, 2000). Studying social phenomena is different from analyzing natural occurrences. Actions of people are fluid. It varies from one to another, from time to time. Thus, it is hard to generalize results as opposed to the static and consistent results drawn from molecules or mathematical equations for that matter. Nuances and peculiarities will always surface in the study of social phenomena that question the validity of results when employing positivist’s axioms as yardstick.
Another controversy is regarding control. When control means participants having active role, of communities taking control of their futures, of actions controlled by community members, this should be seen as a good thing since it promotes social development. It also reiterates that knowledge cannot be separated from the knower as opposed to the positivist’s view of a taint-free objectivity.
This leads to the issue on reality coupled with validity. Of whether reality is an entity outside human experiences that are tested using absolute criteria, or whether knowers are not separate from objective reality. Contradictions on foundational, antifoundational or nonfoundational perspectives of truth and knowledge are currently of discussion in the social sciences. Arguments on the application of rigorous scientific method against the use of interpretative processes are taking place. Yet, it seems that views under new paradigms already surpass explanations against the foundational view of reality.
In terms of voice, reflexivity, and postmodern textual representation, the struggle is on whose voice is being heard. Is it of the author, of the respondents or of the inclusion of the self? This holds true with reflexivity. Different categories of the selves were mentioned by Reinharz (1997) in the text, the research-based selves, brought selves and the situationally created selves. It is a discussion on reflecting and questioning oneself in the process of social inquiry/data gathering, a subjective action yet fruitful in terms of application. Voice is also linked with textual representation, the “messy texts” of Marcus & Fisher (1996) mentioned in the article. However, such texts seek to break boundaries, to decentralize and focus inquiries on human experience, at the same time freedom to choose alternatives in doing social inquiry. In addition, such representations, is not necessarily for the sole purpose of academic arguments, but are utilized and are applicable for the consumption of the non-academic audiences or in the context of which the research result was based.
Following the discussions in the article, I would say that I would ascribe to constructivism and participatory paradigm. However, this inclination does not mean ruling out positivist view and other paradigms. Depending on the kind of research there is, ascribing to rigorous scientific method and/or interpretative process can be used. In the search for understanding human behavior, different method of inquiries can be employed.
To help comprehend and give credit to what I suppose is the paradigm/s I am inclined to, I would like to include my insights or biases on some of the controversies discussed in the reading. I would like to start with the inclusion of values in social inquiry. With the increasing interest of researchers to the interpretative realm of human behavior with socio-cultural interaction, new paradigm inquirers are moving away from the clinical, faceless, emotionless state of research to the inclusion of spirituality and spiritual concerns. The move towards the so-called subjective realm creates issues between paradigms.
With the issue on commensurability, It was mentioned in the article that, “social phenomena are consist of the meaning-making activities of groups and individuals” (Guba and Lincoln, 2000). As such, social inquiry is consists of understanding the meaning-making activities happening. The authors believe that there is the possibility of ‘confluence,’ of ‘shifting boundaries of paradigms,’ the ‘blurring of genres.’ And so different methodologies can be used, depending to what is responsive to the problem. With this in mind, there should be no issue on commensurability.
The second issue raised is on the role of action in research. It is interesting to note that hard-line positivists believe actions as ‘taints’ in research outputs. On this matter, I would be inclined to side with post-positivists that actions are part and parcel of research results and process (Guba and Lincoln, 2000). Studying social phenomena is different from analyzing natural occurrences. Actions of people are fluid. It varies from one to another, from time to time. Thus, it is hard to generalize results as opposed to the static and consistent results drawn from molecules or mathematical equations for that matter. Nuances and peculiarities will always surface in the study of social phenomena that question the validity of results when employing positivist’s axioms as yardstick.
Another controversy is regarding control. When control means participants having active role, of communities taking control of their futures, of actions controlled by community members, this should be seen as a good thing since it promotes social development. It also reiterates that knowledge cannot be separated from the knower as opposed to the positivist’s view of a taint-free objectivity.
This leads to the issue on reality coupled with validity. Of whether reality is an entity outside human experiences that are tested using absolute criteria, or whether knowers are not separate from objective reality. Contradictions on foundational, antifoundational or nonfoundational perspectives of truth and knowledge are currently of discussion in the social sciences. Arguments on the application of rigorous scientific method against the use of interpretative processes are taking place. Yet, it seems that views under new paradigms already surpass explanations against the foundational view of reality.
In terms of voice, reflexivity, and postmodern textual representation, the struggle is on whose voice is being heard. Is it of the author, of the respondents or of the inclusion of the self? This holds true with reflexivity. Different categories of the selves were mentioned by Reinharz (1997) in the text, the research-based selves, brought selves and the situationally created selves. It is a discussion on reflecting and questioning oneself in the process of social inquiry/data gathering, a subjective action yet fruitful in terms of application. Voice is also linked with textual representation, the “messy texts” of Marcus & Fisher (1996) mentioned in the article. However, such texts seek to break boundaries, to decentralize and focus inquiries on human experience, at the same time freedom to choose alternatives in doing social inquiry. In addition, such representations, is not necessarily for the sole purpose of academic arguments, but are utilized and are applicable for the consumption of the non-academic audiences or in the context of which the research result was based.
Following the discussions in the article, I would say that I would ascribe to constructivism and participatory paradigm. However, this inclination does not mean ruling out positivist view and other paradigms. Depending on the kind of research there is, ascribing to rigorous scientific method and/or interpretative process can be used. In the search for understanding human behavior, different method of inquiries can be employed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)