Hi all
Some of you seem to have a problem with gloc and hybd especially...
Here are three recent email queries I received... (my responses in red)
----------------------------------------------------
#1
Firstly, whilst searching for examples on either hybridization and glocalization, I came across a couple egs I wasn't sure how to really categorize. For example, the disney movies Mulan and Kung Fu Panda. Whilst in a sense it's globalization because it has been marketed to parts of the world in the original that it was made, but the story lines (at least for Mulan) originates from another country. Being a folk tale from China, but yet taken and adapted by the West and then marketed, I'm unsure if it's considered globalization or glocalization or even any of these terms. could you help clarify?
> probably just globalization; there is no localizing actually done, and the focus is purely on the "global market".
----------------------------------------------
#2
I am a bit confused if the following examples are examples of glocalization, or are they merely part of the effects of globalization?
- Idol series: Singapore Idol, American Idol from the original Pop Idol in Britain - Next top model series: Holland's Next Top Model, Britain's Next Top Model from the original America's Next Top Model
Glocalization would refer to taking a global product and making it local, and in doing so perhaps in instances changing the language to suit the local market. But if Singapore Idol is in English, is it still considered glocalization? Does this mean that Holland's next top model is an example of glocalization but Britain's next top model is then not?
> the language is not the key point. what is impt is "how do you get to your audience?" all your cases should be glocalization because it shows the large corporation (whoever owns the franchise) adapting their show FOR THE LOCAL AUDIENCE. this is why in most cases, in UK, they get American Idol (globalization) and Pop Idol (glocalization) on tv, in Sg, we get American Idol and Sg Idol etc. THE MAIN THING IS THE AUDIENCE...not the language alone.
Also, is the main difference between hybridization and glocalization the fact that in hybridization, a new form of the product is created whereas in glocalization the 'global' product is still being retained with only minor adjustments? And would it be fair to distinguish the 2 based on whether capitalism is involved? Both hybridization and glocalization could actually have capitalist roots right?
> yes. to me, hybridization is when locals take a global product, while glocalization is when the large corporation adapt to the local. globalization is when the large corporation just has ONE global product (coca cola or big mac everywhere)
------------------------------------------------------------------
#3
this website http://www.bangladeshsociology.org/Habib%20-%20ejournal%20Paper%20GlobalizationHHK,%20PDF.pdf states that the main difference between glocalization and hybridization is that in hybridization there is no need for the "local". the use of perhaps a technological system that is a mixture of the UK and American types used in Singapore would be considered hybridization. This would kinda contradict with hybridization as being the local changing the global product in the conclusion ppt. the source is bangladesh?! i'm not sure if it's credible but is his concept hybridization ( that excludes the local) valid?
> actually, if you read the source reading by pieterse carefully, you will see that hybridization has been taking place forever.
technically hybridization means any mixing of 2 (or more) cultures
so in theory, if i -- a singaporean -- take elements of american and japanese food to make japanican food, it is still hybridization (i.e. no Singapore local element) why not?
but from our perspective, what is most important is PEOPLE'S REACTION TO HYBRIDIZATION (or glocalization, or globalization).
so with regard to my japanican food, if Singaporeans (or Americans or Japanese, or anyone else) don't like it...then it won't sell, and i will go out of business. and it will be forgotten.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Some Essay Topics Confirmed
Kher Cheng -- foreign workers in Singapore
Khamsya -- Capitalism and racial policy in Malaysia
Suan Cher -- Rural to Urban migration in contemporary China
Bernard -- migrant workers in Singapore
Yim Har -- nurse migration (Philippines to USA)
Dipthi --The Dharvari shanty town outside Mumbai
Sock Hoon -- Maids coming to Singapore
Kavee -- Bollywood (globalization)
Janet -- coffee plantations in India
Hafiza -- Urban poverty in Manila
Olivia -- youth smoking (er...where?)
Lulu -- children as consumers
Michelle -- plastic surgery in S.Korea
David -- consuming coffee
William -- HK Cantopop
Khamsya -- Capitalism and racial policy in Malaysia
Suan Cher -- Rural to Urban migration in contemporary China
Bernard -- migrant workers in Singapore
Yim Har -- nurse migration (Philippines to USA)
Dipthi --The Dharvari shanty town outside Mumbai
Sock Hoon -- Maids coming to Singapore
Kavee -- Bollywood (globalization)
Janet -- coffee plantations in India
Hafiza -- Urban poverty in Manila
Olivia -- youth smoking (er...where?)
Lulu -- children as consumers
Michelle -- plastic surgery in S.Korea
David -- consuming coffee
William -- HK Cantopop
Monday, February 02, 2009
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Monday, January 05, 2009
welcome to sc3202
Hello, thanks for dropping by.
Here's what we are going to do for Sc3202 Modernization this semester.
The main theme of the module is "global capitalism, and how it brings about social change."
Capitalism is primarily an economic system; it is the way the economy is organized. In a capitalist economic system, what is most central is "profit." For those of us who are not economically inclined, profit simply means the excess that you have from your income after deducting costs. Profit is seen as a good thing, because with the profit, the firm can re-invest the profit. By itself, profit is "neutral" in that it doesn't "do" anything to people...
However, profit can become "problematic" when there is an ideology to always want to "maximize" profit...herein lies the question of how much profit is enough...
Some people feel that "more" is better. So they start thinking up ways of "maximizing" profit. Here is where we bring Karl Marx into our module...
Marx is important to us because he -- all those years ago -- saw exactly what was "wrong" with capitalism and the profit motive. Until today, everything he said about the "evils" of capitalism remain accurate. Unfortunately, while he could ANALYZE the problem, his solutions (socialism) didn't seem to work.
But that's not our focus. We will have to figure Marx out, not from a social theory viewpoint, but more from a socio-structural viewpoint, to understand how an economic system affects people's lives.
Why is this important?
This is because some other observers think that capitalism is the route to "development." In other words, when societies ultimately adopt capitalism, they will have attained the highest, best and final stage of growth. They think that life won't get any better. These are the "modernization" theorists...while it is well and good that they "believe" that a particular system is better (I mean, after all, we all have our own views on the better way of doing something...seriously, do you think it is better to put the coffee powder into the cup first then pour hot water, or should you put the hot water in first and then add the coffee powder...which will taste better???) some modernization theorists were so convincing that they convinced policy makers to embark upon the "developmentalist" project. i.e. to bring development to the "third world" or "less developed" societies.
If these backward societies could get a dose of modernization, then they will eventually become "modern" and also live the good life, where there is abundant wealth, freedom of choice, freedom of expression etc etc.
Sometimes hindsight helps, sometimes it hinders. What I mean to say is that it would be great if we could look back over the last 50, 100 or 200 years to say that "modernization theory" was either right or wrong.
Unfortunately for us, modernization's record is patchy. It has "worked" in some places (like Singapore!!!) but failed miserably elsewhere (in most parts of Africa).
So how?
-----------------------------------------
Marx also commented on INDUSTRIAL capitalism. His analysis was that of "the factory" and its impact on "the workers."
We will look at his analysis, and apply it to, firstly, women. Why are most workers in the factory women? Why are men usually the supervisors, not the line workers?
Secondly, we will ask how does industrial capitalism cause WORKERS (some men, some women) to move for the purposes of finding work (migration).
Unlike "high end" expatriates, most migrant workers do "low end" jobs. How can we use Marx's criticisms of capitalism to explain this discrepancy and process?
------------------
Marx was not the only significant social theorist to criticize capitalism.
Max Weber had a very powerful critique of capitalism...he said that it had a "rationalizing" drive.
George Ritzer took this idea a couple of steps further and suggested that ever more facets of life were becoming "highly rationalized"...he called it "McDonaldization" of society. Everything was simplified. Everything now had a "sameness" about it.
A big mac in Singapore is the same as a big mac anywhere else it is sold...
The same.
We will look at McDonaldization of society, of your life, and even here in school. Yes, it is here as well...
Is there any hope for us?
-------------------------------------------
It gets worse...this "modernization" (which is really global capitalism) doesn't just affect stuff around us.
It affects us. It gets inside our heads, hearts, and er...everywhere else.
We will look at some aspects of "micro-level" modernization, the creation of the "modern" person and the so-called "modern" mindset. Modern is directly in contrast to being "traditional." And the modernization theorists would have us believe that being modern is infinitely better than being traditional.
Modernity brings about its own problems. More accurately, modernity makes us pretty weird. There are many examples of this, but we only have time to cover two aspects(this is really a backhanded way of saying I am really only interested in these two, the rest I don't care about so I don't want to lecture) CONSUMERISM and LOVE.
Hey, love and shopping. isn't that soooooooooooo modern?
Unfortunately, that is precisely the problem.
As Prof Chua Beng Huat said (sarcastically), "Life is Not Complete without Shopping..."
Gosh, there's got to be more to life than shopping, but apparently NOT! Many people are struck by "affluenza!"
Another "weird" thing that modernization does to you (not me) is that it messes us what you call LOVE, or what we sociologists call intimacy, trust and emotions.
----------------------------------
Finally, we look at the global in global capitalism. When capitalism goes around the world (global) it leaves footprints everywhere, and it changes lives.
We look at three aspects of globalization:
Cosmopolitanism
Hybridization
Glocalization
No, they're similar, but not the same.
Cosmopolitanism suggests that thanks to global capitalism, everywhere around the world will (eventually) become the same. And we all become the same. So that wherever we go around the world, we can feel "at home."
What would happen to "national cultures"?
Will Tokyo become like New York and like New Dehli and like London? All the same?
Hybridization is another related process which suggests that cultures are going to get "merged" into some new culture.
You know, like when English (language) came to Singapore and got all mixed up with Chinese, Hokkein, Malay, Tamil whatever else was here...we get a "hybrid language".
(Hey, can someone explain to me how the phrase "I see you no up" came about? It doesn't translate into any other language properly...)
But when we look more carefully into what gets merged (and what gets left out) we see that the merging is not always 50/50...
Finally, we look at glocalization. Experiencing globalization locally. In fact, we even get to discuss Hulk Hogan at university level.
Seriously.
We have one reading where people in the Sarawak rainforest watch WWE wrestling (not on cable or satellite, but on video tape).
What is interesting is that Hulk Hogan, while a global icon, is not seen by the forest people as "the Hulkster". They "re-interpret" Hogan from within their own lenses...the outcomes are truly interesting.
------------------------------------
I decided to bore you to tears now by giving you as much detail about the module contents so that you know what you are getting yourself into.
If these topics interest you, I guarantee you we're going on a rollercoaster ride.
If these topics bore you, you have been warned!!!
See you, or maybe not, in class.
Dr.P.
Here's what we are going to do for Sc3202 Modernization this semester.
The main theme of the module is "global capitalism, and how it brings about social change."
Capitalism is primarily an economic system; it is the way the economy is organized. In a capitalist economic system, what is most central is "profit." For those of us who are not economically inclined, profit simply means the excess that you have from your income after deducting costs. Profit is seen as a good thing, because with the profit, the firm can re-invest the profit. By itself, profit is "neutral" in that it doesn't "do" anything to people...
However, profit can become "problematic" when there is an ideology to always want to "maximize" profit...herein lies the question of how much profit is enough...
Some people feel that "more" is better. So they start thinking up ways of "maximizing" profit. Here is where we bring Karl Marx into our module...
Marx is important to us because he -- all those years ago -- saw exactly what was "wrong" with capitalism and the profit motive. Until today, everything he said about the "evils" of capitalism remain accurate. Unfortunately, while he could ANALYZE the problem, his solutions (socialism) didn't seem to work.
But that's not our focus. We will have to figure Marx out, not from a social theory viewpoint, but more from a socio-structural viewpoint, to understand how an economic system affects people's lives.
Why is this important?
This is because some other observers think that capitalism is the route to "development." In other words, when societies ultimately adopt capitalism, they will have attained the highest, best and final stage of growth. They think that life won't get any better. These are the "modernization" theorists...while it is well and good that they "believe" that a particular system is better (I mean, after all, we all have our own views on the better way of doing something...seriously, do you think it is better to put the coffee powder into the cup first then pour hot water, or should you put the hot water in first and then add the coffee powder...which will taste better???) some modernization theorists were so convincing that they convinced policy makers to embark upon the "developmentalist" project. i.e. to bring development to the "third world" or "less developed" societies.
If these backward societies could get a dose of modernization, then they will eventually become "modern" and also live the good life, where there is abundant wealth, freedom of choice, freedom of expression etc etc.
Sometimes hindsight helps, sometimes it hinders. What I mean to say is that it would be great if we could look back over the last 50, 100 or 200 years to say that "modernization theory" was either right or wrong.
Unfortunately for us, modernization's record is patchy. It has "worked" in some places (like Singapore!!!) but failed miserably elsewhere (in most parts of Africa).
So how?
-----------------------------------------
Marx also commented on INDUSTRIAL capitalism. His analysis was that of "the factory" and its impact on "the workers."
We will look at his analysis, and apply it to, firstly, women. Why are most workers in the factory women? Why are men usually the supervisors, not the line workers?
Secondly, we will ask how does industrial capitalism cause WORKERS (some men, some women) to move for the purposes of finding work (migration).
Unlike "high end" expatriates, most migrant workers do "low end" jobs. How can we use Marx's criticisms of capitalism to explain this discrepancy and process?
------------------
Marx was not the only significant social theorist to criticize capitalism.
Max Weber had a very powerful critique of capitalism...he said that it had a "rationalizing" drive.
George Ritzer took this idea a couple of steps further and suggested that ever more facets of life were becoming "highly rationalized"...he called it "McDonaldization" of society. Everything was simplified. Everything now had a "sameness" about it.
A big mac in Singapore is the same as a big mac anywhere else it is sold...
The same.
We will look at McDonaldization of society, of your life, and even here in school. Yes, it is here as well...
Is there any hope for us?
-------------------------------------------
It gets worse...this "modernization" (which is really global capitalism) doesn't just affect stuff around us.
It affects us. It gets inside our heads, hearts, and er...everywhere else.
We will look at some aspects of "micro-level" modernization, the creation of the "modern" person and the so-called "modern" mindset. Modern is directly in contrast to being "traditional." And the modernization theorists would have us believe that being modern is infinitely better than being traditional.
Modernity brings about its own problems. More accurately, modernity makes us pretty weird. There are many examples of this, but we only have time to cover two aspects(this is really a backhanded way of saying I am really only interested in these two, the rest I don't care about so I don't want to lecture) CONSUMERISM and LOVE.
Hey, love and shopping. isn't that soooooooooooo modern?
Unfortunately, that is precisely the problem.
As Prof Chua Beng Huat said (sarcastically), "Life is Not Complete without Shopping..."
Gosh, there's got to be more to life than shopping, but apparently NOT! Many people are struck by "affluenza!"
Another "weird" thing that modernization does to you (not me) is that it messes us what you call LOVE, or what we sociologists call intimacy, trust and emotions.
----------------------------------
Finally, we look at the global in global capitalism. When capitalism goes around the world (global) it leaves footprints everywhere, and it changes lives.
We look at three aspects of globalization:
No, they're similar, but not the same.
Cosmopolitanism suggests that thanks to global capitalism, everywhere around the world will (eventually) become the same. And we all become the same. So that wherever we go around the world, we can feel "at home."
What would happen to "national cultures"?
Will Tokyo become like New York and like New Dehli and like London? All the same?
Hybridization is another related process which suggests that cultures are going to get "merged" into some new culture.
You know, like when English (language) came to Singapore and got all mixed up with Chinese, Hokkein, Malay, Tamil whatever else was here...we get a "hybrid language".
(Hey, can someone explain to me how the phrase "I see you no up" came about? It doesn't translate into any other language properly...)
But when we look more carefully into what gets merged (and what gets left out) we see that the merging is not always 50/50...
Finally, we look at glocalization. Experiencing globalization locally. In fact, we even get to discuss Hulk Hogan at university level.
Seriously.
We have one reading where people in the Sarawak rainforest watch WWE wrestling (not on cable or satellite, but on video tape).
What is interesting is that Hulk Hogan, while a global icon, is not seen by the forest people as "the Hulkster". They "re-interpret" Hogan from within their own lenses...the outcomes are truly interesting.
------------------------------------
I decided to bore you to tears now by giving you as much detail about the module contents so that you know what you are getting yourself into.
If these topics interest you, I guarantee you we're going on a rollercoaster ride.
If these topics bore you, you have been warned!!!
See you, or maybe not, in class.
Dr.P.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Sc3202_2009
Hello
We'll use this blog for more informal updates to the module.
What you see below was a mini-project that all the students did in 2006, where they were asked to write a short blog entry about an aspect of cultural globalization that occured in Singapore...
We'll use this blog for more informal updates to the module.
What you see below was a mini-project that all the students did in 2006, where they were asked to write a short blog entry about an aspect of cultural globalization that occured in Singapore...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)