Global Studies Exam 1

global turn

• when new perspectives came out about the global

as global scholars we have to decenter from western ideas and detach ourselves from bias

decentering

• when you take yourself out of assumptions and look in with new perspectives

global transdiciplinary framework

• making scholarly knowledge relevant to global issues

• going beyond traditional academic disciplines

the global worldview started when?

• after the world wars

bottom-up perspective

• when you think about the people involved and then go up the hierarchy

• see non-European peoples perspective

3 different types of globalization

1. hyperglobalists

   1. focus on economy

   2. global capitalism

2. skeptics

   1. money expansion doesn’t represent historical

   2. global things don’t have worldwide reach

3. transformationalist

   1. interconnected between econ and culture

   2. lots of change is happening but dont know why

Your own paradigm

• can have contradictory ideas

• some components are important to how we think about oursevles and the world

  • and can motivate our actions/choices

• we are being offered new explanatory models to expand our own paradigm

what are the options that can happen when a new idea comes our way

1. it can fly right over because we have nothing to attach it to

2. we have a new idea that fits right into our own personal explanatory model/paradigm

3. the new idea might hit the base of our explanataory model/paradigm and create productive discomfort

what are the three questions you consider when you are recognizing your own paradigm

• am i good

• am i safe

• am i lovable

productive discomfort definition

• when you feel something, indicating that it means something to you

what is one main goal of global studies

• to take your framework that is behind you and put it into view

When did people start thinking about the global as interconnected in this

• post WWI and WWII

• creation of the UN

• worlds fair

• space race and apollo missions

• earth day

• conflicts within post-colonial states = destabilizing forces and impacting scholarships

why did people start thinking the global was interconnected after WWI and WWII

• because people started seeing interaction with people in different ways

• highlighting conflict

why did people start thinking the global was interconnected after the worlds fair

• bringing the idea of what the global looks like

why did people start thinking the global was interconnected after space race and apollo missions

• gave outsiders a view to the world

what was unsettled in scholar’s minds when it came to the global (3)

1. state soverignty

   1. to what extent do these entities have the ability to dictate rules

   2. what rules do they have

2. citizenship

   1. belonging to a nation-state

   2. being able to participate in the political process of a state

3. nationalism

• these things and our understanding of them were shifting when global studies was on the rise

what is a nationstate

• an ideology that a group of people have the right to bein control of that terriory of the political entity

• the political unit of the world

• we are a world of nationstates

• nation (the actual people)

• state (the poltiical entity)

what is the international

• the global community of nation-states

what new fields of studies were on the rise

• cultural studies

• ethnic studies

• area studies

• women and gender studies

what did it look like when scholars first started to study the global

• was anchored in the nation-state framework and focused attention on interantional institutions and flows

• global flows moving faster going everywhere all at the same time

• they were learning more about the nationstates

• thought the global was just paid movement and things moving faster all the time

what would a better global imaginary look like according to darin-smith and mccarty

• basically what we should be moving towareds

1. think holistically

2. take epistemic hierachies into account

3. practice decentering

4. think differently about scale

   1. move from a nested scale to assemblage

what does it mean to think holistically

• the whole igreater than the sum of its parts

• the whole contains properties that can’t be discovered through the analysis of parts

• everything should be understood in its context

what are epistemic hierachies

• structured systems of inequality that determine whose knoweldge/ways of knowing are considered vaild or right

• we need to be careful of our own predispoisitions and not think some are better than others

• in our head we have our own set of ideas and by default we put them in a hierarchy

what are the components that come with practicing decentering

• historicizing and contexualizing modernist assumptions

  • need to be careful of modernist assumptions putting things in a linear way (this caused this)

  • where these ideas come from (historically) and contextualizing

• recognizing and incorporating non-Western epistemollogies

  • how we understand other paradigms

  • there is an underlying tendency to see the west as the source of theory and the rest of the world as data

• focusing on assemblages of power and authority rather than on the nation-state

  • what do we pay attention to to understand how things work

defintion of assemblages

• combing things you didn’t know were connected

• the system itself

what is a nested scale

• layers within one another

• government and then inside is the house and inside is the people and so on

• not really relationships based more hierachical

what does it mean to think differently about scale

• move from a nested scale to assemblage

• theres this idea that things at the top of the nested scale are the most important

  • the global wants us to put it all on the same level

• shouldn’t think big bosses to little people in global studies

we don’t start with the nation state we start with the systems

the local and the global are…

• mutually constitutive

  • they produce each other

  • with global there is local involved

what is the unit of analysis in global studies

• the nationstate

global transdiciplinary framework

• we need a basic understanding of our paradigm/framework befor emoving on

• the unit of analysis is the nationstate

• global is too complex to have one discipline handle it

global imaginary defintion

• what we want the global to be

• our idea of it

having friction, or making connections with those that aren’t like us or the opposite allows us to inform our models of cultural production

• Some scholars see movements like environmentalism and gay rights as a global force to do something (coercion) and others see it as hope for the future 

  • Former are cultural theorists that see new disciplinary power

  • Latter are activists 

  • Instead of going at each other it would be more productive to interconnect

friction is what happens in between what?

• the assemblages

we have to get out of locality to understand the universal

which author heavily believed that many things in the world is because of assemblages being drawn together to accomplish a goal

• Anna Tsing

tsing said that if we only focus on the global we will miss the networks that are involved

what is our world functioning through

• nation-states but also through assemblages

describe scale & the authors pov

• nested hierachies is a paradigm of scales and how the world is organized

• tsing and other authors think that that is only one piece of the whole story

what is globalization

• proceess by which goods, services, capital, people, information and ideas flow across national borders

• the way that different aspects of the world are drawn together

• exchange and integration

what is the goal of globalization

• interdependence

  • the idea that integration will reduce war

• in the wake of the mass world wars they needed to find a way to prevent war again

  • and if we need the other country to survive then we won’t fight

what is Tsing argue against

• scale and circulation space time compression

• she believes that globalization is created through friction instead

what is circulation

• things moving around

  • integration and exchange

what is space time compression

• as systems of travel, communication, media of things advance the world seems smaller and moving faster

• they feel more connected

• the physical distance doesn’t change but the time it takes to cross that distance gets shorter

what is [we]

• kinda like the default hegemonic worldview

• they imagine globalization as flows that are moving ever faster going everywhere all the time, in the same way

• hegemonic euro-american wordlview

what is the definition of hegemonic

• dominant

  • has the most power and institutional force behind it

• everything else that is like against this pov is counterhegemonic

what does [we] believe in

• they believe in the idea that we were always going to get to the oint where there is inevitable global interdepedence

  • we’ve never been here before but it was always coming

• the whole world is moderinizing

  • there is a linear trajectory with a known destination

    • and that destination is modernity (everything will lookl ike new york! or denmark!)

  • as globalization unfolds we will become more uniform

• global economic integration will lead to less war/conflict and more prosperity

• the unit of analysis is vewrtical and nested

  • global - national - local

  • and the global is the most important than the local

• feels like the world is getting smaller and time is moving faster

  • space-time compression

• all differences will disapear

• homogenization

  • everyone will eat, buy, drink, read the same thing

• we all started at the same place (hunter gatherers) and we might have different processes of getting there but we will end up at the same place as well (a modern state)

anna tsing supports or does not support [we]

• anna tsing doesn’t support [we] and argues against it

• she thinks of it as: what are the problems with the [we]

what are some questions Anna Tsing things [we] doesn’t address

• who and and what is “doing” globalization

• why are they doing it

• how do they get poeple to participate in it

  • how do people in [we] get people to do things they want

what is globalization as a project

• what anna tsing thinks globalization is

• it is something that somebody and lots of somebodies want to accomplish

• it doesn’t just exist it actively is trying to be accomploished

  • and using assemblages to accomplish something they call the global

• need to pay attention to the specifics

  • instead of everything everywhere, who are the people involved?

• pay attention to assemblages: the social practices, material infrastructure, cultural negotiations, institutions and power relationships through which projects work or are connected

what are tsings main beliefs

• we need to recognize that it isn’t all happening in the same way, everywhere, all the time

  • instead some movements are much bigger than others due to historical and contextual reasons (sudanese music vs bts)

  • some ideas/people/things get to move more freely than others

  • it isn’t a universall flow across the world, there are channels and people can resist them

• globalization doesn’t just happen, it takes a lot of work (friction)

• the world isn’t headed in a known direction (modernization), the local isn’t going to just get flattened by global trends, we need to look at assemblages

tsing’s three types of friction

• friction is the way of describing the work that is required to make things happen

1. effort to get anything done

   1. all the effort that goes in to call something globalization

      all the work that somebody has to do to sell their stuff

   2. difficulty of making things happen when different people, places, and systems have to interact

   3. enabling, getting things done

2. contradiction and misfiring of different projects

   1. different projects geting put out is contingent of other things

   2. might do it badly or competing with each other

   3. potential conflict in the project to accomplish something

   4. possibiliity that it might work as you want it

3. pushback

   1. people saying no

   2. nothing to do with how good or bad the product is

contingent meaning

• depends on something else being true

what does [we] believe about the differences of the world

• [we] believes that the differences will just disappear but Anna says no, that isn’t how it works they don’t just disappear

what types of friction is this: friction is enabling and constraining

• enabling = #1

• constraining = #3

what type of friction is this: misdirection, misfire, contradiction

• #2

what is one of the key ways that people try to get “global things” to happen

• by asserting universals and building systems to enforce them

what are universals

• aspirations, not finished truths

  • ex. equality of humankin, human rights

• universals travel and are transformed by encounters across difference

• they can be misinterpreted at times too and be a cause for imperial domination or liberatory mobilizations (freedom)

glocalization

• the local is not an assertion against or counterpoint to the global

  • not trying to resist globalization but local places are usually shaped by the gloabl

• increasing connectednedss of many locals

  • local communities connected

  • ex. farmers using the same global supply chain

• construction of differentiation

  • take on things that are global (like mcdonalds) and put their own spring (saudi making it halal)

• interaction of the local and the global

the reason why kpop is more popular than sudaense music isn’t accidental there is a reason behind it

example of contradiction (type of friction)

• starbucks trying to come to italy and not taking into account their coffee culture

what does huntington believe the dominating thing that will bring conflict be

• culture

what does huntington believe will dominate global politics

• the clashing of civilizations

how does huntington believe people should be grouped

• by their culture and civilization and not economic or political status

what is a civilization

• a cultural entity defined by language, religion, customs

the civilization you belong to is the broadest level, you can redefine your identity and that makes the composition and boundaries of civilization change

• there can be subcivilizations

  • ex. sunni muslims within ISLAM

westerners think that nation states are the main people in global affairs when huntingtion thinks it is civilizations

after the cold war idelogies weren’t as important as cultural similarites

why are civilizations going to crash according to huntington

1. there are obvious differences

2. the world is becoming a smaller place

   1. interactions between people of differing civilizations is happening and people are more conscious of their civilization

      1. and that sparks differences

3. economic modernization and social change through the world are making people separate from local identities

   1. nationstate isn’t the identitiy and now religon/civiilization comes to fill it in

4. people are being more conscious of their civilization amd moving away from western idelogies

5. cultural characteristics are less mutable (able to be changed) and can’t be easily comprosies

   1. what are you can’t really change (i will always be sudanese)

6. increase of economic regionalism

   1. only care about their area’s money

what are the two levels that clash of civilizations can happen

• micro: differences in control of territory

• macro: military and ecnomic power

what is fundamentalism

• when new groups of usually young people come together to promote their views

some civilizations are trying to modernize and not westernize

what are the three requirements for a civilization to redefine its identity

1. the political and economic elite have to be supportive of the move

2. public has to agree in the redefinition

3. dominant groups in the civiolization have to be willing to embrace the convert

why does said think huntington’s misleading

• he relies on 2nd and 3rd hand perspectives

• he stole the clash of civilizations phrase

what does Said not agree with in Huntingtons views

• Huntington thinks “us vs them” and Said disgrees

• this falls into the ideas of orientatlism

orientalism definition

• the way that western countries view anyone that isn’t them as weird and not right

• orientlaism can be a form of hegemony

what does Said think we live in

• a clash of differences and not separate civilizations

what does said believe for in terms of teaching history and culture

• history and culture should be taught through interconnectedness and not based on nations

• each group/civilization shouldn’t be treated as homogenous or the same

  • ex. there are so many different people in Islam we don’t all want the same things

Said believes civilizations are always mixing and aren’t in tight compartments

what is the idea of invented traditions

• this builds on the fact that Said sees civilizations as always changing and mixing

• they come up with their own traditions and stuff

Describe the difference of huntingtons idea and Saids perspective on civilizations fighting

• Huntington thinks that civilizations will go against each other

• Said thinks that if think that the world is bound to fight each other, people will fear them and not want to engage

Said thinks we can maintain our differences by working together

Said believes in global consciousness and away from Huntington’s idea of differences and conflict

huntingtion and monolitic civilizations

• huntington sees that all civilizations have the same values and ideas

  • that they are monolitic

  • muslims only have westerns in mind and how much they hate them

what does huntington not discuss in terms of official cultures

• huntington doesn’t talk about how there is an official culture of the state and there is counterculture that is comprised of unorthodox strands of culture that don’t go with the official one

Said believes you have to define culture and not just state the differences

is civilization stable or unstable according to Said

• unstable because it is disproven by the idea that traditions can be invented

series of questions that have to do about how we think about how different places in the globe relate to each other

What justifies being in charge of a political entity, how are groups of people tied to political entities, how does that impact how people think about themselves as political actors, and how does all of the above shape conflict?

what is the default euro american paradigm of how the world operates

• [We]

  • we can recognize that this worldview has power but we don’t have to agree with it

what is [we] globalization

• world is getting smaller

• local difference will be squashed and everywhere will become new york

• it will happen whether you want it or not

  • but tsing doesn’t think that — it is a process

tsing thinks that if you only say here is the world based on nationstates you miss out on how the world actually works

• how the different world areas and institutions relate to each other that doesn’t start as the nation as the default unit of analysis

does tsing believe that the nationstate should be the default unit of analysis

• no, she thinks we have to also consider the assemblages and the parts that make it up

what justifies being in a political enttity

• divine rights of kings

• consent of the governed

what is define rights of kings

• decides who lives and dies

• God has organized the political unit around the world

• authority comes from God

  • and then the king has authority over the people (their his subjects)

what is consent of the governed

• the legitimacy of the ruling entity comes from the people

• we put you in charge because you promised to listen to us and so we consent to your rules

• a social contract

how are groups of people tied to political entities

• in divine rights of kings there are subjects of the king

  • when the territory expands, the new people are the subjects of the king

• in consent of the governed, it is the nation of people

  • group of people

  • the unity gives them the coherence necessary to consent

  • the nation is the nation of the people

  • and this matters because it impacts how people see themselves as political actors

what are we a global community of

• nationstates

  • nations of people with a political entity and they have a relaationship with each other

what is the political logic of nationstates

• nationalism

• how does that group of people become constituted (formed)