Entries Tagged 'globalization' ↓

Unsurprisingly (at least to me), the Irish have declined to sit under the EU umbrella, and have decided to remain a sovereign nation. The Guardian “reports” in a fit of pique:

The long campaign to forge a new dispensation for the European Union descended into panic and uncertainty yesterday when Ireland turned its back on its 26 EU partners and voted down the Lisbon Treaty.

EU leaders in Brussels and governments across the union, particularly Germany and France, were stunned by the Irish verdict, which amounted to a huge vote of no confidence in the way the EU is run.

The referendum in Ireland was the sole popular vote in the EU on the grand plan to give Europe a sitting president and foreign minister, and reconfigure the way the EU is governed. The result left the project severely wounded, perhaps fatally.

Almost the entire article is given over to how screwed the EU is as a result of this. Only when we reach the last paragraph are readers told why the Irish voted down the notion of being dominated by a “European” parliament [e.a.]:

The no vote was boosted by concerns over sovereignty, possible tax harmonisation, neutrality, and fears that the treaty could erode Ireland’s abortion ban, all issues that analysts say are fatuous.

So let me get this straight:

• sovereignty [the fundamental right of every nation-state  --ed.];
• tax “harmonisation” [calling Mr. Orwell!  --ed.];
• geopolitical neutrality [regardless of the national security interests of your people, and of stakes?  --ed.];
• culture-specific social laws [even if I personally am an enthusiastic supporter of overturning abortion bans---and I most certainly am---I would never think to impose my social-engineering beliefs on those of another culture; it is proving hard enough to maintain them in our own (familiar) culture  ---ed.].

These concerns are fatuous? In what universe?

Look out, Universal Studios–there’s a new kid in town. In Bulgaria, that is:

SOFIA, Bulgaria — The building site stands five miles south of central Sofia, but the facades of the new structures would fit in easily among the low-rises of SoHo, Chinatown, and Little Italy. Two cars sporting the New York City Police Department logo are parked on the street, and copies of several New York publications clutter the windows of a street-corner newsstand.

“We’re creating a new New York,” David Varod proclaims as he watches the 200-person construction crew at work.

Mr. Varod is chairman of Nu Boyana Film Studios, which is erecting a gigantic set designed to mimic the architectural style and layout of Lower Manhattan’s neighborhoods. When Nu Boyana’s “new New York” is ready for lights, camera, and action in April, moviemakers whose scripts are set in New York City will be able to shoot their films in this Balkan nation for a fraction of the cost.

It doesn’t look like New York at all. But that’s the magic of the movies—and globalization at work, too.

Thomas Mallon wonders aloud what today’s intellectual climate bodes for the future. Here are a few of his musings:

How can American professors learn to write about literature in language that isn’t a crude, pseudo-technical insult to the text it’s supposedly explicating?

[A]re owners of intellectual property willing to realize that longer and longer copyright terms are doing more to inhibit than promote creativity?

Are American writers, artists, and thinkers truly prepared to admit that Islamofascism is a real, and even imminent, threat to everything they are accustomed to thinking, saying, and creating?

That last one is what caught my eye on Andrew Sullivan’s blog. But this one is my personal favorite, because it addresses the question that came up after 9/11 that was never addressed honestly: why “they” hate us.

Are we also willing to admit that the universalization of English is more apparent than real? And that our general failure to know foreign languages is an act of both laziness and arrogance — one that threatens America’s legitimate claims to leadership in the world?

One reason “they” hate us is that we don’t even care enough about any of “them” to even learn their goddam languages or custums. As a nation, we are dangerously self-involved—and smug about it to boot. That has got to change.

via FishBowlNY

’cause he can have it both ways: he can peddle crap and claim there are limits even for him. He’s got nowhere to go but up.

p.s. Those of you watching global media trends should take note:

[Murdoch] made it clear his ardor had cooled for the media business in China. India “is a working democracy, with rule of law. We find it is most exciting” among developing countries for media.

“China is immense, [but its government] is not opening it up yet.” He cited problems that Google (GOOG) and Yahoo! (YHOO) have had with the government, and noted that eBay (EBAY) has “folded its tent.”

Incidentally, there’s a long piece in the business section of yesterday’s New York Times about the success of market capitalism in India–worth a read.

Deregulation and new technology have combined to produce an explosion of new offerings. Before the early 1990s, a single government broadcaster provided a handful of channels. Now a crowded field of domestic and global media companies, including the News Corporation, Sony Entertainment and Walt Disney, offer hundreds of channels.

Indian films, especially the flashy musicals and dramas of Bollywood, have grabbed plenty of attention in the West. But the country’s lesser-known television business is more than twice as big, with an estimated $3.4 billion in revenue in 2005, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers. It is also starting to exert greater cultural influence. …

There are roughly 105 million homes with televisions in India, up from 88 million in 2000. The current number of television households is about the same as in the United States, though for India that amounts to only about half of the country’s households, compared with 98 percent in the United States. …

Interestingly, the growth exploded after the Indian government deregulated:

Previously, India’s ruling elite had a dual and somewhat contradictory view of broadcasting. On the one hand, politicians considered it too powerful a force to be left to the private sector, especially in the years after independence in 1947, when the nation’s unity and secularism were considered vulnerable. On the other hand, television was seen as too frivolous to merit much investment at a time when politicians were focused on turning India into an industrial power.

Those attitudes began to change after a financial crisis in the early ’90s forced the Indian government to devalue its currency, the rupee, and to start relinquishing its tight control over the economy. Then, in 1995, the country’s highest court declared the government’s monopoly over broadcasting unconstitutional.

When it did yield, India went further in deregulating television than it did in other sectors of the economy. It also gave up far more control when compared with China, the country against which it is most often measured. Foreign media companies can fully own entertainment networks here; they cannot in China. (India does, however, limit foreign ownership to 26 percent of television news channels and newspapers.)

Interesting.

Which is more effective—hate-speech laws or the race-tinged animosities broadcast across the Sceptr’ed Isle in Celebrity Big Brother? The Sun tabloid isn’t waiting around for anyone to pass a law or do a study. It addresses race and class issues head-on, if shockingly.

Graham Dudman, the Sun’s managing editor, writes:

We all need to take a stand against racism, which is why we at the Sun have put the issue on the front page.

The idea of this front page was that it was intended to shock. We knew some people would find it offensive that we had used these words. But we had the permission of the children concerned, and their parents, and went ahead after full consultation with Trevor Phillips and the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR).

The point is that, whether we like it or not, this language is in our playgrounds and on the street every day. And it is absolutely wrong. What starts with this kind of racist name-calling is that people are getting marginalised. And that breeds extremism, which leads ultimately, as we saw with 7/7, to young people being willing to cause mayhem and kill innocents by blowing themselves up.

Not everyone is buying, of course:

What then, to make of today’s Sun front-page? On one level, it deserves to be welcomed and applauded. Any message which points out the values and life that we share, that prejudice based both on background and on the colour of our skin is completely unacceptable, and that children especially are often the ones that suffer the most from the unkindness and closed-minds of their peers ought to be celebrated, especially coming from a paper with such a poor history both of promoting forgiveness and tolerance. It’s just that I don’t believe the Sun means it, and there are also far more sinister undertones beneath its apparent road to Damascus-type conversion.

Such as?

[T]he very reason for the Sun running this on their front page has to be related in no small measure to the decision of Shilpa Shetty to sell her story to [the Sun's rival] the Mirror.

Ah, the pressures the free market.

Except: there is something to be said for it, of course. And for pop culture as well, as the brilliant Charles Paul Freund noted in 2003:

A different sort of conflict broke out this summer in the Middle East — one involving reality TV [an Arab American Idol clone called Superstar]. While it offers more evidence that the region is in the grip of a liberationist pop culture frenzy (see “Look Who’s Rocking the Casbah,” June), it also demonstrates that even the region’s pop fandom can fall prey to conspiracy theories and divisiveness. …

Supposedly, the entire Jordanian army had been ordered to vote for Jordan’s contestant. Supposedly, Lebanese leaders had failed the nation by not mobilizing support for Zein. Supposedly, Syria, which controls Lebanon [not anymore, of course --ed.], had exerted itself to control Superstar as well.

And that was a good thing, said Freund, because:

as fan-based cultural identity grows in the region, it expresses itself in terms of the area’s traditional nationalist or sectarian divisions, engendering group enmity and suspicion. The effect of commercial culture, however, is to dissipate conflict by lowering the stakes. Modernist identities (drawing on such influences as fandom) are fluid and changeable; the resulting communities of interest are numerous and temporary. Zein’s fans have now contented themselves with creating a Web site in his honor.

Superstar’s winner, by the way, was Diana Karazone, the singer from Jordan.

Commercial culture dissipates conflict by lowering the stakes—that is a brilliant insight on Freund’s part and a useful one when you throw it into the mix with what Aayan Hirsi Ali and David Kilcullen have to say.
And then you start to think about things in a different way: the aura of rock stardom that, for example, Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah has created for himself and his movement: he seems to be seeking (and gaining) fans more than converts.

And then you start to think about the description “[r]ising al-Qaeda star Abu Yehya al-Libi” that Abu Aardvark used (with good reason) the other day when describing a propaganda video.

And then you remember back when France was threatening to ban head scarves in the public schools, Jeremy Harding suggested that maybe somehow the French were less culturally evolved than the British when it came to manipulating cultural “signs”:

In Britain, we know how to nurture an ironic infatuation with signs of difference, status and style. Maybe the flummery and camp of our political institutions and our enthusiastic approval of layering and posturing have helped us to achieve our multiculturalism. That we got usefully from Black Rod’s tights to Ali G’s tracksuit (probably via Dad’s Army) is not going to help us understand the French position, whose Jacobin demand for the transparent citizen is something we recoil from.

And then your head explodes.

Plumpness and voluptuousness used to be considered not only signs of beauty in Brazil but also signs of status. Now all that is changing, reports the New York Times, and international standards of impossible-to-attain beauty—beamed across the globe via satellite TV—are wreaking havoc:

Brazil may well be the most body-conscious society in the world, but that body has always been Brazil’s confident own — not a North American or European one.

For women here that has meant having a little more flesh, distributed differently to emphasize the bottom over the top, the contours of a guitar rather than an hourglass, and most certainly not a twig. Anorexia, though long associated with wealthier industrialized countries, was an affliction all but unheard-of here.

But that was before the incursions of the Barbie aesthetic, celebrity models, satellite television and medical makeovers made it clear just how far some imported notions of beauty, desirability and health have encroached on Brazilian ideals once considered inviolate.

And now that six young Brazilian women have died of anorexia in a relatively short time, everyone is anxious and upset. Some critics accuse dark international forces of imposing their standards on poor little Brazil, but surely the truth is more interesting than that.

One academic comes through, suggesting that it’s a kind of rebellion against tyranny:

Ms. del Priore, the historian, pointed to other fundamental changes, which she said have led to a rebellion against machismo and the patriarchal structure that she believes persists here.

“This abrupt shift is a feminine decision that reflects changing roles” as women move out of the home and into the workplace, she said. “Men are still resisting and clearly prefer the rounder, fleshier type. But women want to be free and powerful, and one way to reject submission is to adopt these international standards that have nothing to do with Brazilian society.”

Interesting.