Matt Reeser, Substantive Post Globalization,11/7/07, week 10

Janet Abu-Lughod's "Going Beyond Global Babble" offers another perspective on the effects of cultural interaction due to globalization. She first comments on the broad nature of globalization and culture and how this results in a 'global babble' that effectively constrains the discourse of this subject. She believes that the traditional views on globalization are old and dated, no longer relevant or correct. She believes they are too one sided concerning who gets affected in our global interplay. She argues that this process of interaction is a two-way street, everyone gets influenced.

She uses two market places or 'suq's' in Tunisia as an example of this. One was built by the French and is a haven for tourists and consuming culture. The other, just next door, is filled with the local peoples, without a tourist in sight. Some of the locals can be seen working in sweatshops, while others are listening to "Western" music. This scene, however, shows the stereotypical hegemonic relationship with the West (sweatshops), but also shows how local culture is progressively interacting with Western music. The music is a fusion between cultures and Janet believes this interaction originates outside of the West. The West receives this new style and runs with it. I think Janet's best observation was that form should not be confused with content. I agree with her that this is a problem and that people who cannot differentiate between the two build weak assumptions for their theories.

She also talks about the clash of perspective that is such a popular topic in the discourse of globalization. She explains how a Muslim's outrage concerning a heretical piece of work should be understood and appreciated. That writers should not just blindly counter protest and claim that freedom of speech is paramount. I disagree with her about this. I understand that we must create a greater sense of cross cultural appreciation and dialogue. However, if we say everybody is right then nothing gets done. I do not think life is that simple. Now, I think if she was confronted with this she would agree, so I think there is just something missing in her article. People should have a sense of mutual understanding that fosters compromise instead of affirming one's views and creating a more polarized reality.

I think her advocating a different view on globalization is warranted and that a perspective of greater understanding is needed. I agree with her, but at the same time do not understand why she writes this article with the feeling that this is a new idea. It's a pretty obvious one that has been around for a long time. It has been written about for centuries and anyone who can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time should be able to figure this out on their own.