Read: Appadurai, "Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy" (article)
Hannerz, "Cosmopolitans and Locals in World Culture" (article)
Freeman, "Is Local : Global as Feminine : Masculine? Rethinking the Gender of Globalization" (article)
Said, Orientalism, pp. 1-28 (article)
Bhabha, "Of Mimicry and Men" (article)
Chakrabarty, "The Difference-Deferral of a Colonial Modernity" (article)

1. In class, we talked about globalization as producing heterogenization and/or homogenization, depending on one's perspective. How does each of the authors we're reading for this week conceptualize globalization, and how would each weigh in on the homogenization/heterogenization question?

2. Why does Appadurai see the emerging global cultural economy as a series of disjunctures? What are the various scapes he describes -- ethnoscapes, mediascapes, technoscapes, financescapes, and ideoscapes? How might they help us to understand the cultural dimensions of globalization?

3. According to Hannerz, who are cosmopolitans? Who aren't? What is the role of cosmopolitans in creating what Hannerz sees as one world culture? How does Hannerz's view of globalization differ from Appadurai's?

4. Freeman entitles her article with a question: "Is Local : Global as Feminine : Masculine?" What is her answer to this question? What do you see as the strengths and weaknesses of her argument?

5. How does Freeman's assessment of the relationship between Caribbean higglers and globalization differ from Hannerz's analysis of Nigerian traders and globalization? Whose analysis do you find more compelling, and why?

6. What does Said identify as the three primary forms of Orientalism? How are they connected to each other?

7. Why, according to Said, is all knowledge about the Orient political? What are the advantages and disadvantages to this perspective?

8. What does Bhabha mean by mimicry? What are its effects?

9. According to Chakrabarty, why did debates about women and domesticity form such a crucial part middle-class Bengali nationalist responses to British colonialism and its model of modernity?

Question for Response Paper #1: The readings for this week can be seen as grouped into two sets of three, the first three focusing on globalization and the second group of three looking at colonialism. Within each set, two authors analyze the general cultural dynamics of globalization (Hannerz, Appadurai) or colonialism (Said, Bhabha). Then, a third article (Freeman or Chakrabarty) suggests that these dynamics shift markedly and significantly when one pays attention to gender.

Your writing assignment for this week is to pick one of these two subgroups of articles and, by comparing and critiquing the three arguments presented, develop your own conclusions about how attention to gender might affect our understanding of globalization or colonialism as cultural processes.

Hints: The goal for this paper is for you to put three articles in dialogue with each other so that you might then advance your own perspective on the relationship between gender and colonialism or globalization. Since this is a brief paper, it's fine for you to focus your analysis on the one or two points that you consider most important. It is better for you to delve into a smaller number of points with some complexity than to cover more points, but in a general or cursory way. If you are picking just one or two main points to consider, it might be helpful for you to explain that in your introductory paragraph and to state exactly why you believe these points are in fact the most important to consider.

For more information, contact:  aleshkow@holycross.edu