Readings: Wilson, The Intimate Economies of Bangkok

1. What does Wilson mean by intimate economies? How does she use this term to challenge other ideas about the economic?

2. How does Wilson's account of life in Bangkok contrast to Mills's? What are the strengths and weaknesses of each?

3. How, according to Wilson, are gender and ethnicity involved in the economic transformations associated with modernity in Thailand? How do these transformations enable different configurations of gender?

4. Take some time to figure out the key elements of each of Wilson's case studies (department store, go-go bars, shopping malls, information technology company, Avon/Amway). How do they each show the connection between transnationality/globalization and sexuality/gender? (Remember to think of gender and sexuality in both social and symbolic terms.)

 

Question for Response Paper #9 (required): The Intimacy of Global Capitalism

Ara Wilson writes that her goal is to challenge assumptions that capitalism is impersonal by "revealing the intimacy within modern global capitalist venues" (8-9). Picking one example of intimacy from the book, explore how Wilson uses it to show social texture (ethnicity, kinship, gender, and sexuality) and relations of power within capitalism. Based on her arguments, how should we understand capitalism as caught up with the intimacy of people's lives? Based on the example you chose, what would you say are the strengths, weaknesses, and significance of her ethnography?

For tips about crafting response papers, click here.

 

For more information, contact:  aleshkow@holycross.edu