Archive for October, 2007

The Disciplined Undiscipline of Global Studies

October 15, 2007

Michael Bowler
Assistant Professor and Acting Director, Global Studies Program
Winona State University
Email: mbowler@winona.edu

It is clear that global studies is not a discipline but a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary area of study, that is, the world in its diversity and complexity. The very reason why our focus has evolved into global studies is that no single discipline, or even combination of disciplines, does justice to understanding the world, human cultures, or global issues. Hence from understanding globalization, to the claims of new kinds of world orders, to global terrorism, the current Iraq war, or the Bollywood vs. Hollywood global cultures, disciplines left us with very unsatisfactory answers. In terms of understanding the Iraq war, for instance, political science, economics, and anthropology all fall short of providing this understanding because of global religion, social movements, global culture, and hegemonic forces all colliding. This multiplicity of factors is too complex for any one of these disciplines to effectively analyze.

Similarly, as my colleague at Winona State University and the long-time director of our program, Dr. Yogesh Grover, often observes, geographically as well as academically, the global studies unit of analysis is larger and more comprehensive that what is studied by the disciplines. The primary unit of analysis in global studies is the global as opposed to the regional, the national, or the local units of analyses employed by various disciplinary approaches. This provides another crucial example of not only how different global studies is compared to other disciplines, but also how unique and vital the perspective it offers is to understanding our world.

At the same time religious studies, the humanities, and the sciences have their own weaknesses, often failing to analyze the political and economic power of oil and other vital resources, of superpower foreign policy, as well as the accompanying economic and political dimensions of hatred and violence. However they each can bring important, unique insights that supplement narrower international-relations analyses in understanding the current situation in Iraq, for example.

The term discipline in its English usage reveals a narrow, concentrated focus that can never be that of global studies. At the same time global studies requires application of another meaning of discipline – rigor and seriousness – as it seeks to understand the world through multiple perspectives (that is, the first meaning of discipline) and at times through a holistic integrated, interdisciplinary lens.

“A community of learners dedicated to improving our world” constitutes the popular shortened version of our mission statement at Winona State University. This year in particular the global studies program will be emphasizing not only that it is impossible to understand the world in an exclusively multidisciplinary way, but especially that it is impossible to improve the world without understanding it. And this has wide ranging applications all the way from the Iraq war to globalization and including religious evangelization, climate change, terrorism, poverty, overpopulation, and development. Lots of efforts to improve our world have had ineffective or, worse, disastrous results because of a lack of a thorough understanding of the world or its parts. A case in point is the current Iraq war and American-Iranian relations, but also within the area of culture. Look at the effect of the American and international media successfully meddling in the broadcast of soccer games to first interject commercials into what had been a free-flowing game composed of two halves and secondly insisting on immediate results through the imposition of a shoot-out, thus forever altering this final segment of the game from what had been a team sport to an individual contest.

Many of our students deserve credit for choosing a global studies major based upon their interest in diverse human cultures, global issues, and the increasing internationalization of many careers. Unlike many global studies programs, one of the principal founders of our program was an American English professor who grew up in Japan. Thus there remain humanities connections to our program. This also matches up very nicely with the overwhelming number of students whose primary focus and interest is in the study of world cultures, particularly since we do not have an anthropology program.

While we are proud of the interest our students take in understanding culture globally, I also caution them that regardless of their global interests, a good understanding of the global environment, global conflict, and the global economy and globalization is essential. I advise even my most humanities-focused students that they would benefit enormously by studying the global economy in particular. Hence this is where it is necessary to interject the idea of discipline to students’ ongoing study of the world.

Our majors must take courses within two areas of study: global perspectives and regional perspectives. The former is made up of courses within four subcategories: the global environment, global governance, global society and culture, and the global economy. Not only does this multidisciplinary approach lead to the students’ understanding the current system and process of globalization more completely, it also provides the students with a better understanding of how our world is organized both in terms of parts and as a whole.

The regional perspectives area of study allows students the opportunity to study one part of the world in depth including language requirements and study abroad possibilities. Currently Asian, European, Latin American, and North American concentrations are possible.

Such a curriculum makes it possible for a student to both understand the different aspects of globalization and the global system as well as to gain a more complete understanding of one part of the world. The latter also enhances the former in terms of gaining important insights about global functions through coming to observe and understand how these work in one region of the world.

global-e volume 1 number 2 (October 2007)

Murdoch: Dow Now; What Next?

October 15, 2007

Michael Curtin
Professor of Media & Cultural Studies and Director of Global Studies
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Email: mcurtin@wisc.edu

News coverage of the recent sale of The Wall Street Journal featured breathless speculation about Rupert Murdoch’s ambitions. What does the world’s leading press baron see in a company that has been badly managed for more than a decade and now is buffeted by the plummeting fortunes of the newspaper industry? The most popular explanation is that Murdoch aims to use the Journal to burnish the reputation of the fledgling Fox Business Channel, a cable TV service that will soon premiere in the United States. This seems a reasonable presumption except for the fact it grossly overlooks the global implications of the sale.

Among its peers, News Corp is the most global media conglomerate in its perspective, operations, and history. During the 1960s, the company grew from a small Australian daily to a collection of media properties across the continent. Murdoch then extended his reach to the United Kingdom during the 1970s where he revived the Sun, which would become his most beloved newspaper enterprise. The Sun‘s raging success during the Thatcher years made it possible for Murdoch to borrow huge sums to finance his acquisition of the flagging Fox media empire and to establish a stake in European satellite TV. Then in the 1990s, News Corp borrowed heavily again to make a play for Star TV in Asia.

Fox, based in the U.S., is today the jewel in the News Corp crown. Yet nearly half of News Corp’s revenue (47%) comes from overseas and, most importantly, from markets that are growing rapidly. Customers in India and China pay far less for News Corp products, but the company anticipates that prices, revenues, and profits will rise with the economic fortunes of Asian countries.

One of the great shortcomings of the Journal during the 1980s and 1990s was its failure to expand internationally while the company coffers were full. Dow Jones established an Asian edition in 1976 and a European edition in 1983. Yet both publications foundered in large part because their overseas bureaus were undernourished, often recycling copy from the U.S. edition. Murdoch says he intends to build up the reporting staffs in Europe and Asia. Given past performance, he will likely improve delivery logistics, advertising sales, and online services.

News Corp is one of the few media giants that have learned to operate regional production centers and relatively efficient delivery systems in diverse social and cultural contexts. This demands more than financial or technological capacity. It requires recruitment and training of local professionals in hundreds of markets around the world. Yet the company wasn’t always so globally aware.

In 1993, shortly after News Corp spent more than a billion dollars on Star TV, Murdoch opined that the pan-continental satellite system would overcome the tyranny of distance and other forms of tyranny as well. He imagined hyperbolically that Hollywood content raining down across Asia would usher eager viewers into the global village and that they in turn would rise up against authoritarian regimes and in favor of Western consumer culture.

Like others at the time, Murdoch sensed an urgent rush of events, an epochal turn in human history. What he soon learned at great expense was that Star would only survive if it were to put in place staffing, programming, and infrastructure that were sensitive to cultural, political, and economic contexts on the ground. Today Star distributes 19 branded services on more than 60 satellite channels. Rather than a singular pan-Asian juggernaut, it offers a diverse range of programming – most of it produced in Asia – to a broad spectrum of viewers, and the sum of the parts still does not add up to a consistently profitable whole.

Murdoch has taken enormous risks throughout his career and has made some remarkable blunders, but he has also demonstrated an ability to turn around failing enterprises, develop new markets, and learn from his mistakes. And despite his conservative inclinations, he has also proven ideologically flexible when necessary, keeping his hands off of editorial content at such respected papers as The Australian and The Times of London, both of which took more than two decades to turn a profit. Murdoch not only proved to be a patient and committed owner, but a relatively benevolent one as well, in the latter case expanding the reporting staff significantly and almost tripling the number of overseas news bureaus. One anticipates that he will treat the Journal – and especially the reporting staff – with similar respect if only because he realizes that the premium value of the brand has always resided with its reputation as a relatively impartial news source.

One also imagines that Murdoch appreciates the global potential of the Journal and that’s no doubt why he was willing to pay such a high premium for the company. Thus, pundits shouldn’t look at this deal from a U.S. perspective, but should instead, like Murdoch, be thinking of China and India, Russia and Brazil, Mexico and Lebanon. They should think of all the aspiring capitalists in these countries searching for reliable information and of all the global corporations seeking intelligence about investment and market opportunities in these rapidly growing – but volatile – markets. This isn’t breathless speculation. It’s cold calculation. Whatever reversals the future may have in store for these societies, economists anticipate they will exert a powerful influence on the world economy for the rest of this century.

Few media conglomerates are positioned to take advantage of this shift. Murdoch is. What’s more, Murdoch actually believes in globalization and the transformative power of capitalism. He has the enthusiasm of an evangelist and an army of foot soldiers on the ground in countries around the world, and now he has the Journal. Don’t expect him to sully it with the taint of Fox News. Instead, expect him to exploit the global potential of a valuable news brand.

global-e volume 1 number 2 october 2007

Going Global the Santa Barbara Way

October 15, 2007

Mark Juergensmeyer
Director, Orfalea Center for Global & International Studies
University of California-Santa Barbara
Email: juergens@global.ucsb.edu

The University of California at Santa Barbara houses one of the country’s oldest global studies programs – it stretches all the way back to the 20th century. And it is one of the most innovative.

Founded in 1995, the global and international studies program at UC-Santa Barbara became the incubator of academic and research units that relate to the world’s rapidly changing global society. In 1999, it launched one of the country’s first global studies BA degree programs. To the surprise of the small group of faculty who were on volunteer loan from other departments in the social sciences and humanities, the global studies major quickly gained popularity. Within a few years the number of majors had peaked to over 800, making it one of the largest on campus. When the global majors were polled, they gave it the campus’s highest satisfactory rating.

Graduate programs soon followed. In 2003 a PhD emphasis in global studies was established. Coordinated by the global and international studies program, it was supported by six departments – anthropology, political science, sociology, history, religious studies, and English. Doctoral students in those departments take interdisciplinary seminars in global studies and receive what amounts to a graduate – level minor. On graduation their diplomas state that they have a PhD in sociology (or one of the other five participating disciplines) with an emphasis in global studies. The departments of economics and geography may soon join the consortium.

In 2006 a new MA in global and international studies was launched. The two-year program provides an academic background for students preparing for leadership in international agencies, especially international non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Funds to help create the program and a new research and programmatic center were provided by Paul Orfalea, founder of Kinko’s international chain of copy centers. The Orfalea Center supports the new MA program and provides an intellectual focus for global and international activities throughout the campus. Four new endowed chairs in global studies will be added to the campus in 2008, to be placed in several departments, including the global and international studies program.

At the heart of the UC-Santa Barbara programs are several features:

  • a commitment to creating global citizens. This means providing information and intellectual resources that will allow students to critically examine the complex forces that are shaping the contemporary world.
  • a focus on global civil society. Though the program examines organizations and trends, it emphasizes the agency of individuals and groups in affecting social change and helping to determine the course of global social, political, economic, cultural, and environmental forces.
  • an approach that is interdisciplinary. The undergraduate curriculum is balanced between courses in the social sciences and the humanities. One of the two introductory courses examines the history and culture of globalization; the other focuses on socioeconomic patterns and processes.
  • an emphasis on real-world experience. Undergraduates in the global studies major are expected to study abroad at some point in their career; many combine their international experience with required language training. MA students have a six-month internship abroad built into their academic program. Guest lecturers from government, business, journalism, and social service agencies address classes and give seminars.

The aim of these programs and activities is to create an approach to global studies that interacts with a wide range of disciplines and fields. The hope is that the students in the program will gain a critical awareness of the complex features of the contemporary world and be able to become more effective global citizens in the world’s emerging cosmopolitan society.

global-e volume 1 number 2 october 2007

What Should Be the Central Concerns of Global Studies?

October 15, 2007

Edward A. Kolodziej
Director, Center for Global Studies
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Email: edkoloj@uiuc.edu

Opinions vary widely in response to the question of what should be the central concerns of global studies programs. I would like to suggest two broad challenges:

  1. understanding and explaining the rise of a global society and delineating the unprecedented issues that this revolutionary condition poses for humans – whether they will survive and thrive – and
  2. continuing evaluation of the effectiveness, efficiency, and legitimacy of prevailing solutions to global governance in responding to these imperatives (a) to determine where current rule-based solutions fall short in meeting the needs and demands of the world’s diverse and divided populations and (b) to explore and devise new ways to do better.

These are tall orders – enough not only to justify the development of a new interdisciplinary and interprofessional program of studies within an already crowded academic agenda, but also a sufficiently broad and capacious framework for study and action to encompass most of what programs currently march under the banner of global studies.

The Problems Posed by the Rise of World Society

What is meant by the global society is the growing interconnectedness and interdependency of peoples and states over the past several centuries. This condition has been created and is now propelled relentlessly forward by instant worldwide communications; rapid, low-cost long-range transportation; accelerating rates of scientific discovery and technological innovation and the rapid dissemination of this knowledge to all parts and populations of the globe; and ceaseless expansion of global markets in trade, as well as monetary, financial, and labor flows across national borders.

What is new to the human condition is not only the widening scope, increased intensity, accumulating density, real-time speed and impact, cascading effects and synergisms of human exchanges across the globe over an increasing number of domains of concern to humans everywhere, but also, and now more relevantly, the progressive consciousness of this condition by enlarging segments of the world’s populations. Actors increasingly understand that what each actor wants depends more and more on the cooperation – consensually or coercively elicited – of millions (arguably billions) of other actors, arguably billions, depending on the issue to be addressed. Illustrative global issues include checking the spread of weapons of mass destruction, viral infections, and ecological disasters, creating greater plenty for the world’s populations, and promoting the human rights of the world’s six billion inhabitants, swelling to eight billion by 2030 and nine to ten billion by mid-century.

Given the scope and number of mutually dependent actors associated with the world society, global issues are ipso facto more complex and intractable than those at local, national, and regional levels in which the world society is embedded. More actors imply that more interests have to be taken into account. This means that more uncertainty about the outcomes of interdependent exchanges will inevitably arise as a consequence of the increased difficulty of estimating the differential power of actors to get their way. Increasingly solving global issues require that they be addressed simultaneously and synchronously at all levels of relevant human action; that is, globally.

Rule-Based Institutional Responses to the Problems of the World Society: The Crisis in Global Governance

Cooperation to address and solve the rising number and complexity of global problems is not a free good. It requires the elicited or induced cooperation of actors, most anonymous to each other, through rule-based institutions. These have evolved as the products of costly trial and error to suit human needs and demands.

The nation-state and the nation-state system have been the preferred choice of the world’s populations to provisionally address the challenge of domestic, national, and global order. But the solution is the problem. The nation-state is the shaky building block of a warfare system at perpetual sixes and sevens. This decentralized, anarchical system is also an impediment to collective action. Witness, for example, the slow progress and backsliding to cope with global warming since the signing of the Kyoto accord. Paradoxically, failed states, which are unable to discharge the state’s minimal but crucial obligation of security, threaten the viability of global order, as the war on terror suggests. These are only some of the obvious shortcomings of the nation-state and its system as a reliable solution to global order.

Similarly, global markets are the principal rule-based solution to the production and distribution of material wealth and welfare. The market system is also its own stunning failure. As a social institution it understandably rewards the endowed, resourceful, and creative. The social result is both the production of untold material wealth and, as the downside, the unequal distribution of wealth and, accordingly, the unequal distribution of political power in the hands of the few vs. the many. Nor are free and fair markets, their impressive benefits notwithstanding, designed to address chronic and widespread global poverty. As Jeffrey Sachs persuasively argues, the coercive power of the rich states must be enlisted to marshal and distribute the resources in their possession to pull almost half of humanity out of poverty. Markets can’t do the job.

Finally, authority for all rule-based institutions implies the approval of those who are ruled. Popular or democratic government appears to be the appropriate solution to the imperative of legitimacy as an indispensable component of effective governance. But can we be sure that this solution is apt for the times? As Peter Singer has made clear there is a yawning disconnect between the power of nation-states and their populations and the impact of their decisions to address the entire range of issues confronting the world’s populations in a fair and equitable manner. Which states, for example, gain most from World Trade Organization trading rules? The democratic deficit at a global level is immediately revealed in posing this question. Certainly the strong do not hold the short straws.

Nor can democratic regimes be automatically expected to protect human rights and the interests of their minorities. James Madison posed this issue over two centuries ago in No. 10 of the Federalist Papers. It is no less relevant today than it was then. A key explanation for the Dutch rejection of the European Constitution in 2005 was widespread fear that the interests of a small nation would be swamped in a larger, albeit more democratic-based, European Union.

There is also the issue of effective, not just legitimate, governance. Sir Henry Maine stressed the point over a century ago that “there can be no grosser mistake [than] to have an impression that Democracy differs from Monarchy in essence…. The tests of success in the performance of the necessary and natural duties of a government are precisely the same in both cases.” This concern is echoed today in Bryan Caplan’s The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies.

Identifying the problems of a global society is no small task or trivial pursuit. There can be no solution to the problems posed by a world society unless the problems themselves are clearly delineated and widely understood. No solution is likely or lasting unless the human and material resources of actors needed to address these imperatives are coordinated through effective, efficient, and legitimate rule-based institutions.

QED: the object of study and action of global studies programs is the world society and global governance.

global-e volume 1 number 2 october 2007


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 128 other followers