NTNU GITI BLOG: # 5 Oct 14 - Translation and Globalization

# 5 Oct 14 - Translation and Globalization

#5 “How sushi went global,” Theordore C. Bestor & “McDonald’s in Hong Kong,” James L. Watson in The Globalization Reader, pp. 121-5, 126-134.

5 意見:

Unknown 提到...: This week’s articles — “How Sushi Went Global” and “McDonald’s in Hong Kong” — both offered somewhat similar narrative-style accounts of globalization as it pertains to the ‘food’ industry. Both articles focused the discussion quite heavily on the nature of, what might be called, the ‘overlap’ between the global, the transnational, and the local aspects of globalization. The overall consensus of these, and other, articles that we have read seems to be that points of contact between two, or more, different cultures, or traditions, are not only fertile grounds for the development of hybridized products and practices but also, more often than not, an opportunity for the creation of an entirely new ‘entity’. Unfortunately, since this just seems like common sense more than anything else, I didn’t find the discussion in either article particularly enlightening. In particular, I felt that the second article — “McDonald’s in Hong Kong” — was presented more like a slideshow of family vacation pictures than like an academic article. I realize that the authors of these two articles are well-respected Anthropology and East Asian Studies professors from prestigious American universities but, at the same time, the ‘McDonald’s article reads like nothing more than an ‘old-school’ ethnocentric-style account of an alien culture given by a ‘white man’ living in a foreign land. It would have been nice, perhaps, to see a bit of empirical data to back up some of the grandiose conclusions that Watson seems to draw about Chinese culture and cultural change. This is especially true since most of the information presented in the article comes to Watson in the form of stories passed along by friends and, in some cases, about friends of friends of friend’s grandchild, and so on. In other words, I feel that Watson’s data collection methods are far from formal and, perhaps as such, not entirely adequate enough to base such far-reaching conclusions on.
Bestor’s article about sushi and the tuna fishing industry that goes along with it, on the other hand, seems to be much more valuable in that it describes, in tangible terms, the circumstances surrounding this particular example of globalization. In short, I feel that Bestor presents what seems to be a much more thoroughly researched article. It is the common-sense nature of the material presented, perhaps, that begs for an account that is supported by concrete data rather than just travel tales and personal anecdotes.; 2010年10月12日晚上11:47
Eveline 提到...: Theodore Bestor 的這篇文章讓我想起曾經在公共電視看到的一個紀錄片《魚線的盡頭》，http://web.pts.org.tw/php/html/island/list.php?pbeno=1471&ref=nf ，這個紀錄片是以畫面呈現歐洲的漁業如何用大型拖網漁船將大海的資源作最徹底的掠奪與破壞，可是我想這些歐洲漁民怎麼也沒想到，他們以為僅是單純的求生存的行為正引起全球魚類的浩劫。文章中可能僅以文化的觀點提到壽司如何與漁業在全球化這個議題中交互作用，不過，想到這個影片，我想到的是全球化的大危機真的在這樣的文化因素底下悄悄發生。

另外讀完James Watson的文章，雖然乍看是不太像學術文章，但讀完覺得這樣的論述方式是新鮮有趣的。他運用他長期對香港的在地觀察所得的各種面向，來看他自己設立的命題『麥當勞是否會對香港文化帶來威脅』。他舉出許多有趣的元素，如排隊、佔位、餐巾紙的發給、在麥當勞舉辦生日派對、爺爺奶奶和孫子之間的約定、以及人們將麥當勞餐點定調為點心以及後續如何漸漸接受之成為早餐與中餐的過程。在這些看似平淡的元素描寫中，我所預想的答案『文化本來就是相互衝擊與交融』，其複雜度漸漸被解開與証明。不過，我另外的看法是，麥當勞為了擴及全球，自當會將他的目標群設定、作業流程等作出最適合一般人的設定，例如寬敞的空間、清潔的廁所、自助化的服務。我相信麥當勞不論在全球各地，都已經是遊子的最愛。而麥當勞企業其實在全球各地也都會作各種在地化的調整。比如在法國與德國的麥當勞賣的食物也會不同，而日本與台灣的兒童餐玩具品質上也都會有所調整。將作者提到的一些小細節用來觀察台灣，會產生心有戚戚焉的感覺 (想起麥當勞剛開始的時候，所採用的員工都要是大學生；多年後的今天，我確實會拿“去麥當勞“來當做小朋友的獎勵；而且白天在麥當勞，看到的多是帶著小小朋友無處去的媽媽們) 原來麥當勞的服務與打工的方式曾經對台灣有著帶頭的作用，原來我們的消費群以及看待漢堡的方式在外國人的眼中是很不同的。只是不曉得，在所謂的美國原產地以及其他國家，麥當勞扮演的又是怎樣不同的角色，如果作者可以做些實際的比較，或許更有說服力吧。; 2010年10月13日上午8:42
Ron 提到...: How Sushi Went Global是典型的《外交政策》報導：易讀、有趣、深入（跟其他雜誌相較）。有人說全球化就是西化、現代化，壽司的流行是個有趣的反例。1970年代，各國開始擴大本國專屬捕魚區，看起來似乎是反全球化，日本卻因此必須與其他國家合作。根據作者，壽司的全球化，大約從此開始。日本黑鮪魚貿易商在全世界產地積極參與生產、包裝、運送，嚴格控制流程，是可以理解的，畢竟日本人是黑鮪魚最大宗的消費者（也是環保人士關注的目標）。作者著墨不多，我卻有興趣知道的是：在日本的壽司與生魚片，到了美國有沒有在地化？文中有提到，不少日本餐館是由華人經營，準備壽司的人也可能是拉丁裔，不過由日本人經營、主廚，才視為純正。壽司的確有在地化，比如說California roll。

第二篇文章似乎把麥當勞說得太正面了，香港成為東亞南亞衛星電視製作發行中心，也與引進麥當勞息息相關？不過如果麥當勞真的是公眾排隊與公廁衛生的推手，那就功不可沒。香港人沒有被麥當勞全球化的，僅限於員工不微笑以及顧客不收拾餐盤、多拿紙巾、站在餐桌旁等位子（都是負面）？我覺得麥當勞這種全球連鎖的巨型企業資源豐富，廣告行銷佔優勢，往往配合小朋友的流行文化進行宣傳，效果很好。; 2010年10月13日上午11:25
Unknown 提到...: 對任何國家的任何產品，全球化都可能透過科技發展和市場競爭而滲入。而本週的兩篇文章則由飲食文化切入來探討全球化的影響。在 How Sushi Went Global 一文，描述了壽司文化先因為日本強盛、健康飲食風潮以及日式美學而傳至全球，不只是「酷」，更是「流行」(122; 57)，於是從製造到消費的整個通路都透過經濟而受到影響。但這時會面對所謂的「本質」問題，所表現出來的外表，可能是為了迎合市場。Bestor 認為「全球化不一定會使文化同質化，也不會讓文化標籤的重要性降低，反而是成為類似加盟的概念而成長。」(124; 61) 可見他的觀點較為樂觀，這種文化只是向外擴散(splash)，但宗主國仍然有其控制力。但到了哪個程度之後，宗主國就會失去控制？(類似現在的全球英語現象？)
而到 McDonald’s in Hong Kong 一文，則提出了我們不再能分辨究竟什麼是「真正的」本土，甚至「跨國就是本土」(127; 107)。外來的文化沒有原文化的包袱，反而真正提供了不同的選擇。例如麥當勞其實是帶進了整個西方服務業的概念，在香港的發展其實與1984年首間麥當勞進入台灣殊無二致，對台灣人而言，這些情況大概都十分熟悉，甚至可以到會心一笑的地步，但寫到此類題材還是得十分注意，Watson應該已經十分小心，但描述如占位和紙巾的情節時，多少還是讓人覺得有近乎獵奇的心態。這裡或許可以和魯迅的翻譯概念做個有趣的對比，麥當勞的經理 Daniel Ng 堅持要將「乾淨的洗手間」帶入香港(129; 89-90)，與魯迅的「硬譯」、要讀者「硬著頭皮看下去」(〈論翻譯﹕答 J. K. 論翻譯〉、〈「硬譯」與「文學的階級性」〉)，其實都是對原有文化造成衝擊，只是最後的接受程度大不相同。文章最後還是接受了文化混合的現存事實，而以疑問句作結(“Conclusions: Whose Culture Is It?")乍看之下雖然讓人覺得有些偷懶，但或許真正的重點，也就是一直抱著這種警覺的態度。; 2010年10月13日下午1:28
Craig 提到...: In How Sushi Went Global we see, yet again, the utter waste of resources to satisfy the desires of a privileged few. From overfishing that has decimated fish stocks (http://overfishing.org/ ), to the waste of fuel and added carbon emissions from shipping of tons of fish around the world (including the part of the fish that is discarded) it seems the human race is hellbent on self destruction. Perhaps this system (based in capitalism) can be seen as self correcting, as there are far too many people in the world, too many people that believe it is their birthright to consume high quality animal protein at every meal, and too many people who believe they are “lovin' it” but will soon be dead (see this amusing video a friend sent me last week: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx0IJnO3o8g). Fish protein is of course seen as a heart healthy alternative, but one that is laced with mercury and other heavy-metal toxins which contribute to brain damage and cancer when consumed too often.

I agree with Todd's criticism of the Watson's article (although I don't always share his faith in strict empiricism) and so in light of the anecdotal tone set by the author, it seems fitting to offer anecdotes in return. Hong Kong's local interpretation of McDonald's, like that of many other places around the world, continues to fascinate me. Of course the Big Mac has a unique significance for us Americans, and seems to signify as many things around the world as it has incarnations. The extremely unattractive portrayal of McDonald's as a bully in Life and Debt just reinforces the notion that it is vile and greedy (perhaps many corporations are the same), and this is one of the significations that the Big Mac enjoys at home in the US. On a lighter note, I guess I should feel good that McDonald's is being credited with clean toilets in Hong Kong, and perhaps a higher standard for health and sanitation in general, since in some small way this has improved the well-being of residents. I also guess I can just ignore the glaring irony of a sanitized population that is overweight with clogged arteries (although I do wonder if dim-sum is any lower in fat and cholesterol). As for the scrum instead of orderly queues, hovering, the “stealing” of napkins, and different eating habits, they are merely the expression of cultural traits that look amusing in the imported American context of McDonald's, and are clearly not any indication of lack of “civility.” At their best and most significant, these traits which are at variance with the corporate money-making mentality can be seen as a form of silent protest. As for birthdays, a bonus I received for moving to Asia in my middle age is that they are generally ignored, and at this point I often forget my actual age.

I noticed long ago that the upbeat friendliness I was accustomed to from strangers in New York is neither offered nor perceived in the same way in Asia. This American notion of friendliness is of course our answer to one pressure of multiculturalism; we enjoy our fantasy that strangers of different backgrounds can treat each other with warmth and sincerity. Most Americans are confused by the idea that this kind of “friendliness” would raise suspicions, as the superficial feeling of “friendliness” is satisfying enough in and of itself, and therefore doesn't necessarily lead to a transaction where cheating can occur. Starting from this public face of “friendliness,” genuine friendships can and do occur, as can the kind of grifting we see in the movies. Anyway, the various elements of face or “friendliness,” genuine friendship and cheating are all present on both sides of the divide, yet, it seems to me, configured differently. Furthermore, culture is and always has been a work in progress everywhere in the world, and will continue on its path of reinvention.; 2010年10月13日下午2:51

NTNU GITI BLOG

# 5 Oct 14 - Translation and Globalization

5 意見:

張貼留言

Blog Archive