NTNU GITI BLOG: # 6 Oct 21 - Translation and Globalization

# 6 Oct 21 - Translation and Globalization

#6 “’Globalization,’ Culture, and the University” Masao Miyoshi in The Cultures of Globalization, Eds. Fredric Jameson & Masao Miyoshi, Durham: Duke UP, 1998. 247-270.

7 意見:

Eveline 提到...: 本篇文章中，作者從歷史、政治、文化等角度，觀察跨國企業如何自冷戰結束之後漸漸成為脫韁野馬，脫離國家的束縛，逐漸取代舊有的帝國主義，讓企業利益成為唯一存活且壟斷的意識形態，一點一滴滲入到我們的媒體、就業環境、文化審美觀、乃至連一向標榜思想獨立的大學都難逃其魔掌，且已經被整合完畢而陷入無法自拔的窘境。因為失去了國家作為思想的掌舵者(當然同時也可以是被批判的主要對象)，所謂的社會價值觀漸漸變得隱形，但是這正也是經濟利益成為龐大怪獸的契機。
跨國企業體變得比國家還要龐大，其所挾帶的利害關係大到讓國家不得不為它背書。因此，以前以國家為主體所宣揚的思想體系(自由、民主、社會公平等等主張) 逐漸失去色彩，當跨國企業為了利益進行大幅裁源、外包、資源掠奪時，目前似乎沒有任何公權力可以與之相抗衡。連一般勞工都失去基本權益的時候，少數族群的利益就更被邊陲化。以這個角度觀察，我們的社會似乎又到退回到二十世紀初那個人力不斷被機器與工廠剝削的年代。而本文令人看了比較難過的是，雖然這篇文章早在1998年就已經道出種種因跨國企業所產生的弊端，可是，我怎麼看見台灣，好像才正在興致勃勃地開始亦步亦趨，且以這些弊端為模仿的對象進行全盤的移植呢(例如文創產業、學校評鑑、產學結盟等等)?
不過，或許也不要太過悲觀。物極應該終究必反吧。國家雖然失去與跨國企業抗衡的力量，但小眾的力量也正透過全球化的網絡進行串聯與抗衡。有很多名不見經傳的人一夕暴紅，應該也不是透過數字精算出來的，而正是反其道而行所走出來的美麗新世界。另外，宗教團體與許多NGO組織的串聯及動員能力也是不容小覷的力量。; 2010年10月19日晚上11:18
Unknown 提到...: 本週閱讀Masao Miyoshi所撰寫之「“Globalization”, Culture, and the University」文章之後，大家應該都有點挫折感吧！在這篇文章中，Miyoshi言簡意賅地把全球化這個現象的醜陋內臟揭露出來，尤其是把「大學」這個偉大的社會建制，描述成企業界的走狗。不過，我們應該早就都知道了吧，好幾次聽到老師同學講說，某某課程因為人數不夠，所以開不成。再者，以理工學系與人文學系两種不同系所所得到的補助來比較的話，受到企業界重視的理工學系顯然遠遠超越較難在勞動市場上「出售」的人文學系。不過，根據Miyoshi的文章所言，不僅是學術界要面對這一波「道德危機」而已，資本主義的掠奪信條早已在世界上為數頗多的各類組織單位中蔓延了。有趣的是，Miyoshi早在九十年代中寫這篇文章的時候，就已經徹底地看透了委外這個經營模式擴大的可能性。譬如，在257頁倒數第九行中，他提出說，委外‘middle-rank management’是一個不可避免的現象。兩個星期之前在「世界是平的」這部電影中，我們看見了Miyoshi所預測的委外現象確實已經發生。
總而言之，在這篇文章中，Miyoshi描述了全球化這個現象的三個層面。首先，他以Paul Hirst、Grahame Thompson以及David Harvey三位學者對全球化所做的研究，仔細地探討全球化的一些特徵。譬如，全球化所導致的‘unequal, non-integreated world economic system’等等。其次，Miyoshi討論了全球化給世界上各個文化帶來了怎麼樣的影響。主要的結論應該是，世界上大多數各種各樣的文化已經被跨國的社團主義經濟化了。再其次，作者也探究了在全球化這個現象之下，大學這個組織所要扮演的角色。可惜地是，學術界的“Knowledge for knowledge’s sake”這個概念好像也已經被資本主義推翻了。不過，因為Miyoshi要把全球化描述成是殖民主義的衍生物（outgrowth）之一，因此他寫出的上述三個觀點當然也都強調了全球化這個現象所帶來的權力不平衡。我個人認為，資本主義、全球化、社團主義等等，也許也可以給世界帶來好處，只不過是實行這些方針的人的良心，或多或少都免不了被貪心所遮掩。; 2010年10月20日凌晨2:03
Ron 提到...: 現在的經濟數據與90年代有差異。新興國家在全球經濟成長所佔比例超過了發達國家，中國現在是第二大經濟體。這固然顯示全球化的腳步加速，但是以國家為單位來看，全球新增的財富，比較多會流向新興國家。換句話說，新興國家與發達國家的財富差距應該會拉進。如果英美在二戰後的政策真的是經濟圍堵（252頁）以延續其失去的殖民優勢，到現在恐怕也不容易了。當然以個人而言，貧富不均可能更令人側目，以中國為例，新富階級出現，貧富差距自然比加入全球化行列前劇增。

作者也指出跨國企業現在主導全球經濟，國家觀念變淡；跨國企業唯利是圖，因為全球勞動力轉移方便，裁員不眨眼；跨國企業文化商業化，將文化轉為營收數字。雖然批評的聲音不少，這些現象似乎愈演愈烈。不過跨國企業可能也並非一無是處，至少對員工而言，有些跨國企業的薪資、福利、升遷機會都略勝一籌。

大學也漸漸企業化，選課人數少，代表「沒有市場」，排名落後，代表「效率差」。我覺得現在大家都可以上大學，那種純粹「為知識而知識」的學校必然不易生存，畢竟普羅大眾的一個重要目標是拿到文憑後順利就業。; 2010年10月20日中午12:00
Unknown 提到...: 在這篇文章中，三好將夫(Masao Miyoshi)指出了許多可能已有不少人視為常態、其實卻值得商榷的現象。先從全球化談起，這個遭到濫用的詞彙可能讓某些人心中充滿世界大同的想像，但其實各地的人本來就不同，未來也不會一樣。他認為，現在的全球化概念真正不同之處，在於「各項交易和傳遞的擴張程度，包括資本、勞力、生產、消費、資訊，和科技；這種程度已經大到足以造成質變」(248)，而且他也直陳「全球化從來就不代表全球平等」(249)，而會造成資源及權力集中到少數人手上的情形。這一切都和錢(capitalism)有關(呼應到原書的封面)，因此他再用了跨國企業精簡規模(downsizing)的情形，討論這個「跨國企業世界」之中的文化，認為「跨國企業主義(transnational corporatism)是解構國家的過程，同時使文化領域染上經濟理論思維(economicization)」(259)。對只看到經濟的領導人而言，地理歷史等不同之處並不重要，真正放諸四海皆準的只有「消費」，這才是真正的「同質化」(259)。
而談到這種趨勢對大學的影響，三好將夫延續了《廢墟中的大學》(The University in Ruins)之中的概念，學校由官僚體系把持之後，教育研究反而失去掌控，於是學院成了「服務站」(262)，他也批評了學校行政高層無法抵抗企業需求入侵學院的情形 (264)，於是「企業經濟原則控制了大學」(266)，課堂成了脫口秀以取悅學生，教師各擁「專業」、符合企業概念下的需求 (267)。三好將夫只以問句作結，態度其實一如《廢墟中的大學》，面對追求「卓越」(excellence)、應付官僚、要求生產的大學環境，「The University's ruins offer us an institution in which the incomplete and interminable nature of the pedagogic relation can remind us that "thinking together" is a dissensual process; it belongs to dialogism rather than dialogue.」(192)，就想吧。; 2010年10月20日下午1:49
Craig 2 of 2 提到...: My recollection of Arnold's Culture and Anarchy is that it promoted art's educational and acculturating mission, a notion that was steeped in Victorian values of absolutism, classism and authority. It seems Miyoshi wants to foist off Arnold as an apologist for corporate greed in late 20tth century America. I can't imagine anyone holding up Cezanné's quaint, late-nineteenth-century paintings as social commentary in late 20th century America, or making them out as anything other than artifacts; they are just not that relevant. As Miyoshi mentions, plenty of contemporary art challenges notions of high/low culture while undermining the establishment, and art as a cultural force becomes propaganda the moment it is co-opted by the “state.” Miyoshi's concern over the mainstream assimilation of historical, century-old curiosities, on the other hand, does not give me the slightest pause, as Cezanné was already mainstreamed forever ago. Furthermore, his suggestion that an old French painting lulls us into an “all's well in the US” sense of security is a big stretch- everyone gets it: corporate sponsorship for public “art” events is advertisement. On the other hand, discussion of the “Disneyfication” of mainstream culture(s), in the sense that contemporary entertainment is a reflection of some segments society, seem more interesting. I don't, however, see the Victorian hand of Matthew Arnold pulling the strings in a behind-the-scenes totalizing conspiracy of state/corporate sponsored art. Sections of the art world are forever beyond the reach of corporate tentacles, while others present alternative viewpoints comfortably wrapped within them, and laws in the US, at least for today, continue to protect free expression.

Finally, getting to the university, we see Miyoshi threatened by the corporate takeover of his employer, UCSD. His remarks on this undeniable trend in academia are well formed, not to mention chilling for the kind of future that is suggested by a world completely driven by profit. Luckily, many alternatives still exist in the US to the kind of corporate sponsored education Miyoshi derides, but their survival is likely threatened. As for the other institutions, they serve a function, but this kind of utilitarian thinking paints for me a gray world filled with docile corporate drones. There are plenty of academics and producers of culture who happily fit in. I guess corporate gray is a form of survival for “grown-ups.”; 2010年10月20日下午6:06
Craig 1 of 3 提到...: Masao Miyoshi makes some interesting points related to globalization and the university, such as: we do not live in an integrated global economy, yet international trading accounts for 77% of Taiwan's GDP; while globalization is nothing new, it has never been experienced on the scale that it is experienced today; outsourcing has disrupted (actually destroyed) unions in the industrialized West; and transnational entities are still attached to home nation-states. He gets a little more off track when he suggests the Truman Doctrine, Marshal Plan and other Cold-War containment policies which wielded soft power in the form of trillions of dollars of economic aid and to some extent resulted in today's economies of Taiwan, South Korea, the EU and Japan, were actually fronts for George Kennan's call to dispense with “unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization.” He supports the relevance of Kennan today with a Cold-War era (1983) quote by the author himself who was obviously trying to secure his own legacy. Miyoshi digresses to make the point that Japan, who dominated most of the Pacific, colonized huge swaths of Mainland China, all of Korea, Taiwan and other countries of Southeast Asia was considered harmless by the US, “a mere Asian backwater country,” after WWII. This, Miyoshi claims, was why Japan was not worthy of a divide and conquer strategy, but rather a strategy of soft power through reconstruction. He fails to mention that the Soviet Union was not involved in the Pacific war, and therefore Stalin had no recourse to make claims on Japanese territories at the Yalta conference (incursions into the post war power vacuum of North Korea by the Soviets were repulsed, but the stop at the 38th Parallel by the southern armies must mean, following Miyoshi's logic, that the US deemed a unified and free Korea as a much greater threat than Japan), nor does he cite the document “US Initial Post-Surrender Policy for Japan,” which outlines official US policy. Miyoshi seems disheartened by the facts of this world, but who isn't really, since there are real problems. I just wish he could build more nuanced arguments and therefore a better critique. Like all of us in this class (I think), he was not a scholar of history and economics, and had to rely on what he gleaned from his various readings.; 2010年10月20日下午6:11
Craig 2 of 3 提到...: Discussing corporate downsizing and greed in America, he suggests Clinton's complicity by citing a partial quote from the NYT (full quote: “Let me be clear: the most fundamental responsibility for any business is to make a profit, to create jobs and incomes by competing and growing,") Agreed: since Reganomics, American political ideology has focused on the reduction of government and the private sector as a main source of economic growth; and since the end of WWII, the US government has grappled with its unwieldy and huge industrial/military complex. While the debate still rages today, many in American politics see deregulation (i.e., the reduction of government) and reliance on unfettered private enterprise for continued prosperity and stability as a failure. There is no conspiracy: instead we are coping with an unattractive aspect of human nature, greed, and slowly realizing that capitalism, which was once designed to harness greed for the common good, is perhaps not the most effective paradigm.; 2010年10月20日下午6:11

NTNU GITI BLOG

# 6 Oct 21 - Translation and Globalization

7 意見:

張貼留言

Blog Archive