Stranger Than Paradise: Reconceptualizing Globalization | 誠品線上

Stranger Than Paradise: Reconceptualizing Globalization

內容簡介

內容簡介 This edited volume addresses the phenomenon called globalization by highlighting its neoliberal origins and critiquing its disguising as human destiny from three levels of contemporary culture: existential, national, and transnational. Exposing the masquerading of neoliberal globalization as the perpetual peace after the end of history, the authors of this volume to different extents all call upon us to reflect on its Capital-driven and Western-centric nature and operations, with a view to facilitate its end and explore the possibility of a new phase of global collaborations through which we can tackle the roots of the natural and man-made catastrophes incurred by neoliberal globalization.

作者介紹

作者介紹 Luiz Oosterbeek is professor at the Polytechnic Institute of Tomar, and president of the International Council for Philosophy and Human Sciences. UNESCO-IPT chair holder “Humanities and Cultural Integrated Landscape management.” Vice-Director of the Geosciences Centre of Coimbra University. Member of the Portuguese Academy of History, the Portuguese Academy of Sciences and Academia Europaea. Coordinator of research projects in archaeology, heritage and landscape management in Portugal, Africa and Southern America. Prizes and awards: European Commission, Brazilian Lawyers Bar, Portuguese Ministry of Culture, Gulbenkian Foundation, Foundation for Science and Technology among others. Author of over 350 papers and 90 books.David Theo Goldberg is Distinguished Professor of Anthropology, Comparative Literature, and Criminology, Law and Society at UC Irvine. His numerous books include Are We All Postracial Yet? (Polity, 2015), and Dread: Facing Futureless Futures (Polity, July 2021). Until 2022, he was the Director of the University of California Humanities Research Institute for more than two decades. Earlier in his career, he produced independent films and music videos (some of which aired on MTV), and co-directed an award-winning short film on South Africa, “The Is land.”Inn Buchanan is professor of Critical Theory and Cultural Studies of School of Humanities and Social Inquiry at University of Wollongong, Australia. He has published on a wide variety of subjects across a range of disciplines, with a primary focus on the application of Deleuze and Guattari’s theories. He also has published on film, literature, music, space, the internet and war as well a number of other subjects. He is the founding editor of the journal Deleuze and Guattari Studies and founder of the International Deleuze and Guattari Studies Conference series. He is the author of the Dictionary of Critical Theory (OUP, 2018) and Assemblage Theory and Method (Bloomsbury, 2021). His most recent book is The Incomplete Project of Schizoananlysis (Edinburgh University Press, 2021).Alex Taek-Gwang Lee is a professor of cultural studies and a founding director of the Centre for Technology in Humanities at Kyung Hee University, Korea. He is also a visiting professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy, Politics and Ethics at the University of Brighton (UK) and Graduate School at The University of Santo Tomas (Philippines). He served as an academic advisor for Gwangju Biennale in 2017 and as a program manager for the Venice Biennale of Architecture in 2021. He edited the third volume of The Idea of Communism (2016) and Deleuze, Guattari and the Schizoanalysis of Postmedia (2023), and his forthcoming monographs, Communism After Deleuze and The Paradox of Artificial Intelligence, are scheduled for publication in 2025.Alain Brossat is emeritus professor of the Department of Philosophy at Paris 8 University (Saint-Denis). He has taught for many years as a visiting professor at the Institute for Cultural and Social Studies of National Chiao-Tung University in Hsinchu (2014–2021), then one year at the Department of History of NCKU in Tainan (2022–2023).Dana E. Powell (U.S. citizen White) is Associate Professor (Anthropology) in the Graduate Institute of Medical Humanities, College of Humanities and Social Sciences, at Taipei Medical University. She is an environmental anthropologist working in North America and Taiwan on questions of energy extraction, Indigenous sovereignty, and environmental governance. Powell’s first book, Landscapes of Power: Politics of Energy in the Navajo Nation (Duke Press, 2018), traces a controversial coal plant slated for Diné lands and the resulting re-articulations of environmentalism and justice. Her current transnational project partners with colleagues in Navajo Nation, eastern North Carolina, and Taiwan, to critically examine the lived effects of sustainability and “transition” projects on Indigenous self-determination, recognition, and wellbeing, within statist projects of social inclusion. Powell has taught at Appalachian State University’s Department of Anthropology; Cornell University’s Society for the Humanities; and National DongHwa University’s College of Indigenous Studies. Earl Tulley (Diné) was born and welcomed with songs and prayers in the Diné tradition, his umbilical cord planted in the bosom of Mother Earth in his maternal homeland in Bis Dootłizh Ndeeshiizh (Blue Gap in Apache County, Arizona, United States). He is an enrolled member of the Navajo Nation, co-founder of Diné Citizens Against Ruining our Environment and the Indigenous Environmental Network, currently board member of the Peace Development Fund, and Vice Chair of the Navajo Nation Water Rights Commission. Tulley has worked in the housing construction and community development profession for nearly 35 years on the Navajo Nation. His family resides in Tohlakai, New Mexico, and he is a father, grandfather, gardener, and cancer survivor.Galin Tihanov is the George Steiner Professor of Department of Comparative Literature at Queen Mary University of London. He has held visiting professorships at universities in Europe, North and South America, and Asia. He is the author of six books, including The Birth and Death of Literary Theory: Regimes of Relevance in Russia and Beyond (Stanford UP, 2019) which won the 2020 AATSEEL Prize for “best book in literary studies.” Tihanov has been elected to the British Academy (2021) and to Academia Europaea (2012). He serves on the Executive Board of the Institute for World Literature at Harvard University and as Honorary Scientific Advisor to the Institute of Foreign Literatures, CASS, Beijing; he is also Past President of the ICLA Committee on Literary Theory. His current work is on world literature, cosmopolitanism, and exile.Camilo Pérez-Bustillo is visiting professor of Human Rights and Social Justice at National Taiwan University (transitional justice, rights of migrants, indigenous peoples), affiliated researcher of the Global Research Programme on Inequality (GRIP, https: gripinequality.org employee perez-bustillo-camilo ) at the University of Bergen (Norway), former Fellow at CASBS-Stanford University, and former Director of Advocacy and Research at Hope Border Institute (El Paso, Texas). Lead author of Human Rights, Hegemony, and Utopia in Latin America: Poverty, Forced Migration and Resistance in Mexico and Colombia (Brill 2016), and co-founder of the International Tribunal of Conscience of Peoples in Movement, and of Witness at the Border: www.witnessattheborder.org. Her most recent book is as translator of The Theological Metaphors of Marx by Enrique Dussel (Duke University Press, 2024).William A. Callahan is professor of Political Science at Singapore Management University. Previously, he was professor of International Relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science, and in 2020–21 was a Taiwan Fellow at National Taiwan University. His most recent book is Sensible Politics: Visualizing International Relations (OUP, 2020), which the won “Best Book Award 2022” from the International Studies Association, International Political Sociology section.

產品目錄

產品目錄 Series Preface Sebastian Hsien-hao LiaoIntroduction: Why Post-globalization? Sebastian Hsien-hao LiaoPart I Surviving GlobalizationFrom Global Warming into a New Ice Age? Climate, Adaptation and Examples from the Past Luiz OosterbeekStates of Dread David Theo GoldbergTowards A Global Aquarium Studies Ian BuchananPart II (Mis)Imagining the NationExistential Distortion: Korean Literature and the National Question Alex Taek-Gwang LeeThe Dead End of "Bilingualism" Alain BrossatClimate Change in a Time of COVID-19: Living and Transforming the Syndemic in the Navajo Nation Dana E. Powell with Earl TulleyPart III Re-encountering TransnationalityExilic Inscriptions: Migration and the Resistance to (World) Theory Galin TihanovPeoples in Movement: Migrants, Indigenous Peoples, and Transitional Justicein Contemporary Latin America Camilo Pérez-BustilloVisualizing International Relations: A Manifesto William A. CallahanContributors

商品規格

試閱文字

導讀 : Introduction: Why Post-globalization?

by Sebastian Hsien-hao Liao

Globalization was once touted as the end of everything backward and small-minded. Francis Fukuyama even predicted that after the end the neoliberal order will prevail forever. And gurus like Arjun Appadurai have announced that in the world of globalization every place and everyone will become postnational, which is a different way of saying a happy new order has arrived. The “living happily forever” scenario thus tacitly affirms the power of neoliberal globalization, which is based on free trade and advocates a culture featuring the “freedom” of everything from the capital to the human being.

But then all of sudden, the world has become neo-illiberal overnight! One of the symptoms is that protectionism seems to have increasingly become the rule rather than the exception in the American trade practice (and the EU is following suit) and the shadow of trade war looms large. More ominously, the rise of the far-right have become rampant in both the US and the EU. It is as if we had been flown back to future where everything has a tinge of déjà vu. The fall of the Berlin wall prompted Jean Baudrillard to speculate that, without a clear demarcation like the Berlin Wall between the West and the bad guys, the former would have to identify the latter within their own territory and would be dogged by an anxiety that the enemy is everywhere but nowhere to be found. Now they have finally identified the enemies.

What went awry with “globalization”? That which we have called globalization is actually neoliberal globalization, which however has been construed as if it was destiny for the world because for its supporters there did not seem to be a better alternative, especially after the fall of the Berlin Wall. It would not only not end, but has no loopholes nor glitches because the market would regulate itself. The sense that rainy days will never come was due to the belief in “market fundamentalism,” which means as long as the West adheres to free trade, nothing would go wrong as it is the magic formula of neoliberalism.

However, the series of financial crises beginning with the Mexican Crisis in 1994, followed by the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis, and culminating in the 2008 global financial meltdown showed that the neoliberal globalization was no longer the panacea that it claimed itself to be, but is itself the problem. The 2008 crisis especially caused the slowing down of cross-border finance and signaled the beginning of the end of economic globalization. Even though losers of neoliberal globalization are everywhere and anti-globalization movements covered all kinds of different ideologies, the most aggressive practice, which also happens to be the most reactionary as well, is surprisingly found in the first world countries, which had most ardently promoted neoliberal globalization. The populist backlash compelled the leaders of the neoliberal order to respond and resulted in the Brexit, and the protectionist policies of the Donald Trump’s and Joe Biden’s presidencies.

The reason that the West, especially the US, reacted so strongly to the malfunctioning of neoliberal globalization is that its smooth operation is premised on Pax Americana or American protection. In other words, the expansion of US power is at the heart of neoliberal globalization and therefore American interests cohere seamlessly with the neoliberal order. We can even go so far to say that major decisions that impact the neoliberal order were formed by IMF and the US Treasury. This is fully borne out by what George Soros was quoted as saying on June 11, 2002, less than four months before the first round of Brazilian presidential election, “In ancient Rome only the Romans voted. In the modern capitalist system, only the United States vote. The Brazilians don’t vote.” Thus, when the order continues to allow the 1% to see their wealth continue to accumulate and swell while the rest of the population did not groan, then Pax Americana is not challenged. But when it became clear that the tide was not able lift all the boats in the more globalized Western societies (let alone the less globalized ones), a populist backlash was bound to happen as the masses there felt the sting most acutely, being used to an affluent lifestyle and having the most to lose. As a result, for them enemies had to be found and fended off again.

But in fact for the leadership of the founding members of neoliberal globalization, the true worry is not the sufferings of the majority of the population, but the fact that the elites of the West can no longer stay on top of things and maximize their profit. When globalization is good for the West in general and the US in particular, then the world should be globalized at all cost. But when globalization puts the West at a disadvantage, then it becomes simply an easy conduit for the transmission of evil (“For make no mistake,” said Barack Obama concluding his speech after receiving his Nobel Peace Award in 2009, “Evil does exist in the world.”), not only evil ideas and evil products, but evil migrants that contaminate the noble blood of the white men. And these leaders unanimously believe that, rather than there being a systemic fault in the neoliberal order, all woes are being produced due to the fact that “evil” has infiltrated the nation: both the immigrants and China.

Thus, the sense of desperation revealed in these attempts to exorcise the Other has everything to do with the consistent decline of the West, most obviously seen in the downward spiraling brought about by economic globalization. The exorcism has become all the more urgent in view of the recent rise of China, with its technological breakthroughs and newly-gained economic prowess as shown in their domination in solar panels, EVs, batteries, ship-building, bullet trains as well as in many other areas and scrambled to cope with this new reality. But in fact, what the imagined China threat reveals is more of an unwillingness on the part of the West to share the world’s wealth with a new comer, one that is perceived to pertain to a lower cultural status to which à la Kant “hospitality” should not be extended. As a result, the failure of this current globalization seems ominously imminent.

But is neoliberal globalization really ending? Not just yet. For both the nations at the center of the neoliberal globalization networks and those on the margins have developed a tremendous dependence on these networks. Neoliberal globalization is almost like a narcotic drug for the elites of both parts of the world. With neoliberal globalization the former continues to siphon off massive profits via transnational business activities despite feeling uneasy about its “loopholes” while the ruling class of the latter cannot stop getting high on neoliberal bread crumbs. The general population everywhere gets a different kind of opium which is “lifestyle” whose seductions is irresistible due to its emphasis on “individual freedom” and has been successfully utilized by the elites of the developed nations as a magic button to rally the masses. That illusion of freedom was meant to cover over the lack of social justice and would continue to hold down the masses until the day when they no longer have the little resource they had to enjoy that “freedom.” Juding from the worsening gap between the haves and the have-nots globally, it would not be long before that day arrives.

In fact, the seduction of lifestyle to the general population is almost as strong as the seduction of money to the elites both in the developed countries and elsewhere. This new lifestyle came about with the “New York” counterrevolution in the 1970s where the idea of “individual freedom” was employed by the financial establishment to undermine the Left’s fight for “social justice.” What David Harvey calls the “long march” of neoliberal ideas through institutions such as the universities, schools, churches, and professional associations “created a climate of opinion in support of neoliberalism as the exclusive guarantor of freedom.” And the symptom of this climate was most clearly epitomized by New York’s “avant-garde” culture.

Even though avant-garde art was already making splashes in Europe before the WWI, it was stunted by the two consecutive wars and further sidelined by the Left after WWII. It however became “official culture” after being assimilated and gentrified by the New York cultural scene. This was because, in Harvey’s words, “Neoliberalization required both politically and economically the construction of a neoliberal market-based populist culture of differentiated consumerism and individual libertarianism.” The project led eventually to a “neoliberalization of culture” where there developed a semblance of avant-gardism which was famously called “delirious New York” by Rem Koolhas. This semblance of avant-garde culture became a vanguard for the then burgeoning neoliberal culture, later known as “postmodernism,” which was then disseminated all over the world and has been holding in thrall the masses everywhere. And it does not yet seem to have waned across the globe, compared to the economic globalization, which is being increasingly disrupted in actual practice by the governments of the West.

So far, the dominant conceptualization of globalization of culture has more or less assumed that the global (in fact Western-centric and in particular American-centric) culture’s domination will, as mentioned earlier, never end. And it therefore celebrates “hybridization,” “glocalization” or “creolization” of global culture and local culture almost unconditionally, believing that this is the only strategy of which local cultures can avail themselves. But what is lacking in this “global mélange”theory are two interrelated misconceptions: first, it assumes the global is universal whereas the local is particular; second, it turns a blind eye to the power relati

最佳賣點

最佳賣點 : This edited volume addresses the phenomenon called globalization by highlighting its neoliberal origins and critiquing its disguising as ...