The reading for this week in Colossians Remixed* is:
Chapter 1 [pp. 15-37]: "Placing Ourselves: Globalization and Postmodernity"
----------------------Chapter 1 [pp. 15-37]: "Placing Ourselves: Globalization and Postmodernity"
1. Optimism of globalization ("empire") and postmodernism
i. Do you agree with the chapter's premise? Why?
ii. Is globalization a byproduct of Western Civilization, or something broader?
iii. Can you relate to William's experiences?
iv. How (if at all) does the current economic climate affect the chapter's premise?
v. Is this economic downturn a necessary and logical stage to globalization; a bump in the road; or something else entirely?
ii. Is globalization a byproduct of Western Civilization, or something broader?
iii. Can you relate to William's experiences?
iv. How (if at all) does the current economic climate affect the chapter's premise?
v. Is this economic downturn a necessary and logical stage to globalization; a bump in the road; or something else entirely?
2. The Church
i. How does the church in America and the world fit into this globalization/postmodernism dynamic?
ii. Could one claim that mission activity has been affected by this societal phase?
3. Discussion
i. List any other thoughts, comments, or questions you have about this chapter.
List your answers in the comment section to this post by Wednesday, January 21, 2009.
i. List any other thoughts, comments, or questions you have about this chapter.
List your answers in the comment section to this post by Wednesday, January 21, 2009.
Posts
5 comments:
1. Optimism of globalization:
(i) I had not previously considered the relationship that globalization and postmodernism had. In that sense, globalization as a "religion" seems like a plausible theory. I have my hesitancy about how much "faith" people have placed into globalization--I think that this dynamic may be a little simplistic. Nothing is created in a vacuum, and I doubt there are glozalization adherents that would wholeheartedly subscribe to it.
(ii) I believe globalization is simply one extension of capitalism and Western culture. Certainly capitalism is more likely to occur in a Western society, though I don't believe that it is an inevitable outcome. One could make the point that socialism is equally likely, given Western concerns for freedom of thoughts and ideas.
(iii) I can relate to the emptiness of economics as its own end; the lack of fulfillment through the allocation of resources can be tiring. One only needs to go to work time and again to become disillusioned. But that, I would posit, is an inevitable outcome of simply living for one's career.
(iv) I strongly think that this current economic climate will cause a backlash on globalization as a trend. How much the pendulum swings the other way remains to be seen. Every hardship has the potential to seem like the worst thing that has happened. However, I imagine that in some years' time that things will be like they were before it happened. With changes, to be sure, but globalization isn't going anywhere entirely.
(v) On one side, the downturn was necessary economically, in the sense that mortgage and derivative trading could not go on without a solid foundation backing it up. That said, this won't turn our economy or Western civilization into something completely different. Any economic system, global or local, will have bad times. So in a way it may be an inevitable happening, but it is not the total outcome.
2. The Church
(i) The church doesn't exist in a vacuum any more than we do. Certainly we have seen materialism and globalization fit within the church. Technology has improved, economics have been transplanted. I think much of our own economic prosperity, tied in globalization, has fueled the ability, if not motive, in conducting church activities. I don't think the church should live outside the world, but it shouldn't let it be driven by the world. It's a fine line.
(ii) I don't have personal knowledge, but I would surmise that economics is a big factor in missions. What activities are conducted, such as building infrastructure, are affected by economic realities. Perhaps materialism has crept its way in, though I leave this question for others to debate.
3. Further Questions
(i) I was surprised at the portrayal of American life as utterly economic. One would question how much we as Americans are tied up in globalization and economic success compared to other countries. Europe has a devastatingly low faith rate compared to much of the U.S., yet America is portrayed as a country solely bent on economics for faith. Again, it must be more complicated than this?
(ii) This book, unfortunately, has now dated itself in my thinking. With the advent of notions that the 90's success and economic climate was almost an illusion (think about then and now), I wonder how much relevancy globalization has. Perhaps it is necessary to question the mindset of that period in light of the current time. Maybe people are more geared towards the opposite end, maybe this downturn has simply fueled globalization's "smoke-screen" companion of postmodernism.
(iii) On a related note, it seems to me that cultural relativism's "don't exclude anyone" and "lack of ultimate truth" seems to have been superseded by "some things are certainly wrong." Note the current progressive stance on civil rights as the ultimate truth. Of course, we need civil rights. But it seems the term "civil rights" becomes more ambiguous and undefined the more we attempt to add to the list. My point is this: the argument seems to be we shouldn't be intolerant of anyone (postmodernistic, due to its pluralism), yet to deny the concept of civil rights to someone is considered "entirely wrong" (an ultimate truth?). Is this a contradiction?
Jeremy, great questions! And great responses to your questions! I'll respond to both the questions and your comments.
1. Globalization/Postmodernism
(i) I thought the argument of this chapter, connecting "cybernetic global optimism" and "postmodern disquiet," was brilliant--especially in demonstrating how the two were connected in William's own life. I think you're right, Jeremy, to question just how much explicit faith people place in "globalization" as such, and perhaps no one fully subscribes to it (if anyone can even say exactly what it is). I think, though, that the authors are identifying a particular strain within the broad phenomenon in connecting it to technology and, most importantly, to optimism. Briefly, I think they're right to identify a certain postmodern cynicism, though that may be too strong a word, that necessarily goes along with the absence of any other faith. We believe in globalization because there's nothing else to believe in, even as we know it's not something worthy of our faith. More on this in question (v).
(ii) Yes, Jeremy, I defintely agree with you that "globalization," whatever it is, is a product of capitalism and thus, the West. I agree, also, that I don't think capitalism is in any way the necessary outcome for Western society, much less the world, and as Christians we certainly don't believe it's the final outcome!
(iii) Yeah, I don't think I can relate to William's experiences too much, since I haven't really had a major crisis of faith or any deep lingering suspicion of authority. (Though we do share a vast background in global finance. In fact, I think I met him at a martini bar in London once. He tried to distract me by rambling about postmodern disquiet in order to steal my olive.)
(iv) Great question! I'm not quite sure what you mean in your response, Jeremy, when you say you think there will be a backlash on globalization, or what changes you think will occur. Could you clarify? As for me, I imagine that the good that might come out of this crisis will be that some of those people like William might realize that their cybernetic global optimism is unfounded, and search out some more secure foundations. I don't think the authors' premises are radically called into question, or anything.
(v) Jeremy, I definitely agree. I think this current crisis was an inevitabilty, given the absurdities in our market--buying and selling absolutely worthless mortgages as if they actually had some value?! Pretending that the market could and would just keep growing and growing forever? I think this was blind faith, and so detached from any connection to reality whatsoever that the correction was absolutely necessary, despite the terrible consequences it's had for so many, including, probably, our parents.
2. The Church
(i) I think the American church has become somewhat more aware of the global church as a result of our growing ability to access info about the rest of the world, and travel to foreign places more quickly and easily than ever before. I agree, Jeremy, that technology and our economic prosperity have had some negative effects on the church, especially in making us trust too easily in the false promises of the American dream (not to mention its supposedly obvious applicability to the rest of the world!). But the church, long before "globalization," was already a global community, one founded on the mutual participation of people across time and space in the same body, the body of Christ. In this sense, I think the church has been given a model of true globalization, one that allows us to see other people around the world not as foreigners, terrorists, or strangers, but as brothers and sisters, already part of our community as we are already part of theirs.
(ii) The church's mission has definitely been affect by globalization, and I would argue that in some senses it has, in fact, been compromised. What I mean is that with the proliferation of short-term missions trips, we're taught that the mode of relation to others in foreign countries should be based upon our beneficient gifts to them--we go, brings them some toys and candy and tools, become great pals with them, then leave, never to communicate with them again. I have some more thoughts on this, but I'm running out of time at our library's computer, so I'll hopefully return later. Looking forward to more debate and discussion!
Matt, I will respond to your question and follow with another question:
1. Question/Answer: I meant in terms of "backlash," that society may try to reverse globalization. Put another way, try capitalism in the local sense once more. I think this will be difficult, given the economic reality. People may try to find better solutions out of the country, or bring in foreign investment--both of which are really just a continuation of globalization. I don't know whether it is good, I just think that there will at least be some sort of mental reversal of the globalization. Whether that is aimed at the "optimism" or the physical economic reality remains to be seen.
2. New Question: I am curious as to how the optimism of globalization will be replaced by the current optimism surrounding the political landscape. Is it short-term or are we experiencing something else entirely?
Hey Jeremy, sorry for the delay. To respond to your first question, yes, I think it's probably true that local economic movements will strengthen-in fact, I think we see that happening already with the rise in local foods movements, interest in other local products, etc. And I think this is very good.
In response to your second question, I'd argue that the two are not opposed. I'm assuming you refer to Obama, and it seems clear to me that his policies in terms of trade and globalization are not too different from Bush. Perhaps Obama is less willing to use U.S. power to open up markets, but when it boils down to it, and despite all the excitement from liberals and jabber from conservatives that he's some kind of "socialist," in terms of the globalization issue I don't think things will be much different. Obama's no protectionist, that's for sure.
Post a Comment