The Interdisciplinary Studies Program (IDS): GLOBAL STUDIES Intro Courses DRAFT COMMENTS Thank you to all who have contributed to the discussion regarding the Global Studies 1 and 2 course drafts. Below is a compilation of the comments received thus far (10/31/08). As the chair, I have taken the liberty to address these comments (in blue). Please don t read my comments as the final say, but rather as my contribution to the discussion. You are welcome to disagree (and overrule (and overthrow)). I have organized the comments by theme : Regarding the texts Regarding the lack of psychology Regarding the distinction between global studies and globalization studies Additional concerns What now? (Keep the discussion going. Comment on the comments. Meeting in 1-2 weeks.) REGARDING THE TEXTS MINZENBERG_ERIC wrote: I must object to the inclusion of Thomas Friedman's book as one of the texts used for these courses. Friedman's notions of the dichotomy of cultural groups with Lexus signifying modern or pro-globalization and olive tree signifying anti-modern or anti-globalization, are simplistic at best, and wrong at worst. As an anthropologist who has worked with peasant and indigenous populations in Brazil, Ecuador, and Turkey, and Latino immigrants in the US, cultural responses with globalization (political, economic, and socio-cultural) reflect a mixture of tradition with the acceptance of modernity/post-modernity. No culture/nation is entirely modern or pro-globalization and no culture/nation is entirely anti-modern or antiglobalization. Friedman's book fails to recognize how some nations and peoples have benefited from globalization while millions of others have become further impoverished by contemporary forms of globalization. For a good scholarly critique of Friedman's book read "Globalization and Thomas Friedman" by Angelique Haugerud (2005). MASSEY_ROBERT wrote: I would agree that Friedman's book and views are problematic. However, for that precise reason it could be argued that his oversimplification and Eurocentric views should be examined and critiqued, as they seem to be representative of a mainstream segment of the establishment free trade intellectuals in this country. I would recommend the inclusion of Globalization From Below, by Jeremy Brecker et al., for the perspectives of those social movements organized against the imposition and domination of global capitalism in their societies. MINZENBERG_ERIC wrote: Yes, Robert, you are correct that Friedman's Eurocentric views should be critiqued. One of my concerns with the inclusion of his book as a text for these classes is that students will be assigned to read a limited number of books/articles/reports for any course and to include a book such as Friedman's as a primary text is not, in my opinion, the best way to introduce and educate students to the subject of globalization.
Maybe a chapter from his book with the article I listed as a critique could be a more productive way to discuss differing views on globalization. The Brecker book you recommend is a much better text for introductory courses on globalization. MASSEY_ROBERT wrote: Points well made--the book and critique would work well as course complements. Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" and a critique of it, "Awe Shocks" by Doug Henwood of the Left Business Observer would also be timely additions. RABACH_EILEEN wrote: Use Chang's Bad Samaritans as it includes and critiques Friedman and other NewLiberal economic views. He is a mainstream neo-classical economist who teaches at Cambridge.(It's out in paperback this Jan-09) MONTEIRO_NATALINA wrote: I have a great book I want to suggest for the Global Studies course. Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine: The rise of Disaster Capitalism". The book presents a critical, as well as a historical perspective of free-market capitalism in a globalized economy. It covers countries like Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, Israel, Indonesia, and Russia, [just to mention a few]. The book is "an alternative history of the most dominant ideology of our times", says the New Times [Bestseller]book review. Klein challenges the popular myth of Milton Friedman's free-market economic revolution and she uses Latin America as example. She demonstrates how free-market corporate capitalism has failed and in doing so she exposes Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of economics hidden agenda for global dominance. This book deals with political, economic, social, and cultural perspective in several part of the globe. DRUKER_STEPHEN wrote: I'll add the following from a psych perspective: M. J. Stevens & U. P. Gielen (Eds.)(2007), Toward a Global Psychology: Theory, Research, Intervention, and Pedagogy (pp. 333-361). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gielen, U. P., & Chumachenko, O. (2004). All the world s children: The impact of global demographic trends and economic disparities. In U. P. Gielen & J. L. Roopnarine (Eds.), Childhood and adolescence: Cross-cultural perspectives and applications (pp. 81-109). Westport, CT: Praeger. KATHERINE_AMBER wrote: Since it is an interdisciplinary course, you might want to include some global literature in texts and references list, e.g. Arundhati Roy s The God of Small Things. Globalization, in theory, is abstract and difficult to feel. In this regard literature can provide a concrete way into the theory. There are several good interdisciplinary texts which include philosophical perspectives. One that might be considered for you list is: Globalization, Technology, and Philosophy, edited by David Tabachnick and Toivo Koivukoski (SUNY, 2004). One of the most accessible text I have come across in analyzing environmental problems from global perspectives is Paths to a Green World: The Political Economy of the Global Environment edited by Jennifer Clapp and Peter Dauvergne, (MIT press, 2005). In my opinion, this book could be used at the main text for GS 2. In GS 2 there are excellent resources with global perspectives available on each of the key issues that might be added as references, e.g. the United Nations World Water Development Report 2 called Water: A Shared Responsibility (2006). GUIDO S COMMENTS: Thanks to all for your comments, suggestions, and input regarding the texts. One thing I think must be understood is that this is a course outline of record and not a course syllabus. And as such, I m much more likely to push on the side of inclusion rather than limitations. Apparently I was lazy and kept the
heading of Required Texts and References. Instead I would suggest that it should read (as has been our custom in Sociology) Suggested Texts Include. Specifically: Because our understanding is continually being updated, no specific text is in permanent use in this course. Moreover, the content of this course lends itself to the use of anthologies and periodical texts (which may include electronic media). It is essential, however, that any text used be both appropriate and approachable for lower-division students, as well as grounded in or supplemented by a strong theoretical framework. Suggested Texts Include: So I am more than happy to add all of the suggestions to be included. I do think we need to keep Friedman s book in there as it is often a text listed in the course outlines of other institutions. And one hopes that if a faculty member teaching the course uses it, it is used wisely. REGARDING THE LACK OF PSYCHOLOGY: DRUKER_STEPHEN wrote: My comment has to do with the statement that "an interdisciplinary framework" is necessary to a basic course on Global Studies. Looking at the details of the courses (briefly I admit) political, social, and economic frameworks seem to dominate. I couldn't really find anything explicitly addressing a psychological perspective. While this isn't inherently bad, it does bring up the question: How should the core knowledge for a Global Studies program be defined? CHIN_DOROTHY wrote: I second the comment (probably no surprise!) GUIDO S COMMENTS: I agree that there is really nothing explicitly addressing a psychological perspective. I also would agree that political, social, and economic frameworks seem to dominate. I would argue that this is because of the way the field of Global Studies has been defined and applied both nationally and internationally. We might all want to review the initial (4/3/08) handout I constructed Global Studies Overview where I ask the questions What is Global Studies? What is meant by Global Studies? and What do Global Studies Programs look like? (I have attached it again for reference.) This handout was developed after a search of Global Studies Degrees at the UC and CSU level and I don t think I was being unconsciously selective (though that is a possibility). So while I m open to the inclusion of a more explicitly psychological perspective, I m not sure how that would work nor how that would interact with our desire to articulate our courses with the UC and CSU as satisfying their lower division requirements for the major. Alternatively, I could certainly foresee a new Psychology course specifically geared (though not exclusively) toward students with an interest in this area. And, of course, such a course could/would be part of the GS curriculum at SMC. If there are examples of explicating bringing in a psychological approach in an Intro to GS course, please bring those forward so that we can model the inclusion.
REGARDING THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN GLOBAL STUDIES AND GLOBALIZATION STUDIES GOODFELLOW_CANDYCE wrote: I ve read the Global Studies 1 & 2, and the e-mails that were sent to you. I agree with your idea of distinguishing between the perspectives in each of the Global Studies courses. It also seems to me, however, that the topics in both courses reflect a focus on globalization rather than global studies. GUIDO: I agree In both courses, there seems to be a strong emphasis on the changes in the world which are now called globalization, and economic, political, etc. issues. This, I think, is true even of Global Studies 1, which deals with economies and markets. I would be in favor of including globalization in either/both courses, but for G.S. 1, I would think that the study of peoples on the globe should be the dominating emphasis. GUIDO: I agree. And I attempted to deal with that by making 25% of the course focused on what might be called Cultural Distinctions where as most other topics are dealt with in a much more survey manner. At the same time, I was attempting to bring in those other survey issues to satisfy the articulation requirements at other institutions. So let s work on flushing this out. The UCSB and other course descriptions seem to be designed to prepare students to work in the international marketplace, int l media, technology.to me, this is all more properly called Globalization Studies. The UCSB description allows two emphases: ideology or socio-econ./political. Still seems like globalization from a western economic point of view. GUIDO: I agree. I see this as the nature of the field. And while I m not sure that the course would be coming from a western economic point of view, I would agree that present-day globalization is very much defined by western economic theories, policies, and practices. I don t think we can deny the power of the west in influencing the processes and ideas of all peoples. Perhaps I am behind the curve of changing thought in this area. It strikes me that the courses, as described, leave out topics more related to psychology, non-western culture, anthro., interpersonal interaction, personal behavior, with an almost sole focus on a more sociological/political/economic distant description of global changes in those areas. I think this is fine if the goal is as stated by UCSB, but I think that is a narrow view of acquiring a global point-of-view or becoming a global citizen. GUIDO: I don t disagree with your assessment of the focus. This is what I think we need to discuss. And perhaps the solution involves developing two different (and distinct) programs rather than attempting to merge them. (Though I believe we will have a difficult time finding programs at other institutions (other than traditional Anthropology) which have a focus on understanding diverse peoples. The possible exception is UC Irvine s Global Cultures program (please see the attached PDF Global Studies Overview ). CHIN_DOROTHY wrote: I think this is a very thoughtful analysis of a distinction we should consider more fully, particularly given the College s emphasis on Global Citizenship, which has an underlying connotation of individual actions, perceptions, and behaviors. Would a sole or dominating emphasis on globalization from an economic and political point of view put us out of sync with our own initiative? GUIDO: I don t think so. I would argue that to be an informed, effective (global citizen), one must, at minimum, have a general understanding of the forces at work and the current state of affairs. That s what we want to provide in an Intro to GS course. Then, we have also entertained the notion of requiring students (as a cap stone project ) to engage in a Service-Learning project in the general area of Global
Studies. So that s where I think the individual actions and behaviors comes in. So I don t think we re out of sync unless you teach like me and constantly depress your students. ADDITIONAL CONCERNS: IDEOLOGICAL / PHILOSOPHICAL; GLOBAL WARMING / CLIMATE CHANGE; COURSE OBJECTIVES; COURSE TOPICS KATHERINE_AMBER wrote: In the GS 1 outline, I would suggest that the word ideological in the second sentence, It is designed to familiarize students with a broad range of historical, cultural, ideological, economic, political, environmental and social issues confronting today s globalized world, be changed to philosophical. I guess if you follow Marx, and believe that all philosophy is ideological this term makes sense here. However, there are many post-marxist philosophies that context the term ideology on the ground that it assumes a modern conception of truth by which ideologies can be measured. The term philosophical here would be more inclusive and speaks directly to the contributions made by philosophers to the field of global studies. Another alternative sometimes used in the literature is worldviews. In my opinion ideologies is an overly value-laden term. Another reason to use the term philosophical is to bring liberal arts more into the course structure which, as already noted, is heavy in the social sciences. GUIDO: I m not sure that philosophical and ideological are interchangeable in this context. Perhaps we can add philosophical? Just a thought. But I don t feel strongly either way. The field of philosophy can contribute much in the way of analytic resources to the field, especially to the task of defining global and globalization. Although I see that you have that on the course outline, it the work of defining these terms does not appear as a course objective. I encourage you to consider its inclusion. GUIDO: Understood. It would be most helpful if you could offer a written objective that should be included. In GS 2 as an example you offer global warming as a problem which might be analyzed in the course. In the literature the term most often being used to describe the problem these days is climate change. Regardless of which term you use I am glad to see that that problem on the list since in the field of environmental studies it is at the top of critical global problems. GUIDO: I don t see any problem making this change and I certainly agree. In GS 2 you list several weeks devoted to the following categories of global issues : environment, population, food and water, energy. These are good ones, but I am wondering if you envision for these to the only issues, or just sample issues. How about war or violence? GUIDO: Good point. We ll have to make a decision whether or not these are samples or mandatory or which ones of these we feel strongly must be mandatory,. I suppose I envisioned war or violence in the last Global Issues: A New World Order? (and throughout), but we can certainly specify. WHAT NOW? GUIDO: Let s review the material we have at hand. Everything we have considered can be found at http://homepage.smc.edu/delpiccolo_guido/ids_page.htm (under the Global Studies Material section). Let s plan on an in-person meeting in 1 to 2 weeks, but in the meantime, please continue to think through these issues and please comment (via reply to all).