Monday, August 30, 2010

Reflecting on The Game of Globalization

How Soccer Explains the World (Foer) was a rather insightful theory about the process of globalization. It took a main cultural force (futbol/soccer), and by tracking its history and its effects on nations, it exposed several universal themes: the need for identity, the widespread manipulation in political/economic systems, the commercialism of a trend, the qualms of racism, and the power of nationalism.

The soccer analogy is most interesting because Foer chose a sport. He did not choose an economic market or a good from said market. He did not choose a type of music, an article of clothing, etc. This was intentional. The field of globalization is as vast in opportunity as the number of plays (and players) in a match. However, being a “sport,” it has cycles of popularity. Being a “sport,” it can be taken for granted, as Arkan’s wife, Ceca (powerful political/soccer “gang” leaders of Serbia), pleaded ignorance: “This is a business, a game. Nothing more” (31).

Yet, soccer is something more. The passions felt by ethnic, religious, and socioeconomic groups were in the name of nationalism. In our class discussion, we pondered whether religion or secular nationalism was “better.” If they are in the name of the state, I believe that both can be just as beneficial and just as strong; it is up to an individual culture to decide which dominates. For example, in the Irish chapter, the soccer/political conflict was enflamed by the Protestant Reformation. Yet, the schism of the sects helped the country more than hurting it: “ethnic hatred makes good business sense” (39). Even more, the Jewish and Iranian/Muslim cultures really struck me because their religious/secular pride was one in the same because it was rooted in heritage.

Only two chapters after Foer’s admirable Barcelona (which, despite its tolerance of “political energies . . . [as] a harmless practice,” [205], seemed too ideal, coherent and “yuppie” in my opinion, [194]) came the chapter I was waiting for: the U.S. and nationalism. Yet, it was rather an anti-climax with anti-nationalism (anti-globalization). Though Foer’s book was written in 2004, I do believe that the U.S. is resisting to “get with the rest of the world’s program,” partially due to its factions between globalization/“American exceptionalism” (245). It must be difficult to tie together a country that is united by a broad concept: freedom. We are free to be, whether first or 100th generation, and the individual rules. This concept seemed to spill over into the HIV/AIDS lab:
1. We cannot agree that HIV/AIDS is a serious cause and may need more allocation of funds.
2. Our predominance in other countries seems to be just that, “dominance,” without much faith in/coordination with the local governments. (note: The possibilities of one country taking advantage of another for profit really bother me, as in the movie, The Constant Gardener.)
3. On a side note, I would be curious to compare UNAIDS with PEPFAR.

Oh, globalization, you are such a tricky matter! I am looking forward to exploring it.

No comments:

Post a Comment