Samuel Kim (Ed.). (2000). NY: Cambridge University Press.
7. K. Moon. Strangers in the Midst of Globalization: Migrant Workers and Korean Nationalism (pp.147-169).
Through an empirical review about migrant workers in Korea, Moon points out globalization in Korea resembles its common dual process--market/labor integration as well as defensive nationalism. Here are some examples that support her propositions: as seen in the case that Korean Chinese are better welcome as labor force, cultural homogeneity is inveterate. Also, the opposition against legalizing an employment-permit system bears worried anticipation of massive labor movements from North Korea after Korean reunification. According to the author, this is territorially bounded--rather than ethnically or economically--nationalism which is expressed with xenophobia oppressive toward others. But in September 1997, Immigration Control Law was revised such that legal workers may be allowed to join unions. She argues that this revision resulted from worrying the international reputation of the nation. There were some changes in citizenship as well. Here is a quote from media that the author inserted with the revision: "the government's attempt to modernize the Korean legal order in accordance with the era of globalization" (Hankyoreh, 20 September 1997).
However, this soft policy took another turn with the IMF crisis with the announcement from Justice Ministry on December 27, 1997. All illegal foreign workers were required to leave by the end of March 1998 without fine. The author interprets this action as viewing migrant workers as a threat to national job security. Finally she states that democracy movements should temper excessive nationalism and boost globalization in terms of human rights and democritization, while resisting economic globalization.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Power/Knowledge:Selected Interviews & Other Writings (1972-77)
Michel Foucault. (1980). Colin Gordon (Ed). New York: Pantheon Books.
Prison Talk (pp. 37-54)
"With the prisons there would be no sense in limiting oneself to discourses about prisons; just as important are the discourses which arise within the prison, the decisions and regulations which are among its constitutive elements, its means of functioning, along with its strategies, its convert discourses and ruses, ruses which are not ultimately played by any particular person, but which are none the less lived, and assure the permanence and functioning of the institution. All of this has to be brought together and made visible by the historian." Foucault asserts that power exists in a capillary form as it operates on body, actions, attitude, and discourses in granularity of every day life. Foucault's suggested study of history is to use a magnifying instrument to make unseen visible. By looking into one particular incident, one may not only reveal the same domain but also add another layer to history. His particular contribution to the study of history is that he started to investigate the relation between power and knowledge. He argues, "the exercise of power perpetually creates knowledge and, conversely, knowledge constantly induces effects of power." His comments on university is of interest: "The university hierarchy is only the most visible, the most sclerotic and least dangerous form of this--relation of power and knowledge-- phenomenon...Diffused, entrenched and dangerous, they operate in other places than in the person of the old professor."
Truth and Power (pp.109-133)
This conversation records Foucault's perspective on truth and power and methodological approach to knowledge. By the productive aspect of power, he means power that 'traverses and produces things, induces pleasure, forms knowledge and produces discourse' through the whole social body. According to him, this is a new 'economy' of power--biopower in Hardt and Negri's term. He emphasizes study of power goes beyond the State and sovereignty because the State can only operate on already existing power relations, not regulating all the powers. Detaching power from sovereignty and law, he suggests redefining power as a form of warlike domination, peace as a form of war and the State a means of waging it. As reflected in Hardt and Negri's work, Foucault stresses permanent war in civil society, and questions the role of army and military in this society. [It is interesting to find overlaps with regard to constant war and characteristics of power between Hardt & Negri and Foucault.] Unlike in feudal societies, power is exercied through 'social production' that intends to obtain productive services from individuals in their concrete life, Foucault argues, and thus power has to permeate the bodies of individuals, acts, attitudes and behaviors, as seen in school discipline.
His perspective on intellectuals also meets Hardt and Negri's. Foucault emphasizes 'specific' intellectuals rather than 'universal' intellectuals. He asserts that 'specific' intellectuals, experts or savant, specialized in certain domain of knowledge, maintains concrete awareness of struggles, thus drawn even closer to the proletariat since they confront the same adversary as the proletariat in their own struggles. Their growing importance is exemplified by Foucault with physicists debating in political realm at the turn of the century. He finds the real importance of specific intellectuals in the extention of 'technico-scientific structures' in the economic and strateific domain. Foucault stresses that unlike universal intellectuals, who were the writers of genius and opposed the unjust sovereignity, specific intellectuals are a group of handful people who possess at their disposal power, which can either produce or destroy life. [Here again resonates the concept of biopower by Hardt and Negri.] Foucault continues, the pitfall of experts' struggles lies in lack of a 'global strategy' or 'outside support.' In other words, isolation or singularity lacking network is a problem. [Grounding in this idea, Hardt and Negri argues that a distributed communication network can be an instrument for orchestrating these struggles.]
Foucault says, "truth isn't outside of power." According to him, truth is produced by constraints and induces power through the regime of truth, or the general politics of truth, of each society. The regime of truth is explained by him as follows, "the types of discourse which it accepts and makes function as true; the mechanisms and instances which enable one to distinguish true and false statements, the means by which each is sanctioned; the techniques and procedures accorded values in the acquisition of truth; the status of those who are charged with saying what counts as true."
He suggests that political problems for intellectuals should be placed in terms of power and truth rather than science and ideology. In this way, he argues that professionalization of intellectuals, which distinguishes intellectual labors from manual labors, can be 'envisaged' in a new way. Thus, according to him, emancipating truth from power does not hold the same importance as "detaching the power of truth from the forms of hegemony at social/economical/cultural levels."
The History of Sexuality (pp.183-193)
Foucault argues that one should go beyond focusing on a negative grid of power in terms of justice, technology and strategy and need to see a productive side of it--'bio-power' or 'somato-power'--which operates on the body itself bypassing the subject's consciousness. He also emphasizes on certain power, which is not a projection of sovereign's power. He calls this power the concrete and 'changing' soil that sovereign power is grounded. He criticizes the existentialism with the notion that it lays everything at individual responsibility, while those with a political/economic perspective limit their views to the market economy or capital exploitation. Thus, he brings about new schemas of politicisation for political anaylsis.
Prison Talk (pp. 37-54)
"With the prisons there would be no sense in limiting oneself to discourses about prisons; just as important are the discourses which arise within the prison, the decisions and regulations which are among its constitutive elements, its means of functioning, along with its strategies, its convert discourses and ruses, ruses which are not ultimately played by any particular person, but which are none the less lived, and assure the permanence and functioning of the institution. All of this has to be brought together and made visible by the historian." Foucault asserts that power exists in a capillary form as it operates on body, actions, attitude, and discourses in granularity of every day life. Foucault's suggested study of history is to use a magnifying instrument to make unseen visible. By looking into one particular incident, one may not only reveal the same domain but also add another layer to history. His particular contribution to the study of history is that he started to investigate the relation between power and knowledge. He argues, "the exercise of power perpetually creates knowledge and, conversely, knowledge constantly induces effects of power." His comments on university is of interest: "The university hierarchy is only the most visible, the most sclerotic and least dangerous form of this--relation of power and knowledge-- phenomenon...Diffused, entrenched and dangerous, they operate in other places than in the person of the old professor."
Truth and Power (pp.109-133)
This conversation records Foucault's perspective on truth and power and methodological approach to knowledge. By the productive aspect of power, he means power that 'traverses and produces things, induces pleasure, forms knowledge and produces discourse' through the whole social body. According to him, this is a new 'economy' of power--biopower in Hardt and Negri's term. He emphasizes study of power goes beyond the State and sovereignty because the State can only operate on already existing power relations, not regulating all the powers. Detaching power from sovereignty and law, he suggests redefining power as a form of warlike domination, peace as a form of war and the State a means of waging it. As reflected in Hardt and Negri's work, Foucault stresses permanent war in civil society, and questions the role of army and military in this society. [It is interesting to find overlaps with regard to constant war and characteristics of power between Hardt & Negri and Foucault.] Unlike in feudal societies, power is exercied through 'social production' that intends to obtain productive services from individuals in their concrete life, Foucault argues, and thus power has to permeate the bodies of individuals, acts, attitudes and behaviors, as seen in school discipline.
His perspective on intellectuals also meets Hardt and Negri's. Foucault emphasizes 'specific' intellectuals rather than 'universal' intellectuals. He asserts that 'specific' intellectuals, experts or savant, specialized in certain domain of knowledge, maintains concrete awareness of struggles, thus drawn even closer to the proletariat since they confront the same adversary as the proletariat in their own struggles. Their growing importance is exemplified by Foucault with physicists debating in political realm at the turn of the century. He finds the real importance of specific intellectuals in the extention of 'technico-scientific structures' in the economic and strateific domain. Foucault stresses that unlike universal intellectuals, who were the writers of genius and opposed the unjust sovereignity, specific intellectuals are a group of handful people who possess at their disposal power, which can either produce or destroy life. [Here again resonates the concept of biopower by Hardt and Negri.] Foucault continues, the pitfall of experts' struggles lies in lack of a 'global strategy' or 'outside support.' In other words, isolation or singularity lacking network is a problem. [Grounding in this idea, Hardt and Negri argues that a distributed communication network can be an instrument for orchestrating these struggles.]
Foucault says, "truth isn't outside of power." According to him, truth is produced by constraints and induces power through the regime of truth, or the general politics of truth, of each society. The regime of truth is explained by him as follows, "the types of discourse which it accepts and makes function as true; the mechanisms and instances which enable one to distinguish true and false statements, the means by which each is sanctioned; the techniques and procedures accorded values in the acquisition of truth; the status of those who are charged with saying what counts as true."
He suggests that political problems for intellectuals should be placed in terms of power and truth rather than science and ideology. In this way, he argues that professionalization of intellectuals, which distinguishes intellectual labors from manual labors, can be 'envisaged' in a new way. Thus, according to him, emancipating truth from power does not hold the same importance as "detaching the power of truth from the forms of hegemony at social/economical/cultural levels."
The History of Sexuality (pp.183-193)
Foucault argues that one should go beyond focusing on a negative grid of power in terms of justice, technology and strategy and need to see a productive side of it--'bio-power' or 'somato-power'--which operates on the body itself bypassing the subject's consciousness. He also emphasizes on certain power, which is not a projection of sovereign's power. He calls this power the concrete and 'changing' soil that sovereign power is grounded. He criticizes the existentialism with the notion that it lays everything at individual responsibility, while those with a political/economic perspective limit their views to the market economy or capital exploitation. Thus, he brings about new schemas of politicisation for political anaylsis.
Rigour and Complexity in Educational Research (2)
Kincheloe, J., & Berry, K. (2004). Open University Press.
1. Introduction (pp. 1-22)
This book deals with bricolage as research methodology and bricoleur's role in it. The author, following the delineation of Lincoln (2001), defines bricoleurs as researchers who employ eclectic research methods given circumstances and engage in multidisciplines for the purpose of social changes. According to him, knowing is an interpretative act and discursive and contextual analyses are its main dimensions, thus, knowledge or interpretation is subject to perspectives and background questionning empirical data. Then, which position should researchers undertake? Kincheloe expands the bricolage into the power dimension. "Discourse cannot be removed from power relations and the struggle to create particular meanings and legitimate specific voices...Power creeps in on little cat's feet to accomplish its regulation and fiscipline of various individuals and groups...Indeed, it works best when everyting seems normal and comfortable" (p.7). He also emphasizes that researchers employ philosophical inquiry, such as ontology, epistemology, cosmology, axiology (study of values) and teleology (study of purpose), in order to develop the logic and pshchology of research strategies and do that in historical context--historicity. Therefore, the interpretative dimension of bricolage connects to critical hermeneutics because research is intended to reveal power relations that operate to shape or construct meanings and lived consequences. Kincheloe contends that accepting multiple interpretations and differences and realizing the tensions of differences may bring insights that move researchers to new understanding of the subject, and simultaneously urges researchers to employ hermeneutic circle to understand the whole beyond the parts we deal with.
4. Redefining and interpreting the object of study (pp.82-102)
Kincheloe classifies the interpretative act, a central dimension of bricolage, into two concepts: critical hermeneutics to denote power inscription in words/knowledge and symbiotic hermeneutics to emphasize an interpretation in relation to others. The symbiotic hermeneutics is more specified by him with the term of hermeneutic circle, which is a process of meaning making through systematic collisions between parts or betweem part and whole that interconnects parts. He stresses that bricolage by and large based on multiperspectivism moves to a higher step through hermeneutic circle, however, does not anticipate the finality by summing up all parts as the reality is constructed multidimensionally and ever-changing and every aspect of knowing--interpretation--is 'fugitive' and 'elusive.' He quotes hermeneut Hans-Gerg Gadamer's argument that all meaning-making is historically and culturally specific, thus, prodedualized methods only disconnet research from living experience, therefore different procedures should be employed in different purpose and divergent circumstances.
1. Introduction (pp. 1-22)
This book deals with bricolage as research methodology and bricoleur's role in it. The author, following the delineation of Lincoln (2001), defines bricoleurs as researchers who employ eclectic research methods given circumstances and engage in multidisciplines for the purpose of social changes. According to him, knowing is an interpretative act and discursive and contextual analyses are its main dimensions, thus, knowledge or interpretation is subject to perspectives and background questionning empirical data. Then, which position should researchers undertake? Kincheloe expands the bricolage into the power dimension. "Discourse cannot be removed from power relations and the struggle to create particular meanings and legitimate specific voices...Power creeps in on little cat's feet to accomplish its regulation and fiscipline of various individuals and groups...Indeed, it works best when everyting seems normal and comfortable" (p.7). He also emphasizes that researchers employ philosophical inquiry, such as ontology, epistemology, cosmology, axiology (study of values) and teleology (study of purpose), in order to develop the logic and pshchology of research strategies and do that in historical context--historicity. Therefore, the interpretative dimension of bricolage connects to critical hermeneutics because research is intended to reveal power relations that operate to shape or construct meanings and lived consequences. Kincheloe contends that accepting multiple interpretations and differences and realizing the tensions of differences may bring insights that move researchers to new understanding of the subject, and simultaneously urges researchers to employ hermeneutic circle to understand the whole beyond the parts we deal with.
4. Redefining and interpreting the object of study (pp.82-102)
Kincheloe classifies the interpretative act, a central dimension of bricolage, into two concepts: critical hermeneutics to denote power inscription in words/knowledge and symbiotic hermeneutics to emphasize an interpretation in relation to others. The symbiotic hermeneutics is more specified by him with the term of hermeneutic circle, which is a process of meaning making through systematic collisions between parts or betweem part and whole that interconnects parts. He stresses that bricolage by and large based on multiperspectivism moves to a higher step through hermeneutic circle, however, does not anticipate the finality by summing up all parts as the reality is constructed multidimensionally and ever-changing and every aspect of knowing--interpretation--is 'fugitive' and 'elusive.' He quotes hermeneut Hans-Gerg Gadamer's argument that all meaning-making is historically and culturally specific, thus, prodedualized methods only disconnet research from living experience, therefore different procedures should be employed in different purpose and divergent circumstances.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Globalization and Neoliberalism
A Taxonomy and Some Implications for ‘Anti-Globalization’
Bowles, Paul. (2005). Canadian Journal of Development Studies. Vol. 26(1).
Bowles argues that neoliberalism is primarily an economic concept dedicated to ‘free markets’ based on privatization and deregulation and it takes various polities and identifies four different groups of views on globalization.
Group 1: globalization is an inevitable process driven by communication technology, thus weakening state power. Within this context, neolieralism is the 'rational' policy responding to the change and the roles of state should shrink to maximize the flow of technology and deregulate national trade policies at all levels. In this way, poor nations can be more benefited than others and 'economic convergence', in the term of economist, will occur. On this other hand, there is a school of thought that criticizes this neoliberal view. They argue that new forms of governance has to established in order to realize the immense productive potential of globalization. The current neoliberalism at both state and international levels just doesn't meet the condition.
Group 2: Globalization is a myth, as global worldwide trade is not new, and only serves as a tool for neoliberalists, thus ideology or globalism. "globalization is really a myth, an over-hyped idea designed to support the neoliberal agenda with its political redistribution of power to corporate and financial elites."
Group 3: "Globalization can be seen as a code word for the ascendancy of U.S. imperialism" (Petras & Veltmeyer, 2001). They also argue that globalization is a project to open up markets abroad as an exit from the crisis of profitability and therefore, neoliberalism joins this imperial impetus as the policy thrust to achieve the objectives, and nation-states play a more vigorous role to implement the policy.
Group 4: Globalization is in fact regionalism, as often expressed as "stumbling bloc" or "building bloc." Thus, regions are central to globalization and the way they are being structured is neolibral.
The author argues that anti-globalization is in fact anti-neoliberalism and looks for new governance forms at the global and local levels as an opposition to corporate power. He quotes David Held's position as an explanation of the local level: Held (1995) argues that at the local level, forms of participatory development and community-based organizations and institutions are seen as the governance structures necessary to empower the losers in the neoliberal globalization process and to democratize local processes (cited on p 22). [Democracy and Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance. (1995)] In this movment, the author adds, 'global civil society' gets into the main stream and 'deradicalized' by taking 'well-worn footsteps' of gender and sustainability, thus 'global social justice' movement differentiates itself from the mainstream movement. Walden Bello, the author quotes, argues anti-globalization, which means deglobalization, aims decentralizing decision-making at the local, national and global levels. According to the author, the common central idea of global social justice movement is that local spaces are essential in order to resist corporate driven, or neoliberal, globalization as stated in group 1. There seem other movements correspondent to the other groups, but they are relatively insignificant.
Bowles, Paul. (2005). Canadian Journal of Development Studies. Vol. 26(1).
Bowles argues that neoliberalism is primarily an economic concept dedicated to ‘free markets’ based on privatization and deregulation and it takes various polities and identifies four different groups of views on globalization.
Group 1: globalization is an inevitable process driven by communication technology, thus weakening state power. Within this context, neolieralism is the 'rational' policy responding to the change and the roles of state should shrink to maximize the flow of technology and deregulate national trade policies at all levels. In this way, poor nations can be more benefited than others and 'economic convergence', in the term of economist, will occur. On this other hand, there is a school of thought that criticizes this neoliberal view. They argue that new forms of governance has to established in order to realize the immense productive potential of globalization. The current neoliberalism at both state and international levels just doesn't meet the condition.
Group 2: Globalization is a myth, as global worldwide trade is not new, and only serves as a tool for neoliberalists, thus ideology or globalism. "globalization is really a myth, an over-hyped idea designed to support the neoliberal agenda with its political redistribution of power to corporate and financial elites."
Group 3: "Globalization can be seen as a code word for the ascendancy of U.S. imperialism" (Petras & Veltmeyer, 2001). They also argue that globalization is a project to open up markets abroad as an exit from the crisis of profitability and therefore, neoliberalism joins this imperial impetus as the policy thrust to achieve the objectives, and nation-states play a more vigorous role to implement the policy.
Group 4: Globalization is in fact regionalism, as often expressed as "stumbling bloc" or "building bloc." Thus, regions are central to globalization and the way they are being structured is neolibral.
The author argues that anti-globalization is in fact anti-neoliberalism and looks for new governance forms at the global and local levels as an opposition to corporate power. He quotes David Held's position as an explanation of the local level: Held (1995) argues that at the local level, forms of participatory development and community-based organizations and institutions are seen as the governance structures necessary to empower the losers in the neoliberal globalization process and to democratize local processes (cited on p 22). [Democracy and Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance. (1995)] In this movment, the author adds, 'global civil society' gets into the main stream and 'deradicalized' by taking 'well-worn footsteps' of gender and sustainability, thus 'global social justice' movement differentiates itself from the mainstream movement. Walden Bello, the author quotes, argues anti-globalization, which means deglobalization, aims decentralizing decision-making at the local, national and global levels. According to the author, the common central idea of global social justice movement is that local spaces are essential in order to resist corporate driven, or neoliberal, globalization as stated in group 1. There seem other movements correspondent to the other groups, but they are relatively insignificant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
