Ch. 3, Globalization and Culture: Three Paradigms (45–66); Ch. 4, Globalization as Hybridization (67–98)
Compare and contrast the "culture" handout to Nederveen Pieterse's discussion on pp. 49-51. How would you explain "culture" to someone who asked you what it was?
Present and explain two examples of how your own cultural experience is impacted by globalization.
Would Huntington's "clash of civilizations" work without a hegemon? What if the hegemon weren't the U.S.? Explain your answers.
What's the difference, if any, between McDonaldization and westernization? Offer specific examples to support your answer.
Which critiques of the "clash of civilizations" and "McDonaldization" do you find most confusing? Which are easiest to understand? Which are most compelling? Explain your answers.
Does it make sense, either conceptually or practically, to separate cultural "languages" from cultural "grammars"? How so, or why not?
Connect the Tollywood article to this chapter, making your connection as specific as you can.
What do we need to know from this chapter? What can we ignore? Choose an item or two, in each category, and justify your selections.
Summarize Nederveen Pieterse's notion of "globalization as hybridization" for someone who's unfamiliar with this perspective.
What new ideas about globalization did you encounter in this chapter? What points or arguments were already familiar to you?
Articulate some key strengths and weaknesses of Nederveen Pieterse's hybridization perspective. Do any of these significantly affect the analytical strength of his perspective? Explain.
How closely does your own perspective correspond to Nederveen Pieterse's, as discussed in this chapter? Does hybridization offer a better way to think about globalization than the clash of civilizations or McDonaldization? How so, or why not?
What are the two or three most important things we need to know about "globalization as hybridization"? Why?