Naomi Klein was born on May 5, 1970 in Montreal, Quebec into a political family. Her mother, Bonnie Sherr Klein, directed Not a Love Story, an anti-pornography film which looked into the life of a stripper named Linda Lee Tracey, in 1981, while her father, Michael Klein, is a member of the Physicians for Social Responsibility. Her brother, Seth Klein, became the B. C. Director of the Vancouver office of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives in 1997, and her grandfather was an animator at Disney who was fired for attempting to organize a labor union as well as staging the company’s first strike; he was subsequently blacklisted by Joseph McCarthy.
As a child, Naomi Klein was drawn by advertisements and brand names. She was obsessed with Barbie, designer jeans, and other merchandise she could buy. She was also dazzled by the logos of many corporations, especially the incandescent sign of Shell, which was “so bright and cartoon-like I was convinced that, if I could climb up and touch it, it would be like touching something from another dimension - from the world of TV.” She used to stitch fake logos onto her shirts in order to make them look like the genuine article.
Klein then became a journalist and a writer for The Nation and The Guardian. In 2000 she wrote No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies, which has turned into an international phenomenon along with winning both the Canadian National Business Book Award and the French Prix Médiations. In 2002, she publishedFences and Windows: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Globalization Debate, a collection of many of her previous works. She released The Take in 2004, a documentary directed by herself and her husband, Avi Lewis, about the plight of unemployed workers in Argentina. Klein has currently released her new book titled The Shock Doctrine: Rise of Disaster Capitalism.
Information from:
http://www.learntoquestion.com/seevak/groups/2007/sites/klein/biography.html
1/25/10
Another form of Anti-globalization:
Bad Mood Rising: The Anticorporate Activism
By: Naomi Klein
Based on new organizations and publications that have been founded for the sole purpose of “outing” corporations that are benefiting from repressive government policies around the globe (325).
“A lot of activists are attaching themselves leech-like onto the sides of the bodies corporate”.
“The Year of the Sweatshop” during 1995-96, North Americans could not turn on their televisions without hearing shameful stories about the exploitive labour practices behind most mass-marketed labels on the bradescape (327).
Not only the superbrands and their celebrity endorsers who felt the sting of the Year of the Sweatshop – clothing stores chains, big-box retailers and department stores also found themselves being held responsible for the conditions under which toys and fashions on their racks were being produced (329).
“The Year of the Brand Attacks” followed the Year of the Sweatshop and shows no sign of receding. It takes a fairly straightforward approach between the buyer and the seller. But the more successful brand are, the more vulnerable these companies become: if brands are intimately entangled in out culture and identities, when they do wrong, their crimes are not dismissed as merely misdemeanours many who rely on their brands feel guilty and complicit in their wrongs.
So why is that activists choose to focus on big name corporations?
“Because we have more influence on a brand name than we do with our own governments...Activists always target the people who have the power...so if the power moves from government to industry to transnational corporations, so the swivel will move onto these people” (342/43).
Activists attack money-making corporations for their exploitation, greed and deception, however, it should be considered that even though under capitalism, it is the corporations that hold the power, the government should be at the forefront of punishment. At the end of the day, the government makes the rules, set the standards and should hold responsibility. It seems even more today, the government has flown under the radar.
By: Naomi Klein
Based on new organizations and publications that have been founded for the sole purpose of “outing” corporations that are benefiting from repressive government policies around the globe (325).
“A lot of activists are attaching themselves leech-like onto the sides of the bodies corporate”.
“The Year of the Sweatshop” during 1995-96, North Americans could not turn on their televisions without hearing shameful stories about the exploitive labour practices behind most mass-marketed labels on the bradescape (327).
Not only the superbrands and their celebrity endorsers who felt the sting of the Year of the Sweatshop – clothing stores chains, big-box retailers and department stores also found themselves being held responsible for the conditions under which toys and fashions on their racks were being produced (329).
“The Year of the Brand Attacks” followed the Year of the Sweatshop and shows no sign of receding. It takes a fairly straightforward approach between the buyer and the seller. But the more successful brand are, the more vulnerable these companies become: if brands are intimately entangled in out culture and identities, when they do wrong, their crimes are not dismissed as merely misdemeanours many who rely on their brands feel guilty and complicit in their wrongs.
So why is that activists choose to focus on big name corporations?
“Because we have more influence on a brand name than we do with our own governments...Activists always target the people who have the power...so if the power moves from government to industry to transnational corporations, so the swivel will move onto these people” (342/43).
Activists attack money-making corporations for their exploitation, greed and deception, however, it should be considered that even though under capitalism, it is the corporations that hold the power, the government should be at the forefront of punishment. At the end of the day, the government makes the rules, set the standards and should hold responsibility. It seems even more today, the government has flown under the radar.
Naomi Klein - Disaster Capitalism
Disaster Capitalism:
Is this a legitimate form of creating economy?
How is this apparent in Haiti today?
Who's benefiting? Who's not?
SHOCK DOCTRINE SHORT VIDEO
"At the most chaotic juncture in Iraq’s civil war, a new law is unveiled that would allow Shell and BP to claim the country’s vast oil reserves…. Immediately following September 11, the Bush Administration quietly out-sources the running of the “War on Terror” to Halliburton and Blackwater…. After a tsunami wipes out the coasts of Southeast Asia, the pristine beaches are auctioned off to tourist resorts.... New Orleans’s residents, scattered from Hurricane Katrina, discover that their public housing, hospitals and schools will never be reopened…. These events are examples of “the shock doctrine”: using the public’s disorientation following massive collective shocks – wars, terrorist attacks, or natural disasters -- to achieve control by imposing economic shock therapy. Sometimes, when the first two shocks don’t succeed in wiping out resistance, a third shock is employed: the electrode in the prison cell or the Taser gun on the streets. " Naomi Klein
1/21/10
We have a voice! We can be heard! We just have to march down the streets screaming until they acknowledge us! The WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999
The World Trade Organization is an institution that governs and negotiates the world’s trade and investment rules, currently 135 countries are members.
Anti-globalization activists made headlines around the world in November 1999 when activists forced the Seattle World Trade Organization Ministerial Conference to end early due to poor organization and controversial management of the large street protests.
The Activist Goal: Shutting down the WTO meetings by barricading the Seattle Convention Trade Center by placing their bodies and debris between the WTO delegates and the building.
In 1999 the World Trade Organization was set to convene for the Ministerial Conference in Seattle Washington, for what was supposed to be three days of negotiating, in an attempt to launch a new round of trade negotiations. They were intended to further open the markets and deregulate international trade around the world. The negotiations were directed towards controversial areas such as agriculture, services, and intellectual property which lead to the opposition of thousands of protesters representing labor organizations, environmental groups, farmers and many others. Most governments around the world and leading multi-national corporations along with virtually all of Washington state’s political and business leaders supported the WTO and free trade. They argued that it benefited society by promoting economic growth, however international and local
labour unions, environmental groups and other activists increasingly opposed it. They condemned the WTO for favouring corporate interests over social and environmental concerns. "When protesters shout about the evils of globalization, most are not calling for a return to narrow nationalism but for the borders of globalization to be expanded, for trade to be linked to labour rights, environmental protection and democracy." -Naomi Klein
In the early mornings of November 30, 1999 several hundred activists arrived in the deserted streets near the convention center and began to take control of key intersections. Over the next few hours, a number of marchers began to converge on the area from all different directions. As the day continued more protesters arrived, and their control of the intersections, plus the sheer number of protesters in the area was successful in preventing the delegates from leaving their hotels and from entering convention center.
The crowds proved difficult for the police and drastic action was taken, the police department fired pepper spray and tear gas canisters, they used stun grenades and rubber bullets in an attempt to reopen the streets and allow the WTO delegates to pass through. This proved ineffective. Eventually the National Guard was called out in an effort to help quell the masses.
In December protesters from all around the United States and the planet had converged on Seattle, successfully hindering the WTO Ministerial Conference. Downtown Seattle was shut down for days and the WTO delegates were unable to reach any agreements or further advance their policies.
This protests marked a place in history and an unprecedented alliance emerged between organized labour, environmentalists, farmers and independent alternative media to resist global corporate rule.
In 1999 the Seattle WTO riots represented the most victorious demonstration in anti-globalization in the U.S.
"Information from: http://www.historylink.org/Index.cfmkeyword=WTOProtest&DisplayPage=results.cfm
http://www.answers.com/topic/intellectual-property
What can I do: Supporting Anti-Globalization is more than just responsible shopping
It would be easy if we had a list as to what we can do as individuals to support Anti-globalization;
Where to shop for clothing? How to ensure the stores I shop at are certifiably sweatshop-free? Will avoiding multinational conglomerates such as McDonald's, Starbucks & Wal-Mart actually help? Should I stop buying brand names like Nike and The Gap?
A list sounds like it may be helpful but in reality there is no such list to follow because the truth of the matter is, this is not a CONSUMER issue it is a POLITICAL issue. "I'm the worst person to ask these questions, because since the book 'No Logo' came out people really are watching what I buy. If I walked around Toronto with a Starbucks, it would be seen that I was endorsing that brand." states Klein.
In the article "Hand-To-Brand-Combat: A Profile Of Naomi Klein" published in the Guardian/UK by Kathraine Viner:
Klein argues, "There is a way for us to respond as citizens that is not simply as consumers. Over and over again, people's immediate response to these issues is: What do I buy? I have to immediately solve this problem through shopping. But you can like the products and not like the corporate behavior; because the corporate behavior is a political issue, and the products are just stuff. The movement is really not about being purer-than-thousand producing a recipe for being an ethical consumer. That drains a lot of political energy"......."I firmly believe that it's not about where you shop. I'm lucky in that I happen to live a few blocks from some great independent designers, so I actually can shop in stores where I know where stuff is produced. But I can't say that to a 17-year-old girl in the suburbs who can only shop at the mall. It's not a fair message.”
The key is in understanding that it is not about WHAT you buy and WHERE you buy it, and it is not about the products themselves or about the brand. It is about the behaviours of the companies that produce them, and the regulations that they follow or rather lack of regulations, and the role they play in our society and in our lives. Holding multinational corporations responsible for how their products are made requires more than just responsible shopping, it is about looking beyond the shiny design and seeing the truths about our global economy. Klein states "at the heart of this convergence of anti-corporate activism and research is the recognition that corporations are much more than purveyors of the products we all want: they are also the most powerful political forces of our time" and it is this that needs to be addressed.
In the video Naomi Klein discuss the idea of a sort of explosion of “Brand based Investigative Activism” where campaigners have looked behind the brand to see how the products are being made. Klein argues that brand-based companies are not about products but about brands, they spend an exorbitant amount of money on marketing their brand and getting high profile celebrities to endorse them, and still expect to make a profit. They do this by paying and investing in the workers as little as possible in an attempt to cut costs and increase profits. These anti-corporate campaigns work against multi-national corporations by revealing the dark and unjust labour practices that make these brands possible. High-profile brands like McDonalds, Starbucks and The Gap do not want us to see the secrets that lie behind the brand because it places them on the "front lines" where activist can take the fight to and say, “We know the truth about your products and we’re not okay with it.”
“The irony in this new surge of activism is that high-profile brands like McDonalds and Starbucks and the Gap find themselves in the uncomfortable position of singing the praises of the free trade and the libratory power of globalization while at the same time positioning armed guards around their stores during rising protests” (Jeremy Earp & Danielle Devereaux)
Information obtained from: http://www.mediaed.org/assets/products/115/studyguide_115.pdf & http://www.commondreams.org/views/092300-103.htmamp;
Where to shop for clothing? How to ensure the stores I shop at are certifiably sweatshop-free? Will avoiding multinational conglomerates such as McDonald's, Starbucks & Wal-Mart actually help? Should I stop buying brand names like Nike and The Gap?
A list sounds like it may be helpful but in reality there is no such list to follow because the truth of the matter is, this is not a CONSUMER issue it is a POLITICAL issue. "I'm the worst person to ask these questions, because since the book 'No Logo' came out people really are watching what I buy. If I walked around Toronto with a Starbucks, it would be seen that I was endorsing that brand." states Klein.
In the article "Hand-To-Brand-Combat: A Profile Of Naomi Klein" published in the Guardian/UK by Kathraine Viner:
Klein argues, "There is a way for us to respond as citizens that is not simply as consumers. Over and over again, people's immediate response to these issues is: What do I buy? I have to immediately solve this problem through shopping. But you can like the products and not like the corporate behavior; because the corporate behavior is a political issue, and the products are just stuff. The movement is really not about being purer-than-thousand producing a recipe for being an ethical consumer. That drains a lot of political energy"......."I firmly believe that it's not about where you shop. I'm lucky in that I happen to live a few blocks from some great independent designers, so I actually can shop in stores where I know where stuff is produced. But I can't say that to a 17-year-old girl in the suburbs who can only shop at the mall. It's not a fair message.”
The key is in understanding that it is not about WHAT you buy and WHERE you buy it, and it is not about the products themselves or about the brand. It is about the behaviours of the companies that produce them, and the regulations that they follow or rather lack of regulations, and the role they play in our society and in our lives. Holding multinational corporations responsible for how their products are made requires more than just responsible shopping, it is about looking beyond the shiny design and seeing the truths about our global economy. Klein states "at the heart of this convergence of anti-corporate activism and research is the recognition that corporations are much more than purveyors of the products we all want: they are also the most powerful political forces of our time" and it is this that needs to be addressed.
In the video Naomi Klein discuss the idea of a sort of explosion of “Brand based Investigative Activism” where campaigners have looked behind the brand to see how the products are being made. Klein argues that brand-based companies are not about products but about brands, they spend an exorbitant amount of money on marketing their brand and getting high profile celebrities to endorse them, and still expect to make a profit. They do this by paying and investing in the workers as little as possible in an attempt to cut costs and increase profits. These anti-corporate campaigns work against multi-national corporations by revealing the dark and unjust labour practices that make these brands possible. High-profile brands like McDonalds, Starbucks and The Gap do not want us to see the secrets that lie behind the brand because it places them on the "front lines" where activist can take the fight to and say, “We know the truth about your products and we’re not okay with it.”
“The irony in this new surge of activism is that high-profile brands like McDonalds and Starbucks and the Gap find themselves in the uncomfortable position of singing the praises of the free trade and the libratory power of globalization while at the same time positioning armed guards around their stores during rising protests” (Jeremy Earp & Danielle Devereaux)
Information obtained from: http://www.mediaed.org/assets/products/115/studyguide_115.pdf & http://www.commondreams.org/views/092300-103.htmamp;
Culture Jamming
Culture Jamming by Naomi Klein begins with an introduction to Rodriguez de Gerada, a creative founder of culture jamming. He is performing ‘citizen art’ in New York City, modifying a Newport ad on a billboard, overlooking a poor neighbourhood, where the billboards advertising liquor and cigarettes are disproportionately high. Unlike vandals, Rodriguez de Gerada creates art on ads in the middle of the day, encouraging an audience and an active conversation about the merit of his work.
Adbusting encourages a community discussion about the politics of public space. Billboard ads become part of the community; they are chunks of privatization amongst public land, which should be safe, neutral governmental property and residential areas. The one-way passive flow of information, from ad to person, does not have to be this way, adbusters argue.
The demand for the Adbusters magazine has increased from 5,000 copies in 1989, to over 35,000 in 2000. The increase in demand has been credited to the delight of the masses when the new institutions, the corporations, are mocked and their power is trivialized. Legal implications, for adbusters have been greatly avoided by the very corporations that are the victims of the ad modifications. The press covering any lawsuit would highlight the corporation as being ‘the target of community protests’, as one advertising executive told the Advertising Age. It seems adbusting is safe from corporations within the legal, and therefore political, sphere.
The commonly held position that culture jamming is harmless satire is a severe mistake. It has not occurred in a vacuum, it is clear response to the political reality and anti-corporatization ideology that is sweeping the world. The power within the movement and the education of the public will cause great change within the broader political spectrum.
Klein, Naomi. 'Culture Jamming: Ads Under Attack'. No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies. Vintage Canada, 2000. 279-310.
Culture Jamming Timeline
1990 – ‘Absolut Subliminal’ corporations begin to place less-than-subliminal ads into their advertising, as a response to accusations that subliminal advertising was being used on consumers
1997 – Negativland asked to do a commercial for Miller Genuine Draft beer
1997- New York anti-tobacco lobby group purchased hundreds of rooftop taxi ads to advertise ‘Virginia Slime’ and ‘Cancer Country’ cigarettes
1997 – Toronto-based artist Jubal Brown ‘skulls’ ads of fashion models, creating hundreds of zombie-chic ads all over Toronto
1999 – Nike asks Ralph Nader (consumer rights movement’s most powerful leader) to advertise their shoes for $25,000
1/20/10
Anti-Consumerism and Action
Naomi Klein in 'Culture Jamming: Ads Under Attack' and 'Bad Mood Rising' mentions a few interesting activist groups and some history of the anti-consumerist globalization movement in North America. Here are just a few:
The Band: NEGATIVLAND
The Band: NEGATIVLAND
Negativland is an experimental music and sound collage band which originated in the San Francisco Bay Area in the late 1970s, releasing its first album in 1980. The band is most famous for coining the term ‘ Culture Jamming’ in JamCon '84, as an active rebellion against America’s super branded, and consumerist, culture. The term has been used in numerous pieces of literature and art, always to evoke the four emotions needed for social change: shock, shame, fear, and anger.
http://www.myspace.com/officialnegativland
The Pranksters with a Message: ADBUSTERS
Adbusters Media Foundation is a not-for-profit, anti-consumerist organization founded in 1989 by Kalle Lasn and Bill Schmalz in Vancouncer, BC, Canada. The foundation describes itself as "a global network of artists, activists, writers, pranksters, students, educators and entrepreneurs who want to advance the new social activist movement of the information age."
The Radicals: RULES FOR RADICALS
1971, Saul Alinsky wrote an entertaining classic on grassroots organizing titled Rules for Radicals. Those who prefer cooperative tactics describe the book as out-of-date. Nevertheless, it provides some of the best advice on confrontational tactics.
http://vcn.bc.ca/citizens-handbook/rules.html
The Environmentalists: EARTHFIRST!
Earth First! Is an environmental group that emerged in the USA in the late 1970s, inspired by Rachel Carson’s ‘Silent Spring’. They are still active, greatly influence by anarchism and the affects of globalization the environment.
http://www.earthfirstjournal.org/
1/18/10
Take a moment to think...
Globalization affects all of us, but have you ever considered how it is a part of our everyday lives? Please ask yourself the following questions and please take the time to think critically.
1. Do you feel you have an abundance of options when choosing to purchase everyday products such as shampoo, coffee or even which gas to purchase?
2. Were you affected in some way by the financial crisis over the last year and a half, whether it be job loss, financial instability or even added stress from others experience?
3. Do you ever question your healthcare provider, whether it be wait times for appointments or the medication that is prescribed to you?
4. Do you ever struggle to find information in English? If your first language is not English, is the information more or less attainable?
5. Have you ever noticed that there is an infinite amount of information available via the Internet? If so, do you ever question its validity?
6. Do you feel that you need to constantly update your technologies in order to keep up with others around you?
7. Have you been told recently by companies that they are making the effort to be more eco-friendly?
8. Do you feel like your culture is being overtaken by other cultures or that your culture is less evident in society?
9. Would you willingly give up your access to the internet and/or cell phone?
10. Are you ever concerned with the food you are eating or that there will ever be a shortage of food?
The following explains how globalization has impacted the way we live in a developed country.
1. If you answered yes, this is the impact of industrial globalization. Movement of goods between foreign boundaries gives consumers more choices, and at a lower price. This increase in options also means a decrease in quality and appreciation for goods that are not easily accessible in developing countries.
2. If you answered yes, it was caused by the financial changes due to globalization. Worldwide financial markets increase financing for borrowers. Increased trade and investment was not suited for the global financial infrastructure, which caused the recent recession that has impacted almost everyone worldwide.
3. If you answered yes, this is due to the change in health policies which has become fragmented and privatized leading to overcrowding and conflicting interests between the general public and the wealthy.
4. If you answered no, this is because although the most languages spoken worldwide are Mandarin and Spanish, English is still 50% of the Internet and radio information along with 40% of cable due to powerful, developed countries ignorance to provide multi-lingual means of communication.
5. If yes, this is the informational change from globalization. With the Internet, there is an increased passing of knowledge and information. However, it must be noted that information is filtered by the powerful people in politics and media.
6. If yes, this is due to increased competition through globalization. Only those with the best will succeed and eventually commodify, forcing consumers to continue upgrading to keep up.
7. If yes, this is can be true for most organizations, however, it must be considered that many are taking their production elsewhere, often developing countries and polluting their land and water.
8. If yes, with globalization, cross-cultural contact means that varying cultures may reduce diversity and assimilation or become a monoculture in which all become one, eliminating part of our identity..
9. If yes, you have not been affected by the technical changes under globalization. Today, we are reliant on technology, which is a recent phenomenon that comes with privacy issues and depletes our personal relationships.
10. If yes, food security has decreased from globalization. An increase in production and decrease in supply means we are consuming more processed foods. As shortage may not be an immediate issue for Canada; however, falling energy sources means there will be an even greater shortage for developing countries.
Globalization has been one of the most hotly debated topics in international economics over the past few years. Globalization has also generated significant international opposition over concerns that it has increased inequality and environmental degradation. In the Midwestern United States, globalization has eaten away at its competitive edge in industry and agriculture, lowering the quality of life in locations that have not adapted to the change.
information from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization
Book: No Logo
Looks into the negative effects of branding and widespread usage of logos. Throughout this book, Naomi Klein explains to readers how brand names and logos have evolved from simple representations of products to entire ways of life—and how it is detrimental to youth, culture, and people from all walks of life. With graphs, statistics, actual events, and quotes as its support, the observations and analyses offered by No Logo provide a deep insight into the aftereffects of numerous companies' need to sell in a market where consumers grow increasingly immune to the ubiquitous ads that dominate an increasingly larger portion of human life.
Check out the following link for a summary of Klein's novel and the consequences of branding.
1/17/10
How does globalization relate to our course material?
Is there a link between Globalization and feminism? Can we find a commonality between Women & Gender studies and Naomi Klein’s work? I think there are connections that can be made.
If we look back to the roots of feminism and analyze the role it took years ago we will see that feminism was very involved in the anti-sweatshop movement. Why? Because the sweatshops were predominately comprised of women (and children) of color in Third World countries, they were (and still are) the ones being exploited and abused by the system.
Feminism was also at the foreground of anti capitalism and consumerism back in the late 80’s around the time when branding was starting to get popular, and in the mid to late 90's "The Year of the Sweatshop" we saw an enormous interest in anti-capitalist movements as they opposed the exploitative labor practices of popular multinational corporations.
A connection can also be made with Queer and Transgendered struggles, where the crossing of borders across the globe has had an irreversible effect. There is a debate among researchers that argue whether globalization has benefited or hindered queer and transgendered identities/orientation. Some argue that globalization has liberated queer and transgendered communities because it incorporates their lifestyles and practices on a global scale. 'Queer Globalization: Citizenship and the Afterlife of Colonialism' by Martin Manalansan discusses the idea of an emergence of queer identities and cultures on a global scale via globalization.
On the other hand, there are some researchers who disagree and argue that globalization has actually created tension for queer and transgendered communities claiming globalization has brought one system of the gay-lesbian language into contact with another (i.e the West vs East), who have opposing ideas on the issues surrounding sexual identity. Some argue that a Western hegemonic view of bisexual, gay, transgender and lesbian identity has been exported to traditional societies (via globalization), thereby destroying the delicate cultural and sexual identities and diversities of some indigenous groups in Third World countries. The novel 'Speaking in Queer Tongues' edited by William Leap and Tom Boellstorff discusses this idea.
Globalization can also be linked to issues regarding environmentalism and Eco-Feminism. Eco-feminism is a social and political movement that recognizes the parallels between the oppression of women and society and the degradation of nature, through a systematic hierarchy of power, where one group has power over another. This hierarchy of power can be seen in the relationships between men and woman, culture and nature, white and black, and in the capitalist systems that allow the domination and exploitation of the Global South by the North.
Globalization can also be connected to transnational feminism, which has been built on the global networks of communication. Globalization has "shifted" the borders and allowed for more dialogue between feminist around the world, making room for a better understanding of the differing cultural norms and feminist approaches of the Global South. However, it can also be argued that globalization has brought with it capitalism and militarism both crucial issues which transnational feminist are strongly opposed to and are known to critically critique.
Information from:
Bad Mood Rising by Naomi Klein
http://www.nyupress.org/product_info.php?cPath=12&products_id=2836
http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/74qxk7rh9780252028717.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnational_feminism
http://www.iiav.nl/nl/iiav/nieuws/feminism-is-my-dj/feminism_cscholl.html
If we look back to the roots of feminism and analyze the role it took years ago we will see that feminism was very involved in the anti-sweatshop movement. Why? Because the sweatshops were predominately comprised of women (and children) of color in Third World countries, they were (and still are) the ones being exploited and abused by the system.
Feminism was also at the foreground of anti capitalism and consumerism back in the late 80’s around the time when branding was starting to get popular, and in the mid to late 90's "The Year of the Sweatshop" we saw an enormous interest in anti-capitalist movements as they opposed the exploitative labor practices of popular multinational corporations.
A connection can also be made with Queer and Transgendered struggles, where the crossing of borders across the globe has had an irreversible effect. There is a debate among researchers that argue whether globalization has benefited or hindered queer and transgendered identities/orientation. Some argue that globalization has liberated queer and transgendered communities because it incorporates their lifestyles and practices on a global scale. 'Queer Globalization: Citizenship and the Afterlife of Colonialism' by Martin Manalansan discusses the idea of an emergence of queer identities and cultures on a global scale via globalization.
On the other hand, there are some researchers who disagree and argue that globalization has actually created tension for queer and transgendered communities claiming globalization has brought one system of the gay-lesbian language into contact with another (i.e the West vs East), who have opposing ideas on the issues surrounding sexual identity. Some argue that a Western hegemonic view of bisexual, gay, transgender and lesbian identity has been exported to traditional societies (via globalization), thereby destroying the delicate cultural and sexual identities and diversities of some indigenous groups in Third World countries. The novel 'Speaking in Queer Tongues' edited by William Leap and Tom Boellstorff discusses this idea.
Globalization can also be linked to issues regarding environmentalism and Eco-Feminism. Eco-feminism is a social and political movement that recognizes the parallels between the oppression of women and society and the degradation of nature, through a systematic hierarchy of power, where one group has power over another. This hierarchy of power can be seen in the relationships between men and woman, culture and nature, white and black, and in the capitalist systems that allow the domination and exploitation of the Global South by the North.
Globalization can also be connected to transnational feminism, which has been built on the global networks of communication. Globalization has "shifted" the borders and allowed for more dialogue between feminist around the world, making room for a better understanding of the differing cultural norms and feminist approaches of the Global South. However, it can also be argued that globalization has brought with it capitalism and militarism both crucial issues which transnational feminist are strongly opposed to and are known to critically critique.
Information from:
Bad Mood Rising by Naomi Klein
http://www.nyupress.org/product_info.php?cPath=12&products_id=2836
http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/74qxk7rh9780252028717.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnational_feminism
http://www.iiav.nl/nl/iiav/nieuws/feminism-is-my-dj/feminism_cscholl.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
