Amidst the continuing doubts of whether English is even necessary in a completely Japanese environment, the English-nization Project in Rakuten is continuing to move forward (albeit with slow speed and high controversy in implementing practically every step). And with even greater difficulty, plenty of individual frustrations, (hidden) resistance, the mental portion of English-nization, i.e. "thinking not exclusively like a Japanese person," is also somehow being pushed forward in small isolated patches.
However, while everyone has been focusing on defining this so-called "globalization" in Rakuten and arguing how it is practically implemented in an already established and rather conservative company structure, all are seeming to how divisive even labeling "globalization=good" can be. Just as the company is all the sudden divided into camps of those who can and cannot speak English due to English-nization, "globalization" is bound to put those "global" people on a pedestal and give them some expectation of greater authority and power.
Yet, the one key difference between the two is that while language ability can be seen on paper and heard in conversations, how globalized one is can hardly be concretely defined even as a set of standard measurements. And at the same time, since everyone has somehow claimed that the existing mentality is not "global enough," it is given opportunities for a series of pundits to define and attempt to enforce their own definitions of "globalization."
And that "globalization," in my opinion, has lead to nothing but a new form of cultural imperialism with some simple rephrasing but exactly the same implications. Precisely because every pundit who came forth to define globalization has ironically limited the "globalized way of thinking" in one particular way, there is little difference between their attempts to spread "globalization" and the authoritative and systematic cultural assimilations that were responsible for conflicts and cultural destructions.
A major factor of resistance to "globalization" has been how intolerant of those who considered themselves to be "global" toward those who they consider as "not trying to be global." In a classic example of the "open-minded" being intolerant, the "globalized citizens" have fallen into the Absolutist trap of disapproving parallel local mentalities. In the process, "globalization" gradually became another hated buzzwords to rationalize established physical appearances of class differences.
The answer to such degeneration of "globalization" may be to dispose of the concept of it altogether in favor of promoting "Glocalization" in its place. Instead of applying the same way of thinking everywhere, one is suggested to completely immerse oneself in every locality one resides in, completely taking up local ways of thinking and customs without any intention of comparing to any other locality. By seeking to understand the dominant culture in every place and not trying to arrogantly insert foreign ideas, one can truly become a local citizen in every place one resides.
So, with that "Glocalization" in my mind, I finally invested in a TV last week. Working in the same building every weekday and having a limited social circle, watching TV may be the only way for me to get an understanding of modern Japanese culture and thinking (however superficial it is). Sacrificing productivity and time for sleep have become increasingly necessary so I do not remain oblivious to current cultural developments. In such a way, TV acts as an entertaining self-motivation to accept more and more of the local culture.
Of course, TV is only the first way to understand the local culture. Just as TV limits entertainment options to only a few local options (unlike the Internet), expanding social circle while I am in Japan should also become more exclusively focused on Japanese people only if I want to understand Japan more thoroughly. And yes, as a logical extension, I must be willing to give up all of that once I feel I have strong enough of an understanding for Japan so that I can move elsewhere and repeat the same cycle.
To be a "glocalized citizen" requires complete openness to every aspect of all cultures as well as an ability to hold steady to one's own personality within a shifting cultural mix. Individual Glocalization requires adventurousness that takes one to every corner of the globe as well as willingness to sacrifice friendship and stability to pursue and understand cultures, places, and people that have yet to be heard, seen, and met. And as the world become more integrated economically and travel restrictions freed up, we can hope to see more of these "glocalized citizens" appear in all parts of the world.
A real atmosphere of "Globalization" can only be created as a congregation of "glocalized citizens." Conflict is reduced to zero as no one stick close to their "own" cultures and thoughts, while "open-mindedness" without intentions to condescendingly lecture others on how to become "open-minded" allow for all, even those who have never lived outside their native cultures, to mature as "glocalized citizens." Only in such a nurturing environment can questioning authority be truly meaningful and proposed measures for globalization be truly sustained.
However, while everyone has been focusing on defining this so-called "globalization" in Rakuten and arguing how it is practically implemented in an already established and rather conservative company structure, all are seeming to how divisive even labeling "globalization=good" can be. Just as the company is all the sudden divided into camps of those who can and cannot speak English due to English-nization, "globalization" is bound to put those "global" people on a pedestal and give them some expectation of greater authority and power.
Yet, the one key difference between the two is that while language ability can be seen on paper and heard in conversations, how globalized one is can hardly be concretely defined even as a set of standard measurements. And at the same time, since everyone has somehow claimed that the existing mentality is not "global enough," it is given opportunities for a series of pundits to define and attempt to enforce their own definitions of "globalization."
And that "globalization," in my opinion, has lead to nothing but a new form of cultural imperialism with some simple rephrasing but exactly the same implications. Precisely because every pundit who came forth to define globalization has ironically limited the "globalized way of thinking" in one particular way, there is little difference between their attempts to spread "globalization" and the authoritative and systematic cultural assimilations that were responsible for conflicts and cultural destructions.
A major factor of resistance to "globalization" has been how intolerant of those who considered themselves to be "global" toward those who they consider as "not trying to be global." In a classic example of the "open-minded" being intolerant, the "globalized citizens" have fallen into the Absolutist trap of disapproving parallel local mentalities. In the process, "globalization" gradually became another hated buzzwords to rationalize established physical appearances of class differences.
The answer to such degeneration of "globalization" may be to dispose of the concept of it altogether in favor of promoting "Glocalization" in its place. Instead of applying the same way of thinking everywhere, one is suggested to completely immerse oneself in every locality one resides in, completely taking up local ways of thinking and customs without any intention of comparing to any other locality. By seeking to understand the dominant culture in every place and not trying to arrogantly insert foreign ideas, one can truly become a local citizen in every place one resides.
So, with that "Glocalization" in my mind, I finally invested in a TV last week. Working in the same building every weekday and having a limited social circle, watching TV may be the only way for me to get an understanding of modern Japanese culture and thinking (however superficial it is). Sacrificing productivity and time for sleep have become increasingly necessary so I do not remain oblivious to current cultural developments. In such a way, TV acts as an entertaining self-motivation to accept more and more of the local culture.
Of course, TV is only the first way to understand the local culture. Just as TV limits entertainment options to only a few local options (unlike the Internet), expanding social circle while I am in Japan should also become more exclusively focused on Japanese people only if I want to understand Japan more thoroughly. And yes, as a logical extension, I must be willing to give up all of that once I feel I have strong enough of an understanding for Japan so that I can move elsewhere and repeat the same cycle.
To be a "glocalized citizen" requires complete openness to every aspect of all cultures as well as an ability to hold steady to one's own personality within a shifting cultural mix. Individual Glocalization requires adventurousness that takes one to every corner of the globe as well as willingness to sacrifice friendship and stability to pursue and understand cultures, places, and people that have yet to be heard, seen, and met. And as the world become more integrated economically and travel restrictions freed up, we can hope to see more of these "glocalized citizens" appear in all parts of the world.
A real atmosphere of "Globalization" can only be created as a congregation of "glocalized citizens." Conflict is reduced to zero as no one stick close to their "own" cultures and thoughts, while "open-mindedness" without intentions to condescendingly lecture others on how to become "open-minded" allow for all, even those who have never lived outside their native cultures, to mature as "glocalized citizens." Only in such a nurturing environment can questioning authority be truly meaningful and proposed measures for globalization be truly sustained.
Comments
Post a Comment