当前位置:首页 >> 文学研究 >>


Modern Language Association

Beyond Discipline? Globalization and the Future of English Author(s): Paul Jay Source: PMLA, Vol. 116, No. 1, Special Topic: Globalizing Literary Studies (Jan., 2001), pp. 3247 Published by: Modern Language Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/463639 Accessed: 31/08/2009 08:36
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mla. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Modern Language Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to PMLA.




Discipline? Globalization and of English


PAUL JAY is professor of Englishat Loyola University, Chicago. His most recent book is Contingency Blues: The Searchfor Foundations AmericanLitin erature (U of Wisconsin P, 1997). He has recently published essays on Carlos Fuentes,Claude McKay, criticaltheory, and border studies in Callaloo, ArizonaQuarterly, ModernFiction Studies, and CulturalCritique.This essay is part of a work in progress on disciplinary change in English.

AN ENGLISH SURVIVE THEGLOBALIZATION LITERARY OF studies, and if so, what will it look like? The emergence of what we have come to call global culture, characterizedby the rapid circulationof culturalcommodities such as books, films, works in electronic media, clothing, and food in a way that seems to overwhelmlocal cultural forms and practices, has come at the expense of the nationstate's ability to control the formationof nationalsubjectivitiesand ideologies. The nation-state,to be sure, is alive and well as a political and military entity, and as I argue later in this essay, critics who predict its imminent demise in the face of globalization are, I think, mistaken. However, it is true that culturalchange in nation-states is increasingly beyond their control (with the importantexception of fundamentalist states exerting rigid culturalcontrol in the face of Westernization). Culture is now being defined in terms less of national interests than of a shared set of global ones. This shift in the cultural role of the nationstate has profound implications for its institutions, particularly its schools, colleges, and universities.Since the rise of the modernuniversity in the West is directly linked to the development and needs of the nation-state,as a numberof critics have recently argued,the globalizing of literary studies portends a remarkablereversal, one that is bound to have a deep effect on the discipline we call English. For in the United States, English has been at the center of a curricularworld organized along the lines of a political map, the bordersof which have neatly duplicated those between modernnation-states.If the conventional structures of literarystudy (English, French, Spanish, Italian, German,etc.) have been transparently nationalist,they mirrorthe aestheticideology of literarystudies, one thatcan be tracedto the linkage among nation,race,


I I 6. I



and literatureforged in nineteenth-centuryEurope by writers like Hippolyte-Adolphe Taine and MatthewArnold.In the United States Ralph Waldo Emerson and Walt Whitman articulated the need for a nationalliteraturedecades before in it became incorporated the curricula Ameriof As and can universities. PeterCarafiol othershave of the demonstrated, structure Americanliterary studies in United States universities has always been informedby a broadlynationalistideal.2 While this ideal was based on forging an aestheticand ideologicalconsensusaboutculture and identity grounded in a limited set of texts unified aroundcertain themes and values, concriticismhas become increasingly temporary prewith differencein ways thatundermine occupied the neat, superficial cultural homogeneity informing the study of national literatures. This interest in difference developed simultaneously in the academy and in the streets, driven on the one hand by deconstructive,Marxist, and feminist theories and on the other hand by the civil rights, antiwar, women's, and gay and lesbian movements, which began to emphasize the difference racial and gender distinctions have made in American life. Deconstruction helped lay the theoreticalgroundworkfor thinkingdifferently about the structureand power of literary, political, and cultural discourses and in so doing contributed to the critique of dominant nationalist ideologies in British and United States literatures.Perhapsmore important,critical theories more explicitly engaged with political issues and affiliated with social movements dating from the 1960s helped create alliances among writers, critics, and students across national and stateboundariesin a way thathas systematicallydiminishedthe rationalefor mapping literary studies with reference to the old paradigm of homogeneous nation-states.Ourawareness of the complex ways in which English and American identities have been constructedhistorically throughmigration,displacement,colonialism, exile, gender relations, and cultural our hybridityhas radicallyrestructured sense of

what Paul Gilroy has dubbedthe "roots/routes" of these identities (19). With this awarenessit has become increasingly difficultto study Britishor Americanliterature without situating it, and the culture(s) from which it emerged, in transnationalhistories linked to globalization. At the same time the remarkableexplosion of English literature produced outside Britain and the United States has made it clear that this literatureis becoming defined less by a nation than by a language, in which authorsfrom a varietyof culturaland ethnic backgroundswrite. The globalizationof English from this point of view is not a theoretical formulationor a political agenda developed by radicalsin the humanitiesto displace the canon. It is a simple fact of contemporaryhistory. English literature is increasingly postnational, whether written by cosmopolitan writers like SalmanRushdie,DerekWalcott,Arundhati Roy, and Nadine Gordimer or by a host of lesserknown writers working in their home countries or in diasporic communities aroundthe world, from Europe and Africa to the Caribbean and NorthAmerica.I wantto arguethatwe can more effectively reorganizeour approachto the study of what we have heretofore treated as national literatures (in our curricula and programs) by relationto the historical emphasizingliterature's processes of globalization.Such a step involves rejecting the idea that globalization is a fundamentally contemporaryevent and recognizing that it has a long history. In the first part of this essay I review the developmentof globalization theories with an eye towardunderscoringsome of the differences between globalization conceived of as a postmodern phenomenon and globalization conceived of as a long historical process. The differences, I want to argue, are considerable if we are thinking about how to globalize literary studies. In the second part of the essay I turnmy attentionto how the concept of culture is being reformulated by globalization studies and to the question of whether globalization is an essentially Westernizingand


Beyond Discipline?Globalizationand the Futureof Eng ;lish


homogenizing force that threatens to wipe out local cultures. In the final section I sketch out my approach to globalizing literary studies. Here I deal directly with the vexing problem of how to develop a transnationalapproachto English that avoids simply colonizing the literature of the "other."

What Is Globalization? To say that English literature is becoming increasingly globalized, that its contemporary production and consumption no longer take place within discretenationalbordersbut unfold in a complex system of transnational economic and cultural exchanges characterized by the global flow of culturalproducts and commodities, is not the same thing as describinghow the study of literature could or should be globalized. To do that, we need to review the rise of globalization studies as a theoretical discourse and a disciplinaryfield. For the study of English or of literaturein general cannot be globalized without a thorough understanding of the key terms, issues, and debates that have markedthe rise of globalization studies, a critical movement that has only recently migrated to the arena of cultural and literary studies. I want to review some of these debates, debates aboutthe natureand history of globalization, the relative role of economic and cultural exchange in its processes, how globalization theorists have redefined the concept of culture, the rise under the forces of globalization of deterritorialized or diaspora communities, and finally whether globalization is simply synonymous with Westernization Americanization, or includingwhether studies might end up repeatglobalizing literary ing older forms of colonization. The study of globalization, initiated by economists and social scientists, developed as a response to the emergence of a global economy grounded in modernization and fueled by the expansionof Westerncapitalism.Initially,attention was devoted to how the growth of capital

productionhad, by the 1960s, become increasingly tied to the rise of transnationalcorporations and the proliferation of markets that regularly crossed nation-state boundaries. The rapidgrowthof a world economy,because it dependedso muchon the powerof the nation-state, began to get the attentionof political scientists like Immanuel Wallerstein.Wallerstein's wellknown formulation"themodem world system," for example, which paved the way for more comprehensivetheoriesaboutglobalization,was based on the notion that nation-stateeconomies facilitatedthe developmentof a world economic system in the West: "In the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century," he observes, "there came into existence what we may call a European world-economy. [.. .] It is a 'world system.' [...T]he basic linkage between the parts of the system is economic, althoughthis was reinforcedto some extent by culturallinks"(Modern WorldSystem 15). There are two principal differencesbetween Wallerstein's moder world system and later theories of globalization. The firstis thatthe nation-statestill has a centralrole to play in keeping the world system in place (it is not threatened with extinctionin Wallerstein's view the way it is in the eyes of many globalization theorists). Whereas under Wallerstein's modern world system "core states," characterized by voraciouseconomic development,strong governmental structures,and a powerful sense of nationalidentity,controlledthe evolutionof a world economy for their own benefit, in a thoroughly globalized economy the nation-state's power to regulate and control the flow of commodities and information among transnational entities is so diminishedthat some globalization theorists postulate the imminent demise of the nation-state.3 The other important difference between Wallerstein's moder world system and is that for Wallersteinglobglobalizationtheory alization is an overwhelmingly economic phenomenon, while for globalization theorists it is also cultural. Wallerstein gives a nod to how "cultural links" can have a secondaryrole in re-

I i 6. I



inforcing the world system, but that system is in his view fundamentally economic. This is a subjectI will returnto later,but for now it is importantto emphasize that globalization studies has developed by continually rethinkingthe relation among economies, cultures,commodities, and social behavior and by focusing carefully on how systems of commodity exchange are also systems of symbolic exchange. For globalization theorists culture is not subordinatedto the economy. Rather, the two are profoundly interdependent. In the light of the argumentI want to make in favor of viewing globalization historically (rather than as a specifically postmodern phenomenon), it is importantto stress that Wallerstein characterizeshis modern world system as the product of a long historical process. Many globalization theorists would say that this trait significantlydistinguisheshis world system theory from theories of globalization, which often equate globalizationwith postmodernityand insist that it marksa ruptureor breakwith modernity. But in fact globalization theorists are divided on this question, and it is an important one to considerwhen we think aboutthe globalization of literary studies. If globalization is fundamentally a contemporary or postmodern phenomenon, then it would seem to offer us a way to rethink the study mainly of recent (and emerging) literatures. But if globalization is a long historicalprocess that has dramaticallyaccelerated in recent years, then the globalization of literary studies cannot restrict itself to this relation contemporaryacceleration.Literature's to the processes of globalizationas they manifest themselves in a variety of historical periodsindeed, literature'sfacilitation of economic and cultural globalization-is becoming a potentially important field of study that might get short-circuitedif we think of globalizationonly as a postmodem eruption.4 A proponent of the idea that globalization has a long history, Roland Robertson argues that the process predates modernity and has

been evolving since at least the fifteenth century. He divides the history of globalization into five phases, a "germinal"period, running from 1400 to 1750, an "incipient" phase, beginning in 1750 and lasting until 1875, a "take-off phase"(1875-1925), a "strugglefor hegemony" (1925-69), and finally a stage he labels "uncertainty," which runs from 1969 to the present (25-31). The key momentsfor Robertsonin this long evolution towardglobalization include the collapse of Christendom, the development of maps and maritimetravel,the rise of the nationstate, global exploration, colonialism, the creation of citizenship, passports, diplomacy and the entire paraphernaliaof international relations, the rise of international communication and mass migration, the founding of organizations like the League of Nations and the United Nations, the outbreakof world wars, and finally the explorationof space and a developing sense that communities based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference,and so on, cut across national and stateboundaries. In this approach to dating globalization, Robertsonis at odds with postmoderntheorists like Anthony Giddens and David Harvey. Giddens links globalizationmuch more specifically to modernity-in particular, the solidification to of the nation-stateundercapitalismand to what Malcolm Waterscalls the nation-state's"administrative (achieved competence" especiallythrough surveillanceand "industrialized military order" [48]). Highly industrialized, rationalized, and commodifiednation-statesin the twentiethcentury facilitate, in Giddens's view, the "'lifting out' of social relations from local contexts of interaction and their restructuringacross time and space"(21). Like Wallerstein,Giddens sees globalizationin fundamentallyeconomic terms, characterized it is by the dominanceof transas nationalcorporations,which turnthe world into "a single market for commodities, labour and capital"(Waters51). For Giddens globalization representsthe "intensificationof worldwide social relationswhich link distantlocalities in such


Beyond Discipline?Globalizationand the Futureof English


a way thatlocal happeningsare shapedby events occurringmany miles away and vice versa"(64). Whereas Robertson's approach suggests that literatureproducedin various periods may be connected to globalization,Giddens suggests a narrower relation between modernity and globalization,in which literarystudies and globalization primarilyintersect in what we usually think of as the modem and postmodernperiods. Harvey goes furtherthan Giddens,insisting that globalization marks a fundamentalbreak with modernity. For Giddens globalization is an extension of modernity, but for Harvey it is inextricably linked to postmodernity.Harvey's approachto globalizationis keyed to the ways in which mechanization and technology increasingly diminish the constraints space puts on time. With the invention and growing sophistication of shipping,railways,and motorand then air transport,the time it takes to move across space has continually shrunk, accelerating the collapse of boundariesand bordersand facilitating economic and culturalglobalization. These developments,of course, have acceleratedin recent years with the proliferation of electronic forms of communication allowing for nearly instantaneouscontact and for commercialtransactionsthatcoverthe globe while ignoringnationstate boundaries. These recent technologies (particularlythe Internet)collapse the discontinuity between time and space in a radicallynew way. If globalization is historicized this way, it seems to be a postmodernturnand suggests that the globalizationof literarystudies comes under the purviewof postmodernstudies. With the differences among Robertson, Giddens, and Harvey in mind, we can see that the questionof what globalizationis turnsout to be inextricably linked to how it is historicized. Robertson'sview of globalization is fundamentally differentfrom Giddens'sand Harvey's,and as I have been suggesting, each one offers us a different context for thinking about how to globalize literary study. Following Robertson, the globalizing of literarystudies would engage

literatures and cultures from nearly every period, while if, with Giddens and Harvey, we conceive of globalization as a specifically modern or postmodern phenomenon, we would focus primarily on the literatures of the late nineteenthand the twentiethcenturies.Which of these points of view is correct?While the arguments Giddens and Harvey make about the acceleration of globalization in the late twentieth century are important, it seems to me that Robertson's approachis the more accurateone and that it offers wider opportunities for those of us in literary studies interested in the intersection of globalizationand literaryand cultural production.Although it would be a mistake not to acknowledge that a set of explosive forces unleashed in the last half of the twentieth century have radically revised transnational exchange, it would be an even bigger mistake not to contextualizethese changes in a longerhistorical view of globalization like the one Robertson offers. Globalization can certainly help us map the futureof literarystudies,but it also provides an importantway to rethinkour approach to the study of literatureacross a range of historicalperiods. Globalization and Culture I noted earlier that globalization studies has moved from an initial interestin the emergence of a global economy towardan interestin globalization as a culturalphenomenon. We should not view this shift as a simplisticreorganizing of globalizationstudies aroundculturesratherthan economies, for it entails a recognitionof the reciprocal relation between the economic and the cultural spheres, a recognition that cultures are exchanged along with commodities. One of the centralpoints of globalizationstudiesis thatculturalforms (literarynarrative, cinema,television, live performance,etc.) are commodities,a position that countersolder notions of the literaryas purely aestheticand somehow beyond the world of commodities, economies, even history. We

I I 6. I



can no longer make a clear distinction between exchanges that are purely material and take place in an economy of commodities and exchanges that are purely symbolic and take place in a cultural economy. Indeed, that these two forms of exchange have always overlapped(and that they are becoming increasingly indistinguishable)is a singularfeatureof globalization. Waters,a sociologist, insists that globalization studies ought to center on the "types of exchange thatpredominatein social relationships" in and across economies, political systems, and forms of culturaldiscourse. In his view each of these "arenas" facilitates forms of exchange contributingto globalization: economies facilitate material exchange, politics facilitate exchanges relativeto the maintenanceand support of power, and culture facilitates "symbolic exchanges" through "oral communication, publiand cation, performance,ritual, entertainment," narrative(8). Breaking with Giddens's economism, Waters rejects the simplistic view that "the driving force for global integrationis restless capitalist expansionism" (10) and insists that symbolic exchange facilitates globalization more quickly than either of the other two arenas. He argues that globalization is tied to the acceleration of symbolic exchanges (the production and dissemination of films, novels, advertisements, music, even fast food-cultural forms that are circulated, adopted, and revised in a myriadof locations), since "symbolscan be produced anywhere and at any time and there are relatively few resource constraints on their productionand reproduction" (9). The forms of symbolic exchange Waters enumerates under the rubric of the cultural are from the concernsasvirtuallyindistinguishable sociated with culturalstudies, a field that started out with the Birminghamschool's focus on elements of a national culture (influenced by Raymond Williams) but has steadily become more transnational.From this point of view, the relatively new culturalist orientation to globalization theory, which sees the products of culture

as integral to the more general flow of economies and commodities, representsthe intersection of globalizationtheory and culturalstudies. This convergence has come as a result of our relatively recent interest in culture as a fluid, mobile, transnational phenomenonthatpredates and often ignores nation-state boundaries. In "TravelingCultures,"for example, James Clifford questions the conventionalanthropological model of culture as something fixed and local. This model, in which local cultures are studied by objective scientists from other cultures who dwell in them, elides "thewider global world of interculturalimport-exportin which the ethnographicencounteris always alreadyenmeshed" (100). In effect, the observer,operatingin a complex network of mobile forms of exchange and translation (technologies of travel facilitating the encounterin the firstplace, the international context of such encounters,the degree of "translation" that takes place in cross-cultural exthe changes, etc.), "coproduces" culturestudied: is [O]ncetherepresentational challenge seento be the portrayaland understanding local/ of historicalencounters,co-productions, global dominations resistances, and thenone needsto focus on hybrid,cosmopolitan experiencesas muchas on rooted,nativeones. [... T]hegoal is not to replace the culturalfigure"native" with the intercultural Rather figure"traveler." the task is to focus on concretemediations of the two, in specificcases of historicaltension andrelationship. (101) Clifford'sfocus on the mobilityof cultureechoes Waters'sinsistence on the ease of symbolic exchange underthe forces of globalization. However,Cliffordstressesthe dis-locationof culture, the fact that in an age of acceleratingglobalization culturehas become deterritorialized diand asporic. The dis-location of cultures requires that we rethink where and how cultures are located. "We need," Clifford insists, to "conjure with new localizationslike 'the border,'"specific


Globalization the Future English and of BeyondDiscipline? places of "hybridityand struggle, policing and (109). transgression" An importantdevelopment contributingto this new approachto culture is the rise of diasporic communities,a singularfeatureof globalization connected to increased migrationand to the proliferationof electronic media thatpermit instantaneous communication between diasporic communitiesand betweenthese communities and theirnationsof origin.The proliferation of electronic media adds anotherdimension to the phenomenon of "traveling cultures," for today literal travel is increasingly facilitated by "virtual" travel, so that "travel,or displacement, can involve forces that pass powerfully through cultures-television, radio, tourists, commodities, armies" (Clifford 103). Arjun Appadurai, building on Clifford's contrast between literal and virtualtravel, approachesglobalizationas a dual function of increased migration and the rise of new, electronic media. Like Readings, Appadurai suggests that globalization represents a profoundweakeningof the nation-state:


and culturalaffiliationsof these mobile populations continue to be transformedby their deterritorialized condition and by the pervasive that Westernization tends to characterize globalthen the disruption of traditional conization, nections among territory,culture, nation, and literaryexpressionwill increase. For Appadurai developmentis positive, this even empowering. Whereas Clifford stresses how cultures travel, become deterritorialized, and tend to hybridize under globalization, Appadurai insists on the importance of what he calls "culturalism[. . .] the process of naturalizing a subset of differencesthat have been mobilized to articulate group identity" (15). While culture has been traditionally conceived as a "propertyof individuals and groups"deployed "to articulate the boundaryof difference" (13) connected to the needs of nation-states and to the nationalistideologies they require,culturalism denotesa concernwith identitiesconstructed acrossnationalboundaries. Appadurai As thinks of it, culturalismis "the conscious mobilization of culturaldifferences in the service of a larger The wave of debatesabout multiculturalism national or transnational politics" (15). It is thathas spreadthrough UnitedStatesand the often based on identity politics and deployed to is to of Europe surelytestimony the incapacity fashion diasporicidentitiesimaginativelyand to states to preventtheir minoritypopulations assert the rights of deterritorialized groups in fromlinking themselves widerconstituencies to nation-states.As such, culturalismrepresentsan of religiousor ethnicaffiliation. Theseexam"instrumental conception of ethnicity,"whereas ples, andothers,suggestthatthe erain which culture is grounded in a "primordial"myth of we could assume that viable public spheres ethnicityor othertraitsin which a carefullyconweretypically,exclusively,or necessarilynastructed group identity has been "naturalized" tional could be at an end. Diasporicpublic diverseamongthemselves, thecru- into something substantive, inherent, primary, are spheres, ciblesof a postnational or originary(14).6 order.5 (22) political Appadurailinks culturalismto processes of remarksunderscoreglobalization's Appadurai's identity formationinfluenced by the media and profound potential for disrupting traditional by the rise of mass consumerculture.Deterritonationalistparadigmsfor literarystudy.If globrialization, as he points out, "creates new maralization is characterizedby the growing deterkets for film companies, art impresarios, and ritorialization of culture, by the fluidity of its travel agencies, which thrive on the need of the movement across nation-state boundaries, and deterritorializedpopulation for contact with its homeland" (38). This contact is not simply a by its tendency to survive and mutate in diasmatterof keeping up with the news at home. It poric pockets thriving within the borders of enables transnational multiple countries, and if the religious, ethnic, subjectsor membersof di-


Paul Jay P


asporic public spheres to imagine or improvise new, postnational identities.7 Opportunitiesfor mobility and self-fashioning are increasingly worked out in a social imaginary in which the kinds of symbols and imagerywe usually associate with narrative the performingartsengage and the imagination in the complex re-formation of subjectivity. To the extent global culture is a function of this "mass-mediated imaginary," what Appadurai calls the "social work of the imagination" lies at the heart of culturalism, construedas the conscious constructionof individual and communal identities that are always making and remaking themselves in response to new localities, social and political pressures, and transnational culturaldiscourses(31). Global mass culture creates a postnational context for reimagining,organizing,and disseminatingsubjectivity through all the devices formally associated with literary (or cinematic) narrative. National scripts regularly give way to globally disseminatedmedia scriptsthatengage the imagination complexly. This process suggests that we need to turn our attention away from a simple preoccupationwith how national literatures function in relation to historically homogenous cultures and toward an examination of how postnational literatures are instrumentalin the formationof subjectivityin deterritorialized and contexts. diasporic The Politics of Globalization One of the main complaintsaboutglobalization, of course, is that the proliferation of Western styles, products, and tastes may extinguish difference. From this point of view, globalization simply representsthe homogenizing of formerly disparateculturesand identities.This is perhaps the crucial political question regardingglobalization studies: is the real object of its fascination the triumph of Western culture, or do the myriad pockets of globally produced cultures around the world simultaneously receive and transformthe commodities and styles of West-

ern culture in a way that resists such homogenization?Appadurai rejects the idea that globalization is synonymous with homogenization or Westernization. insists that "thereis growing He evidencethatthe consumption the mass media of throughoutthe world often provokes resistance, irony, selectivity, and, in general, agency. [. . .] T-shirts, billboards, and graffiti as well as rap music, street dancing, and slum housing all show that the images of the media are quickly moved into local repertoires of irony, anger, humor,and resistance."For Appaduraithe disseminationof Westernor Americancultureprovides a context for the exercise of power, for "action" rather than"escape" The local appro(7). and transformation Westerncultural of priation forms and behaviorsworks againsthomogenizasocieties approtion, in his view, since "different the materials modernity of (17). priate differently" In this logic the United States "is no longer the puppeteer of a world system of images but is cononly one mode of a complex transnational struction imaginary of (31). Appadulandscapes" rai's position is a controversialone, for it works against the popular tendency to see globalization as merely Westerncapitalism's triumphant commodifying and exporting of its cultural forms and practices in a ruthless effort (conscious or otherwise) to create new markets for them, an effort that leads inexorablyto the collapse of local culturalforms. I think Appadurai right that globalization is cannot be reduced to Westernizationor Americanization. Theories of cultural change under the pressures of globalization have to be complex enough to acknowledge how local cultures are transformedby the products and styles of the West and how those cultures appropriate Westernmaterialsin a way that transformsboth those productsand styles and the cultures from which they come. A Big Mac in Veniceor Tokyo is pretty much a Big Mac, but American soul music of the 1960s assimilatedand transformed by musicians in Soweto or the Caribbean and then sent back to the United States, where it in


Beyond Discipline?Globalization and the Futureof English


turn influences the production of new musical in idioms, participates a much more complicated and less hierarchical process.8 This process is certainlyat work in the global productionof English, which is increasinglyinfluencedby South Asian and Latin American writing, a Hispanic tradition grounded in the borderlands of the United States and Mexico, African American literaryidioms, and any numberof culturaltraditions specific to diaspora communities in the United States (Asian, PuertoRican, SouthAsian, African, etc.). The cultureof English is so thoroughly hybridized,so inexorablybased on complex exchanges among these various cultural traditions,thatit is getting ever more difficultto identify a dominant Western discourse that is not being subordinatedto, and shaped by, this acceleratingmix of sources and discoursesfrom outside Britainand the United States. While it may make little sense, from this perspective, to worry that cultural forms produced under the pressures of globalization will simply replicate Western ones, we ought to pause a moment to consider the class differences that mark these cultural flows and transformations(something Appaduraidoes not do). While Appaduraimay be right that the appropriation of Westerncultural forms can be a potentially liberating exercise of power, we need to recognize that this power is inherently uneven. Well-off,secularyouthin Dubai, Kingston, Bombay, or Nairobi may have the privilege of exercising this power in cultural consumption, but the poor in such cities and ruralpopulations do not. The kind of transnational culturalhyridity Appaduraicelebrates and that we can trace in the literary production of global English is potentially liberating in a number of ways for plugged-in urban youth, but it may not have much to do with the lives of the urbanand rural of poor who are still caught in the stratifications a global economy that leaves their lives relatively unchanged. Critics of globalization in general and those of us working with its paradigms in literary studies in particular need to

pay more attentionto the class differences that restrictand distortthe positive effects of globalization Appaduraiand otherspoint to. To argue that globalization represents the disastroustriumphof the West over the rest suggests, of course, that globalizing literarystudies might amount to Americanizing or Westernizing global literature.Just as in globalizationper se homogenization is tied to the export and rapidproliferationof Westerncommodities, the kind of homogenizationthat may become associated with the globalization of literary studies is linked to the export of Westerncritical categories,terms,theories,andpractices,all of which threatento create a Westerncritical context for the local literaturesstudied. It may be that English has exhausted itself as a field of study in the same way that Western capitalist markets began to exhaust themselves before the export of Western commodities fueled a new, global economy. In this analogy United States and British critics, having used up their own literature and feeling guilty about its complicity with the various oppressive practices of patriarchy, slavery, imperialism, and colonization, have turned for new material to the literatureof the other.The dangerhere is that in globalizing literary studies we may replicate the same oppressive structures and practices many critics associate with the homogenizing effects of culturalglobalization, structuresand practices that furtherthe dominance of expansionist cultures at the expense of local ones. The key question, which I take up in more detail below, is how to shift the center of English away from its traditional British and Americanfocus withoutcoloand nizing the varietyof literatures culturesnow to the transnational explosion of contributing English. For we will not have got anywhere if we end up reconstructing the paradigm of English as the privileged center of a comparative approachto literarystudies. CarenKaplantouches usefully on a number of these problems,and she does so from a feminist perspective too often ignored in what has

i i 6.I i



been a male-dominateddiscourse about globalization.9Like Clifford and Appadurai,she is interested in the cultural effects of displacement, especially in how the emerging global "world system" (58) is linked to tourism. However, Kaplan is interested less in how theories travel than in the pitfalls of travel as a mode of theorizing, pitfalls she locates in the critic as nomad, the fantasy of being "the one who can track a path through a seemingly illogical space without succumbingto nation-stateand/orbourgeois organizationand mastery."Linking her discussion of the nomad to Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari'sconcept of deterritorialization,Kaplan "caution[s]against critical practicesthat romanticize or mystify regions or figures" and ultimately represent them "throughthe lens of colonial discourse"(66). This cautionarytale is worked out in her critique of Jean Baudrillard, whose "theoretical peregrinations adopt the codes and terms of colonial discourse, producing Euro-Americanmodernist aesthetics in the face of postmoderity's transnational challenges to those values and forms of culture"(82). While the critic expands his territory, theorizing of his it subordinatesits difference to his Eurocentric critical categories. Kaplan sees the same problems in Deleuze and Guattari, where "becoming minor" is all too often a "strategy that only makes sense to the central, major,or powerful" critic, a strategywherein"theThirdWorldfunctions simply as a metaphoricalmarginfor European oppositionalstrategies,an imaginaryspace, ratherthan a location of theoretical production itself" (88). Deleuze and Guattari'sconcepts of deterritorializationand becoming minor represent the dark side of Appadurai's vision of agency and liberation,for in Kaplan'sview "deterritorialization itself cannot escape colonial discourse. The movement of deterritorialization colonizes, appropriates, even raids other spaces" (89). Kaplanwould counterthis Eurocentrictendency with a feminist stress on the local, one that aims to reversethe power relationsbetween

what globalization theorists call the center and the periphery.For Kaplan,in fact, the "privileging of the local" (146) by critics like Adrienne Rich and Chandra Mohanty requires that we view local culturesas sites of resistanceto globalization and underscoresthe dangerthat globalizing literary studies will colonize world literatures for Western academic consumption by channeling them through its own normalizing vocabulary.Otherfeminist critics of globalization share Kaplan'sconcern about how often globalization theorists ground their analyses in masternarratives which the mappingof corein relations seems to replicate an older periphery Eurocentrism. example, JanetAbu-Lughod, For who is "uncomfortable with the high level of abstraction of much of the discourse" about globalization (131), complains that critics like Ulf Hannerztreatthe culturalflow between core and peripheryas essentially one-way ("global" culture, produced in the West, is exported to a passive, consuming Third World). She argues that more attentionhas to be paid to specific localities in which cultural products from core cultures are appropriatedand transformedin a "two-way process" (132; her examples come from a bazaarin Tunis and the syncreticrelation between "oriental" Westernmusical idioms and [133]). BarbaraAbou-El-Hajalso worriesabout the tendency of major globalization critics to "emphasizethe center in culturalanalyses [. ..] premised on the core-peripherymodel [...]. In this model the remnantsof Eurocentrism lurk in the unequal attentiongiven to the local stake in the reception and alliance with global power brokers."These critics see the peripheryas the site of "homogenization and corruption,"but they ought to concentratemore on "reciprocity and synthesis"in global culturalflows (140-41). Likewise, JanetWolff sees too much "grandsociological theory" and not enough "concrete ethnography"focused on the local in the work of majorcritics on globalization(163). For Kaplan, Abu-Lughod,Abou-El-Haj,andWolff globalization theory too easily colonizes discrete


Globalization the Future English and of BeyondDiscipline? local cultures, subordinatingthem to sweeping formulationsthatare often Eurocentric. Valuable as these criticisms are, they run the risk of rigidifying the distinction between the privilegedcore and the marginalizedperiphery by insisting on the power and the autonomy, even the privilege, of the local. There is a danger in any discussion of the relation between dominant and dominated cultures of characterizing the local as a pure (or gendered) space in need of protection, as if local cultures were not alreadyhybrid. The danger of ceding dominant power to the core cultures of the West may be matchedby the dangerof making a fetish of the local in its resistance to global cultures and treating that resistance as more importantthan the detrimental effect it might have on the inhabitantsof the periphery. Conclusion: Globalizing Literary Studies The questions raised by Kaplan, Abu-Lughod, Abou-El-Haj,and Wolff ought to give us pause. However we proceed in our efforts to globalize literary studies, we need to avoid the problems these writers enumerate. As Susan Stanford Friedmanhas written,we need to resist "simplisas tically universalistand binaristnarratives" we thinkaboutglobalizingthe studyof literature; we must undertakethe more "difficultnegotiation between insistence on multidirectionalflows of power in [a] global context and continued vigilance about specifically western forms of domination"(6). This would clearly involve looking at local culturesoutside the West not as the passive recipients of mass culture but as sites of transformationor even active resistance. However, this does not mean simply reasserting the autonomy of the local over against the global. The traphere is thatwe may perpetuate simplea minded binarism that facilely and uncritically celebratesthe local as purecultureopposedto raThe stress,rather,ought pacious Westernization. to be on the multidirectionality culturalflows, of


on the appropriation transformation globand of alized cultural forms wherever they settle in, with close attention to how those forms are reshaped and sent off again to undergo further transformationselsewhere. This work will take on increasing urgency as globalization accelerates and these processes remake English into new andmore complicated. somethingaltogether We need to continueto reorganizethe study of literature in ways that move us beyond the outmodednationalistparadigmin which we still operate and that highlight how during various periods literature has been caught up in the multidirectional flows Friedmanidentifies. This does not mean we should abandonthe study of literarytexts and culturalpracticesin their relation to the modern nation-state. That study, however,ought to concentrateon the relationin historical and materialist terms. We ought to focus less on identifying what seems inherently English or American in the literatureswe teach and write about and more on understanding the functional relation between literature and the nation-state,how literarywritinghas been theorized and politicized in efforts to define and empower nation-states,especially from the Enlightenment onward. This kind of approach must give primaryattentionto the historicalrole literaturehas had in global systems of cultural exchange and recognize that this exchange has always been multidirectional. With the understanding that globalization is a long historical process, we can usefully complicate our nationbased approachto the study of English, not by droppingthe nation-stateparadigmbut by foregroundingits history and its functionfor the nation-state, insisting that our students come to understandthe instrumentalrole literaturehas played in the complicatedworld of transnational political and culturalrelations. Twenty or thirtyyears ago English seemed to have a kind of coherence (as the study for aesthetic appreciation a set of canonicalBritof ish texts, with some attention to United States literature treated in its relation to this British

I i 6. i



tradition), but that coherence was rooted in a cultural moment that has passed. In the United States focusing studentattentionon a privileged Anglo literarytraditionmade to embody ideals, values, and a loosely defined social ideology based on Emersonianself-reliancehad a kind of pragmaticvalue in the years after WorldWarI, a value that continued well into the mid-1960s. It solidified American nationalism after World WarI and in the context of a huge wave of immigration. Although the curriculum walked a tenuous line between valorizing a British tradition that writers like Emerson and Whitman wanted to break with and establishing the importance of "American" literature, the rise of American literaturein English departmentsaccelerated during the cold war, when the United States sought to consolidateits culturalprestige. One cannot,or certainlyought not, studyUnited States literatureapartfrom the social context of its rise to power in English departments, the but focus should be on this literature'sinvolvement in a global networkof forces-aesthetic, social, cultural, economic-that transcendthe borders of nation-states. Ourdesireto rethinkthe connectionsamong literature,nationalism, and cultural identity in the context of ever-expanding transnational relations is only the latest in a series of developments suggesting that English has become a confusing descriptiveor organizingterm for literary study in the United States. English more and more simply refersto the languagein which the texts we teach and write about are written, and this trendis bound to accelerate as transnational literaturesin English proliferate.It might be arguedthat this is a recent phenomenon,that only in the last quarterof the twentieth century did English begin to undergo the transformations I have been discussing. But as Robertson's approachto globalization suggests, Westernliteraturehas been caught up in the transnational flow of commodities and cultures at least since the rise of tradeandcolonialexpansion(Gikandi; George). We need to bring this transnational

perspectiveto how we presentthe history of literaturein the West, moving away from a traditional division of discrete national literatures into ossified literary-historical periods and giving the history of global expansion, trade, and intercultural exchange precedencein our curriculum over the mapping of an essentially aestheticized national character.In this model the older, nationalist paradigm for literary study would cease to stand at the center of the discipline and would become an object of study among others in a field that spent more time teachingits studentsaboutthe historyof the discipline, which after all has shifted remarkably since the late nineteenth century in ways that until recentlywe kept hidden from our students. Indeed, fostering a more programmatic selfconsciousness about the history of the discipline, what TerryEagletonlong ago termed"the rise of English"(17-53), can provide one of the best safeguardsagainst the danger that English will end up subordinateto an outwornnationalist paradigmthat seeks to colonize world literatures in English. The more we emphasize the historically constructed,politically and culturally interestednatureof literarystudies, the easier it will be to avoid putting British or United States English at its center and to prevent it from being disconnected from the history of transnationalculturalpolitics. This danger can also be mitigated by a commitment to putting knowledge aboutthe social, cultural,and political history informing global literatures in English ahead of our ingrained impulse to read them through the lens of Western theoretical and criticalidioms. EarlierI noted that Waters'sfocus on symbolic, cultural exchange was nearly indistinguishable from what we have been calling culturalstudies and that his work, togetherwith that of critics like Clifford and Appadurai,represents the steady transformation of cultural studies into a globalized (and globalizing) practice. It seems to me that the future of English lies squarely at the conjunction of these two


Globalization the Future English and of BeyondDiscipline? fields. On the one hand,the disciplinehas moved away from a narrowfocus on literature se in per the increasingattentionit pays to a range of cultural forms, and on the other hand, we have come to realize the inadequacy and even arbitrariness of studying literature and culture within the restrictive and distorting borders of nation-states. Globalization studies in the culturalistmode I have been discussing provides a context for studying literarytexts and works in other media not simply as aesthetic objects but also as cultural objects caught up in complex systems of transnational and intercultural exand It change, appropriation, transformation. offers a context, in particular, dealing with the for proliferationof English literatureswrittenin diasporic conditions, literaturesthat would otherwise be assimilated to a narrow, nationalist or paradigm ("Anglo-Indian" "AsianAmerican"). The expansion of diasporic English dramatically underscoresthe sense in which contemporary writing is produced in a postnational, culturalproducts global flow of deterritorialized translated,and recirculatedworldappropriated, wide. Whether we keep working under the increasingly ambiguous concept of English or develop new terms and paradigms to describe what we do, we need to find a way to accommodate the transnational postnationalperspecand tives of globalization studies in our programs and curriculawithout subordinatingthe heterogeneous literatures we deal with to outdated criticalparadigms. How? As I have been suggesting, we ought to make a firm, programmaticcommitment to the concept of literature in English, moving furtheraway than we alreadyhave from the national categories of British and Americanliterature. This could begin in the survey course, which would betterserve our studentsby covering the historical emergence of writing in English around the globe than by dividing off British literaturefrom American,presentingthe two in separate historical sequences, and leaving English produced outside these nationalist


contexts for other, marginal courses later in their studies. Presenting our students with a two-semester sequence called Literatures Enin one that stressed the transnationalrelaglish, tions (in a varietyof periods)of writingin English and that, as it became appropriate, included texts produced outside Britain and the United States, would constitutean importantstep in reorienting their conception of English and their approachto studying its culturalimport. Keeping in mind the long history of globalization, such courses ought to emphasize transnational relationsin earlyliterature from Chaucerthrough the Renaissance (emphasizing the role of travel and explorationin the evolutionand transformation of English as a language and a literature). We should also require some discussion of the rise of English as a field of study,with particular attention to its emergence in connection with the need to shape a nationaland political culture in Britainand the United States and as an instrument of imperial power (for example, in India and the West Indies).10 need to include texts We in Englishproducedoutsidethe Anglo-American culturalsphere in such courses whereverpossiconnectionsthey sigble, stressthe transnational nal, and make our students more aware of how the nationalistparadigmhas operatedin literary studies. Students ought to come out of such courses aware that this paradigm was socially and politically constructed,that it is neithernaturalnor transcendental. Transforming the survey course in this fashion should have the effect of loosening up and reshapingthe curriculumat more advanced levels. The critical perspective students would have coming out of such a sequence would prepare them for courses whose content resisted simple divisions along national (and historical) lines. This is already beginning to happen in a variety of fields across the spectrumof English literarystudies. Studentscan effectively connect the study of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century literatures in English to the early history of globalization by building on the work of Peter

I I 6. I



Hulme, Stephen Greenblatt, and others who have helped focus scholarlyattentionon authors who deal with the complex encounter between Europe and the Americas (including Shakespeare, Behn, and Defoe). More recently, in Tropicopolitans Srinivas Aravamudanhas developed a compelling model for reconfiguring the eighteenth-centurystudies by "interrupting monologue of nationalistliteraryhistory"in the field (16). Seeing globalization as an extension of colonialism, his treatmentof texts by Daniel Defoe, Jonathan Swift, and Olaudah Equiano and of Samuel Johnson's Rasselas suggests a numberof interestingways to rethinkcourse offrameferings in this areawithin a transnational work.Paul Gilroy'spioneeringworkon the black Atlantic is also a useful guide for rethinkingour approachto British literatureand its relation to Africa and the Caribbean across various periods, work that intersects interestingly with Renaissance and American studies. The study of postcolonial literaturesin English provides anotherobvious model. Its principlesand practices offer a variety of ways to study the complex development of English as a transnational literary institution profoundly implicated in the history of what we have only recently come to call globalization, which is, after all, a process deeply connected to the shifting fate of the nation under colonization and decolonization. Likewise, the field of modern studies has come in recent years to focus increasingly on modernism as an internationalphenomenon related to globalization in the twentieth century. Another model is emerging, paradoxically, in American studies, where a broad critiqueof the narrow,nationalist conflation of the American and the United States has sparked vigorous efforts to resituate the study of United States literature and culture in a hemispheric or PanAmerican context (a move that can be fruitfully linked to the connection in Renaissance and eighteenth-century studies between British literature and the colonial Caribbean, thereby helping to break down the curricularseparation

betweenBritishandAmericanliteratures Jay; [G. P. Jay;Porter]). Takingthese new, innovativefields as modwe will be in a better position in our more els, advancedcourses, and in our researchand writing, to articulate how English has developed over time into a transnationalmode of writing. and Programrequirementsat the undergraduate graduate levels ought to be reconfigured to allow for work that stresses how contemporary and earlier writing in English is connected to globalization.This means, as well, that our curriculum in criticism and theory needs to incorporate globalization theory and its various practices. As I insisted at the outset of this essay, we cannot deal responsibly with the relation between literatureand globalization without a clear understanding of the history of its development, the critical debates it has generated, and the theoreticaland critical vocabulary it has fostered. However we ultimately decide-collectively and as individuals-to incorporate a global perspective into literary studies, the longer English construed as an essentially nationalist discipline dominates literary study in the United States, the more it will seem a relic to our students. Indeed, as Robert Scholes has recently pointed out, for United States students "English is now a foreign literature in a (relatively) familiar language,"and it "requiresformal preparationin the background of English history and culture,just as the study of French literature requires the study of France" (21). One could arguefrom his point that we ought to make a renewed effort to deepen our students' knowledge of all things "English." But how would this effort preparethem for responsible citizenship in an increasingly globalized world, let alone in a country whose population has its roots in a myriadof otherculturesand histories? The literature and culture of England will always have an important place in our curriculum, but I think we need to make a programmatic commitmentto the study of English in a newer,


Beyond Discipline?Globalizationand the Futureof English


global framework,one thatrecognizes the transnationalcharacterof English in the past and the global context in which it will be produced in the future. If we do not make such a commitment, we may see the discipline of English become ever more marginal in the university of the future.

This essay benefited enormously from the stimulatingconversations about globalization and the future of English I had with the members of my spring 1999 graduateseminar at Loyola. I thankthem for helping to give shape and coherence to my thinkingaboutthis topic and for theirintelligent, criticalengagementwith the issues it addresses. 1See Eagleton; Readings; Miller; Court;and Graff. For the purposesof this essay and given the focus of this special issue, I have limited my remarksto literarystudies. English in the wider sense, of course, includes the importantpractices of rhetoricand composition and creative writing. It is beyond the scope of an essay of this size to deal with these fields in addition to what I try to cover, but I want to acknowledge their centralityto the discipline and how important it is to consider the effect globalization will have on them. For some interesting proposals about the teaching of writingin a revised approachto English, see Scholes. 2 For critical discussions of the role of nationalism in American literary studies, see Carafiol;G. Jay; P. Jay; and Porter.On Americanliteratureand globalization, see Buell, National Cultureand "NationalistPostnationalism." 3 See Readings 47. I think this position is a bit extreme. In many ways the nation-statecontinues to function as it always has, and the time when it will give way to a transnational structure seems to me a long way off. 4 For an exemplary work of literaryhistory in this context, see Said. 5 The changes Appaduraireviews here, while profound at the cultural level, do not in my view necessarily portend the arrival of a "postnational political order."The United States has done a fairly good job so far accommodatingitself politically and militarily to cultural change, and in many western Europeancountries there is significantresistance to the effect immigrationis having on the nationalcultural fabric. Given all this, Appadurai's prediction here strikesme as a bit premature. 6 Helpful as this formulationis, it is a little unsatisfying. For example, it is not hard to see how the demagogic cultural politics of the Third Reich used culturalism, as Appadurai defines it, to perpetuate what he calls culture. It

would make more sense, it seems to me, for Appaduraito stress the relationbetween culturalismand cultureinsteadof drawing such a rigid distinction between them and to acknowledge that culturalism can serve a retrograde, even violently discriminatory,cultural politics as well as a progressive and liberatoryone. 7 For a discussion of diasporas and globalization, see Cohen, esp. ch. 7. 8 For an analysis of this process, see Lipsitz. 9 Globalization theory was until recently dominated by male academics who paid scant attentionto gender and the role of women in globalization. All the founding figuresWallerstein(Modern WorldSystem and "National"),King, Robertson,Featherstone,Hannerz("Scenarios"and Transnational Connections), Giddens, Harvey, Appadurai-are men. All the principal critics whose work is collected in Culture, Globalization, and the World-System(King) are male, while women are relegated to the role of respondents (Abu-Lughod;Abou-El-Haj; Turim;and Wolff). As Wolff to pointedlynotes, thereis an "indifference" genderin these papers (169). This problem unfortunately persists in The Cultures of Globalization (Jameson and Miyoshi), where only three of the eighteen contributors are women and where genderand women's issues are not partof the discussion. This lack is beginning to be rectified in the work of feminist critics like Kaplan, Friedman,Grewal, and Tiffin, many of whom intervene in globalization studies from the fields of literaryand culturalstudies. 10On the role of English literarystudy in colonial India, see Viswanathan.

Abou-El-Haj,Barbara."Languagesand Models for Cultural Exchange."King 139-44. Abu-Lughod, Janet. "Going beyond Global Babble." King 131-37. Appadurai, Arjun. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1996. Aravamudan,Srinivas. Tropicopolitans: Colonialism and Agency, 1688-1804. Durham:Duke UP, 1999. Buell, Frederick.National Cultureand the New Global System. Baltimore:Johns HopkinsUP, 1994. . "NationalistPostnationalism:Globalist Discourse in ContemporaryAmerican Culture."American Quarterly 50 (1998): 548-91. Carafiol, Peter. TheAmerican Ideal: Literary History as a Worldly Activity.Oxford:OxfordUP, 1991. Cultures."CulturalStudies. Ed. Clifford,James. "Traveling Lawrence Grossberget al. New York:Routledge, 1992. 96-112.

I 16.


Paul Jay


Cohen, Robin. Global Diasporas: An Introduction.Seattle: U of WashingtonP, 1997. Court,FranklinE. Institutionalizing English Literature:The Cultureand Politics of LiteraryStudy,1750-1900. Stanford: StanfordUP, 1992. Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. Minneapolis:U of MinnesotaP, 1983. Featherstone,Mike. "Globaland Local Cultures."Mapping the Futures: Local Cultures, Global Change. Ed. Jon Bird et al. London:Routledge, 1993. 169-87. Friedman, Susan Stanford. Mappings: Feminism and the Cultural Geographies of Encounter. Princeton:Princeton UP, 1998. George, Rosemary Marangoly.The Politics of Home: Postcolonial Relocations and Twentieth-CenturyFiction. Cambridge: CambridgeUP, 1996. Giddens, Anthony. The Consequences of Modernity. London: Polity, 1990. Gikandi, Simon. Maps of Englishness: Writing Identity in the Culture of Colonialism. New York: Columbia UP, 1996. Gilroy, Paul. The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness.Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1993. Graff, Gerald. Professing Literature:An Institutional History. Chicago:U of Chicago P, 1987. Greenblatt,Stephen.MarvelousPossessions: The Wonder of the New World.Chicago:U of Chicago P, 1992. Grewal, Inderpal, and Caren Kaplan, eds. Scattered Hegemonies: Postmodernity and Transnational Feminist Practices. Minneapolis:U of MinnesotaP, 1994. Hannerz, Ulf. "Scenarios for Peripheral Cultures." King 107-28. . Transnational Connections:Culture,People, Places. London:Routledge, 1996. Harvey, David. The Condition of Postmodernity. Cambridge:Blackwell, 1990. Hulme, Peter. Colonial Encounters:Europe and the Native Caribbean,1492-1797. London:Methuen, 1986.

Jameson,Fredric,and Masao Miyoshi, eds. The Culturesof Globalization.Durham:Duke UP, 1998. Towarda Jay, Gregory."TheEnd of 'American' Literature: Multicultural Practice." College English 53 (1991): 264-81. Jay,Paul. "TheMyth of 'America' and the Politics of Location: Modernity, Border Studies, and the Literatureof the Americas."Arizona Quarterly54 (1998): 165-92. Discourses Kaplan,Caren.Questionsof Travel:Postmodern Displacement.Durham:Duke UP, 1996. of King, Anthony, ed. Culture,Globalization, and the WorldSystem: ContemporaryConditionsfor the Representation of Identity.Minneapolis:U of MinnesotaP, 1997. Lipsitz, George. Dangerous Crossroads: Popular Music, Postmodernism and the Poetics of Place. London: Verso, 1994. Miller,J. Hillis. Black Holes. Stanford:StanfordUP, 1999. Porter, Carolyn. "What We Know That We Don't Know: Remapping American LiteraryStudies."American LiteraryHistory 3 (1994): 467-526. Readings, Bill. The University in Ruins. Cambridge:HarvardUP, 1996. Robertson,Roland. Globalization.London:Sage, 1992. Said, Edward. Culture and Imperialism. New York: Vintage, 1994. Scholes, Robert. The Rise and Fall of English. New Haven: Yale UP, 1998. Turim,Maureen."Specificityand Culture." King 145-48. Gavri.Masks of Conquest:LiteraryStudyand Viswanathan, BritishRule in India. London:OxfordUP, 1998. Wallerstein,Immanuel.The Modern WorldSystemII. New York:Academic, 1974. ."The National and the Universal: Can There Be Such a Thing as WorldCulture?" King 91-105. Waters,Malcolm. Globalization.London:Routledge, 1995. Wolff, Janet. "The Global and the Specific: Reconciling ConflictingTheoriesof Culture." King 161-73.

Think Again_globalization
Think Again_globalization - Think Again: Globalization Forget the premature obituaries. To its cr...
Advantages and disadvantages of Globalization
Advantages and disadvantages of Globalization_英语学习_外语学习_教育专区 暂无评价|0人阅读|0次下载|举报文档 Advantages and disadvantages of Globalization_英语...
雅思范文全球化globalization - Nowadays we can enjoy the same films, fashions, brands, advertisements and...
Globalization's Dual Power
Globalization's Dual Power_英语学习_外语学习_教育专区。现代大学英语精读3 9A 原文及译文Globalization's Dual Power 1 At the edge of a new century, global...
China and globalization
China and globalization_工学_高等教育_教育专区。大学英语读写译课程作文,China and globalization。China and globalization It is widely acknowledged that globaliz...
What Is Globalization
What Is Globalization_英语学习_外语学习_教育专区。What Is Globalization What Is Globalization? Globalization is a process of interaction and integration among ...
Globalization in my eyes 我眼中的全球化
Globalization in my eyes Globalization has penetrated into all aspects of our life around the world. We can see it everywhere and anytime. It benefits ...
The_influence_of_globalization - The influence of globalization Globalization, a worldwide concep...
Globalization全球化的内涵、优势与批判_经济/市场_经管营销_专业资料 暂无评价|0人阅读|0次下载|举报文档 Globalization全球化的内涵、优势与批判_经济/市场_经管...
英语对话:Globalization - 英语口语考试 大学英语第四册... 英语对话:Globalization_英语学习_外语学习_教育专区。英语口语考试 大学英语第四册 Globalization Yang :Hell...