Skip to main content

World Tree - OP-Ed - Robert

    Imagine a tree growing forty varieties of fruit. Standing in one place, you reach up and grab a peach, cherry, plum, or nectarine. Does it sound like fantasy or science fiction? Well, it’s neither. Visitors to Syracuse University don’t have to imagine the Tree of 40 Fruit growing on campus. Sam Van Aken, a sculptor, “invented” the tree by combining science and art, grafting many fruit buds onto one central tree.

    This tree illustrates my understanding of globalization: connecting diverse knowledge and cultures across national borders. Contact with distant parts of the world gives us access to food, technology, art, and many other things we would not have otherwise. While this simplified definition does not encompass globalization entirely, basic knowledge builds a foundation for understanding our world.

    We all experience tension between local and global cultures. It’s rooted in our media, politics, and markets. Whether individuals embrace or resist globalization is irrelevant. As Stewart Hall observes, “Capital has never allowed its aspirations to be determined by national boundaries” (Hall 630). So long as capitalism creates markets that cross borders, global connections will continue to multiply. Without meaningful intervention from people and governments, unregulated markets, unfortunately, exploit people. Given these trends, we must dedicate our energy to growing a stronger future.

    The Tree inhabits a valuable space, symbolizing local and global connections. Any branch, its own local community of like-minded fruit. Neighbors largely resemble one another in appearance and taste. On an adjacent branch, there may be fruit similar in appearance and taste yet may differ in some ways. Fruit on the opposite side of the tree has no immediate knowledge of distant neighbors, yet all fruits rely on the same life. These fruits—different in their appearance, location, and taste—receive life-sustaining nutrients from the same roots and contribute to the beauty of the tree.

    Humans live in local pods where we often resemble one another. We brush against neighbors and interact directly within local communities. People in distant corners of the globe can be mysterious for any number of reasons: language, culture, appearance, religion, politics, etc. Yet, “In a world saturated by money…the ‘market’ is the most…universal experience…for everyone.” (Hall 37). Life-sustaining markets should support all lives equally.

    Nations are more connected than ever before. While some people embrace the benefits—international travel, study abroad programs, and culinary diversity—others fear changes to their local identities, wishing to return to a simpler past when people looked out for themselves.

    Did this simple life ever truly exist? Yes and no. “Most modern nations consist of disparate cultures which were only unified by a lengthy process of violent conquest…” (Hall 629). Most local identities are hybrids.

    Returning to the tree, nothing truly advanced went into its creation. Van Aken simply used common grafting techniques. Western cultures, the U.S. especially, like to think humans are above nature, yet everything we do, everything we create is natural in its own way, including the Tree of 40 Fruit and globalization.

    Are the intricacies of this system perfect? No. Far from it. Some feel anxious about globalization for valid reasons. There are inequities and power imbalances caused by exploitation: child labor in unregulated markets or building tremendous sports complexes to be abandoned after the Olympic’s closing ceremony. But, hybrid identities are nothing to fear. Instead, we can choose to right wrongs and cultivate justice.

    We cannot escape the system because we are the system (Adorno and Horkheimer 408). We constantly live globalization, pruning flaws, all while reaching toward beauty and fairness. To be clear, this is not a case for turning the world into America, but a call to share the collective wisdom of all cultures. School children make friends with global neighbors. Communities contribute intellectuals to universities, funding medical and sustainability research to benefit all. When we see a neighbor instead of a stranger, we practice revolutionary love (Kaur). Different fruit, growing on the same tree. We can all strive toward a better future. Globalization provides a means; we must supply the will. Because who doesn’t want tasty fruit?


References


Adorno, Theodor, and Max Horkheimer. “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception.” The Cultural Studies Reader, edited by Simon During, Routledge, New York, NY, 1993, pp. 405-415.

Hall, Stuart. “The Global, the Local, and the Return to Ethnicity.” Social Theory: The Multicultural and Classic Readings, edited by Charles Lemert, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 1996, pp. 626-633.

Hall, Stuart, et al. “The Problem of Ideology: Marxism without Guarantees.” Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies, Routledge, London, 2005, pp. 24-46.

Kaur, Valarie. See No Stranger: A Memoir and Manifesto of Revolutionary Love. Penguin Random House, 2020.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

2/2 Discussion Questions

Althusser makes a point that ISAs operate as "unified" under the ruling ideology. To what extent are certain ISAs unified if they are "the site of class struggle" playing out, holding the potential for "ruptures" (to use Hall's phrase) with dominant ideologies? Here, I am thinking about the University of Iowa's COVID policies and how its rules are practiced and applied in many different ways throughout campus, as administrative burdens and scale make it difficult to oversee large numbers of employees. More generally, as junior scholars, grad students, and/or individuals doing cultural studies work, does it make more sense for us to do deep and nuanced readings of theorists such as Marx and Althusser in our work, or to cite others who have expanded these traditions over the years?

Week 6 Discussion Qs

 Hall brings up the concept of interpellation as applied to social formations. (p 335) How is interpellation related to articulation? How are the two different, if at all? Must the two be discussed together? I have more difficulty conceptualizing interpellation than I do articulation. If we are to take up Hall's warning not to study racism as a set of "historically specific racisms" (336) nor as something with a "universal structure" (337). What balance can we strike today between these two approaches in our current historical moment? Eduardo Bonilla-Silva has written that certain forms of modern racism have been impacted by the prevalent ideology of "colorblindness." Are we still in this moment or are new specificities arising?