HERE are the lecture slides for download.
Feel free to raise any questions or comments on today's lecture.
Also, I'd like to hear from you as regards the "Made in China: The Growing Dangers of the China Trade" Time magazine article. What might a discourse analysis of the text reveal?
Take note that this is a business article in Time magazine. The storytelling is supposed to be 'objective' and economics-oriented. However, we argue, from a constructivist viewpoint, that a particular story is being told about China and, at the same time, the West (i.e., America). And this story is using a kind of symbolic violence in that it favors ONE way of understanding China while excluding other narratives. And so, what are the 'regimes of truth' that can be gleaned from the text in terms of: a) nation and national identity, b) danger and safety, c) progress and modernization, d) East and West, e) imperialism, and others?
Some guide questions to help you:
1) Why the focus on pet food, toothpaste, toys and tires? What is the significance of these products?
2) How does the article talk about 'us' and 'them'? What words or phrases are used to construct or position the reader?
3) What is the significance of the 'seal of approval' by the US Department of Agriculture? What does it represent?
4) Imagine that the story is about the dangers of trading with the United States, and NOT with China. What kinds of words or phrases would have to be changed because these are not 'acceptable' or commonplace terms of describing America, or the West in general?
5) How does the article link with the larger discourse about the 'rise' of China as a superpower?
I think that this is a very good exercise in which we get to practice our textual analysis skills. Can we count this as a 5-point quiz? :)
Also, HERE are the possible topics for your final paper assignment. These are in no way final, etched-in-stone topics and you are free to play around with them. While the paper won't be due for another 3 months, it's good to start thinking about what you want to do. Feel free to email me at jo296@cam.ac.uk to set appointments for consultation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I read the article as something that would ruin China's economy because it is a rising superpower. Since the United States is the one most threatened by China, the United States must do anything and everything for China not to triumph economically and politically. I believe that the United States focused more on the products stated because these are the products China is well known for. These are also the products that consumers buy the most.
The article gave the impression of exluding China by empowering the United States and it's capability of being the "world police." This also put China in a bad light because they are the "criminals" they are the ones who just mass produce products and not really take the time to inspect them. The title itself in a way destroys the reputation of China as being ruthless and incapable of producing products. And if the article was made by the Chinese warning people not to trade with the United States, they would look as if they were the one in power and the United States would have been the one at fault.
The only question that really lingers in my mind is, Why has the United States been so reluctant in the past? Is it only now that they are diligent in examining the products from China because they now see China as a threat?
Good start, Jowee! I'll wait for the others before I make any further comments!
After I read this article, I suddenly remembered the book my cousin was reading last Christmas. It was called "A Year Without Made in China" (by Sara Bongiorni) because it depicts the reality of America's growing dependence on China's products. Bongiorni narrates how costly it has been for her family when they stopped buying China's goods for over one year.
Just like in the article, there were instances when Bongiorni doubted the safeness of Chinese goods since these were xxx times cheaper than US-made products. From my understanding, the article does antagonize China in this manner: Beware of Chinese imports---they may be plenty, but you're never sure if they are safe. I'm not sure though if US is indeed concerned with the people's welfare/ safety or if they just want to protect their own economy.There's nothing wrong with a protectionist approach when a country is dealing with the economy, but America is becoming more and more selfish in its desire to rise above everyone else.
I want to end this by sharing what Biongorni realized in the end (and I'm pretty sure all of America will realize anytime soon, too):
"After a year without China, I can tell you this: You can still live without it, but it's getting trickier and costlier by the day. And a decade from now I may not be brave enough to try it again."
i agree with what jowee talked about how this kind of article is not favorable to china's economy as it targets products from china being cheap, low quality and may be un-safe. this article seemed to take the side of the united states even though it should be an unbiased article, there was a hint of negativity towards china's products. however, the article also targeted the US showing how the FDA was inadequate and could be partly at fault with the cases of china's products, as there are not enough control centers and agents to check the products being imported.
the products focused are everyday household goods that everyone may come into contact with. i feel that the article chose to stress on these products for people to become more affected and aware of the lack of quality and danger they may be in from products from china. with the use of certain words and phrases, the position of the reader is of the US as it tries to show how problem products are affecting the reader as well.
the article seems to try and pacify and cool down the rise of china as a power as their image has most likely been downgraded with this article. specially if such an article is targeted to china's "bread and butter" of cheap and mass produced products. if people really pay attention and are affected with this article, this could cause a problem to china's economy. with the loss of import volume from the US, china's economy could loose millions of dollars from such an article. this may also lead to a chain of events such as downsizing and closing of agencies and therefore, leading to the loss of jobs and unemployment. quite a dangerous article to be published. =)
- james arco
"the products focused are everyday household goods that everyone may come into contact with. i feel that the article chose to stress on these products for people to become more affected and aware of the lack of quality and danger they may be in from products from china. with the use of certain words and phrases, the position of the reader is of the US as it tries to show how problem products are affecting the reader as well."
---> good job, james. this is how to do discourse analysis! :)
Reading the article, it felt like they wrote China off as a defensive child who was caught in the act of doing something bad and depicted America as a too trusting customer who should guard their purse-strings more vigilantly.
I was especially struck by the positioning of these two sentences from China's "what more do you want from us" to America's seeming answer in the next line"would a nontoxic dentifrice (product) be asking too much?" It depicts China as a swindler whose only concern is to make the most profit and America as a poor victim of their greed.
sam sy
From the title of the article itself, we can readily posit that the author created a bias against China and its products. Made in China: The Growing Dangers of the China Trade – this is a clear admission (perhaps on the author’s part) that the US sees China as an ominous threat and a tough competition for the production of consumer goods. Clearly, the article highlights and gives particular focus on one way of understanding China – that China-made products are “evil” and they must be banned from the market immediately. It is keen on placing the country on a negative light, undermining China’s significant contributions to the world.
2) How does the article talk about 'us' and 'them'?
The author made a clear-cut distinction between “us” (the United States) and “them” (China). Oddly enough, it presents the US as the ferocious watchdog. It’s as if, because of the controversy of product recalls, the US becomes the good guy, the savior, the hero, and China is the villain, the menace, the bad guy.
What words or phrases are used to construct or position the reader?
“got their last squeeze” – This statement may represent the US market’s future move to have a total ban of products made in China, a foreshadowing of sorts; it also shows the weight of their bias against China-made products.
“yanked from the shelves” – This suggests a sudden pulling away, perhaps in urgency. Shows the burning need, the desperation to pull the products from the markets, seeing these products as a plague that must be avoided, a disease that can be deadly and infectious.
“..buy these days without thinking” – Presents the apparent lack of vigilance of the Americans in buying consumer goods. This creates greater tension because it only pounds on the fact Americans should think twice before buying products manufactured in China.
“…is that our only option in a made-in-China world” – This shows that China (and its lead-tainted products) is taking over the world, and that Americans better beware.
“…show the dark side of Asia’s boom”- For me, this statement is very offensive because it positions China as a force to be reckoned with – a dark force, at that. It also shows that globalization in Asian nations has a dark and dangerous side that people don’t see – until now. If indeed, because of rapid economic progress, China is turning to the “dark side”, then what about those countries that are already economically strong to begin with (e.g. the US)?
3) What is the significance of the 'seal of approval' by the US Department of Agriculture? What does it represent?
The seal of approval of the US FDA suggests the authoritative role that the regulating body assumes. It shows that the US FDA is the lone standard when it comes to the safety of products. It shows the marginalization of products that do not have the seal of approval of the US FDA.
Post a Comment