[after posting this post, i realize this may not be the way i want to go. but perhaps it will make for good discussion? maybe spin into other paper topics? still thinking...]
o.k. maybe i've changed my mind completely. Now I’m thinking about using Truman’s 1949 speech in order to connect colonialism, globalization, and modernity, by using 3 quotes from his speech and exploring the ways in which these concepts carry through different eras of the development project.
Colonialism uses the story of other countries being lesser than “first world" countries and in need of U.S. and European support. He states his reason for intervention, “…in order to help them [LDCs] realize their aspirations for a better life…" Later, countries are farther deemed “lesser than,” with the help of concepts like poverty and illiteracy, requiring the help of U.S..
Globalization (the need for newer markets and a higher level of production) is necessary for the continuation of capitalism, though often not framed as such, instead framed as a means to a higher quality of life. Truman states, "Greater production is the key to prosperity and peace." “Greater production” is normalized through economic discourse, growth discourse, and the like.
Finally, modernity shows up in Truman’s endorsement of the "application of modern science and technology" for the realization of this goal toward a better life for these underdeveloped people. Economics as science legitimizes intervention within the discourse of modernity. Notions of modernity are so entrenched in the audience to which Truman is speaking, that the idea of bringing modernity to others can be read as an act of philanthropy for the betterment of these unfortunate people.
I realize that a lot of what I’m saying in each of these 3 segments bleeds into each other quite a bit. I suppose all of these statements by Truman and discourses that are tied to them point primarily to underdeveloped countries as the beneficiaries, while the ‘modern’ world is seen as enhanced only in so far as the world is enhancement.
I would also like to talk about the need for this discourse post-world war II (with the threat of communism). Perhaps this can be part of the section on Globalization, but I fear this is getting way too broad (once again).
Yeah wait. This is WAY too much, isn’t it? These thoughts are NOT taut. I suppose I could take one of these 3 topics and pull out 3 more subtopics for a paper. Arrggg. Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think you can keep the colonialism/postcolonialism section, and include how this new intervention/discourse of development after 1949 was similar to the control used in colonial times to take 3rd world resources, and labour to benefit the 1st world, and how this new development discourse justified this practice. This is where I think you could write about the need for this discourse because of the threat of communism.
You might want to think about combining the globalization and modernization themes into one since as you said they kind of bleed together, unless you can be very specific and separate about these two topics then do them as two themes.
Maybe your third theme could be the effects of post colonization, globalization and modernization, such as violence, increase in poverty, destruction/devaluing of culture, displacement of homeland for technology such as dams. However, that might be difficult to do without linking to the first two themes.
Hopefully this is helpful, good luck and have a good weekend.
Post a Comment