Thoughts on readings from Globalization:
Afridi: excellent bridge to longer work, depending on which you are using;
particularly great lead-in for Hoffman—very similar both in thematic content
and in tone/style/diction; that's a great one to use as a transition considering
the narrative style and the tons of figurative language that she employs. I
actually used it a bit earlier, though... paired nicely with Hill
Ahmed: essay great for the compare/contrast essay. Many of the students seem to
have gained insight. There was good discussion and good applications to
other texts.
Akam: nice wrap-up to the globalization themes
Ali: “The Subway Falafel” It’s a pretty quick text and generated some interest, but I
might consider switching it for another short essay even though I like how it
works with Wasserstrom. Alternately, may be useful at beginning (easy) or
end of semester, could get students thinking beyond the obvious- excellent
practice going into drafting E2 and through comparison in class, they
generated some interesting themes going into the memoir
Angelos: “Passing the Test” I was nervous about starting with this text since it is
lengthy, but the discussion was absolutely great and it worked very well for
an early summary assignment. A couple students also used it for the analysis
of a single text. In discussion there was a lot of engagement, but then it hasn't
been referred to in the writings, so I'm thinking of dropping this
Appiah: “The Shattered Mirror” This one is a challenge, but I think it will stay in my
rotation. It doesn’t just grapple with being a citizen of the world but brings
out so many other very thorny issues. It also has a complex central metaphor
that my students enjoyed applying and reshaping further. In addition,
several of my students are using it for their comparative analysis. One is
pairing it with Boroditsky and two others with Golberg. Possibly don't begin
with this, as it is quite challenging, ultimately important and helpful for us to
work through it. A few of students are even using it for Paper 2; on the other
hand, some students found the vocabulary too immense and the many
references too obscure. Another instructor reported students disliking this.
Banerjee and Duflo: good discussion, despite being a long text; students seemed to
like it
Boroditsky: “How Does Our Language Shape the Way We Think?” Like Jenny, my
knowledge of arguments and counterarguments surrounding this essay
makes me react to it differently than perhaps I do to some other essays, but
my students were quite intrigued by it and some have used it to good
effect. Many used it for their analysis of a single work and a couple others
are using it for their comparative analysis. I do think that its structure makes
it somewhat hard to use, but I’ll probably keep it. Another vote for good
discussion but not sure what to do with it in their papers. Some feel that
students were too focused on criticizing things that highlight their lack of
knowledge of the subject-matter. Others find it useful in conjunction with
other essays on language's influence on thought
Bures: “Can You Hear Us Now?” I would likely keep this essay because it pairs well
with Leonard and did generate some discussion; this also seemed quite
engaging during class discussion, but then interest dropped significantly, no
essays (that I recall) and no thematic references in the initial review
Clark: good review, provided great discussion in class, and paired well with Ahmed
or Larsen
Cole: great and very thought-provoking for students; really helpful in addressing
race issues the Chinese students seem sort of aloof to
Dwoskin: also challenging in terms of understanding the writers’ points of view. In
the thesis-driven analysis, I spent a lot of time in conference breaking down
language, tone, and context for these two.
Economist: mixed reviews, potentially interesting subject of Chinese tourism in
Europe; some students liked this a lot though; others felt very offended by
the article.
Fadiman: mixed reviews--some found success and others didn't; some students
noticed thematic connections to other texts here and referenced this a
number of times.
Gappah: not a lot of discussion or student interest
Gleiser: “Globalization: Two Visions of the Future of Humanity” I found this useful
for showing students what they should not do in their papers (pile up a
bunch of assertions but not come up with a clear claim and not analyze their
sub-claims in detail). It is a blog post and I drew students’ attention to that
fact. I also used it as part of an essay question on Quiz 1; interesting
discussion, and paired well with Wasserstrom; very useful theoretical lens,
and also pairs nicely with Iyer. Good for summaries.
Golberg: “You Can Take it With You” This generated a great discussion in class,
brings out some subtle but fascinating issues, and pairs interestingly with
Appiah, so I’ll probably keep it, but I’m not 100% committed to it.
Gopnik: Good for summaries.
Guest: “Pursuing the Science of Happiness” This is a definite keeper – my students
had a phenomenal discussion about it and I suspect it may be useful for the
final synthesis paper (though I don’t know for sure as of yet!) But either way,
it made me happy to listen to my students talk in surprisingly philosophical
(but useful) ways about happiness; good class discussion on happiness
Hill: ("In Search of Black Identity in Uganda") good for discussion and pairings (Cole,
Afridi)
Horning: mixed reviews, appealing topic of fast fashion and social media, but realy
tricky for students; "The Accidental Bricoleurs," but a lot of them seemed
disinterested and had difficulty grasping this concept of the false self vs. the
real self, though they enjoyed discussing social media and identity
construction/reproduction. None of them used it for their paper.
Iyer: challenging but good payoff, discussion was great, lots of use in the essays,
good (creative) lens opportunities; interesting thematic uses
Kenny: short but very interesting discussion; led to very nice journals.
Larsen: sparked a lot of discussion on China's "leftover ladies" given our population,
students were very engaged, lots of use in essays and in thematic review
Leonard: “Death by Monoculture” There are some issues with this essay, but I find it
so useful for pairing with other essays because it takes a distinctive
stance. To be honest, it is also an essay that students can challenge in a
number of interesting ways because Leonard identifies a significant issue,
but his simple resistance to Eskimos having certain technologies is a bit
problematic. Students have paired him to good effect with Bures and with
Traves; great theoretical lens to use to apply to other readings; this was
particularly popular, in both essays and in generating ideas for the thematic
review (the "f-word" at the end was a surprising shock and a use I didn't
even notice until they found it excessively inappropriate)
Manseau: great discussion
Nasser: “Do Some Cultures Have Their Own Ways of Going Mad?” This generated
some interesting discussion, but I probably would not teach it again since no
one wrote about it and some students seemed a bit confused about it.
Polanki: okay, but there seem to be better essays on language here
Sharma: too short on its own, but good with Traves, Leonard, and Boroditsky on the
prevalence of English in India
Traves: "The Church of Please and Thank You" -engagement in discussion was fine,
but no one has written about it for E1 or E2 and during our thematic review,
no one referenced it. Clearly they didn't find it that engaging. I won't use it
again; there was a good discussion, students wrote analytical summaries on
it, and one student is pairing it with Boroditsky’s essay and another student
is using it in a paper with Leonard. It's also much-cited in some students'
essays: they really latched on to this idea of "linguistic imperialism" and the
"contagion" of Westernization.
Wasserstrom: “A Mickey Mouse Approach to Globalization” This generated a
fantastic discussion (some of my Chinese students also talked about how
parts of it are dated, but there were other great observations). One student
wrote an analysis focused on it and a couple are pairing it, one with Ali and
the other with Zuckerman. I also found this essay useful because it has a first
paragraph that states a surface interpretation but then digs more deeply. I
found that useful, particularly because many other essays do not have a clear
structure of this kind; good discussion, lots of use in essays and brought
about some interesting themes; partnered well with Gleiser. Good for
summaries.
Watkins: nice, and partners well with Cole
Whitty: mixed reviews, interesting topic of global warming Zuckerman: “A Small World After All?” I’m on the fence about this one. It has some
interesting concepts and one student is pairing it in fascinating ways with
Wasserstrom, but students seemed to find some parts of it too obvious and
other parts of it confusing.