Thoughts on Readings from Globalization for WR 098
Note: This document is a collection of reflections from multiple different instructors, including Somy Kim, Tom Oller,
Jenny Sia, Christina Michaud, Sarah Hanselman, Raleigh Finlayson, Holly Schaaf, and Kevin Barents. You’ll find some
agreement here, and much disagreement, but the thoughts and suggested pairings of readings may be useful to you as
you consider which essays to use from the book in your own course.
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; a great one to use as a transition considering the
narrative style and the tons of figurative language that she employs. May be
used early or late in the semester. 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”: pretty quick text and generated some interest, but might
consider switching it for another short essay even though 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”: 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
Appiah, “The Shattered Mirror”: This one is a challenge, but I think it will stay. 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, useful for the
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 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?”: 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. Its structure makes it somewhat hard to use, but it’s
still worthwhile. 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?”: pairs well with Leonard and did generate some
discussion; this also seemed quite engaging during class discussion, but then
interest dropped significantly
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, instructors needed to help students break down
language, tone, and context.
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”: 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 subclaims in detail). It is a blog post and helps draw students’ attention to that
fact and to genre. Can be used for good in-class writing questions. Provokes
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
Gopnik: Good for summaries.
Guest, “Pursuing the Science of Happiness”: This is a definite keeper—students
had a phenomenal discussion about it and it may be useful for the final
synthesis paper. Great to hear students talk in surprisingly philosophical (but
useful) ways about happiness. Additional votes for good class discussion on
happiness
Hill, "In Search of Black Identity in Uganda": good for discussion and pairings
(Cole, Afridi)
Horning, "The Accidental Bricoleurs”: mixed reviews, appealing topic of fast
fashion and social media, but realy tricky for students; 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. Hard to pair with other readings?
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, it’s 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. Also good for discussion of diction and style—the "f-word" at the end
was a surprising shock and students found it excessively inappropriate
Manseau: great discussion
Nasser, “Do Some Cultures Have Their Own Ways of Going Mad?”: This
generated some interesting discussion, but some students seemed a bit
confused
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 thematic review,
no one referenced it. Clearly they didn't find it that engaging. Other
instructors say that there was a good discussion, and 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 muchcited 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 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. Useful because it has a first paragraph that states a surface
interpretation but then digs more deeply. Other votes for 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?”: 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.