Para. 1

Today we are in the throes of a worldwide reformation of cultures, a tectonic shift of habits and dreams called, in the curious vocabulary of social scientists, “globalization”. It’s an inexact term for a wild assortment of changes in politics, business, health, entertainment. “Modern industry has established the world market. All old-established national industries are dislodged by new industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes,” Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote this 150 years ago in The Communist Manifesto. Their statement now describes an ordinary fact of life.

Q1: How does the author begin this article?

A1: The author begins the article with the statement “Today we are in the throes of a worldwide reformation of cultures” which is called globalization. Here the author points out that globalization is a world movement and a movement of reformation of cultures. She does not say merging of cultures but reformation of cultures, indicating the cultures in the world will continue to exist but they will not be the same.

Q2: Why does she quote Marx and Engels?

A2: The author then says that globalization is not an exact word to describe the changes. Why? The author quotes Marx and Engels to prove her point According to polls, Marx and Engels are rated among most important people in the past thousand years. The author’s intention is two-fold s on the one hand she wants to show that globalization is the result of modem industry and world markets, on the other she wants to stress that it is a process and a historical process at that.

Para. 2

How people feel about this depends a great deal on where they live and how much money they have. Yet globalization, as one report stated, “is a reality, not a choice”. Humans have been weaving commercial and cultural connections since before the first camel caravan ventured afield. In the 19th century the postal service, newspapers, transcontinental railroads, and great steam-powered ships wrought fundamental changes. Telegraph, telephone, radio, and television tied tighter and more intricate knots between individuals and the wider world. Now computers, the Internet, cellular phones, cable TV, and cheaper jet transportation have accelerated and complicated these connections.

Q1: How will you paraphrase the sentence of “How people feel about this depends a great deal on where they live and how much money they have”?

A1: The attitude of the people toward globalization is to a great extent determined by whether they are in the developed countries or not and whether they are among the haves or the have-nots.

Q2: Comment on the author’s statement.

A2: The author is to a large extent correct in making this statement. According to polls in the U. S., the attitude towards globalization has a lot to do with the level of income and education. An analysis of the economic situation in the world in recent years shows that most of the benefits of globalization have gone to the developed world.

Para. 3

Still, the basic dynamic remains the same: Goods move. People move. Ideas move. And cultures change. The difference now is the speed and scope of these changes. It took television 13 years to acquire 50 million users; the Internet took only five.

Q1: What is the function of “Still”?

A1: “Still” here introduces a contrast. Paragraph 2 tells the readers that modern technology makes the connections and changes faster and more complicated. Paragraph 3 stresses that the basic pattern is the same. The difference lies in the speed and scope of changes.

Para. 4

Not everyone is happy about this. Some Western social scientists and anthropologists, and not a few foreign politicians, believe that a sort of cultural cloning will result from what they regard as the “cultural assault” of McDonal’s, Coca-Cola, Disney, Nike, MTV, and the English language itself—more than a fifth of all the people in the world now speak English to some degree. Whatever their backgrounds or agendas, these critics are convinced that Western—often equated with American—influences will flatten every cultural crease, producing, as one observer terms it, one big “McWorld”.

Q1: How do some of Western social scientists and anthropologists and foreign politicians view this trend of globalization?

A1: They believe that globalization will result in the spread of American goods, American values and culture and the consequence will inevitably be Americanization of the world.

Q2: Does the author agree?

A2: The author is not so pessimistic. She does not think that globalization means Americanization and a variety of cultures will continue to exist, but they will all be changed. This can be seen in the opening statement as well as in Para. 34 and the concluding paragraph.

Para. 5

Popular factions sprout to exploit nationalist anxieties. In China, where xenophobia and economic ambition have often struggled for the upper hand, a recent book called China Can Say No became a best-seller by attacking what it considers the Chinese willingness to believe blindly in foreign things, advising Chinese travelers to not fly on a Boeing 777 and suggesting that Hollywood be burned.

Q1: Why does the author put “xenophobia” and “economic ambition” as a pair in contrast?

A1: Xenophobia means hatred or fear of foreigners or foreign things. If xenophobia becomes dominant, there will be movements to drive out foreigners and foreign goods. This can be found in the Boxers Movement. Economic ambition refers to the desire to build China into a strong, industrialized country, to improve the livelihood of the Chinese people. This would mean opening to the outside world, introducing foreign capital, technology and goods.

Q2: Is the author’s summary of the book accurate?

A2: No. The writers of the book do express some strong nationalist feelings, but they are not irrational. Their arguments are not groundless, though they contain serious flaws. And they are not simply asking people to reject anything foreign. To call them xenophobic is neither correct nor fair.

Para. 6

There are many Westerners among the denouncers of Western cultural influences, but James Watson, a Harvard anthropologist, isn’t one of them. “The lives of Chinese villagers I know are infinitely better now than they were 30 years ago,” he says. “China has become more open partly because of the demands of ordinary people. They want to become part of the world—I would say globalism is the major force for democracy in China. People want refrigerators, stereos, CD players. I feel it’s a moral obligation not to say: ‘Those people out there should continue to live in a museum while we will have showers that work.’”

Q1: What’s meaning of “museum”?

A1: “Museum” here stands for ancient life or backwardness, the kind of life you can only find in museums now.

Q2: What does “showers that work” mean?

A2: “Showers that work” stands for modern life with high-tech gadgets.

Q3: How do you understand the sentence of “Those people out there should continue to live in a museum while we will have showers that work.”?

A3: The Chinese people should continue to live a backward life while we live comfortably with all modern conveniences.

Para. 7

Westernization, I discovered over months of study and travel, is a phenomenon shot through with inconsistencies and populated by very strange bedfellows. Critics of Western culture blast Coke and Hollywood but not organ transplants and computers. Boosters of Western culture can point to increased efforts to preserve and protect the environment. Yet they make no mention of some less salubrious aspects of Western culture, such as cigarettes and automobiles, which, even as they are being eagerly adopted in the developing world, are having disastrous effects. Apparently westernization is not a straight road to hell, or to paradise either.

Q1: How does the author bring out the inconsistencies on the concept of Westernization?

A1: First she contrasts the critics and the boosters. Then she contrasts the inconsistencies within each group. The critics blast Coke and Hollywood but not organ transplant and computers, indicating their critique is selective. The boosters emphasize environmental protection but make no mention of cigarettes and automobiles, indicating that they deliberately overlook those things that bring damage to health and the environment. The conclusion is: Westernization is neither a direct, uninterrupted road to hell nor to paradise. In other words, it is neither terribly bad nor extremely good.

Para. 8

But I also discovered that cultures are as resourceful, resilient, and unpredictable as the people who compose them. In Los Angeles, the ostensible fountainhead of world cultural degradation, I saw more diversity than I could ever have supposed — at Hollywood High School the student body represents 32 different languages. In Shanghai I found that the television show Sesame Street has been redesigned by Chinese educators to teach Chinese values and traditions. “We borrowed an American box,” one told me, “and put Chinese content into it.” In India, where there are more than 400 languages and several very strict religions, McDonald’s serves mutton instead of beef and offers a vegetarian menu acceptable to even the most orthodox Hindu.

Q1: In what way are cultures resourceful, resilient, and unpredictable? How does the author prove this?

A1: The author tries to prove this by giving three examples.

The first is Hollywood High School in Los Angeles, the city which many people consider as a source of devaluing world cultures. Even in the place where Hollywood is located you still find a school with thirty-two languages spoken. This is a sign of cultural diversity. The second is Sesame Street in Shanghai. Sesame Street is popular television show in the U. S., yet the Chinese borrowed the form and filled it with Chinese values and traditions. This again shows how resourceful and resilient cultures can be. The third is McDonald’s in India. It shows on the one hand McDonald’s is clever to cater to Indian demand, on the other hand the resourcefulness and resilience of American and Indian cultures. When such unexpected things happen, it is right for the author to call cultures unpredictable.

Q2: Why does McDonald’s serve mutton instead of beef in India?

A2: Because the religion of Hinduism regards the cow as sacred, so beef can’t be eaten.

Para. 9

The critical mass of teenagers—800 million in the world—with time and money to spend is one of the powerful engines of merging global cultures. Kids travel, they hang out, and above all they buy stuff. I’m sorry to say I failed to discover who was the first teenager to put his baseball cap on backward. Or the first one to copy him. But I do know that rap music, which sprang from the inner-city ghettos, began making big money only when rebellious white teenagers started buying it. But how can anyone predict what kids are going to want? Companies urgently need to know, so consultants have sprung up to forecast trends. They’re called “cool hunters”; and Amanda Freeman took me in hand one morning to explain how it works.

Q1: Why are teenagers so important?

A1: Their number is huge and they have time and money to spend. So entertainment and goods are designed in such a way as to cater to their tastes.

Q2: Why does the author consider teenagers one of the powerful engines of merging global cultures?

A2: Young people are the source of fashion and fashion knows no national boundaries. The fashion in one culture can be easily picked up by teenagers in other cultures. The spread of rap music is a case in point.

Para. 10

Amanda, who is 22, works for a New York-based company called Youth Intelligence and has come to Los Angeles to conduct surveys, whose results go to many important clients. She has shoulder-length brown hair and is wearing a knee-length brocade skirt. Amanda looks very cool to me, but she says no. “The funny thing about my work is that you don’t have to be cool to do it,” she says. “You just have to have the eye.”

Q1: What sort of person is Amanda Freeman?

A1: Amanda is 22 and she works for a consultant company, Youth Intelligence, which is located in New York.

Q2: Why does she go to Los Angeles?

A2: She has come to Los Angeles to conduct surveys in order to predict trends. Los Angeles is supposed to be a center of youth fashion because of Hollywood.

Para. 11

We go to a smallish ‘50s-style diner in a slightly seedy pocket east of Hollywood that has just become trendy. Then we wander through a few of the thrift shops. “If it’s not going to be affordable, ” Amanda remarks, “it’s never going to catch on.”

Q1: How to understand the sentence “If it’s not going to be affordable ... it’s never going to catch on”?

A1: If the trend is too expensive and cannot be followed by people, it will not become popular.

Para. 12-13

What trends does she see forming now? “The home is becoming more of a social place again. And travel’s huge right now—you go to a place and bring stuff back.”

“It’s really hard to be original these days, so the easiest way to come up with new stuff is to mix things that already exist. Fusion is going to be the huge term that everybody’s going to use,” she concludes. “There’s going to be more blending, like Spanish music and punk—things that are so unrelated.”

Q1: How does Amanda go about her work?

A1: She goes to small, cheap shops in trendy areas to conduct surveys because any fashion, if it is not affordable, cannot become popular. She also has her eyes on fusion because nowadays blending has become the trend.