Comments on: Global Assemblages

By: Eva

Eva — Sun, 29 May 2005 14:07:58 +0000

Howdy, looks like we were both there for Ong’s talk in Taipei. I arrived a little late so I missed the microphone scene. But following the talk I witnessed a little interaction outside the hall which perhaps illustrated some of the “Chinese irrationality” mentioned in her presentation. I am not sure if this is her first or second time in Taiwan, but I believe she was looking for a little more guidance/orientation (e.g., detailed itinerary) for the rest of her speaking tour in Taiwan. This is in spite of the repeating assurance from one of the coordinators that she would not have to worry a thing during her stay because someone will be coming to take her to the airport, the hotel, etc.

Personally I enjoyed her talk and wished there was more time for Q&A. The questions that were asked were regrettably not very communicative. Some people did not seem too comfortable with her preference of “assemblages” over “flows” as a key trope in transnational studies. But it surely forces one to deal with multiple levels of power that all come together in a situation that perhaps encourage a bottom-up or an all-direction challenge on an idea as grand as “neoliberalism.”

Report this comment

By: Colin Danby

Colin Danby — Sun, 29 May 2005 07:03:07 +0000

“Ong seemed to take the ideological rhetoric of neoliberalism at face value. As her own account seems to make clear, these management gurus are not actually interested in producing rational self-motivated individuals. They want a disciplined white-collar work force.”

Can we take the critique in the first sentence a step farther? How do we know what management gurus want? Are we sure that management training is functional at all? Do we know what the receivers of training make of it? Once we see that we’re looking at rhetoric, doesn’t that create all the usual questions of interpretation? Are interests really quite so apparent? What’s interesting, as in Ong’s earlier work on Malaysia, is that we have interpretive battles over what things mean.

I don’t want to suggest that one can’t do analyses in terms of interests, but I’m starting to notice the way that “neoliberalism” and similar words legitimate instant functionalism in analysis, and a deliberate turning-away from interpretation and toward the assumption that meanings are right on the surface.

Report this comment

By: Nancy

Nancy — Sat, 28 May 2005 17:25:41 +0000

I agree that the use of unexamined jargon can sometimes undercut the analytical process. First, it’s dangerous to assume that all of one’s audience understands the terminology the same way even if they are all academics or even anthropologists. I have found that people trained in different places sometimes have a different understanding of and use for the same terms. So if one doesn’t clarify their own use of it, it can lead to misunderstanding. THen, of course, there are the people from outside one’s field who may not even know the terminology at all. So what is a good balance between having to explain every single little term one uses and using discipline-specific jargon with impunity without any clarification?

As for the subject matter itself, that is an interesting take on worker management. It does remind me of the tension in North American society in general of individualism vs conformity. In other words, it appears that people are trained to be independent and autonomous to a certain point . . . only to the point where it doesn’t interfere with them being easily manipulated and used for the profit and well-being of those who seek to control their actions.

As with the Chinese workers mentioned above, one wants them to be “rational thinkers and workers” only insofar as that rationality serve the interest of those in control. If the thinking and working serves to benefit one’s own interests or the interests of one’s family, then it ceases to be rational and becomes a gesture of mutiny . . . ir irrationality.

Report this comment