Sue-Im Lee’s article examines a “particular view of globalization,” and talks about how Yamashita’s characters embody the effects of globalization, and how their identities emerge among the “we” globalism has created. She talks about the dual role of universalism–as an oppressive force and as a progressive one–writing that Yamashita rejects the “undirectional, imperialist” versions of universalism, without dismissing the entire concept (instead she employs the notion of romantic universalism, which provides us with hope). Yamashita uses universalism in Tropic of Orange as a way to bring attention /give voice to the people who have effectively become unimportant in the midst of globalization–and its political and economical ramifications. She also asks the question, how can one concept–such as universalism, the global village, etc.–effectively and fairly encompass all of humanity?
The article defines the “global village” as a universal whole, with disconnected, non-integrated parts that make it up. Where you are/who you are in the world influences your idea of the global village. Lee relates the idea of a primordial global village to technological advances that have allowed globalism to happen, making the entire world an interconnected “village”–but she also questions the logic in unifying groups throughout the world in this “global village” when they are not at all on even ground economically or socially (example, the socioeconomic standing of Bobby and Rafaela versus that of Emi and Gabriel). She also points out the mistake of reducing the global village to the material, or the effects of consumerism (example, Emi). The view of the global village from a privileged standpoint is very different from other views; the white/privileged/upper class consumerist perspective can lead to the fetishization and the devaluing of the third world components of the global village. Lee writes that there can be a global “we” without imposing an idea of collectivity–she theorizes that this can be seen in the character of Manzanar, who romanticizes the idea of universalism and makes its impossibility more obvious to readers.
One scene that can be related to the idea of the global village is the rape of Rafaela. It relates years of events and atrocities to a single event–they seem entirely separated, but the power struggle is the same. They are all coming out of the meeting of the north and the south–the violence inflicted by colonialism and imperialism–although the events are separated in time. The consumerist ideology of the north resulted in “the bleeding silver treasure,” the “scorched earth,” the “human massacre” (Yamashita 221) of South America. While Manzanar’s “romantic universalism” positively depicts the “we” of globalism, Rafaela’s experience and the way Yamashita relates it to colonialism, power abuse, and ethnocentrism reminds us of past events that definitely still carry weight in the globalist world of today, and are part of what is keeping the ideal global “we” from really being possible. Lee’s hopeful statement at the end of the article–that Tropic‘s romantic universalism reminds us of the “ever-luring horizon of universal human rights”–might be related to this scene as well. Are we to take this as a reminder that human rights abuse in the “third world” is still a huge issue? What has happened, and might happen, when different cultures come into contact, and one has “power” over the other, and what does this mean for the effectiveness of the global village? What roles has the south played in the global village, and how can these vastly different realms coexist fairly today? How can all this be overcome in a postmodern, globalist world?
I like this idea that Rafaela represents a sort of bridge between characters like Buzz and Arcangel and the more etherial, detached Manzanar. She is at once grounded (that first scene of her foot on the tile) and connected deeply to the politics and past and mythic background of her people. Because she is so grounded she can’t quite accommodate the Romantic Universal, as Lee calls it, but she also suggests its shortcomings, as you noted so well in your response to Lee. Well done!