The second Global Society midterm exam will be Thursday

Dear globalizers and anti-globalizers (i.e. students),

The second Global Society midterm exam has been moved to Thursday, March 27, in class. It had been previously scheduled for Tuesday. The topic will be only economic globalization / neoliberalism, so I will ask more thought questions, and more questions from the readings and films (Geraldo, No Logo, and so on).

GI

Global Society, Review Sheet for Midterm II

Review Sheet for Global Society Midterm II

Economic Liberalism

Laissez-faire capitalism

“invisible hand”

Adam Smith

Economic freedom

Economic equality

Communism

Socialism

Liberal capitalism

British Empire

Crises of liberal capitalism

The welfare state

Social security

Pensions

“Keynesianism”

Crises of the welfare state

Stagflation

Oil embargo

Neo-classical economics

Think tanks

Neoliberalism

Anti-globalization social movements

The “Washington Consensus”

Left-wing critics of globalization

Right-wing critics of globalization

Southeast Asia

Peter Martin

Martin Wolfe

Xenophobia

Racism

Hatred of markets

“race to the bottom”

Inequality within nations

Inequality between nations

GINI index

Neo-colonialism

The “global North”

The “global South”

Kenichi Ohmae

Nation-states

Region-states

“Global logic”

“extortionate demands”

Foreign investment

Foreign ownership

Foreign products

“civil minimum”

Robert Hunter Wade

Elite consumption in developing nations

Clustering of high-wage industries, R&D

Lecture Notes for Global Society Midterm II

Neoliberalism / Economic Globalization

1. “Economic Liberalism”

This is not an economics course, but we can discuss the basic principles of what is sometimes known as “Anglo-Saxon” or “Anglo-American” or “laissez-faire” capitalism, and its transformation.

Adam Smith: the “invisible hand” of the market provides goods and services for all of us.

Free trade is good because, since individuals are rational and self-interested, and tend to negotiate and trade and bargain, and because whenever people trade or buy goods or services both parties must gain (most of the time), governments should allow free trade. Governments should not interfere in the market.

Economic liberalism thus gave priority to economic freedom over economic equality

Liberal capitalism was the official economic system, and the economic backbone, of the British Empire, and it was the dominant global system until the early 20^th century and the rise of communism and socialism, and crises of capitalism including the 1929 stock market crash.

The result of these crises and threats, in advanced capitalist democracies, was that the state sought to smooth out the volatility of markets, and sought to make capitalism serve social purposes – equality and welfare.

The result was not communism, but rather the “welfare state” in which states taxed citizens, and taxed the wealthiest citizens more than others, in order to provide health insurance, unemployment insurance, retirement benefits, and other benefits to vulnerable citizens.

The welfare state was the dominant economic-social model in the world from about 1945-1975(ish). This period also saw the growth of labor unions, which were generally not communist/socialist, but that demanded guarantees of social security and benefits from states.

In the 1970s the welfare state and unions faced their own crises and also sustained intellectual/ideological criticism from “neo-liberal” economists and other writers.

The welfare state was, and is, threatened by global economic competitition, by economic globalization and the incorporation of countries like China into the global economy. States that tax businesses and citizens for social reasons lose because businesses and citizens can more easily move. E.g. Germany and France today.

Thus economic globalization / neo-liberalism directly threatens the welfare state, and in so doing it threatens the welfare of millions of people in advanced democracies. For these and other reasons, we should not be surprised to find anti-globalization social movements, and anti-globalization and anti-immigration sentiments among voters in advanced democracies. And yet economic globalization / neoliberalism continues to advance, and welfare states continue to shrink. Why? Peter Martin and Martin Wolf argue that there is a strong moral case for economic globalization. Their arguments are classical arguments of free-traders and economic globalizers, and most business executives would strongly agree with them. Their arguments are rooted in neoclassical economics and in observations of the world, particularly since the 1990s.

Peter Martin “The Moral Case for Globalization”

This article was originally published in the Financial Times, a highbrow business newspaper. For Martin, economic globalization is morally good. In fact it is great, because it has integrated previously marginalized, poor people into the world economy and provided them with higher standards of living.

Economic globalization is better and more powerful than bureaucratic elites and their “North-South dialogues”. Economic globalization is real, powerful, and beneficial because it will transfer power from developed countries to developing ones.

Leftist critics of globalization (the anti-globalization movement) are in fact conservative, they want to retain the status quo.

Economic globalization refers to the lowering of trade barriers and the liberalization of economic policies and labor laws.

Economic globalization creates losers, but it creates more winners than losers.

Economic globalization creates jobs. Millions of jobs. Maybe not great jobs, but a job in a factory is better than no job at all.

Globalization can be stopped, but this requires a more powerful state that can repress individual rights and freedoms. This is undemocratic.

Economic globalization / liberalization is associated with democracy. Where we have free trade, we will generally have democracy and more freedoms.

This is a “mainstream” view of globalization. For evidence it relies on the economic development of southeast Asia – Taiwan, Thailand, South Korea, Vietnam

Martin Wolf “Why this Hatred of the Market?”

Technology has made the lives of millions of people much better. It is easier to travel, to communicate.

Governments are forced to open their economies to the world economy, although this leads to a loss of power and control. Why do they do this? Because choosing economic isolation leads to disasters, e.g. East Germany, North Korea, and Maoist China (poor, isolated, militaristic) versus West Germany, South Korea, and Taiwan (rich, successful, not militaristic).

Still, some people resist economic globalization. Why?

Hatred of markets

Fear of foreigners

Concern about wages and jobs

These fears are unfounded, “mythical”

What is not mythical is the economic prosperity of … east Asia

Other criticisms of economic globalization

Neoliberalism / economic globalization weakens unions and the welfare state, both of which are institutions that gave millions of citizens opportunities to attain a middle-class standard of living, and to live and grow old free of the fear of poverty or destitution. These institutions created an important “safety net” for citizens of advanced democracies, and now it seems that this safety net is weakening.

There are other criticisms of economic globalization that are less focused on the wealthy democratic societies.

1. Economic globalization increases inequality in the world
2. Economic globalization increases poverty in the world. Or at least, it does not decrease it.
3. Economic globalization creates a “race to the bottom” in terms of workers’ rights, wages, environmental standards, and child labor.
1. States and regions and even towns compete to attract mobile businesses
4. Econ glob’n is un- or anti-democratic (Barber)
1. Transnational corporations are immune from voters
2. Econ glob’n strips power away from democratic institutions
5. Econ glob’n is racist and/or sexist
1. EG generally privileges white male executives (e.g. exec salaries)
2. EG generally punishes people of color and women
3. Advocates of EG are mostly white men
4. Critics of EG are often people of color, people from poorer countries, women
6. Econ glob’n is basically a new form of colonialism and exploitation
7. Econ glob’n destroys traditional cultures that have develop ed over millenia

Hugo Radice “Neoliberal Globalisation: Imperialism Without Empires”

This chapter is from a book that is generally opposed to neoliberalism / economic globalization. The packet we are using in this class is generally in favor of it.

HR focuses on political power, on imperialism or “Empire”

He argues that economic globalization isn’t opposed to states, it doesn’t weaken states, but rather it complements state power, and thus states encourage EG (compare this position with Ohmae’s later on)

“North-South” language, much like Wallerstein

Wars by the North are done to protect Northern interests

2^nd-to-last page: argues against the “weakening” or “rolling back” of the state – different in the North and South (he does not expand on this here)

Essentially, he sees neoliberalism as something that the rich and powerful North does to the poor and weak South

Kenichi Ohmae “Putting Global Logic First”

Ohmae is a highbrow business writer (for the Economist)

He is famous as a “regionalist”

We will read him again later

He would disagree entirely with Radice, I think, and he also disagrees at several points with Huntington

He argues that today it is economic activity, not nation-states, that defines the landscape on which all other institutions must operate

The nation-state is an “artefact” of the 18^th and 19^th centuries

The N-S is “crumbling” because of:

ethnic tensions

religious hatreds

political resentments

“Devolution” in Germany, Spain, UK, Canada, France

This is not only due to the end of the Cold War (Huntington)

The crumbling of the N-S is due to international flows of capital, e.g. in currency markets, which cannot be controlled by states

Global flows of information, models of consumption, create pressures on states to open markets to foreign goods and services

The N-S does not support economic growth, it inhibits it (against Radice and others) because politicians must meet the extortionate demands of labor unions, farmers, fishermen, other groups

States must provide an equal “civil minimum” of services for all citizens, regardless of economic logic

e.g. they send cash to rural areas for unneeded projects

(e.g. expensive bridges to small islands in the US, Japan)

The invisible hand of the global market will inevitably punish this kind of behavior

So N-Ss are “unnatural” and even “dysfunctional” in the global economy

If Coca-Cola or Nike acted like states, they would go bankrupt

Region-States do make sense

e.g. Seattle-Vancouver, Silicon Valley, expanded Hong Kong, northern Italy, San Diego-Tijuana

These are “growth regions” incorporating several cities, 5-20 million people (but not 50 or 100 million), with an airport and an international seaport

Unlike states, region-states must be “open” to global economic realities

welcome foreign investment

foreign ownership

foreign products

Region-states do not protect the “civil minimum” or protect uncompetitive industries (as do irrational nation-states)

Region-states are the present and the future because they are rational and open to global realities, because they put “global logic” first

Robert Hunter Wade “The Disturbing Rise in Poverty and Inequality”

R.H. Wade is a professor of political economy at the LSE

Counterposes the arguments of economic liberals (globalizers) and anti-globalizers

Suggests that liberal optimism (of Peter Martin, Martin Wolf, others) is probably wrong

problems with how the world bank calculates income and poverty

it is possible that the proportion of the world population in poverty has decreased over 20 years because of economic growth in China and India

Inequality of wealth and income is also hard to measure and calculate. It is usually done with a GINI index:

XXX

In US dollars, global inequality has certainly increased. But this is not meaningful due to differences in purchasing power (lower prices for goods and services in poorer areas)

If we use PPP measurements, world income inequality has increased over the last 20 years (the ‘neoliberal era’), both across and within countries

More people are living at the ends of the world income distribution, and more money is going to those at the top

Inequality between nations may not be important if everyone is better off overall (who cares?)

But inequality between states may matter more than we think

leads elites in poor states to compare themselves with elites in rich states

leads elites to buy more high-end foreign products

leads to elite corruption

leads to emigration by educated elites

The world economy is more regionalized than globalized – most Fortune 500 companies have a regional, but not global, focus

They can pay higher labor prices because they need skilled workers, but relatively small numbers of them

These high-wage (high-tech) companies are clustered in regional networks, in which valuable technical and tacit information flows relatively freely

Even in non-Japan East Asia, there is almost no R&D today

Lecture Notes for Exam 2, Intro to Sociological Theory

Cultural Theory

We have mentioned culture a few times already. Along with functionalist theory and conflict theory, cultural theory is one of the big theoretical perspectives in sociology.

Also, the textbook’s definition of society itself includes the concept of culture.

And in his book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Max Weber argued that Calvinists’ culture, and not only technology, economics, or power, contributed to the success of capitalism.

When we talked about differences between different countries, students said that different countries have different cultures.

But What is Culture? What does the word Culture mean?

One definition is that it is different from economic and political processes.

This might help, but it’s not a very good definition.

Most discussions of Culture start with the idea that people are different from animals because people have culture. Some animals use tools and some teach each other how to do things. But overall, non-human animals operate by instinct.

What are animals’ instincts? What are human instincts?

Food, water, sex, friendship, play, take care of young, aggression

Unlike most animals, humans are born incomplete; we need other people to teach us how to live. Our instincts are not enough. “Human nature” is not enough.

e.g. Blinking vs. Winking

instinct vs. culture

For example, in the 19^th century scientists found feral children—wild children who grew up by themselves in the forest. They could not speak, and did not know how to live or how to interact with other people. No one taught them how to be social, how to eat, how to speak, how to read or write, etcetera. These were some of the only people ever found who had no culture.

Second definition: Culture is something we have to learn from people in our society (family, community, nation).

Social scientists talk about two kinds of culture:

1. material culture

tangible things people make in a society

cell phones, worry beads, houses, cars, clothing, food

2. non-material culture

ideas, meanings, beliefs, values, utopias, moral judgments

Components of culture, or What counts as culture and what doesn’t?

Blinking is not culture, winking is

Roughly five things are thought to count as culture

1. Symbols (or signs) (the difference is not important)

Anything that carries meaning for people who share culture

e.g. The Turkish flag is a symbol; it is meaningful, but it means different things to different people

e.g. a blink is not really a sign; a wink is a sign

Symbols and signs have two parts:

A. The signifier (e.g. the winking eye)

B. The signified (e.g. flirting)

2. Language

Languages are systems of symbols

Without language, there would be no culture, because we could not pass on our culture to our children and to other people

Does language shape reality?

Two famous anthropologists, Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf, thought so.

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis: Language shapes the way we think

different languages have different ideas, categories, distinctions

e.g. Hopi Indians had one word for everything that flies, including insects, planes, pilots

but there’s a different word for birds

e.g. Inuit Indians (eskimos) have many different words for different kinds of snow

Many words from one language cannot be translated into another language

What are some Turkish words or ideas that are hard to translate into other languages?

e.g. words for emotions are different in different languages

German Hindi

Angst Ludja

Shoddenfreude

3. Values and Beliefs

Beliefs are specific statements that people think are true

e.g. God created the universe

Humans evolved from Apes

Values are standards about what is right and wrong

e.g. individualism versus collectivism

family values

tolerance

freedom

4. Norms

Rules about appropriate behavior

e.g. How do you treat guests? If you are a guest in someone’s home, how are you supposed to act?

5. Material Culture

Physical differences between cultures, e.g. in clothing, architecture, how people eat

THINKING ABOUT CULTURE

High versus Low

high culture (elite culture)

popular culture (mass culture)

cultural capital (culture used for social climbing; Pierre Bourdieu)

Subcultures and Countercultures

alternative cultures within a nation; small cultures; cultures that rejection the mass culture

e.g. youth cultures; professions; street culture; ethnic groups

Ethnocentrism

The idea that your culture is the main, central, or best culture

Seeing reality only through your own culture

Judging other cultures based on your own culture’s standards

e.g. Indian Suttee; homosexual rituals in New Guinea; eating dogs in China

Hard to avoid

Relativism

Trying to understand other cultures on their own terms

The belief that different cultures have different truths and different ways of being moral, and that no one culture is better than others

Cultural Lag

The idea that material changes in society occur quickly, while culture (ideas, values, customs, habits, norms) change more slowly.

Sociologist William Ogborn, 1920s and 1930s

Example of deforestation, slow shift to conservation methods

e.g. high price of gas, gradual shift in preferences toward small cars

2 THEORIES OF CULTURE

Functionalism (again!)

combines functionalism that we saw before (structural-functionalism) with idealism (cultural functionalism)

different societies have different basic values

societies and cultures work hard to preserve these basic values.

pieces of culture (symbols, norms, language, material culture, etc.) function to preserve these values

e.g. Why do the Amish refuse to use high technology? Are they dumb?

Why do some Indian communities practice Suttee?

Because cultural practices reflect basic values.

e.g. individual freedom, hard work, community, family, tradition

Like Weber (at times), cultural anthropologist view culture as a system.

Their analyze “cultures” in synchronic, not diachronic, terms. This is part of what makes cultural anthropology unique.

Their approach and methods are interpretive; they see cultures as texts that are open to interpretation, and contain recurring themes and symbolism

Cultural anthropology can tend to be functionalist in its thinking.

Everything in a culture serves a function

Everything in a culture is part of an integrated whole

Society is a system of mutual interdependence that must be kept in equilibrium

Cultures are necessary for human life, serve concrete needs:

For rearing and socializing children

For creating social solidarity and harmony

An implication of these functionalist views is that indigenous cultures should be protected or preserved

i.e. if Westerners tamper with one part of an indigenous culture, they may destroy the whole thing

This view was crucial for anthropology during its early years in the 20th century, when Western powers still operated systems of colonial control in “3rd world” countries.

Conflict (again!)

Marx: culture is determined by whomever has control over the means of production

Critical theory (The Frankfurt School): Mass culture (pop music, films, tv) is created by the culture industry, and is like an opiate. It keeps people from thinking too much.

The Frankfurt School

a group of intellectuals who were associated with a research institute in Frankfurt in the 1920s, but were dispersed with the rise of Nazi Germany

I will focus on Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno

They were members of the German cultural elite, and Adorno moved to Los Angeles in the 1940s

saw Nazi populist propaganda, then in America television commercials, popular newspapers and films

A and H, in The Dialectic of Enlightenment, argued that the project of the European Enlightenment had reached an end, and had led to a world of narrow pragmatic rationality and a mass society of passive, uniform consumers

Popular media produced by the culture industry appeals to the lowest common denominator, simple likes and dislikes, in the interest of maximum profits

“No independent thinking must be expected from the audience”

Audiences are zombie-like and amused, but unthinking and gullible

Classical and avante-garde art, however, is much better

Antonio Gramsci (Italian Communist): Elites, and especially the state, have hegemony (total power) over popular culture. This allows them to rule the people without using too much force. Hegemony creates consensus.

Individual psychology and meaning

Peter Berger (influenced by Max Weber)------a Catholic sociologist, is one of the most famous sociologists of religion

The need for MEANING is unique to humans, and is only addressed by culture/religion

His perspective is similar in some ways to Durkheim’s, but where Durkheim looks at communities and societies, Berger looks more at individuals

For individuals, religion provides a “sacred canopy” of meaning in an otherwise meaningless and dangerous world

Humans need life to be meaningful, and need to know what is sacred and what is profane; this is thought to be a basic need of humans, but not of other animals

So Peter Berger expects people to turn to religion during times of personal difficulty and uncertainty

When life is difficult, religion gives a sense of security and permanence

e.g. people turn to religion during times of illness, natural disasters, and war

e.g. people turn to cults and new religions because of the stresses and difficulties of modern society

Weber’s sociology of religion/culture

Religious cultures provide comprehensible ideas of theodicy and salvation for laypeople

Why did these societies become more rationalized than others? Why did they develop industry, capitalism, democratic governments, corporations, factories, and high technology earlier than the rest of the world?

Why not the Ottoman Empire? Why not Catholic Europe? Or China or Japan?

These were all massive, powerful empires. Before the early 19^th century, these areas were much more powerful than Northern Europe.

Marx does not have a strong answer to this question, but Weber does.

Weber argues that rationalization is associated with capitalism. It is important to keep in mind that capitalism is different from buying and selling things to make a profit. How is it different?

It is different because in capitalism, the money you make is saved up and then invested in new business ventures. This money that is saved and invested is called capital. Since money was invented in Mesopotamia and Egypt, individuals who made money would spend it on themselves and their family, or they would give it to the church.

Weber’s answer lies in Protestant Christianity, specifically Calvinism, a sect of Protestantism. Weber’s mother was a devout Calvinist, so naturally he knew a lot about this religion.

Most religions in the world at this time were other-worldly

Good moral behavior in this world is rewarded by going to heaven when you die.

For example, in Catholicism, if you paid enough money to the Church, you would be allowed to go to heaven.

Or if you gave money to poor people, you would make God happy.

Or in Hinduism, by having a good reincarnation.

Calvinism was founded by the 16^th-century writer and preacher John Calvin. It is different from most religions because in Calvinism, God is all-powerful. Humans cannot change their fate by changing their behavior or paying money to the Church. God decides what will happen to you. You cannot change your fate.

This idea is called predestination. Your destiny is preordained. This is a bit tough on people, because they have no way of knowing whether they will go to heaven or hell. And even if they knew, there would be nothing they could do about it.

So people wanted to know whether they would go to heaven or hell. And they came to believe that an individual’s material success in this world was a sign from God. God must have made some people rich because those people were chosen to go to heaven. So making money became a sign of being chosen by God.

What about poor people?

They are poor because God has not chosen them.

So rich Calvinists did not give their money to the poor. It’s not because they were mean or greedy. They thought God would not want them to give money to people he had chosen to go to hell. It would be a sin to give money to the poor.

It would also be a sin to be self-indulgent, to live a life of luxury. One’s life should be devoted to God, not to oneself.

1) So early Calvinists became very good at making money, because they saw it as a sign of being chosen by God.

2) They did not share their money with the church or with poor people.

3) They did not spend their money on luxuries.

4) They accumulated money and reinvested it in their businesses. And they kept careful accounts of their money, because they believed that making money was a holy endeavour. They made money the way an Imam reads the Koran or a Jewish Rabbi reads the Torah. With total religious intensity.

5) Later generations of Calvinists lost the old religion as they encountered science and modern thought (Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Freud, sociology, psychology, etc.) and as they became wealthy and urbanized and cosmopolitan.

They lost their Protestant Ethic, but kept a strong work ethic.

So capitalists were really good at making money, saving money, and doing accounting.

This led to a general rationalization of society in Protestant countries. After all, Calvinists were so good at making money that they ended up owning lots of factories and businesses. And they became powerful in politics. They were in charge.

They owned factories and integrated them, creating large-scale organizations that were independent of the Catholic Church. In Europe before Calvinism, the Catholic Church was nearly all-powerful. Only the King could compete with the Church for power. Now capitalists could compete too.

Calvinists encourage personal discipline among all workers. Individuals should be disciplined internally, not by force.

Calvinists encourage precise time scheduling.

They encourage technical competence.

They encourage impersonality in business. Social connections are less important than individual discipline and technical competence.

Keep in mind how different this argument is from Marx’s understanding of society, where religion is an effect of economic processes, not a cause of economic processes.

The Sacred and the Profane

Emile Durkheim, the father of French sociology, explained religion sociologically. All societies and all religions, he thought, divided the world between the sacred and the profane

The Sacred The Profane (in Latin, profane means “outside the temple”)

Pure Things that are normal

Magical, have special powers Everyday things

Holy Nothing special

Clean Can be dirty; doesn’t matter

Set apart

Contagious—makes you sacred Contagious—makes you unholy if you tough it

Inspires awe, fear, reverence Boring or disgusting

e.g. in Hinduism, cows are sacred; Brahmins are more sacred than untouchables, who are profane and dirty

in Judaism and Islam, pigs are profane

The Koran and the Torah are sacred

Mosques and Synagogues are sacred

Communities, not individuals, draw lines between what’s sacred and what’s profane

These lines are social and cultural

Different communities draw different lines

Communities do rituals so that they can show themselves what is sacred and what is profane

e.g. Baptists, who are a Christian sect in America, dunk people under water to cleanse them of sin

Hindus bathe in the Ganges River every 12 years

Muslims go to Mecca

Christians drink the wine and eat the wafer, which symbolize the body and blood of Christ

Durkheim’s functionalism

Durkheim defined totems as objects a community defines as sacred

They can be anything: a piece of wood, a book, a place, a mountain, a building, an animal, a word, even a person

Religions are based on totems, rituals, and on the distinction between the sacred and the profane

Together, these things create a religion, and religions have several functions for society. Religion turns individuals into a community.

1. Social cohesion

religion unites people

defines what is ethical, defines the rules of the game of life

religion channels our emotions (love, hatred)

2. Social control

Elites can control people through religion

Religion encourages conformity

Religion makes the political system seem legitimate

3. Meaning and purpose

For individuals, religion makes life meaningful

We are all going to die, and we are all going to suffer many times in our live, even the lucky ones like us; religion makes death and suffering meaningful and thus less painful

For Durkheim, “God” is another word for “society”

Review Sheet for Exam II, Intro to Sociological Theory

Introduction to Sociological Theory

Prof. Gabe Ignatow

Review Sheet for Mid-term Exam 2: Cultural Theory

The second mid-term covers only cultural theory, including Cultural Functionalism, Conflict Theories of Culture, Theories of Religion and Individual Meaning, Weberian Sociology of Religion, and Durkheimian Cultural Theory.

You should be able to define and discuss all of the following terms:

Instinct vs. Culture

Meaning

Blinking vs. Winking

Symbols

Signs

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

Linguistic Relativism

Linguistic Determinism

Linguistic Categories

Beliefs

Values

Norms

Material Culture

High Culture

Low Culture

Popular Culture

Cultural Capital

Subcultures

Countercultures

Ethnocentrism

Cultural Relativism

Cultural Lag

Synchronic Analysis

Diachronic Analysis

Cultural Functionalism

Cultural Anthropology

Critical Theory

The Frankfurt School

The Culture Industry

The “lowest common denominator”

Horkheimer and Adorno

Antonio Gramsci

Organic Intellectuals

Hegemony

Peter Berger

“Sacred Canopy”

The Secularization Thesis

Max Weber

Theodicy

Salvation

Calvinism

Other-worldly religion

This-worldly religion

Predestination

Rationalization

The Protestant Ethic

Emile Durkheim

The Elementary Forms…

Aborigines and Native Americans

The Sacred

The Profane

Rituals

Totems

“Collective Effervescence”

Social Solidarity

Dallas as a global city

This is from Dallas City Hall:

http://www.dallascityhall.com/committee_briefings/briefings0308/ED_GlobalDestination_030308.pdf