Transnational America Week #10

        “Transnational America” was a piece for me which brought clarification to cosmopolitanism. In this work, Grewal separates while also combining the difference in created Diasporas, feminisms, and neoliberalism. She creates the discourse around immigration from Egypt and India into the U.S. In this process, she shows the difference is what is classified and comes to be considered as nationalism in place of multiculturalism. In the text, the geopolitical and bio-political of consumer goods is focused upon through trade and accumulation of power through culture through the bodies of Indian heritage, but manipulated by none other than the superior West.

            The U.S. is the stage to which all performers of global trade and “cultural consumers” are obligated to play a role. The idea of liberalism and neo-liberalism were used to formulate identities through displacement among locations, gender, class, and nationality. “Americaness” was forced upon these foreigners or subjects trying to gain citizenship in the U.S. as a strong way of controlling the status of citizenship. These subjects were used in response to a re-created nationalism. “While neo-liberalism has been debated as reformulation of policy linked to the expansion of markets within globalization, it can also be understood in terms of a variety of formations through which the states arrogated welfare to the workings of the market of applied market logics to welfare concerns.” In this, she is referring to the global market of individuals by the government through means of welfare, which are in return used as market logics for greater expansion of consumer markets and social movements. This idea of liberalism was the new cosmopolitan idea.

            The new social movement involved feminism associated around identity and gender politics. She focuses on Indian women as well as Afghan women mentioned in Elle magazine in the U.S. support for these women against the Taliban, while simultaneously promoting beauty and consumer culture emphasis. This gender politics has created discourses transnationally through liberal ideas. Grewal also mentions the book “Jasmine”, which promotes the idea of choice in the U.S., creates a mindset of class and structure among the female body, while at the same time presents a scenery of America as the “first world” and Asia as the third world. This hegemonic discourse places emphasis on becoming a U.S. citizen and all its “perks”, and the idea of essentialism globally.  

            Women in the context of the market and globalization were used as the central expansion of consumer cultural capital. The idea of the “Barbie” created by Mattel was a word-wide corporation which allowed the cultural ideas of Japanese, Indian, and African women all to be identified as American. No matter the Sari worn placed upon the Indian doll or the slight difference in the curve of the back of the African American doll, each had a body and beauty of American Whiteness. The “Elite” magazine in India was even photographed by class, culture, nationality, and homogenous ideas associated with the West. In seeing such creation, I find myself asking, where is the “choice” in living in America, or for that matter outside of America? If European value is consistently a promotion through global politics, the models of other states are being consumed under one identity. The U.S. is using nationalism through multiculturalism by market logics. This scheme is allowing outsiders to become insiders but only through specific citizenship. In others word, the U.S. is only allowing citizenship for Asian immigrants in response to gain economic capital. (used capitalism here, but not sure if I used correctly. I’m a little confused with the definition).