So my mom was talking to me about one of her friends who is teaching at Moorestown Friends School. As she was talking about it, she mentioned how their language system works a lot differently from ours. The students all learn these different languages the first year they enter the school (i.e. Spanish, Latin, Chinese, etc.) and then get to choose which language they want to stick to for the remainder of their years there. It turns out that taking Chinese there was so popular that the school had to limit the choice of Chinese to only their best students. My mom brought this up because her friend offered to teach me Chinese. She thought it was a good idea to learn it, especially in terms of business and handling clients. Even though I declined the offer (sorry to upset some of you strong advocators of the Chinese culture *cough Eric cough*), it reminded me of some of the ideologies we learned in Euro, specifically Marxism.
In one of his theories, Karl Marx states that society is like a superstructure and that it's base is the economy. All of the social and cultural aspects of our society depend on our economic situation. When I originally heard this in class, I kinda laughed at it. It seemed a bit ridiculous. However, considering this situation, I can't help but relate. The US happens to trade greatly with China, and as a side effect, the Chinese culture has seemed to merge into ours. What do you think? Just how accurate it Marx's theory in terms of the economy determining the structure of the different elements of a society.
Mary Quien
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Well, Marx's base superstructure theory (the economy determines all social constructs and the culture) probably has at least some validity. Certainly, one reason that China (and the Chinese language) have become more prominent is because China's economic power and influence has greatly increased as well. If learning a particular skill or trait provides you with a business advantage, of course you're more likely to learn it. So, in at least some aspects, Marx's hypothesis was correct (much of what we learn and our culture is determined by the capitalist economy).
And yet, much of what he said was a bit extreme. Although the economy has some influence on American culture, I doubt that families are merely "economic constructs" designed to consolidate control over property, or that school is solely a place where we bourgeois children go to gain skills to oppress the proletariat. As a theory, Marx had some things right; in practice, he missed the overall picture.
-Eric W
Although Marx's theory was correct to some extent, it should be noted that his ideal system of government, aka communism, failed in the end. That our economy has a large influence on our culture is definitely valid;however, it is not a sole dominant factor that can determine the entire culture or even other structures of our society.
As a student who attempted to study Chinese before, I would agree that importance of being able to speak different languages fluently gives a great advantage especially in one's career, whether it be Chinese, Korean, or Spanish.
While reading Mary's post, I noticed that she mentioned 'merge' of cultures. Is learning the language and a few cultural tradition really 'merging' of cultures? If so, is this phenomenon a postive or negative side effect?
Jennifer Park
Based on the "Second American Revolution," I'm guessing Thomas Paine would be against this assimilation of different cultures into one. He would criticize Moorestown Friends for even offering Chinese, wouldn't he?
We must take into consideration that the foreign language cirriculum at school is decided upon based on the utility of the languages that will be taught. Spanish and French are two predominant languages spoken in Europe, and Latin helps us to better understand the English language. I really don't know MUCH about the economy, but Chinese seems as if it has been chosen because of its upcoming utility.
I honestly hope I don't sound ignorant when saying this (I really am pretty clueless in this area), but here goes. If our superstructure was really somewhat based on Marxist theory, wouldn't schools also be offering Middle Eastern languages? (Oil, anyone?) I'm not quite sure.
(Sam Maliha)
To answer Sam I think that Chinese is a logical tool because of our economic ties but also there are just so many people who speak Mandarin (that's the most popular right?). I think there are several languages spoken in the Middle East so it would not be as practical to learn such a language.
I believe that our economy is related to culture and society but I think that is inevitable. Marx didn't have some amazing breakthrough by saying they are connected. Maybe it's a little extreme to say the economy determines all social constructs and culture.
(Kelley Volosin)
Is it really that extreme to claim that the economy is the basis of our culture? The effects of the economy on our day to day lives as well as our nation as a whole is clearly evident. Money is the basis of the vast majority of domestic disputes. Money is often the backing of cultural uprisings and movements. The status of the economy is a major factor in who will be elected president at any time.
For the topic at hand though, the oncoming practical uses of learing Chinese are clear. Almost 1/5 of the world population speaks it. China is the country with the fastest growing economy in the world. New markets and existing marketts greatly revolve around what happens in China. Therefore, isn't it a matter of practicality in business to learn to speak Chinese?
Connor Tweardy
As many of you have already stated, Marx certainly had some great theories regarding the economy and its relation to our culture. As Eric mentioned, though, Marx's ideas weren't so great when applied to everday life. Granted, Lenin and Stalin did make a few changes to Marx's ideas in the process of application. But, as an article I was reading the other day stated, there is usually a problem when you think you have reached the final, end-all answer, which is what Marx thought he had done.
Emily T.
Many of you mention the overall ineffectiveness of the communist system (and rightly so) but at the same time, Mary's link between Mandarin and the Marxist base/superstructure idea seems like a rather effective but communist decision. The reason why Mandarin is preferred as a business language over Middle Eastern languages (the most prominent one is Farsi and the number of speakers is still far lower than those of Mandarin) is because of the communist's Cultural Revolution based on Marxist ideas of culture being based on progress, economic or culture. By standardizing the language via simplified Chinese (the written system) and Mandarin (the spoken/dialect system), China embodies the real life example of the base/superstructure concept. Does it work? Yes, but it is not the sole determinant of Chinese culture.
Is it a complete failure? No.
Post a Comment