What a wonderful essay. And no, you are not the only designer concerned about cultural homogenization.

I am particularly interested with methods of communicating within other cultures, but not in the channel of product sales. It seems like every time I find a resource on design in distant lands the focus is on making a brand appropriate for a global audience, or perhaps on avoiding a cultural faux pas when hawking Coke to people with a $2/week income. Clearly, there are many issues at stake here.

This is happening in all sorts of industries, probably with an equally disturbing effect. (If it comes down to a line drawn between those Old Farts who want to see the beauty of cultures maintained even as they evolve into a global world in their own way and those who think Nike for World Leader is inevitable, count me among the Old Farts.) A documentary about the homogenization of the wine industry, Nisseter's "Mondvino," laments that international wine conglomerates and internationally known wine reviewers have generally evened out quality at a higher scale than was previously possible, but at the loss of the remarkable creativity that came from the small people with a lot of passion. Also see Hollywood's ability to remake or recut independent and foreign projects while sapping them of what made them special in the first place.

It harkens to a number of David Stairs' essays elsewhere on this site, as well, but perhaps the comparison offers a solution. In Stairs' piece, "Individuality Lost" asserts that our tools (the computer running All Adobe All the Time) and our daily existence are transparently complicating the [Western] designer's ability to create unique work. Would not less indoctrinated populations offer fresh and interesting means of communicating? Stairs' other piece, "One Thousand Forty-Two Words on Challenging Assumptions" finishes with great strength, and questions the validity of current design-world "cultural exchanges." The point is not to train Western Designers to assimilate work from South Africa (the better to sell Coke to them with), it is to nurture the indigenous voice.

As designers we have a serious responsibility to maintain and celebrate these differences, and the education system has a responsibility to train designers to consider the legacy their work may reify. An excellent article (not available to me at the moment, but I believe from Design Matters, and about Sustainable Design education) described the way in which the invention of the garage door opener initiated integrated garages at the front of houses, precipitating a greater spacial separation from ones neighbors. The globalization of design can only make things bland, and may, as M. B. Kazmi intuits, erode family and social systems.

Variety, as they say, is the spice of life.

Perhaps the most interesting and frightening thing, to me anyway, is the use of the phrase "cultural identity." The concept of cultural identity and the concept of corporate identity are almost too similar for my taste. The thing that scares me the most about the homogenization of the world is the homogenization of corporations. Will the future be dominated by only a few corporate giants? (Or worse one?) Just as during the 20th century the world was dominated by only a few superpowers? (Or worse one?) And will those coporate giants become the new "cultural identity?" Will I one day no longer be an American and suddenly be a Viacomian? We are too immersed in brands, and it's only getting worse--I'm sure the over-advertised future seen in Spielberg's Minority Report is not far off. And perhaps one day, in an overly commercial world, people will be worried about small corporations losing their brand identites to bigger corporations. You're right, we should worry. And what should worry us more than losing our cultural identities is having them replaced with corporate ones--time was when people my age could recite the wisdom of their ancestors from memory, yet all I can recite is "two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, onions, pickles, on a sesame seed bun." Or something like that... God, I hope I got it wrong.

It will be easier for us to hang on to the identities we already have than it will be to fight off those which will be imposed upon us. As with all things of this scale, I wish the answer were in Graphic Design, but I feel we designers can only make the world better to live in, we can't change the way people desire to live.

Very well done, Courtney.

God Bless Generica.

Culture Homogenisation shouldn't be Culture Replacement.

As an American, I won’t try to claim cultural superiority in any way; nonetheless, If most other cultures want what we have, doesn’t that spell some sort of inevetiability?

personally I find this kind of knee jerk panic over scary words like "homogenization" kinda boring.

labeling things like the Gap, Starbucks or Brittney Spears as evil and as the thing the will destroy individuality in culture is bollocks. Remember that globalization really effects MAINSTREAM Culture which was always homogenized. Like when slavery was mainstream and generally a good business practice. Remember that the flipside to life before the global market was a whole lot of people without access to the information that positively effects our collective world view and causes us to confront our ignorance.

I tend to believe the counterculture that hangs just below the radar will always be a vital part of the culture and will be reactionary to mainstream values. This is where great art and fresh ideas are born and raised and will continue in that fashion for a long time.

Sure this "homogenization" is generally not good and will continue to ape all the greatness of the world and turn it into tapioca pudding, but I find the hopelessness of this world view pessimistically myopic.

There is a whole nother world bursting with all the individuality it can muster just below that surface. And thanks to our modern globalized world I can participate in sharing this greatness with folks beyond my community.

Remember that globalization really effects MAINSTREAM Culture which was always homogenized.

Sure. But it wasn't always GLOBALLY homogenized. I do agree with your post, though.

I agree with 'r agrayspace' in that there will always be that sort-off "underneath" part of culture that will constantly be a reaction to the so-called horrible globalization of whatever.

This is not a new concept that is being discussed. Fear of a world of similarities has always been an issue in this world's history ranging all the way from political views to the bubble gum pop music charts.

I would also like to say that people need to be careful when speaking about cultures through generalizations with incorrect use of pronouns. Using the word 'we' means that everyone is being spoken for. I know for a fact that I feel differently than alot of other people, thus coming to the conclusion that I would not be lumped into the same viewpoint as them.

The point is, worrying about the design world following the same path as the "horrible corporations" world is silly. Design is not an assembly line activity. If it is, than you are going about it the wrong way. Individuality will always come out through design, otherwise the design will not come out at all. And as far as world globalization is concerned, I happen to love Starbucks, yes I listen to a few bands that are on the pop-charts and at the same time, I have grown up as a stand-out individual that was raised by a loving family of six and never was bought something to merely chear me up.

Here on SU, we seem to get a number of design graduates who are entirely consumed by anti-corporate/anti-brand propaganda. And my guess is that none of them have any first-hand knowledge of what it's like to work in a branding agency, let alone what it's like to work in management level of a corporation.

So to me, it feels like all of the diatribes about the evils of corporate/brand brainwashing is nothing more than a ignorant attempt at jumping on a bandwagon. If you act like you're pissed off about consumer ethics, then people will think you're more experienced and worldly than you really are.

Well the complexities of business and consumer marketing is more than reading a few books, and certainly more than the "truth" in a couple of pseudo-documentaries that's nothing more than veiled, commercial entertainment in the first place.

What's worse is that this type of passionate but shallow rhetorics against commercialism, branding, globalization, media, even the WTO — harms the credibility of legitimate discourse and research by people who do know what they're talking about.

I think Courtney's essay is a fine essay. It brings up some very legitimate issues. I'm not sure I agree with her assessment, but the point is to elicit reasonable discourse. So let's cut the BS on the rest of the brand-bashing and how it's a sign of the apocalypse, shall we?

My guess is that people are avoiding this thread because the first few posts immediately headed into banal, brand-bashing territory. The essay brings up so many other interesting questions concerning globalization and how design affects and is affected by it. I'd rather we focus back to that.

The author writes, "As designers develop the newest brands, technologies, lifestyles, and advertising, I think there is a responsibility to maintain cultural identities."

I agree with this idea, but can you honestly say that, in the design world, this is not happening? Combining change and preservation of culture is a tricky thing, I will admit, but I feel that designing in regards to nurturing culture is more abundant than it has ever been in the past because of the fact that world communication is higher than it has ever been

I TOTALLY disagree with your post, Courtney. It seems as if you've absorbed some of the Indonesian attitudes towards Americans as stereotypically venal, materialistic and shallow. I too have traveled to Indonesia and saw some of Sumatra, Jakarta, Yogyakarta, and Bali. My husband was teaching at the Islamic University in Jakarta for a semester.

First of all, I think it's patronizing to paint a picture of Indonesians as noble savages and westerners as the corruptors of paradise. Indonesians and asian cultures in general, have a certain veneration of family, but so do Americans. "Family values", anyone? Community and extended family nearby are a pre-industrial way of life: blame the Victorians for the start of mass migration of rural populations into the city and breaking down the extended family unit to the nuclear one. To generalize about all Indonesian families by observing one is wrong. (I could tell you about my husband's family, who unfailingly meet at all major holidays, treat each other with respect, love, and admiration, and even take major overseas vacations together even though all the children are adults with busy careers. But this wouldn't necessarily be indicative of Canadian families, would it?) I think this phenomenon is because of economic circumstances and not of "culture" as you have been discussing it.

Secondly, western culture is NOT consumerism and should not be equated with it. If you see American/western culture as a wasteland of McDonalds and Britney Spears, you don't know enough about literature, history or art. Western civilization is tremendously rich and if you feel as if you've "never really had a strong cultural identity", it's because you take western culture for granted.

Thirdly, for everything gained, there is always something lost. To many parents granting your children clean water, education, and all the opportunities of the west is worth the price of subjecting them to the inanity of Paris Hilton. It's worth even the perpetual feeling of being between 2 worlds. And I know because I am a first-generation daughter of Chinese parents and I will be forever indebted to them for their sacrifices.

You seem overly defensive, Tan.

I agree, a lot of the brand-bashing may be bandwagoning. It may also be a justifiable cultural backlash. One thing about going global is that we see a much more drastic contrast with what was and what now is. In the US, it's been a gradual enough transition that few of us truly do 'remember when?'. But look at something China where the entire culture, because of capitalism/consumerism is radically changing in the span of only a decade or two. It's a lot easier to see the total effect of it in one's own lifetime now.

That, and communication is now global too.

I feel like I’ve never really had a strong cultural identity.

I think a lot of the more recent generations feel that way. Our cultural identity is really 'We're American' and that, often, is associated much more with pop culture/products/marketing/hollywood than anything. There isn't necessarily a whole lot to 'preserve' over here, possibly leading folks to underappreciate the significante cultural identites elsewhere.

As for designers nuturing local identies/culture, it just seems like good business. Some global companies will get that, some will insist on economies of scale outweigh that. In the end, I imagine both will coexist and reach some sort of natural balance. To go full circle, part of that balance is perhaps the backlash you are referring to, Tan.

I'm not defending brands necessarily, Darrel. I'm just tired of the grandstanding by posters who seem to blame corporations and their nebulous sense of "brand" for everything — from illiteracy to third-world famine to war.

> There isn't necessarily a whole lot to 'preserve' over here,

Oh Darrel, you couldn't be more wrong. America has one of the richest culture in the world. It's incredibly diverse, and while the country is relatively young, its history is as rich as any other country's. Americans take their country and culture for granted — and to be honest, this is one of the reasons other nations think we don't deserve what we have.

If you want to know what's great about American culture, just ask an immigrant or the children of immigrants. They'll tell you how to appreciate your own culture.

>First of all, I think it's patronizing to paint a picture of Indonesians as noble savages and westerners as the corruptors of paradise.

Thank you Matilda. I couldn't agree more.

Globalization brings education, better healthcare, and more access to global commerce and media. It raises the standard of living in countries that have longed for these things. Yet Americans somehow always think that they have the right to grant access to what they deem is worthwhile, and preserve what they see as quaint and culturally significant. They think that these countries and their people are too naive and unprepared to decide for themselves. It's incredibly patronizing.

People in other countries aren't children. They can decide and choose perfectly well what, where, and how their culture changes. They have the right to wear Gap clothes, drink Cokes, and watch Star Wars. They also know enough about their culture to perserve the heritage they hold dear. They bring food, music, customs, and art from their countries and enrich American culture. They help to create a diverse nation like no other in the world.

Globalization does have its growing pains — but overall, I believe strongly that it improves the human condition. Don't fear it — try to understand it.

I agree with Courtney's sentiments that we should celebrate this cultural diversity in our work whenever possible. Globalization is a grand opportunity to share, adopt, and enrich all of our cultures and further our communications.

I agree with Tan, but I would like to hear more people's opinions on the design side of things and how it relates to the globalization that is being discussed.

Secondly, western culture is NOT consumerism and should not be equated with it. If you see American/western culture as a wasteland of McDonalds and Britney Spears, you don't know enough about literature, history or art. Western civilization is tremendously rich and if you feel as if you've "never really had a strong cultural identity", it's because you take western culture for granted.

Well said.

I feel like what this is eventually leading to is the role of designers as authors. Cause on one side we are the painters of other peoples messages and therefore are not really responsible for maintaining some kind of cultural preservatioin in communication. And then comes the argument that cause we have the power to mold communication we should take it upon ourselves to make sure the "RIGHT" cultural messages get out. Which is an idealogical pandora's box.

This is such a slippery slope and sometimes I feel this discourse is putting a little too much responsibility on the designer for ill effects Globalization is having on our cultures. We are all responsible.

I'm not defending brands necessarily, Darrel. I'm just tired of the grandstanding by posters who seem to blame corporations and their nebulous sense of "brand" for everything — from illiteracy to third-world famine to war.

Well, fair enough. That does go both ways, though. It's not fair to exonerate them from those incidents either.

Oh Darrel, you couldn't be more wrong. America has one of the richest culture in the world. It's incredibly diverse

Right...a diverse mix of OTHER cultures. What's UNIQUE to american culture *is* it's 'bigness'. We invented Jazz, Westerns and McDonalds. ;o)

Americans take their country and culture for granted

Right. I guess that was my point. I suppose the question is there a lot to value? Probably. A lot to loathe? Probably.

If you want to know what's great about American culture, just ask an immigrant or the children of immigrants.

I agree. The converse is true too. Ask them what's awful about American culture. ;o)

Globalization brings education, better healthcare, and more access to global commerce and media.

Right. And it also brings slave wages, civil war, famine, poverty, environmental damage and other things.

I'm not disagreeing with your points...people just need to see both sides of issue. Globalization has plenty of pros AND cons.

Personally, my gripe is with Free Trade. Fair Trade would go a lot further towards evening out the good and bad better.

As for how graphic design fits in, well, we really are a service industry. We service the commerce sector. That is what is driving globalization. We sell crap. ;0)

I have been avoiding this thread, as Tan suggested, largely because of the tiresome nature of the conversation. Thank you to Matilda for pointing out what a patronizing notion it is that the world is Disneyland: We get Tomorrowland, and everybody else gets to sing “It’s a Small World” while wearing their exotic garb for our occasional boat ride.

a diverse mix of OTHER cultures. What's UNIQUE to american culture *is* it's 'bigness'. We invented Jazz, Westerns and McDonalds.

Every culture is a diverse mix of other cultures. The Hebrew Bible is a collection of the myths of other culture of the area. The Italians got pasta from the Arabs and tomatoes from North America. The French didn’t invent wine or cheese. Saint Cyril imported the Russian alphabet from Greece (and the Greeks got theirs from the Phoenicians.) This whole culture-as-museum display thing is an amazing misunderstanding of culture.

In the U.S. we throw money at everything and encourage consumerism. Wife upset? Buy her a new car, a trinket from Tiffany’s.

You can be happy in knowing that you’ve added to my family’s joke vocabulary. This morning my wife said “I’m just a little upset. Buy me a Ford Focus and something from Zales.” I cannot imagine being married to someone who would react well to attempts to placate her with expensive gifts. It makes me wonder about the notion of worldwide homogeneity caused by American culture if this supposed basic feature of Americanism has failed to infect my (American) house.

>What's UNIQUE to american culture

Baseball

Church BBQs

Tailgate parties

Drive-Ins

Mall of America

Diners

Renaissance festivals

Cajun/creole food

Surfing/skateboarding/snowboarding

soap box derbies

Little league/Peewee leagues

Parades

Civil War re-enactments

River boats

Las Vegas

Philly cheesesteak sandwiches

Whiskey/bourbon

Jazz/R&B/Funk/Hip-hop/Rap/Rockandroll/Country music

RVs

Monster trucks

Rollerblades

Mountain bikes

Pickup trucks

State fairs

Thanksgiving

Halloween/Trickortreating

Big hair

Fake boobs

Drive-through Starbucks

Veggie burgers

...and a billion other wonderful, unique things that are a part of everyday life and culture across America.

So what if many of these things are adopted and based on other cultures? That's the beauty of America — that it's a home for so many types of cultures and so many types of people. THAT's the culture in itself.

>Ask them what's awful about American culture

As a 1st generation immigrant myself, I just don't see anything fundamentally wrong with American culture. Because of our sense of freedom, people are allowed to appreciate — or detest — whatever and whomever they want. So if any aspect of culture exists and proliferates, then it would seem that somewhere, somehow there's a group that supports it. If this is the case, then the primary issue becomes one of tolerance and understanding.

>my gripe is with Free Trade.

It's a fact that the US has one of the worst trade deficits in the world — many, many times greater than other developed nations like the UK, Japan, and Europe. What that means is that our trade policies are in fact, more "fair" than our country can afford. Free trade is an incredibly complex issue. You can't compare dollar for dollar, standard to standard against developing nations. US manufacturing and technology is shared throughout the world, and so is much of our money.

So without derailing this discussion further — what exactly do you propose that we do differently to amend fair trade — without further increasing our own GNP deficit?

>but I would like to hear more people's opinions on the design side of things and how it relates to the globalization that is being discussed.

I think it's fascinating how different the notion of "design" is between global culture. What we see as clutter many be ornamental in the East, and what we see as clean and slick is boring to the rest of the world. Broadcast media and product commercialism is a major carrier of culture around the world — but it isn't everything. I would love to see Icograda take more leadership in global brand studies and research in design commonalities and differences. But I wouldn't even know where to begin.

As a 1st generation immigrant myself, I just don't see anything fundamentally wrong with American culture.

That's pretty obvious from your posts, but it simply doesn't change the fact that many people do--and many, legitimately so. You are right, and so are those that find parts of American 'culture' a bad thing. It isn't a black or white thing.

What that means is that our trade policies are in fact, more "fair" than our country can afford.

It also means we exploit much of the world.

what exactly do you propose that we do differently to amend fair trade —

Simply put, ones ability to find 'efficiencies in manufacturing' should not mean they use manufacturers with substandard employee care, working conditions, or (lack of) environmental protections.

"It also means we exploit much of the world.

Darryl, please but this statement is so off-base and inaccurate. Our trade deficit has nothing to do with our presume exploitation of the rest of the world. It simply means the goods exported our outweighed greatly by the goods imported from other countries. How exactly do you see that as meaning we exploit the rest of the world??

It's great to be young and be the rebel against corporate America, the big EVIL in the world. (Though according to our current administation, the EVIL is actually carefully selected nations like North Korea (an isolationist regime if there ever was one), Iran (what listens did we learn from the hostage crisis 20+ years ago?), etc...

As for the actual post, I would argue that western products do not a culture make. Progress can change cultures, war and famine can change a culture, economic stability or instablility can change cultures. But a can of Coke and a Big Mac don't change cultures. They don't destroy cultures. In fact, most of us wouldn't recognize the menu of a McDonald's in say, India, because they have adapted to to the Indian culture.

If you feel passionate about making a difference, which I believe is a truly admirable position, there are better ways than trashing big, global corporations. Please don't forget that many of these corporations donate millions and millions of dollars to support the less fortunate in the communities in which they do business. Building libraries, helping out families in need, employees encourage and made available for tutoring, feeding the homeless, etc. This is not to say every corporation, or every thing about globalization is perfect. Better ways, try joining the Peace Corp. Volunteer in your own community to help others less fortunate to you.

Have a great Memorial Day weekend. Let's remember those who have given their lives to protect the very freedoms we hold dear and celebrate here on SU.

I've been keeping silent on this thread as it raises many issues that have been fairly ferociuously approached on recent threads such as, "If you’re Bad we’re Going to McDonalds."

Since much has been said there, here I'll say just a few things. 1st, "thank god for youthful idealism." Seems like many have of us have lost that and replaced it with the comfort of a can of Coke and a Big Mac.

And while on the subject, a can of Coke and a Big Mac don't change cultures. Ah hem, yes, the culture around these and similar items do do in fact radically change cultures, although you won't find any data on that in Print or Graphis. A trip to the bookstore will uncover hundreds of tomes on how globalization and american (not western, american) culture has affected indigenous cultures across the globe. McDonald's, as the popular focal point it seems, has profoundly affected our own culture, or lack there of. Jeremy Rifkin's books are a good start and an 'easy read.'

With this said -- thanks for taking the time and risk to present the essay Courtney: keep it going and find the balance you need to create and be as true as you can to your ethics. It will not be an easy ride.

Secondly, Darrel isn't so far off base with his statement, It also means we exploit much of the world. It may be slightly out of cue in relation to Tan's statement, but completely on target for the discussion.

I better stop here as it's fairly obvious that it's much more fun to drop famous quotes (see that post -->"God is ....") than it is to question. 125 and growing posts versus 20. That's telling about how we as a group think.

Ok, here's something to think about in relation to Courtney's essay. Let's just say, for discussion purposes, that globalization, world communication, international networking, etc., was not present. All cultures just kept to themselves. Every aspect of that culture, including design and all of its related fields, was contained within its own realm. Would this situation be better than what is present right now? What kind of an effect would it have on design? What do you think?

I think Carl makes a very interesting point (as do others here). What's so bad about a overarching global commercial culture? We are not a wholly commercial species, so who cares? Earth is an entire planet full of literally billions of people spread over hundreds of millions of square miles of land. The U.S. alone contains more cultural segmentations than most people are ever exposed to. Just because the same companies sell clothes and food in cities all over the world doesn't mean that the people who live there don't have autonomy or distinct ways of life, or that the company itself isn't influenced by the region it operates in. Also, let's not forget how much of culture is a heady brew of nationalism and isolation.

The Gandhi quote in Courtney's essay actually calls for globalization, in my mind. It seems almost contrary to the purpose of Courtney's essay (which sounds more like nostalgic idealizing). Gandhi speaks of immersion and a strong sense of self. It doesn't strike me as a plaintive cry for designers to stop 'genericizing' the globe for all of these helpless souls. How could that even happen in 100 years, let alone in 20? It asserts the importance of one's own role in preserving their personal identity when letting cultures wash together. If people in Jakarta or Moscow or Manhattan want to eat hamburgers, that's not America's 'fault'. Conspicuous consumption is not a feature of the West, it's a feature of wealth, comfort, abundance, and desire (and not necessarily only when these are present as extremes). To put it another way: How does it sound when people decry the 'influence' of the Jakartans (or any foreign person) who move to the U.S.?

We, as designers, are certainly responsible for many things, but we are a reflection as much as we are a determiner when we design (even more so when we do it for a commercial purpose). The problem isn't the Gap's ads or visual identity system, it's the Gap as a functioning group of individuals and their actions as a company. Design rarely does anything more than mask or profit a commercial entity, particularly if the client is the entity itself. Want to change the culture creep? Try getting active as a person, not as a designer. If you design some things along the way, great. Otherwise, it's just more posturing (which designers are great at).

"What we all have in common in the trend of globalization is the fear and possibility of losing cultural identities." I disagree. I see the potential for enrichment of my own identity and cultural experience. I do not cling to cultural tradition merely because it was the first thing presented to me, and I don't expect anyone else to, either. In fact, I try to take in more perspectives to add breadth to my own. I don't imagine that U.S. culture will ever consume the globe and turn every landscape into a dull reflection. It just doesn't seem...human.

Thanks for posting this great essay.

Back in the early spring I was watching an episode of "The Amazing Race" where the contestants were driving down a freeway somewhere in Europe. I noticed the landscape in the background and how the buildings looked no different than where I live in Vancouver - complete with recognizable brands. True, these elements don't comprise all of culture, but it still struck me as odd. (Why bother having a race around the world, if it is all the same?) I think you are correct that we should be sensitive culture in design and not just "design for the masses".

RE: "Even there, I'm sure a Coke can is rattling down the street." When I was about 10 years old (20 years ago now), my Dad took a job in a third world country in Africa. Even then, through my pre-teen eyes, I could see globalization at work--- Coke was the dominate global brand...granted the cultural values where we lived where very strong. In some ways, I wonder who I might have been had I not had the opportunity to be in that culture.

Yes, it's sad that some of our more superficial NA cultural elements such as Britney Spears and Paris Hilton are some of the fastest spreading global brands. (I guess that means we have a responsibility to work harder educate the world the good things about our culture.)

Aside from the concerns I have about globalization, I see that our NA culture is benefiting a great deal by its influence. More than ever, we have the opportunity to try new foods, design our houses in new ways, work with new materials, and listen to new music (to name just a few) --- all because of globalization.

How exactly do you see that as meaning we exploit the rest of the world??

It's not *the* meaning. It's a meaning. Part of the big picture.

But, for those that see that, they see the fact that a lot of our overseas outsourcing isn't due to other countries finding some miraculously efficient method of manufacturing. Often it's that they can overwork and underpay their employess and not deal with any sort of environmental legislation.

Is that ALL of our outsourcing? Of course not. Some of it? Sure.

>a lot of our overseas outsourcing isn't due to other countries finding some miraculously efficient method of manufacturing

I disagree. This is the assumption — that low wages in outsourced countries must mean slave labor. It's not a simple matter of corporate greed — that's an obtuse, incorrect view spurred on by biased propaganda.

When a US company outsources services overseas, there are still standards of production and manufacturing that must be upheld. This is especially so for technology or complex manufacturing outsourcing to places like Bangalore, Seoul, or Kuala Lumpur. Manufacturing capabilities have increased significantly in developing nations such as these — especially as these countries see the opportunities to specialize their country's labor force and dominate manufacturing business from first-tier nations like the US and Japan.

So, in fact — China, Korea, India, and Southeast Asia are developing a "miraculously efficient method of manufacturing." At the same time, they've also become more developed in secondary education and business as a result of their country's new-found wealth. It's capitalism working at its most efficient.

The truth is, the US is becoming more and more a nation that specializes in service industries and intellectual property development. Because of our high standard of living, our high labor costs, and our growing distaste for blue-collar work and agriculture — we will have no choice but to continue to outsource our product manufacturing if we want to stay competitive on the global market.

Are there still labor abuses overseas? Sure. Just as there were during our industrial revolution. But I believe that it's a problem that's disappearing as higher demands in manufacturing are made in those countries.

This is the assumption — that low wages in outsourced countries must mean slave labor.

Way to assuming going on around here. ;o)

There is slave labour. And there's simply lower wages. Both exist.

er...way too MUCH assuming...

Reading all the comments, I feel you all missed Courtney's real vision.

She used products throughout her essay, but when you really look at the beginning and the ending, she was really talking about cultures not products.

She used the word "mut" for herself, but only to point out her background that she is not 100% Indonesian. She was referring to the fact that people around the world have their cultures and it is a shame to leave them. However, if you look at the United States in the 40's and 50's, we had those same "big families" type of attitude that so many cultures still have today.

It was not about product, it was all about cultures.