[雙語翻譯]外文翻譯--亞洲流行文化的美國化？

1、6600 英文單詞， 英文單詞，3.5 萬英文字符，中文 萬英文字符，中文 11500 字文獻(xiàn)出處： 文獻(xiàn)出處：Chun A. The Americanization of pop culture in Asia?[J]. Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, 2012, 13(4): 495-506.The Americanization of pop culture in Asia?Allen CHUNABSTR

2、ACT Within the discipline of cultural studies, the Americanization of popular culture in Asia seems to be taken-for-granted as a coherent whole and thereby unproblematized. This paper argues that such anti-hegemonic, ant

3、i-colonial approaches to culturalism are inadequate. Reflecting on cricket as British imperialists’ moralizing, culturalizing and politicizing force in their colonized states, I analyze cultural forms. namely baseball an

4、d ‘American’ popular music in relation to its production, dissemination and commoditization in Taiwan. Keeping the similarities and differences of the ‘effects’ of both cultural forms taking root in Taiwan, I argue that

5、the discipline of cultural studies requires a critical subjectivity that privileges the strategizing choices of the agent within a framework that acknowledges the multiplicity of cultural reception and/or variable litera

6、cy.KEYWORDS: Pop culture, Asia, colonialism and sport, ransnationalismPreambleThe Americanization of pop culture in Asia seems unproblematic and unambiguous as a topic in itself. The influence of American sports, music,

7、film, entertainment, and consumer culture in contemporary Asia seems sufficiently obvious and pervasive. I think that a focus on Americanization rather than pop culture per se should make one reflect quite rightfully on

8、the underlying politicizing and commoditizing processes of any popular culture or everyday lifestyle. Pop culture in the form of music, arts or sports seems on the surface to be apolitical in itself. It does not immediat

9、ely conjure up specters of political machination that in one extreme might be called colonization or imperialism. However, the very thought of the latter reminded me of a casual conversation that I once had with a well-k

10、nown anthropologist at the University of Chicago, who was South African by background and an avid fan of sports on all continents. I asked him what I thought was an innocent or naïve question, namely that of all the

11、 sports that I knew and followed occasionally, I found cricket to be the most difficult to make sense of. He was visibly taken aback by the question and smirked, saying ‘Cricket is all about British colonialism’. In one

12、sense, I should not have been surprised by his reply. We all know that many sports have followed their historical and political paths of diffusion. Cricket is played and continues to be popular in places such as Australi

13、a, West Indies, and the Indian subcontinent, all former British colonies. Base- ball happens to be popular primarily in places influenced by American presence, such as the Americas, Japan, Korea and Taiwan. On the other

14、hand, I was surprised by his reply, partly because I meant it simply as a question about sports. Not having been raised in such places, cricket was not familiar to me, yet at the same time after about a year watching it

15、casually on Australian TV, I just found it difficult to penetrate. One might say the same about why certain languages seem easier to learn, simply on the basis of relative familiarity, or for reasons that relate little t

16、o culture, history or politics inherently. He could have also cited the classic work by C.L.R. James, Beyond a Boundary (1993 [1963]), but I sense that it was short for saying that it is indeed a long story. However, thi

17、s association with politics, explicitly or implicitly, clearly opens up a of administrators and imperial elites. The development of athleticism in the public schools in what Hargreaves (1986: 38) called the consolidation

18、 of the bourgeois model, led not only to institutions such as the Rugby School but also galvanized a new role for established public schools to promote the centrality of games and competitive team sports that continued t

19、o the university level. At the basis of this amateur ideal was the gentlemanly ethos of fair play, which Holt (1990: 98) correctly identified as the root of moral ideologies that drove sport but also made sport the vehic

20、le for carrying the civilizing mission in other regards as well. Of all the sports, cricket perhaps best epitomized the superiority and achievement of imperialist ambition in a way that transcended pure athletic and inte

21、llectual accomplishments. In other words, if sports in general magnified the mutual relationship that linked physical achievement to moral character and political superiority, then mastery in cricket was the playing fiel

22、d that separated the extraordinary elites from the average populace.As Sandiford (1994) has described in detail, cricket during the Georgian era reached a level of sophistication because it had been played and promoted b

23、y aristocrats and capitalists. In the Victorian era, the game evolved little in its technical aspects but became transformed by the intensity of public school competitions and the expansion of county level cricket clubs.

24、 Cricket became exclusively a men’s game. In addition, its promotion of a healthy moral ethos, which corresponded also with dissociations to gambling and other vices, represented the face for the pervasive influence of w

25、hat Sandiford (1994: 34) saw as the impact of muscular Christianity. On one hand, the ongoing interrelationship between sport, morality, civilizing missions and Empire embedded sport within a broader set of social values

26、 that expanded through public promotion of a bourgeois ideal; on the other, it magnified the importance of sport in the disciplinary life of society to a point where one begins to see the origins of modern sport as a kin

27、d of ‘global obsession’ in Majumdar and Hong’s (2007) terms, following J.A. Mangan.One can go on ad infinitum about the symbolic associations between sport or cricket and empire. Nonetheless, in addition to the rhetorica

28、l investment into the imperial ideology of cricket, I think the way in which the game was disseminated and the institutions that crafted the various norms of social exclusivity and cultural elitism played a more signific

29、ant role in forging the links between cricket and colonialism. As James (1993 [1963]) brilliantly understood, the game went beyond a (physical) boundary of the cricket pitch. More importantly, through its institutions of

30、 practice, cricket created social boundaries and exclusive communities by limiting access along class, race and other lines. The sense of solidarity along these bounded lines and communities can explain why the intense p

31、assions and subsequent nationalist competitiveness that sustained the game had been strongest in those countries that shared the same ideals of empire, namely England, Australia, South Africa, the West Indies and India-P

32、akistan. It was felt less strongly in other parts of the Common- wealth, such as Canada, New Zealand, Black Africa and Polynesia.In England, the classic era of cricket that James referred to was not the professional era

33、of the twentieth century, which without doubt gave rise to the global elevation of the sport as a sport. However, the nineteenth century was the formative era when cricket was cultivated in the competitive confines of pu

34、blic schools and exclusive cricket clubs toward the promotion of an amateur ideal. The prevalence of cricket in the public school system can perhaps also explain why it was popular in England and comparatively less so in

35、 Wales, Scotland or Ireland. In the colonies, the clubs provided a framework by which cricket (through strategic access) created boundaries along race and class lines. In India, this exclusivity also allowed native princ