So far the theme of this book had more or less been on the idea that these various drinks changed the world in which we live, some chapters with more success than others. Most of the beverages created a cleaner drinking source, facilitated academic thought, protected sailors, fueled workers or were used in trade agreements to influence empires. The chapters on Coca-Cola fall short of these other arguments, the only truly new concept heralded was the legal caffeination of children. Sorry, but I don't see that as a great stepping stone in civilization like fermented drinks, nor was it the healing remedy it first claimed to be. (although I did find the tidbit about Coca-cola not being able to put children in its ads until 1986 pretty neat)
He attempts to make connections to the U.S. involvement in WWII and globalization, but the text clearly shows that Coca-Cola was not a leader in these fields but a follower. Coke followed the troops, it followed the spread of the U.S.'s sphere of influence, it did not colonize on its own bringing things into the American empire. It gave a morale boost to the troops but that was about it, I doubt it changed the course of the war. It changed the course of the company, the world (especially America) changed the company and made it what it is today, rather than the company making the world what it is today.
These chapters make very little in terms of describing influence, they just tell the story and don't show much on how the world was changing, avoiding the original thesis, so I see these as being the weakest point in the book.
-Spence Gaskin
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCoca-Cola not Quite Tea-FC
ReplyDeleteI agree with you the emergence of Coca-Cola on the world did not have as big of an impact on world history as tea or beer. These chapters felt more like a fun read. It was filled with fun facts and things of the sort. However, I do believe that Coca-Cola is a key player in globalization. The Coca-Cola logo is recognized by everyone all over the world. And it brings a little piece of America to all countries, and its American presence is excepted. It is not seen as an American corporation trying to take over another countries beverage market, but rather a friendly American company just wanting to give the world a coke.
-Edward Gooch
I agree that Spence makes a good point about how American Culture spread Coke, rather than the other way round. However, I feel that the inclusion of Coke is merited less by its imediate effect on health and lifestyle and more by its use as a symbol. While Coke may have not had the nutritional benefits of the drinks discussed by Standage in the earlier chapters of his work, its physchological and symbolic values are far more important. The Greeks and Romans used wine in much the same way as the Americans presented Coke in the 20th century. Both stood as representations of their values and the exportation of domestic culture around the world. In this sense we see continuity in the way that material culture is used to promote the superiority of a society and thus render it more desireable for trade relationships. The change in time is represented by the difference in values that the Greeks, Romans, and Americans saught to express via their drinks. Wine was and remains a mark of class and culture, varying upon the type of wine in question. Coca-Cola, on the other hand, is described by Standage and contemporary writers as a drink of both rich and poor alike (Standage pg. 248). The popularity of Coke's image in the United States, which prides itself on ideals of social and political equality, cannot be paired to the predominance of Wine in the class-conscious Greek Culture. Perhaps in this observation it is possible to see why Coke appeals to so many people around the World. In embracing Coke, people embrace the egalitarian ideal.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of Coke's role in the Globalization trend, its symbolism is paramount. Standage makes the argument that American consumer culture has played a large role in moving the World closer to becoming a single-market. Following this logic, the continuation of this trend could result in a weakining of the nation-state in favor of internationalism. The argument can be made that strong nations are required for Globalization to function properly, as a failed state ceases to be an attractive and viable market. A result of the globalizing of transactions and the marketplace is a growing homogenation of World culture (Standage Pg. 263). Because of its dominance in the free market, this global society falls in line with the American popular culture that Coke represents. Whether or not this is a scary proposition is determined by personal politics. Nevertheless perhaps global stability could be better served by placing a greater respect on the sovereignty of national cultures. Contiunually expanding the marketplace and subverting indigenous tradition to further our ideals and bank accounts will enevitably cause a great deal of resentment. One can read the recent arguments of Islamic fundamentalists in Standage's work to see the this backlash. Perhaps a better way to serve the ideals of capitalism is to find ways to promote competition from the World Market rather than monopolize it. Capitalism thrives on this competition, and both firms and consumers benefit via lower prices and innovative products. Rather than a Coke in every hand, a Starbucks on every corner, and a Big Mac in every gullet, wouldnt this World benefit more from the purer ideals of the liberal free market? The stimulation of competition to American Coca-Cola style corporations would require a great deal of investment into domestic consumerism, an area which most of the world subjugates to the more pressing concerns of day to day survival. Nevertheless, an effort on the part of second world and first world countries in this arena in subsidizing the field could produce both monetary and prestige victories. The World would benefit simply by helping to preserve a heterogeous culture for future generations. FC