Search

In The Real Wealth of Nations, Eisler proposes a holistic view of the economy, which would include the caring sectors—the household, unpaid community work and the environment—as an alternative to market-oriented economic models that have proven ineffective in dealing with the problems facing our local and global communities. Her inclusion of language change as part of a strategy for economic transformation implicitly recognises the socially constitutive function of discourse, a notion put forth by critical linguists. Based on these economic and linguistic perspectives, this article reports on a study that examined the social knowledge about poverty constructed through selected discourses to determine whether they communicate a narrow or holistic view of the economy. It proposes that economic planning for poverty reduction build upon the process of language change towards a caring economy as revealed by the study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Asian economic crisis of 1997 highlighted the inherent instability of the new worldwide economic order being created by highly mobile capital, and also its destabilizing social and political effects, especially in the transitional societies which had proved so hospitable to the champions of globalization and to proffered capital inputs. Whether these societies are destined to be subsumed and captured by globalization processes, or whether they and their citizens have any possibility of capturing some genuine benefits from advancing globalization, may rest on whether these transitional states and societies can assert, or at least influence, the terms of their engagement with those processes. This will not be possible, however, if people, societies and states capitulate in advance to the forces and processes of globalization as irresistible. This issue is explored through the grounded investigation of four key questions: do globalization processes serve any ends beyond themselves? How might one grasp the best, and make the most, of globalization? Is the logic of the market immutable and inflexible transculturally, or is it amenable to varying forms of cultural inflection and political supervision? Can what globalization delivers be drawn upon selectively, or is it instead a 'package-deal'? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]