CESPE/UnB – 2011 – DIPLOMATA – CACD – WRITING EXAMINATION – LÍNGUA INGLESA – CONCURSO DE ADMISSÃO À CARREIRA DE DIPLOMATA.

Welcome back to another post!

➧ PROVA DE LÍNGUA INGLESA: CESPE/UnB-2011-DIPLOMATA-CACD-WRITING EXAMINATION.

➧ BANCA/ORGANIZADOR:http://www.cespe.unb.br/

➧ ESTRUTURA-WRITING EXAMINATION-2011:

➭ TRANSLATION (English/Portuguese) – 20 points.

- Text (1 parágrafo) – Globalization and cultural
identity. || John Tomlinson || www.polity.co.uk.

➭ VERSION (Portuguese/English) – 15 points.

- Text (1 parágrafo) – Globalização, educação e
diversidade cultural.

➭ SUMMARY – 15 points.

-Text (11 parágrafos) – The Economist.

➭ COMPOSITION – [Length: 400 to 450 words] – 50 points.

- Assunto (geral) –  Globalização & Citação.

- Tema (específico) – A globalização é uma ameaça à
cultura local ou uma fonte de enriquecimento?

➧ PROVA:

Translate into Portuguese the following passage adapted from John Tomlinson's Globalization and Cultural Identity:

Once upon a time, local, autonomous, distinct and well-defined, robust and culturally sustaining connections existed between geographical place and cultural experience. They constituted one's "cultural identity"', something people simply "had" as an inheritance, a benefit of continuity with the past. Identity, then, was not just a description of cultural belonging; it was a collective treasure of local communities. But it proved to be fragile, needing protection and preservation. Into this world of manifold, discrete cultural identities suddenly burst the corrosive power of globalization. Globalization, so the story goes, has swept like a flood tide through the world’s diverse cultures, bringing a market-driven homogenization of cultural experience, thus obliterating the differences between locality-defined cultures. Whilst communities in the mainstream of the flow of capitalism have seen a sort of standardized version of their cultures exported worldwide, it is the “weaker”’ cultures of the developing world that have been most threatened.

John Tomlinson. Globalization and cultural

identity. Internet: <www.polity.co.uk>.

    Resposta     

Houve um tempo em que conexões locais, autônomas, claras e bem definidas, robustas e culturalmente duradouras, existiam entre o espaço geográfico e a experiência cultural. Elas constituíam a "identidade cultural" de cada um, algo que as pessoas simplesmente "possuíam" como herança, um benefício de continuidade com o passado. A identidade, então, não era apenas uma descrição de pertencimento cultural, mas também um tesouro coletivo das comunidades locais; entretanto, ela mostrou-se frágil, dependente de proteção e de preservação. Nesse mundo com identidades culturais variadas e distintas, repentinamente irrompeu o poder corrosivo da globalização, que, seguindo a narrativa, varreu as diversas culturas do mundo como um maremoto, provocou uma homogeneização da experiência cultural orientada pelo mercado e, por conseguinte, obliterou as diferenças entre as culturas locais. Se as comunidades pertencentes ao “mainstream” do fluxo capitalista testemunharam a disseminação mundial de uma espécie de versão padronizada de suas culturas, foram as culturas “mais fracas” do mundo em desenvolvimento que sofreram a ameaça maior.

Translate the following excerpt from Mauro José Teixeira Destri’s Globalização, Educação e Diversidade Cultural into English:

Os problemas da globalização e as consequências e desafios que ela apresenta a respeito de assuntos como a biodiversidade, a diversidade cultural e a educação estão fundamentados na perspectiva histórica da ocidentalização do mundo, iniciada pela dominação colonial europeia desde o século XV e ratificada pelo poderio norte-americano em todas as esferas, com seu poder de "disseminar cultura". Tal dominação do etnocentrismo ocidental, amparada por uma ideologia neoliberal, abrange não só o domínio econômico-financeiro, mas também o controle da informação e das comunicações referentes às grandes empresas multinacionais, impondo, dessa forma, uma “padronização” cultural. A globalização tem sua limitação mais grave por não ter um modelo de sociedade viável. A educação, concebida como a transmissão de visões do mundo, de saberes e de sistemas de valores, tem um enorme desafio histórico na defesa e na preservação da diversidade cultural, o que tem sido abordado em diversas esferas pelos diversos países ao redor do mundo.

Mauro José Teixeira Destri. Globalização, educação e

diversidade cultural. Internet: <www.fsma.edu.br>.

    Resposta     

The problems of globalization and the consequences and challenges it presents concerning subjects(1) such as biodiversity, cultural diversity and education are based on(2) the historical perspectives of the world's occidentalization(3), which began with(4) European colonial dominance since the 15th century(5) and was ratified by the American might(6) in every sphere(7), with its power to "disseminate culture". This dominance of Western ethnocentrism, supported by(8) a neoliberal ideology, encompasses not only the economic and financial field, but also the control of information and communication related to(9) big multinational corporations, thereby imposing(10) a cultural "standardization". Globalization has its main limitation (11) because it does not have(12) a feasible model of society. Education, conceived as the transmission of world visions, of knowledge and of systems of values, has an enormous historical challenge in defending and preserving cultural diversity, which has been discussed in several spheres by many countries around the world.

------------------------------------------------------
TÉCNICAS DE TRANSLATION:
*(1)"a respeito de assuntos"→"concerning subjects".
*(2)"estão fundamentados em"→"based on".
*(3)"da occidentalização do mundo
"→"of the world's occidentalization".
*(4)"iniciada pela"→"which began with" (que começou com).
*(5)"século XV"→"15th century".
*(6)"poderio norte-americano"→"the American might".
*(7)"em todas as esferas"→ "in every sphere".
*(8)"amparado por/apoiada por "→ "supported by".
*(9)"referentes às/relacionadas às"→"related to".
*(10)"impondo assim  /dessa forma"→"thereby imposing".
*(11)"limitação mais grave / principal"→"main limitation".
*(12)"por não ter / por que não tem"→"because it does not have".

Write in your own words a summary of the following article from The Economist in no more than 200 words.

    Geoffrey Crowther, editor of The Economist from 1938 to 1956, used to advise young journalists to “simplify, then exaggerate”. He might have changed his advice if he had lived to witness the current debate on globalisation. There is a lively discussion about whether it is good or bad. But everybody seems to agree that globalisation is a fait accompli: that the world is flat, if you are a (Tom) Friedmanite, or that the world is run by a handful of global corporations, if you are a (Naomi) Kleinian.
            

    Pankaj Ghemawat of IESE Business School in Spain is one of the few who has kept his head on the subject. For more than a decade he has subjected the simplifiers and exaggerators to a barrage of statistics. He has now set out his case — that we live in an era of semi-globalisation at most — in a single volume, World 3.0, that should be read by anyone who wants to understand the most important economic development of our time.
            

    Mr Ghemawat points out that many indicators of global integration are surprisingly low. Only 2% of students are at universities outside their home countries; and only 3% of people live outside their country of birth. Only 7% of rice is traded across borders. Only 7% of directors of S&P 500 companies are foreigners — and, according to a study a few years ago, less than 1% of all American companies have any foreign operations. Exports are equivalent to only 20% of global GDP. Some of the most vital arteries of globalisation are badly clogged: air travel is restricted by bilateral treaties and ocean shipping is dominated by cartels.
            

Far from “ripping through people’s lives”, as Arundhati Roy, an Indian writer, claims, globalisation is shaped by familiar things, such as distance and cultural ties. Mr Ghemawat argues that two otherwise identical countries will engage in 42% more trade if they share a common language than if they do not, 47% more if both belong to a trading block, 114% more if they have a common currency and 188% more if they have a common colonial past.
           

    What about the “new economy” of free-flowing capital and borderless information? Here Mr Ghemawat’s figures are even more striking. Foreign direct investment (FDI) accounts for only 9% of all fixed investment. Less than 20% of venture capital is deployed outside the fund’s home country. Only 20% of shares traded on stockmarkets are owned by foreign investors. Less than 20% of Internet traffic crosses national borders.
             

    And what about the direction rather than the extent of globalisation? Surely Mr Friedman (author of The World is Flat) and company are right about where we are headed even if they exaggerate how far we have got? In fact, today’s levels of emigration pale beside those of a century ago, when 14% of Irish-born people and 10% of native Norwegians had emigrated. Back then you did not need visas. Today the world spends $88 billion a year on processing travel documents and in a tenth of the world’s countries a passport costs more than a tenth of the average annual income.
            

    That FDI fell from nearly $2 trillion in 2007 to $1 trillion in 2009 can be put down to the global financial crisis. But other trends suggest that globalisation is reversible. Nearly a quarter of North American and European companies shortened their supply chains in 2008 (the effect of Japan’s disaster on its partsmakers will surely prompt further shortening). It takes three times as long to process a lorry-load of goods crossing the Canadian-American border as it did before September 11th 2001. Even the Internet is succumbing to this pattern of regionalisation, as governments impose a patchwork of local restrictions on content.
           

    Mr Ghemawat also explodes the myth that the world is being taken over by a handful of giant companies. The level of concentration in many vital industries has fallen dramatically since 1950 and remained roughly constant since 1980: 60 years ago two car companies accounted for half of the world’s car production, compared with six companies today. He also refutes the idea that globalisation means homogenisation. The increasing uniformity of cities’ skylines worldwide masks growing choice within them, to which even the most global of companies must adjust. McDonald’s serves vegetarian burgers in India and spicy ones in Mexico, where Coca-Cola uses cane sugar rather than the corn syrup it uses in America. MTV, which went global on the assumption that “A-lop-bop-a-doo-bop-a-lop-bam-boom” meant the same in every language, now includes five calls to prayer a day in its Indonesian schedules. Mr Ghemawat notes that company bosses lead the pack when it comes to overestimating the extent of globalisation. Nokia, for example, spent years trying to break into Japan’s big but idiosyncratic mobile-handset market with its rest-of-the-world-beating products before finally conceding defeat. In general companies frequently have more to gain through exploiting national differences — perhaps through arbitrage — than by muscling them aside.
            

    This sober view of globalisation deserves a wide audience. But whether it will get it is another matter. This is partly because World 3.0 is a much less exciting title than The World is Flat or “Jihad vs. McWorld”. And it is partly because people seem to have a natural tendency to overestimate the distance-destroying quality of technology. Go back to the era of dictators and world wars and you can find exactly the same addiction to globaloney. Henry Ford said cars and planes were “binding the world together”. Martin Heidegger said that “everything is equally far and equally near”. George Orwell got so annoyed by all this that he wrote a blistering attack on all the fashionable talk about the abolition of distance and the disappearance of frontiers — and that was in 1944, when Adolf Hitler was advancing his own unique approach to the flattening of the world.

The Economist.

April 23rd, 2011, p. 72.

    Resumo    :

Whilst writers such as Tom Friedman advocate that globalization is a reality, other thinkers have put this much talked about process under more severe scrutiny. Pankaj Ghemawat, for instance, asserts that the current scenario can be described as an era of semi-globalization.

            

According to the data compiled by the researcher, not many students are studying abroad, nor the number of people living outside their birth place is substantial. Few CEOs are foreigners, the amount of exported goods is relatively low and restrictions to transport flows are abundant. Furthermore, interstate relations are commonly established between countries that share a similar background. Surprisingly, foreign direct investment counts for 9% of the world's fixed investment. This relates to the fact that many states put a tight rein on Internet traffic.
            

Other myths are dissolved by Ghemawat. Current emigration levels are lower than those of a century ago, due to a more rigid passport control. Besides, regionalization is balking the flow of goods between borders. The author also refutes the idea of homogenization. Global companies are permanently adjusting their modus operandi to local premises. Not all of them, however, succeed when trying to penetrate certain local markets.
            

Ghemawat's view is disquieting, for it contests the tendency according to which people give technology an ubiquitous quality.

I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all the lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any.

Mahatma Ghandi.

In light of the above quotation and of the other texts comprising the test, would you say that globalization is a threat to local culture or a source of its enrichment?

[Total: 50 marks]

    Resposta     
Modelo 01(com 05 parágrafos- Média de 80 palavras/parágrafo):

Communication between different cultures and mutual influence are inherent in human history: no society can fully develop if it is kept in isolation, and Brazil provides a powerful example of the potential of intercultural dialogue. Yet, these relations often unfold under unequal terms, causing the imposition of the characteristics of a culture to the detriment of others. This is what Gandhi condemns in his statement, in accordance with the tolerant, but proud stance in relation to culture that he adopted throughout his life.
            

It is important, to begin with, to reject radical views that may tend to xenophobia. Language, music, dance, food: a brief analysis would show that all these aspects, which are at the core of any culture, evolved through interaction. A great deal of examples could be mentioned, but jazz and bossa nova suffice to illustrate this thesis: as the result of a complex process of cultural mixture of African, Brazilian and American sounds, these groundbreaking music styles are positive outcomes of a broad process of globalization. It is reasonable to imagine that Gandhi had something similar in mind when he talked about letting "cultures of all the lands to be blown about" his house.
            

Unfortunately, harmony is not the only possible result of globalization. History has shown time and again that interaction in a situation of inequality of economic or political forces tends to favor the values carried by the strongest part. Indeed, it would require a great deal of imagination to argue that indigenous people in Brazil benefited from their relations with the Portuguese invaders. Their near annihilation throughout the centuries, together with the impoverishment of the culture of the survivals, constitutes precisely the process of “being blown off his feet” described by Gandhi is his statement.
            

Current impacts globalization has on "weaker" cultures are not essentially different from those experienced by indigenous people. As clever as Pankaj Ghemawat’s argument about the adaptation of Mcdonald’s to Mexican’s spicy taste may sound, it is not clear how exactly this phenomenon contributes to preserving local cultures. The very substitution of ancient traditional meals for standardized fast food coming from the center of capitalism is enough to affect a people’s culture, and the addition of local features to the original product does little to prevent this from happening.
            

It is no easy task to find the right balance between inner characteristics and outside influence. Nonetheless, it is beyond doubt that, as Mauro José Teixeira Destri points out, education plays a pivotal role in providing citizens with the tools required to undertake this task. Only by forming critical, well-informed and conscious citizens will countries manage to neutralize the threats of globalization and use it as a source of enrichment. Otherwise, the future may be one of gloomy homogenization under the aegis of American influence.