Bucknell’s play brought in several different aspects of the Daisey controversy that pushed me to think deeper. Several soliloquies allowed the audience to acknowledge background information that both Daisey and Ira Glass did not focus on. It made me think; what really is important? Are the lies? Did it really matter if Daisey’s speech was art? Both questions seemed negligible. The background information focused on something different. It brought new questions to the table. The first soliloquy featured a speaker native to China who addressed the forces of globalization. Yes, factory hours and payment may seem unfair by American standards, but, we must take a more holistic approach. As outsiders, we must develop cultural relativity. This is a term used by anthropologists who seek to diminish one’s ethnocentric judgements in order to understand a foreign or unfamiliar culture. This topic was clearly communicated. Employees at Foxconn may not like their working conditions, but they also see their jobs as opportunities to free themselves from poverty. On the other hand, do these workers actually have a voice? What would happen if workers rebelled for higher wages? Here, we must look at globalization. Companies manufacture their goods in China because it is cheap. Here the demand for labor is large, and workers are willing to work for minimum wage. If employees formed unions and demanded higher wages, they would be replaced. Should Apple take the blame? I don’t think so. Like the speaker, I believe that we should both praise and blame the forces of globalization. For one, they have allowed our world to be dynamic and highly connected among nations and culture. Yet, there are negatives also. Globalization has caused companies to outsource jobs to minimize costs. There are always two sides to a story, if anything, Daisey has certainly taught us that.
The closing speaker reiterates this point also. She justifies the massive use of manual labor with economics. Surely, as consumers, we should be aware of where of products come from. We should also acknowledge the fact that technology has significantly changed our world. Today, we connect on much deeper levels; I can listen to the words of Mike Daisey over my headset while Ira Glass flies around the world to retrace a misleading reporter’s steps. A play that was performed two years ago can now stream across my screen. With all of this, it seems funny that I don’t know more about the world’s working conditions. Certainly this issue has taken center stage in the past, and still carries heavy weight today. I now raise a final question, can we use the forces of globalization to correct a problem that it may have caused? Technology has made significant leaps from televisions to computers, to ipods, to tablets etc. Paradoxically, we have not seen significant improvements in working conditions and are facing the same problems that the Lowell textile mill workers faced in the nineteenth century.