This article analyzes customer reviews of Fareed Zakaria’s best-selling book, The Post-American World posted on Amazon.com. Zakaria’s book explores the emergence of a new world order in which the “rise of the rest,” particularly China and India, threatens the geopolitical dominance of the United States. Drawing on reception studies of print culture, debates over the virtual public sphere, and sponsorship of literacy, our article’s textual analysis of 281 customer reviews offers a window into audience reactions to this public intellectual’s deliberations on the beginning of a possible decentering of America in certain realms of globalization. Our analysis of consumer citizenship in Amazon.com’s reviewer space identifies three dominant frameworks or “horizons of expectations” that structured interpretations of The Post-American World: readers’ framing of the book as a tool to foster enlightened citizenship, reviewers’ affective rhetoric of nation building, and the impact of Zakaria’s status as an immigrant intellectual on readers’ responses.
AppaduraiA. (2003). Disjuncture and difference in the global economy. In KumarS.ParksL. (Eds.), Planet TV (pp. 40-52). New York: New York University Press.
5.
Banet-WeiserS.LapsanskyC. (2008). RED is the new black: Brand culture, consumer citizenship and political possibility. International Journal of Communication, 2, 1248-1268.
6.
BarnettC. (1999). Constructions of apartheid in the international reception of the novels of J. M. Coetzee. Journal of Southern African Studies, 25, 287-301.
7.
BartonD.HamiltonM.IvanicR. (2000). Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context. New York, NY: Routledge.
8.
BennettL. W. (2003). Lifestyle politics and citizen-consumers: Identity, communication, and political action in late modern society. In CornerJ.PelsD. (Eds.), Media and the restyling of politics (pp. 137-150). London, UK: Sage.
9.
BesnierN. N. (1991). Literacy and the notion of person on Nukulaelae Atoll. American Anthropologist, 93, 570-587.
10.
BrandtD. (1998). Sponsors of literacy. College of Composition and Communication, 49(2), 165-185.
11.
BrundidgeJ. (2010). Encountering ‘difference’ in the contemporary public sphere: The contribution of the Internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks. Journal of Communication, 60, 680-700.
12.
CancliniN. G. (2001). Consumers and citizens: Globalization and multicultural conflicts. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
13.
CarterD. (2011). Living in virtual communities. Information, Communication, & Society, 8(2), 148-167.
14.
ChavesE. (2010). The Internet as global platform? Grounding the magically levitating public sphere. New Political Science, 32(1), 23-41.
15.
ChevalierJ. A.MayzlinD. (2006). The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book reviews. American Marketing Research, 43, 345-354.
16.
CohenL. (2003). A consumer’s republic: The politics of mass consumption in postwar America. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
FraserN. (2007). Transnationalizing the public sphere: On the legitimacy and efficacy of public opinion in a post-Westphalian world. Theory, Culture, & Society, 24(7), 7-30.
19.
GansH. (1979). Deciding what’s news. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
20.
GoldbergG. (2010). Rethinking the public/virtual sphere: The problem with participation. New Media & Society, 13, 739-754.
21.
HallS. (1975). Paper voices: The popular press and social change, 1935-1965. London, UK: Chatto & Windus.
22.
HarveyD. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
23.
HindmanM. (2008). The myth of digital democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
LincolnY.GubaE. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
26.
LokeJ. (2011). Amplifying a public’s voice: Online news readers’ comments impact on journalism and its role as the new public space. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Texas, Austin, TX.
27.
LundinA. (1994). Victorian horizons: The reception of children’s books in England and America, 1880-1900. Library Quarterly, 64(1), 30-59.
28.
MingstK. (2003). Troubled waters: The United States-United Nations relationship. International Peacekeeping, 10(4), 82-93.
29.
MyersG. (2010). Stance-taking and public discussion in blogs. Critical Discourse Studies, 7, 263-275.
30.
PapacharissiZ. (2002). The virtual sphere: The Internet as a public sphere. New Media & Society, 4(1), 9-27.
31.
PeckJ. (2002). The Oprah effect: Texts, readers, and the dialectic of signification. The Communication Review, 5(2), 143-178.
32.
PenneyJ. (2011). KEVIN07: Cool politics, consumer citizenship, and the specter of “Americanization” in Australia. Communication, Culture & Critique, 4(1), 78-96.
33.
RyanG. W.BernardR. H. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85-109.
34.
SchneiderA. M. (2001). Center/periphery. In HawleyJ. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of postcolonial studies (pp. 85-89). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
35.
ShoemakerP. J.VosT. P.ReeseS. D. (2008). Journalists as gatekeepers. In Wahl-JorgensenK.HanitzschT. (Eds.), Handbook of journalism studies (pp. 73-87). New York, NY: Routledge.
36.
SingerJ. B. (2010). Quality control: Perceived effects of user-generated content on newsroom norms, values and routines. Journalism Practice, 4(2), 127-142.
37.
StreetB. (1993). Cross-cultural perspectives on literacy. New York, NY: Cambridge Press.
Trager BohleyK. (2011). Browsing madness and global sponsors of literacy: The politics and discourse of deterritorialized reading practices and space in Singapore. Participations, 8(2), 85-119.
41.
WillettR. (2008). Consumer citizens online: Structure, agency and gender in online participation. In BuckinghamD. (Ed.), Youth, identity and digital media (pp. 49-66). Cambridge: MIT Press.
42.
WimmerR. D.DominickJ. R. (2006). Mass media research: An introduction. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
43.
ZakariaF. (2008). The post-American world. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
