Representation connects meaning and language to culture. It means "using language to say something meaningful about, or to represent, the world meaningfully, to other people".
There are three theories of representation: the reflective, the intentional and the constructionist approaches. The constructionist approach further has the semiotic approach and the discursive approach.
Representation is the "production of the meaning of the concepts in our minds through language". There are two systems of representation.
1- Mental Representation- all things are attached to concepts in the mind. Meaning, thus, depends on these concepts in our minds- they represent the world for us. We can communicate our ideas to others because we share conceptual mental maps with them. When we belong to the same culture as somebody else, our mental representation of something is the same as theirs. This allows us to communicate with them.
2- Language- Other than a shared culture, we also need a shared language with which to communicate/represent something. Language is made up of signs (words, images, sounds, meanings) that represent our conceptual representations in a physical way.
Visual signs, whether they resemble the objects they refer to or not, are arbitrary signs- they carry meaning and have to be interpreted using same conceptual maps. Visual signs can be icons (they resemble the object) or indexes (those signs that point to the object- like words- written or spoken). These signs are arbitrary. Meaning is not in the object, nor in our minds. It is attached to the object by us. "The meaning is constructed by the system of representation". It is constructed by a set of codes which relate our language system to our conceptual system and allowing us to represent and communicate. Culture contains certain codes. Others of the same culture share the same codes. These codes are learned- those who learn the culture become cultured. Different cultures use different codes and languages, and meaning changes with the codes. Thus, there is no one fixed meaning, members of a culture attach meaning to objects and language. Meaning is constructed.
Coming back to the three types of representation:
1- Reflective- meaning is thought to lie in the object and language mirrors/reflects its meaning. "Language works by simply reflecting or imitating the truth that is already there".
2- Intentional- the speaker attaches his/her meaning to the object. Words mean what the author wants them to mean. However, language is a shared, public construction. Thus, meaning can never be entirely constructed by the author- it depends on the shared codes.
3- Constructionist- objects don't mean anything until we construct a meaning for them. Things exist but don't have a meaning until they enter our system of representation.
Some signs like images, sounds, impulses can be material, even if they represent a non material object. Also, the meaning in signs comes from their difference from other signs. Only in relation/opposition to other signs do we understand the meaning of signs. This is very similar to the concept of identity in people in relation to "others". But then, isn't identity a sign. a construction as well?
Sassure-
He shaped the semiotic approach to representation. Meaning depends on language. Signs are made up of form and idea- signifier and signified. Together, they produce meaning and form the sign. Individually, they do nothing. The signifier and the signified are connected arbitrarily. Once they get defined in relation to other signs, they obtain meaning and that meaning gets learned. And even then, this meaning and the relationship between them can change. Meaning is not unique and static. There is no universal meaning. It depends on each particular culture's history and context. Also, the meaning that the viewer/receiver interprets also changes with his/her context. For example, a joke in one country would be funny and in another country would be offensive. If I hear the joke for the first time today, it will be funny. If I hear it again tomorrow, it will be mundane. Thus, the reader as well as the writer are both imporant in the making of meaning.
Language has two parts:
1- Langue- rules and conventions of the language system. This is the social part of language.It can be studied like a science with rules and formulae. This is the structuralist approach.
2- Parole- particular acts of speaking/writer/communicating using the structures of the langue. This is the surface of the language, and varies with each utterance. Language is not intentional, nor natural. It depends on our shared codes, and it taught/carried from one person to another.
Semiotics- A science of signs. Cultural practices depend on signs which are meant to be read/decoded by the reader. Levi-Strauss studied a culture's signs and went from paroles of their culture to the langue and structure which were used to make cultural productions. "In the semiotic approach, not only words and images but objects themselves can function as signifiers inthe production of meaning". Signs have two levels of meaning: the denotation and the connotation. The deonotative meaning is the descriptive meaning of the object- the literal meaning. The connotative meaning is the cultrual meaning that needs to be decoded at different levels to be understood. Connotations vary with ideologies and cultures.
Another level of signification for Barthes is Myth: the ideology behind the object that takes context as a given and reconstitutes history in that meaning.
Discourse, Power and Function- Foucault was concerned with the production of knowledge.
Discourse- a system of representation- "a group of statements which provide a language for talking about-a way of representing the knowledge about-a particular topic at a particular historical moment". It defines the rules of how people talk about a topic. It defines our knowledge. It defines rules for talking and sharing/creating of knowledge and of how to regulate ideas. Ideas can belong to the same discursive formation when they refer to the same object or event. Outside of discourse, nothing has meaning. Without discourse, objects are meaningless- they exist but without a meaning. The constructionist theory says that things take on meaning and knowledge only within a discourse. Thus discourse produces knowledge, not the things. It includes statments which give us a certain kind of knowledge, rules which prescribe certain ways of talking about these things, subjects who in some ways personify the discourse, the attributes these subjects should have according the knowledge we get from the discourse, how this knowledge about the topic acquires authority and truth value, the practices that institutions should follow to deal with the discourse, and acknowledgments that a different discourse will arise at some later time. Certain discourses attach themselves to certain moments of history. They are not true outside of that certain time. Meaning happens at a certain time within a certain discursive formation. Discourse is history/culture specific.
Power- it operates within an institutional apparatus. Knowledge and power are linked. Knowledge is a form of power. With knowledge, power becomes true. Power circulates in different directions, and is exhanged. It does not have one center nor one direction. It does not have to be repressing or negative. Power is localized, not centralized. It has microphysics of power that place it at the center of power.
Friday, April 6, 2007
The postcolonial and the postmodern- Homi Bhabha
Third World countries that were previously colonised come together with their opinions to form postcolonial perspectives. Colonialism is often justified as modernity. Those that have been socially marginalized teach us the most enduring lessons. Culture extends outside the "high art", aesthetic mode and becomes an uneven, incomplete production of meaning and value.
Culture is transnational because cultures are displaces and moved. Cultures are translational because the signification of culture is complex. It is important to decode these cultural signs, specially because transnationalism makes them even harder to decode.
Postcolonial perspectives do not agree with the term "underdeveloped" and attempts to revise the point of view whereby Third World is in binary opposition to First World.
Postcolonialism forces us to rethink the limitations of a consensual liberal sense of cultural community. Different levels of identity overlap and intermingle. Culture becomes an uncomfortable practice of survival while it's being becomes a moment of pleasure.
Signs that differ in content produce incompatible systems of signification and engage distinct forms of social subjectivity to construct histories of discrimination and misrepresentation. Cultural difference becomes a sight of social crisis.
Culture is transnational because cultures are displaces and moved. Cultures are translational because the signification of culture is complex. It is important to decode these cultural signs, specially because transnationalism makes them even harder to decode.
Postcolonial perspectives do not agree with the term "underdeveloped" and attempts to revise the point of view whereby Third World is in binary opposition to First World.
Postcolonialism forces us to rethink the limitations of a consensual liberal sense of cultural community. Different levels of identity overlap and intermingle. Culture becomes an uncomfortable practice of survival while it's being becomes a moment of pleasure.
Signs that differ in content produce incompatible systems of signification and engage distinct forms of social subjectivity to construct histories of discrimination and misrepresentation. Cultural difference becomes a sight of social crisis.
Edward Said- Orientalism
The Orient is a European invention and symbolizes romance, exotic beings, haunted memories and landscapes- remarkable, exotic experiences. And now the Orient was dying, like the Vanishing Indian. The European representations of the Orient were concerned about themselves, not about the Orientals who had their identity and existance at stake. To Europe, the Orient is a place of colonies, of languages, of civilizations and contestations, of the Other. Europe finds its identity by the Orient's otherness. Without the Orient, Europe would not have anythig to differentiate itself from. "The Orient is an integral part of European material civilization and culture" (Said).
The term Orientalism refers to several interdependent things:
- Academically, it is a study of the Orient. It is the academic discourse surrounding the lands known as the Orient.
- It is a style of thought based upon an ontological and epistemological distinction between the Orient and the Occident.
- The corporate institution that deals with the Orient. In this sense, it is a Western style of domination over the Orient.
Orientalism is the discourse that allowed Europe to produce and maintain the Orient until Orientals were stripped of their identities and . The Orient is not a free subject of thought and action, even today. It is a human construction to stand in contrast to the Occident.
Said is interested not in how the Orient and Orientalism relate, but what Orientalism says about the Orient and how it defines it. The Orient and Occident share a relationship of power, domination and complex hegemonies. He believes that Orientalism is not about the Orient but about the relationship between the Occident and the Orient.
The term Orientalism refers to several interdependent things:
- Academically, it is a study of the Orient. It is the academic discourse surrounding the lands known as the Orient.
- It is a style of thought based upon an ontological and epistemological distinction between the Orient and the Occident.
- The corporate institution that deals with the Orient. In this sense, it is a Western style of domination over the Orient.
Orientalism is the discourse that allowed Europe to produce and maintain the Orient until Orientals were stripped of their identities and . The Orient is not a free subject of thought and action, even today. It is a human construction to stand in contrast to the Occident.
Said is interested not in how the Orient and Orientalism relate, but what Orientalism says about the Orient and how it defines it. The Orient and Occident share a relationship of power, domination and complex hegemonies. He believes that Orientalism is not about the Orient but about the relationship between the Occident and the Orient.
Object (to) Sanctity: The Politics of the Object- Gerald McMaster
McMaster begins his article by discussing how Western history has used book-burning to limit the power of the Other and control knowledge. The Canadian governement's policy of aggressive civilization also had a hand in the rapid modernization and loss of culture, history and religion of the indigenous people. Nineteenth and twentieth century saw the salvaging of Aboriginal artifacts in response to the panic that the Aboriginal cultures were dying/disappearing. The government set up reserves for the "Vanishing Indians" to protect them from the outside world's harmful influences. The natives in the reserves were forced to modernize into civilized modern beings, and were forced to break ties with their past.
As for Native American objects, Europeans looted/took them to preserve them, not knowing that they had committed the biggest misdemeanor towards the natives. Part of the governement's aggressive civilization of Native Americans involved declaring obsolete the use of sacred objects in rituals.
McMaster proposes that museums should take the object's identity into account and then form a narrative around it. Just as some museums have their identity defined by the items in them, museums that display Native American objects should redefine their identity with due respect to their historical context. They should understand the place of these objects, their use, how to handle them and how to display them. Curators must have this knowledge and they must share it with their museum staff, so that everybody is aware of the cultural significance of the objects. However, this is not the case in today's museums. Today's museums display these objects as commodities for the public to look at. The public feels that tese objects enter the museum as "failed metaphors" because they are no longer useful in tribal traditions. The museums aestheticize these objects and reinstill them with a meaning and new appeal.
As for Native American objects, Europeans looted/took them to preserve them, not knowing that they had committed the biggest misdemeanor towards the natives. Part of the governement's aggressive civilization of Native Americans involved declaring obsolete the use of sacred objects in rituals.
McMaster proposes that museums should take the object's identity into account and then form a narrative around it. Just as some museums have their identity defined by the items in them, museums that display Native American objects should redefine their identity with due respect to their historical context. They should understand the place of these objects, their use, how to handle them and how to display them. Curators must have this knowledge and they must share it with their museum staff, so that everybody is aware of the cultural significance of the objects. However, this is not the case in today's museums. Today's museums display these objects as commodities for the public to look at. The public feels that tese objects enter the museum as "failed metaphors" because they are no longer useful in tribal traditions. The museums aestheticize these objects and reinstill them with a meaning and new appeal.
From the Imperial Family to the Transnational Imaginary: Media Spectatorship in the Age of Globalization
Shohat and Stam claim that media are central to studies of globalization and identity. They hold this central position because they facilitate engagement with distant peoples and places, which is necessary for globalization.
The Ambiguities of the Local and the Global
The terms "local" and "global" have come up numerous times in the course, often as dichotomies. Many theorists have claimed that the two are interdependent and that they are not opposite ends of the spectrum, but I still feel that they are pushed to the periphery and seen as extreme cases of the globalization era. I also feel that postcolonial studies tend to view the global as bad. That is not necessarily true.
Shohat and Stam discuss how the media has a global reach, and that allows culture to move outside of nation-state boundaries. Third and First Worlds are interlinked and interdependent. Nation-states have multiracial people and multiethnic practices. The term globalization evokes utopian ideas of a seamlessly wired global village, the worldwide availability of information and the transcendence of ideological and political agendas. It also evokes dystopian ideas of homogenization of culture, annihiliation of political economy and an ecological catastrophe. As I mentioned above, critics tend to place globalization in extremes when they explain it, and fail to account for the position that our world sits at on that spectrum. Shohat and Stam say the same thing: to avoid the two pitfalls of euphoria and melancholy.
Even though older hegemonies have died out, and colonial rule has come to an end, "much of the world remains entangled in neocolonialism, that is, a conjuncture in which direct political and military control has given way to abstract, semi-indirect, largely economic forms of control whose linchpin is a close alliance between foreign capital and the indigenous elite" (Shohat and Stam). The contemporary global scene is now dominated by powerful nation-states: Western Europe, the United States, Japan. Neocolonialism has made First World countries cultural transmitters and Third World countries cultural receivers. Even though each nation produces its own culture, only the First World nations project their culture onto the global scene. Example: Hollywood movies in practically every nation in the world, even where people do not speak English. In rural Pakistan where the English language was non-existant, the film Titanic was the highest grossing film of that year. When Kate Winslet went to visit some of these areas, she was surprised to find out that the rural folk knew her as "Rose". (Personally, I would have been rather embarassed if I'd known that conservative people in rural Pakistan had seen my film and me nude). Third World movies make up the majority of world's cinema, yet they are not featured in cinema, nor discussed in academia. Third World cinema is economically dependent on funding, and if they attempt to limit Hollywood exposure in their areas to promote their own cinemas, Hollywood (and the US) will pull out funding in some other area like trade, and leave the Thrid World nation at loss. Hollywood also makes its budget in the US/First World markets, and can afford to "dump" its productions on Third World audiences at low costs. Shohat and Stam also notice that the flow of culture and productions between the First and Third Worlds is not balanced. More information flows from First to Third, taking its ideologies with it. And very little information flows in the opposite direction. This silences one producer while raising the voice of the other producer. I would like to point out, however, that South America and India are using the power of the people to regain some of the information flow into the West. Due to the large numbers of people from South America and India in the West (diasporas), these nations can send their productions out into the West and target them at their diasporas. Eventually, these productions tend to leak into the mass culture as well. For example, the boom of Indian musicians in the UK happened because Indian artists like RDB, Bally Sagoo, Rishi Rich, etc. made music for the Indians in England and that music eventually crossed boundaries and became part of popular culture in the UK, Singapore, Canada, the US and other nations. The same principals can be observed in South American artists (RBD, Shakira, Ricky Martin, Sean Paul).
Shohat and Stamp do have some criticisms of the media imperialism thesis:
- It is too simple to imagine an active First World forcing its products onto a passive Third World.
- Global mass media does not replace local media, but the two coexist.
- Western mass media can be indigenized and localized.
- Some nations like India, Egypt, Brazil and Mexico dominate their own markets and even export their culture (as I'd mentioned above).
The Antecedents of Globalization
Globalization comes out of colonialism, imperialism and European colonialism. The begining of cinema coincided with imperialism. The silent-films most prolific producers were also leading imperialsit nations- Gernamy, France, England and the US. This led to the boys in their nations who were exposed to these films to believe in imperialist proceses as their future duty. The cinema raised future colonizers. Cinema helped cement both a national and an imperial sense of belonging among many disparae peoples, and it allowed an assimilated elite to identify with its empire and against the colonized people.
Spectatatorial Displcements
Spectatoship of film does not automatically have an effect on the imperial imaginary. It is a site of negotiation between interaction and struggle with ideologies.
Media Culture and Community Identity
Ciname provides blockbusters as well as alternative films which help different audiences react differently. Audeinces do tend to notice disclusion from the media, and are increasingly taking stand to present their counter-media. Examples of this would be films like Rang de Basanti in India, Omni TV programming in Canada and even "brown jams" at clubs in Toronto.
The Ambiguities of the Local and the Global
The terms "local" and "global" have come up numerous times in the course, often as dichotomies. Many theorists have claimed that the two are interdependent and that they are not opposite ends of the spectrum, but I still feel that they are pushed to the periphery and seen as extreme cases of the globalization era. I also feel that postcolonial studies tend to view the global as bad. That is not necessarily true.
Shohat and Stam discuss how the media has a global reach, and that allows culture to move outside of nation-state boundaries. Third and First Worlds are interlinked and interdependent. Nation-states have multiracial people and multiethnic practices. The term globalization evokes utopian ideas of a seamlessly wired global village, the worldwide availability of information and the transcendence of ideological and political agendas. It also evokes dystopian ideas of homogenization of culture, annihiliation of political economy and an ecological catastrophe. As I mentioned above, critics tend to place globalization in extremes when they explain it, and fail to account for the position that our world sits at on that spectrum. Shohat and Stam say the same thing: to avoid the two pitfalls of euphoria and melancholy.
Even though older hegemonies have died out, and colonial rule has come to an end, "much of the world remains entangled in neocolonialism, that is, a conjuncture in which direct political and military control has given way to abstract, semi-indirect, largely economic forms of control whose linchpin is a close alliance between foreign capital and the indigenous elite" (Shohat and Stam). The contemporary global scene is now dominated by powerful nation-states: Western Europe, the United States, Japan. Neocolonialism has made First World countries cultural transmitters and Third World countries cultural receivers. Even though each nation produces its own culture, only the First World nations project their culture onto the global scene. Example: Hollywood movies in practically every nation in the world, even where people do not speak English. In rural Pakistan where the English language was non-existant, the film Titanic was the highest grossing film of that year. When Kate Winslet went to visit some of these areas, she was surprised to find out that the rural folk knew her as "Rose". (Personally, I would have been rather embarassed if I'd known that conservative people in rural Pakistan had seen my film and me nude). Third World movies make up the majority of world's cinema, yet they are not featured in cinema, nor discussed in academia. Third World cinema is economically dependent on funding, and if they attempt to limit Hollywood exposure in their areas to promote their own cinemas, Hollywood (and the US) will pull out funding in some other area like trade, and leave the Thrid World nation at loss. Hollywood also makes its budget in the US/First World markets, and can afford to "dump" its productions on Third World audiences at low costs. Shohat and Stam also notice that the flow of culture and productions between the First and Third Worlds is not balanced. More information flows from First to Third, taking its ideologies with it. And very little information flows in the opposite direction. This silences one producer while raising the voice of the other producer. I would like to point out, however, that South America and India are using the power of the people to regain some of the information flow into the West. Due to the large numbers of people from South America and India in the West (diasporas), these nations can send their productions out into the West and target them at their diasporas. Eventually, these productions tend to leak into the mass culture as well. For example, the boom of Indian musicians in the UK happened because Indian artists like RDB, Bally Sagoo, Rishi Rich, etc. made music for the Indians in England and that music eventually crossed boundaries and became part of popular culture in the UK, Singapore, Canada, the US and other nations. The same principals can be observed in South American artists (RBD, Shakira, Ricky Martin, Sean Paul).
Shohat and Stamp do have some criticisms of the media imperialism thesis:
- It is too simple to imagine an active First World forcing its products onto a passive Third World.
- Global mass media does not replace local media, but the two coexist.
- Western mass media can be indigenized and localized.
- Some nations like India, Egypt, Brazil and Mexico dominate their own markets and even export their culture (as I'd mentioned above).
The Antecedents of Globalization
Globalization comes out of colonialism, imperialism and European colonialism. The begining of cinema coincided with imperialism. The silent-films most prolific producers were also leading imperialsit nations- Gernamy, France, England and the US. This led to the boys in their nations who were exposed to these films to believe in imperialist proceses as their future duty. The cinema raised future colonizers. Cinema helped cement both a national and an imperial sense of belonging among many disparae peoples, and it allowed an assimilated elite to identify with its empire and against the colonized people.
Spectatatorial Displcements
Spectatoship of film does not automatically have an effect on the imperial imaginary. It is a site of negotiation between interaction and struggle with ideologies.
Media Culture and Community Identity
Ciname provides blockbusters as well as alternative films which help different audiences react differently. Audeinces do tend to notice disclusion from the media, and are increasingly taking stand to present their counter-media. Examples of this would be films like Rang de Basanti in India, Omni TV programming in Canada and even "brown jams" at clubs in Toronto.
Hall- Questions of Cultural Identity
As Stuart Hall explains the concept of identity, he begins by tackling "identitification". When one recognizes with a common set of characteristics of one certain person or group, one identitifies with that person or group. Identification is a process, a construction. It can be won or lost or obtained or discarded. Hall defines it as: "Identification is, then, a process of articulation, a suturing, an over-determination, not a subsumption".
Freud calls the concept of identification "the earliest expression of an emotional tie with another person". Identification involves ambivalence; of associating with one and opposing the other. It may not be a harmonious process; identification can have conflicting ideals and processes within it.
The concept of identity is also not stable. It changes over its lifetime, and does not come from the same roots. Historic processes like globalization and free/forced migration tend to affect the identity of cultures, which in turn affects individual identity. These historic developments have an effect on our becoming an identity, not being an identity. When we question identity, we should question not who we are but where we come from. Identities are constructed within, not outside of discourse- historic, cultural, social...any kind of discourse. They emerge from power struggles (which are a part of discourse), and they come out of difference/exclusion as much as unity.
Hall points out that identity is constructed through, not outside, difference. Identity can only be constructed in opposition to that which is different, in relation to the Other. One constructs an identity by finding what one lacks in comparision to the Other. Hall sees identity in two ways: a meeting point to interpellate us into social subjects of particular discourses, and the processes which construct us as subjects which can be spoken.
For the remainder of the article, Stuart Hall discusses Foucault and Lacan, which did not seem to directly relate to postcolonialism.
One thing that I would like to mention, however, is that based on Hall's teachings about identification and identity, I conclude that the colonizers identified with each other, and within the discourse of colonialism, they identitfied themselves as different from the natives. This difference with one group and association with another group allowed them to construct an identity that spread. And this way, their identity reinforced their differences from the natives, and imposed colonial rules on them.
Freud calls the concept of identification "the earliest expression of an emotional tie with another person". Identification involves ambivalence; of associating with one and opposing the other. It may not be a harmonious process; identification can have conflicting ideals and processes within it.
The concept of identity is also not stable. It changes over its lifetime, and does not come from the same roots. Historic processes like globalization and free/forced migration tend to affect the identity of cultures, which in turn affects individual identity. These historic developments have an effect on our becoming an identity, not being an identity. When we question identity, we should question not who we are but where we come from. Identities are constructed within, not outside of discourse- historic, cultural, social...any kind of discourse. They emerge from power struggles (which are a part of discourse), and they come out of difference/exclusion as much as unity.
Hall points out that identity is constructed through, not outside, difference. Identity can only be constructed in opposition to that which is different, in relation to the Other. One constructs an identity by finding what one lacks in comparision to the Other. Hall sees identity in two ways: a meeting point to interpellate us into social subjects of particular discourses, and the processes which construct us as subjects which can be spoken.
For the remainder of the article, Stuart Hall discusses Foucault and Lacan, which did not seem to directly relate to postcolonialism.
One thing that I would like to mention, however, is that based on Hall's teachings about identification and identity, I conclude that the colonizers identified with each other, and within the discourse of colonialism, they identitfied themselves as different from the natives. This difference with one group and association with another group allowed them to construct an identity that spread. And this way, their identity reinforced their differences from the natives, and imposed colonial rules on them.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
global local
Arif Dirlik begins his essay with a short description of the film Local Hero. It is a film about a small town which the corporate evil giants want to take over, but in their negotiation process, the corporate evil giants fall in love with the town and in the end, they scrap their project and build labs that benefit the town. In ways, this film is a fairy tale where the small town is the beauty and the corporate giant is the beast. It is a story about humanizing the beast that is the corporation. Dirlik is amused by the fact that even in past decades, the global and the local were seen as two ends of the spectrum at battle with each other. Local was the site of resistance to capital; it shows "a nostaligia that becomees an active ingredient in the formulation of a contemporary discourse on the local which has rescued 'fabulation' itself from the opprobrium of a more 'realistic' time to render it into a principal for the reconstruction of the local" (Dirlik).
The 1990s, according to Dirlik, were dominated by movements and projects to reconstruct and save the local from domination. Examples he gives are the tree hugging women of Chipko, the Mexican workers of maquiladora industries and western Kansas counties. Much of this work follows activist tactics.
Dirkil points out the two faces of the "local"- the site or promise and the site of predicament and discusses these points further:
Rethinking the Local
The local has never really disappeared; it has just been marginalized. It appears to be dying because civilizations in history have homogenized as they progressed, making it appear that the global (as opposed to the local) homogenized the local and ended it. Modernity makes it appear that the local is out and the global is in by focusing attention on progress, urbanism, capitalism and scientific rationality.Modernity became the evil while local became the traditional good.
Critics feel that modernism has forced its narratives upon people and turned them modern. By repudiating modernization, the public has brought attention to those social and cultural forms that did not have a place in modernism; this rejection of modernism has revived their presence in society and given them a choice to join modernism or not- opposite of what modernism did when it forced them into accepting mdoernism. Colonized states like Hong Kong are examples of this point. Their choice and decision to modernize was never questioned, it was assumed that they would naturally join the modern tendencies drawn out by their colonizers. The rejection of modernism also brought local narratives into the spotlight. These local narratives had resisted or complied with modernism and contributed to the formation of modernity. I think that examples of this would be groups and nations that refused to accept modernity. Countries like China and Saudi Arabia still reject certain aspects of modernity. Dirlik mentions that the spirit of nationalism in certain areas was heterogenized into nationalism for the global as part of modernity; stripping them of their sense of nationalism for modernity.
Dirlick predicts that repudiation of modernity is a temporary transition phase during which silence voices can be heard and forgotten narratives are remembered. However, this phase will end as capitalism comes back and reshapes our narratives and history. The issues raised right now will soon be forgotten as capitalist establishments reconfigure our developing world. The only way that these issues may be heard is if previously powerless groups who are now in power consciously redefine the world with consideration of past issues. In an ideal world, this would mean that Bill Gates and George Bush would come together to start a foundation that creates jobs for recent graduates, helps those in the work force utilize their potential and provide good workers with large bonuses. They would travel to India and Malaysia and see that the level of education there is as good as the level of education in North America, and an Indian neurosurgeon can work wonders if provided (with no cost to himself) with North American laboratories and equipment. Ours, however, is not an idealistic world and the global is indeed a monster that eats up anything local that comes in its path, even if the local belongs to somebody else.
Postmodernism, Dirlik notes, is concerned about the local. The postmodern consciousness encourages a contemporary localism. However, this local has traces of oppression and power misuse from it's earlier days, it remains closely tied to capitalism- as Dirlik discusses further on.
Global Localism
Global capitalism, also known as late capitalism, a flexible production or accumulation, is "a further deterritorialization, abstraction, and concentration of capital" (Dirlik). It is "an unprecedented penetration of local society globally by the economy and culture of capital" (Dirlik).
A new international division of labour, or as Dirlik puts it, "the transnationalization of production where the process of production is globalized" is central to the new global capitalism. Production changes location, speeds increase, and capital becomes more important than labor.
Capitalism is "decentralized" nationally- no one nation can attest to being the center of global capitalism.
The transnational corporation links this network of nations. This corporation is the economic node that feeds the network.
Unpredented global unity and fragmentation took place because of transnationalization of production. Global in the disappearing of a center to capitalism, fragmentation of the production process into subnational localities.
For the first time in history, the "capitalist mode of production appears as an authentically global abstraction"- no longer attached to Europe. Economic fragmentation led to multiculturism. However, Dirlik disagrees and says that capitalism is based on European ideologies and no matter how much it detaches itself from Europe, it will remain of the same ideologies. Thus, even if Europe and North America lose their domination over the capitalist world, their ideologies will still rule the world.
Transnationalization questions the divisions of First, Second and Third Worlds. This has all led to global localism. "Think globally, act locally" comes out of this concept.
The 1990s, according to Dirlik, were dominated by movements and projects to reconstruct and save the local from domination. Examples he gives are the tree hugging women of Chipko, the Mexican workers of maquiladora industries and western Kansas counties. Much of this work follows activist tactics.
Dirkil points out the two faces of the "local"- the site or promise and the site of predicament and discusses these points further:
Rethinking the Local
The local has never really disappeared; it has just been marginalized. It appears to be dying because civilizations in history have homogenized as they progressed, making it appear that the global (as opposed to the local) homogenized the local and ended it. Modernity makes it appear that the local is out and the global is in by focusing attention on progress, urbanism, capitalism and scientific rationality.Modernity became the evil while local became the traditional good.
Critics feel that modernism has forced its narratives upon people and turned them modern. By repudiating modernization, the public has brought attention to those social and cultural forms that did not have a place in modernism; this rejection of modernism has revived their presence in society and given them a choice to join modernism or not- opposite of what modernism did when it forced them into accepting mdoernism. Colonized states like Hong Kong are examples of this point. Their choice and decision to modernize was never questioned, it was assumed that they would naturally join the modern tendencies drawn out by their colonizers. The rejection of modernism also brought local narratives into the spotlight. These local narratives had resisted or complied with modernism and contributed to the formation of modernity. I think that examples of this would be groups and nations that refused to accept modernity. Countries like China and Saudi Arabia still reject certain aspects of modernity. Dirlik mentions that the spirit of nationalism in certain areas was heterogenized into nationalism for the global as part of modernity; stripping them of their sense of nationalism for modernity.
Dirlick predicts that repudiation of modernity is a temporary transition phase during which silence voices can be heard and forgotten narratives are remembered. However, this phase will end as capitalism comes back and reshapes our narratives and history. The issues raised right now will soon be forgotten as capitalist establishments reconfigure our developing world. The only way that these issues may be heard is if previously powerless groups who are now in power consciously redefine the world with consideration of past issues. In an ideal world, this would mean that Bill Gates and George Bush would come together to start a foundation that creates jobs for recent graduates, helps those in the work force utilize their potential and provide good workers with large bonuses. They would travel to India and Malaysia and see that the level of education there is as good as the level of education in North America, and an Indian neurosurgeon can work wonders if provided (with no cost to himself) with North American laboratories and equipment. Ours, however, is not an idealistic world and the global is indeed a monster that eats up anything local that comes in its path, even if the local belongs to somebody else.
Postmodernism, Dirlik notes, is concerned about the local. The postmodern consciousness encourages a contemporary localism. However, this local has traces of oppression and power misuse from it's earlier days, it remains closely tied to capitalism- as Dirlik discusses further on.
Global Localism
Global capitalism, also known as late capitalism, a flexible production or accumulation, is "a further deterritorialization, abstraction, and concentration of capital" (Dirlik). It is "an unprecedented penetration of local society globally by the economy and culture of capital" (Dirlik).
A new international division of labour, or as Dirlik puts it, "the transnationalization of production where the process of production is globalized" is central to the new global capitalism. Production changes location, speeds increase, and capital becomes more important than labor.
Capitalism is "decentralized" nationally- no one nation can attest to being the center of global capitalism.
The transnational corporation links this network of nations. This corporation is the economic node that feeds the network.
Unpredented global unity and fragmentation took place because of transnationalization of production. Global in the disappearing of a center to capitalism, fragmentation of the production process into subnational localities.
For the first time in history, the "capitalist mode of production appears as an authentically global abstraction"- no longer attached to Europe. Economic fragmentation led to multiculturism. However, Dirlik disagrees and says that capitalism is based on European ideologies and no matter how much it detaches itself from Europe, it will remain of the same ideologies. Thus, even if Europe and North America lose their domination over the capitalist world, their ideologies will still rule the world.
Transnationalization questions the divisions of First, Second and Third Worlds. This has all led to global localism. "Think globally, act locally" comes out of this concept.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)