In reading Feld’s article on world music, I can’t help but agree with his underlying point; that ‘world music’ and the issues surrounding it are contingent on how one defines world music. He notes that originally the term ‘world music’ “…was a friendly phrase, a less cumbersome alternative to ethnomusicology, the more strikingly academic term” (146) In calling ‘world music’ by such a name, “the terminological dualism that distinguished world music from music helped reproduce a tense division in the academy, where musics understood as non-Western or ethnically other continued to be routinely partitioned from those of the West” (147). Simply in classifying it ‘world music’ we are marking it is a different and unlike any other genre of music to date. The term ‘world music’ lends itself to the notions of primitivism that Feld discusses throughout his article. (147) While world music may have a different sound than perhaps Westerners are familiar with, it nonetheless deserves to be recognized in the greater classification of music. From this, I believe we should attempt to call it what it is – that is, if we must classify it, it should be placed under the genre that it best falls under. This is in keeping with the assumption that we must classify it in general. The issue of cultural appropriation, or who was the first to create such a sound is more or less tied up in technicalities. Moreover, I am suggesting that society is too hung up on definitions. Our desire to define and categorize has led ‘world music’ to be seen as otherworldly – not fit for any definition of music.
Above I have included two clips (part one and two) of an interview with Youssou N'Dour, a famous singer out of Senegal. He touches on the issue of where his music fits globally. His interview provides an interesting account of how world music is situation on a global scale. According to N’Dour, his music is a combination of all different styles, which is how he has differentiated himself. He notes further along that it is not necessarily the language that one sings in that is important, but rather the music is actually more so the language, therefore, making it the focus. The two clips demonstrates an artist of ‘world music’ who tends to see his music as something that cannot necessarily be defined – as he gives a gives, what sounds like, a new definition to the style of music he creates with collaborators. He claims that the most pertinent thing he takes from Western music is the production, distribution, and promotional methods of putting music out to the public - which is interesting to note. He goes on to suggest that he doesn’t necessarily appropriate any particular aspects of Western music into his own. His interview seems to really emphasize that the issue may not necessarily be appropriation, but rather a collaboration effort in order to derive something new altogether.
It seems to me that the reason North Americans seek something primitive or exotic, is because we have limited ourselves in our definitions of what music is, therefore inhibiting the growth and development of different musical sounds. Youssou N’Dour is a great example of an artist that makes an effort to collaborate with different musical styles, to create a new sound altogether. I think the key lies in the perception of music itself; music is not stagnant, but rather is always changing, and therefore cannot necessarily be grounded by definition. In this way, ‘primitive’ sound, as it may be, is constantly being created.
Works Cited:
Feld, Stephen (2000). ‘A Sweet Lullaby for World Music’. Public Culture, 12 (1): 145-171.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Media Pirates: An Act of Defiance
I really enjoyed this week’s readings and the ideas of Pang and Condry, as they are something that my generation is quite familiar with, and likely participates in as well. I would like to specifically touch upon a particular idea that I felt Pang was alluding to, somewhat, in the beginning of his article, Mediating the Ethics of Technology. The following statement gives suggestion to this idea:
“While piracy operates within this hierarchy, it also defies this system by stripping copyright owners of a certain amount of control in order to place it in the hands of pirates and consumers.” (Pang 90)
I will return to this statement shortly, but first I would like to consider Condry’s article, Culture’s of Music Piracy. Condry illustrates that the sharing of music is a natural occurrence between humans. He goes onto suggest that “we can tape music off radio or the TV, enjoy music in public spaces, and borrow music from friends easily enough”, which, begs the question, if we have all of these other means of accessing music, then why is it that we feel the need to download illegal media? A potential answer to this question, I believe, can be found within the initial quote I gave from Pang. It is this notion of turning control back into the hands of the consumer that is of particular interest. From this, I have come to believe that pirating music or movies can be considered a form of culture jamming.
To clarify, culture jamming is most often seen as a method of “[undermining] the marketing rhetoric of multinational corporations, specifically through such practices as media hoaxing, corporate sabotage, billboard “liberation,” and trademark infringement” (Harold 190). As such, I seek to extend the definition of culture jamming to include the concept of media pirating. This is to say that, what is occurring is far beyond what is natural between humans and is actually a subtle means to which those who participate can challenge dominant ideologies or dominant culture. In these specific cases, dominant culture being, American culture. It was discussed how many American films (Kill Bill being the featured example) appropriate a wide variety of cultures within the story lines themselves. In this way, pirates may feel that a movie doesn’t necessarily belong to those who produced it, therefore giving reason to such subversion. Furthermore, Pang suggests that “most American viewers watching Tarantino’s films know little about Asian cinemas in general” (Pang 142). So in reference to the abundance of pirating that takes place in Asian countries, the ignorant North American then pushes the Asian market to seek a distinct voice. This is of course brought to life through the millions of pirated DVDs that are created. As such, pirating music and DVDs is a form of protest against dominant culture.
With this being said, “a film is not only a commodity but also a complex system of cultural representation, in which cultural exchanges are so complex that today’s copyright discourse can never clearly differentiate between copyright infringement and cultural appropriations” (136). The pirating movement, if I may call it such, is then not necessarily a disobedient act, but is actually symbolically representative of the consumer’s desire to take control and to defy American dominance.
Annalise Moser highlights through her discussion of parades as a form of protest for women in Peru, the importance of these symbolic actions. As she terms it, democratic discourse is a method in which one seeks to have their voice heard symbolically through the public sphere (181). In this sense, pirating is a means of reaching out to the public sphere, in an effort to express a desire for greater control. In Moser’s discussion of the Peruvian women’s parade tactics, we can see how pirating “presents a reply to everyday life which is at the same time an inversion, an intensification and a manipulation of that life” (180).
To American’s we can see that “a pirated film and a pirated computer program produce the same political signification: an American product being violated by another country.” (Pang, 139) In this respect, the American crackdown on pirated music and DVDs is not necessarily an act of ethics, but rather, it is a realization that their ideologies are being challenged.
Works Cited:
Harold, Christine. “Pranking Rhetoric: “Culture Jamming” as Media Activism.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 21, 3 (2004): 189-211.
Moser, Annalise. “Acts of Resistance: The Performance of Women’s Grassroots Protest in Peru.” Social Movement Studies 2, 2 (2003): 177-190.
Pang, Laikwan (2004). ‘Mediating the Ethics of Technology: Hollywood and Movie Piracy.’ Culture, Theory and Critique, 45 (1): 19-32.
Pang, Laikwan (2005). ‘Copying Kill Bill’. Social Text, 23 (2): 133-153
Condry, Ian (2004). ‘Cultures of Music Piracy: An Ethnographic Comparison of the US and Japan’. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 7 (3): 343-363.
“While piracy operates within this hierarchy, it also defies this system by stripping copyright owners of a certain amount of control in order to place it in the hands of pirates and consumers.” (Pang 90)
I will return to this statement shortly, but first I would like to consider Condry’s article, Culture’s of Music Piracy. Condry illustrates that the sharing of music is a natural occurrence between humans. He goes onto suggest that “we can tape music off radio or the TV, enjoy music in public spaces, and borrow music from friends easily enough”, which, begs the question, if we have all of these other means of accessing music, then why is it that we feel the need to download illegal media? A potential answer to this question, I believe, can be found within the initial quote I gave from Pang. It is this notion of turning control back into the hands of the consumer that is of particular interest. From this, I have come to believe that pirating music or movies can be considered a form of culture jamming.
To clarify, culture jamming is most often seen as a method of “[undermining] the marketing rhetoric of multinational corporations, specifically through such practices as media hoaxing, corporate sabotage, billboard “liberation,” and trademark infringement” (Harold 190). As such, I seek to extend the definition of culture jamming to include the concept of media pirating. This is to say that, what is occurring is far beyond what is natural between humans and is actually a subtle means to which those who participate can challenge dominant ideologies or dominant culture. In these specific cases, dominant culture being, American culture. It was discussed how many American films (Kill Bill being the featured example) appropriate a wide variety of cultures within the story lines themselves. In this way, pirates may feel that a movie doesn’t necessarily belong to those who produced it, therefore giving reason to such subversion. Furthermore, Pang suggests that “most American viewers watching Tarantino’s films know little about Asian cinemas in general” (Pang 142). So in reference to the abundance of pirating that takes place in Asian countries, the ignorant North American then pushes the Asian market to seek a distinct voice. This is of course brought to life through the millions of pirated DVDs that are created. As such, pirating music and DVDs is a form of protest against dominant culture.
With this being said, “a film is not only a commodity but also a complex system of cultural representation, in which cultural exchanges are so complex that today’s copyright discourse can never clearly differentiate between copyright infringement and cultural appropriations” (136). The pirating movement, if I may call it such, is then not necessarily a disobedient act, but is actually symbolically representative of the consumer’s desire to take control and to defy American dominance.
Annalise Moser highlights through her discussion of parades as a form of protest for women in Peru, the importance of these symbolic actions. As she terms it, democratic discourse is a method in which one seeks to have their voice heard symbolically through the public sphere (181). In this sense, pirating is a means of reaching out to the public sphere, in an effort to express a desire for greater control. In Moser’s discussion of the Peruvian women’s parade tactics, we can see how pirating “presents a reply to everyday life which is at the same time an inversion, an intensification and a manipulation of that life” (180).
To American’s we can see that “a pirated film and a pirated computer program produce the same political signification: an American product being violated by another country.” (Pang, 139) In this respect, the American crackdown on pirated music and DVDs is not necessarily an act of ethics, but rather, it is a realization that their ideologies are being challenged.
Works Cited:
Harold, Christine. “Pranking Rhetoric: “Culture Jamming” as Media Activism.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 21, 3 (2004): 189-211.
Moser, Annalise. “Acts of Resistance: The Performance of Women’s Grassroots Protest in Peru.” Social Movement Studies 2, 2 (2003): 177-190.
Pang, Laikwan (2004). ‘Mediating the Ethics of Technology: Hollywood and Movie Piracy.’ Culture, Theory and Critique, 45 (1): 19-32.
Pang, Laikwan (2005). ‘Copying Kill Bill’. Social Text, 23 (2): 133-153
Condry, Ian (2004). ‘Cultures of Music Piracy: An Ethnographic Comparison of the US and Japan’. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 7 (3): 343-363.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
It's All the Same Story...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7257489.stm
Two of the most interesting topics from the second day of presentations were on SARS and the Rwandan Genocide. I think these two presentations pose two very distinct ways in which the media was utilized within North America.
I placed an article at the top of this posting regarding the conflict in Darfur. It is a very similar occurrence to the Rwandan Genocide issue, in terms of media coverage and the action taken by North American’s. The article notes, right at the beginning that, “the deep concern about Darfur felt internationally has not been matched by a similar determination to intervene.” According to this particular presentation, this seems to have been the case with Rwanda as well. The article also notes that "if there was genocide, then it happened in 2003/4. By the time the world got round to acting, it was too late." This also seems to be no more than a duplicate reaction by North America towards Darfur, as was the case with Rwanda.
I think the article highlights an extremely important point in it’s reasoning for the lack of outside support; “one of the problems for the outside world is that it has been dealing with a very determined government unwilling to concede much in what it sees as a major threat on its own territory.” I think this point is only further validated by the SARS issue. What began as a foreign issue only became significant with North American media, after it became a threat domestically. I definitely see the actions, or rather lack of action in both Darfur and Rwanda as a result of media gatekeepers regulating what gets placed on the media agenda, and as a result, the public agenda. Since the public rely on the media to provide information on all areas of the globe, the lack of attention given to these two areas seriously hindered North American involvement. At the same time, one may argue that the public does not have a great deal of interest in foreign affairs, hence why little attention is given to these issues. While it is difficult to determine which position is correct, it seems to me that the topic of SARS, Darfur and Rwanda are a few examples, out of hundreds of possible choices in the media, which exemplify this type of difference (attention given to topics that only affect North America). There are, I’m sure, many different contingencies that affected North American involvement in Darfur and Rwanda, but as far as media coverage goes, it doesn't seem as though the cycle of narcissistic coverage will end anytime soon.
Two of the most interesting topics from the second day of presentations were on SARS and the Rwandan Genocide. I think these two presentations pose two very distinct ways in which the media was utilized within North America.
I placed an article at the top of this posting regarding the conflict in Darfur. It is a very similar occurrence to the Rwandan Genocide issue, in terms of media coverage and the action taken by North American’s. The article notes, right at the beginning that, “the deep concern about Darfur felt internationally has not been matched by a similar determination to intervene.” According to this particular presentation, this seems to have been the case with Rwanda as well. The article also notes that "if there was genocide, then it happened in 2003/4. By the time the world got round to acting, it was too late." This also seems to be no more than a duplicate reaction by North America towards Darfur, as was the case with Rwanda.
I think the article highlights an extremely important point in it’s reasoning for the lack of outside support; “one of the problems for the outside world is that it has been dealing with a very determined government unwilling to concede much in what it sees as a major threat on its own territory.” I think this point is only further validated by the SARS issue. What began as a foreign issue only became significant with North American media, after it became a threat domestically. I definitely see the actions, or rather lack of action in both Darfur and Rwanda as a result of media gatekeepers regulating what gets placed on the media agenda, and as a result, the public agenda. Since the public rely on the media to provide information on all areas of the globe, the lack of attention given to these two areas seriously hindered North American involvement. At the same time, one may argue that the public does not have a great deal of interest in foreign affairs, hence why little attention is given to these issues. While it is difficult to determine which position is correct, it seems to me that the topic of SARS, Darfur and Rwanda are a few examples, out of hundreds of possible choices in the media, which exemplify this type of difference (attention given to topics that only affect North America). There are, I’m sure, many different contingencies that affected North American involvement in Darfur and Rwanda, but as far as media coverage goes, it doesn't seem as though the cycle of narcissistic coverage will end anytime soon.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Solipsism: A North American Problem
It was really interesting to hear this week’s presentations, as they helped to give concrete examples to topics that are often not so tangible. The Fidel Castro presentation proposed some excellent ideas, which I feel are often underlying causes of many issues of international communication. By analyzing articles from three different newspapers, they were able to demonstrate that perspective is “(1) rooted in fundamental ideologies as characterized by social and political systems, and is (2) articulated using language that legitimizes those ideas”, and did so all within the context of Fidel Castro’s resignation. Meaning that, each country would have a separate perspective on Castro’s resignation and its implications, and would have such a perspective because of its language and ideologies. The way I understood this, was that it is often difficult for countries to consider the situation of another region because they are so deeply rooted within their own system of beliefs. Many countries have a difficult time placing themselves in another’s shoes because they are only able to see things through the lens of their own ideology and language.
I think this is only further enforced through the Security and Partnership Prosperity (SPP). Prior to this presentation, I was completely unaware of such an organization. The most alarming aspect though, was the list of committee members. The SPP exemplifies how difficult it is to have a wide range of views when organizations, such as this exist. The SPP only further enhances a single minded view. The Castro presentation demonstrated that there was a lack of understanding between countries as a result of deeply rooted ideologies and languages, and this is only made more difficult with narrow-minded organizations. As a result, countries find it difficult to see outside themselves.
Starbucks seems to be an issue with two faces. On the surface, Starbucks seems to contradict my previous statements. It understands that people come from different walks of life, and therefore, caters and respects their needs all while keeping corporate interest. This is demonstrated in the presentation through the company’s fair treatment of employees, good work atmosphere and fair treatment of coffee producing nations. The underlying truth though, seems to be that Starbucks doesn’t consider other points of view. The company sells it’s lifestyle to other countries, without considering its unique culture, as was exemplified in many of the presentation’s customer comments. Starbucks would like us to believe that we have the best of both worlds; a profit oriented approach, while maintaining the fair treatment of all third parties (environmental, human, cultural, etc).
The Fidel presentation made reference to two cultural studies courses, and have encouraged me to think of a particular Communication Studies course that was brought to my mind; Concepts of Culture (CMST 2M03). I believe that many countries (particularly North America) are suffering from solipsism. As I understand it, this is a stage in development in which one perceives their view to be the view. To legitimize my understanding slightly more, Merriam-Webster defines solipsism as, ”a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; also : extreme egocentrism. If this is not an acute definition of the behaviors of North America, then I don’t know what is.
Works Cited:
Merriam-Webster Online. “Solipsism.” 2008.
I think this is only further enforced through the Security and Partnership Prosperity (SPP). Prior to this presentation, I was completely unaware of such an organization. The most alarming aspect though, was the list of committee members. The SPP exemplifies how difficult it is to have a wide range of views when organizations, such as this exist. The SPP only further enhances a single minded view. The Castro presentation demonstrated that there was a lack of understanding between countries as a result of deeply rooted ideologies and languages, and this is only made more difficult with narrow-minded organizations. As a result, countries find it difficult to see outside themselves.
Starbucks seems to be an issue with two faces. On the surface, Starbucks seems to contradict my previous statements. It understands that people come from different walks of life, and therefore, caters and respects their needs all while keeping corporate interest. This is demonstrated in the presentation through the company’s fair treatment of employees, good work atmosphere and fair treatment of coffee producing nations. The underlying truth though, seems to be that Starbucks doesn’t consider other points of view. The company sells it’s lifestyle to other countries, without considering its unique culture, as was exemplified in many of the presentation’s customer comments. Starbucks would like us to believe that we have the best of both worlds; a profit oriented approach, while maintaining the fair treatment of all third parties (environmental, human, cultural, etc).
The Fidel presentation made reference to two cultural studies courses, and have encouraged me to think of a particular Communication Studies course that was brought to my mind; Concepts of Culture (CMST 2M03). I believe that many countries (particularly North America) are suffering from solipsism. As I understand it, this is a stage in development in which one perceives their view to be the view. To legitimize my understanding slightly more, Merriam-Webster defines solipsism as, ”a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; also : extreme egocentrism. If this is not an acute definition of the behaviors of North America, then I don’t know what is.
Works Cited:
Merriam-Webster Online. “Solipsism.” 2008.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Appadurai and the Space Race
Above I provide both a video and a link to an article that I have found to be of interest to this week’s discussion. They both deal with the same topic; discussion over the possibility of a new space race between the U.S and China. The article goes into some depth about how China received American information regarding space technology, and how comparable China’s missions are to the U.S’. The clip discusses the general implications of a space race but begins to note near the end some of Appadurai’s thoughts on deterritorialization.
The issue of the space race is neatly summed up in the following statement from Appadurai:
“It is in the fertile ground of deterritorialization, in which money, commodities, and persons are involved in ceaselessly chasing each other around the world…”(38)
This particular issue is a great example of the disjunctive flows Appadurai discusses in “Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy”. It is in this topic that, I believe, we can find almost every ‘scape’ discussed in this week’s article. I will briefly touch upon examples of each, to provide a firmer grasp of Appadurai’s connections to the space race.
One can see ethnoscapes in the Time article, discussing how DongFan Chung felt he had ties to his Chinese nation, but was working in the U.S. Furthermore, the transfer of information that took place between Chung and other individuals in China demonstrates a type of disjunctive flow. Technoscapes are clear in this case, where the race itself, on the surface, is one of technology. There is a great deal of money spent, in both the U.S and China, on the development of this technology. One might even go so far as to say, more so than most other advancements in technology. Perhaps arguably one of the most dominant flows arises out of the ideoscape; the development of power that is achieved through even just competing, much less winning the race. Closely tied to this idea, one might consider how the rest of the world perceives such a race and how it is portrayed in the media through the flows of the mediascape. Each of these imagined flows can be compared to one another to determine a variety of different disjunctures (scale, speed, etc.), as Appadurai suggests. For example, one might conclude that power is an extremely dominant flow in this race, flowing outwards, while large sums of money are constantly flowing inwards to create the various technologies. In addition, one might consider the flows that occur internally within each country, or consider comparing the flows of the U.S against those of China. In general, it is clear that within this issue alone, there are numerous disjunctures occurring, and can be considered from a variety of angles.
Appadurai goes on to mention the following: “What I would like to propose is that we begin to think of the configuration of cultural forms in today’s world as fundamentally fractal, that is, as possessing no Euclidean boundaries, structures, or regularities.”(46) This is clearly exemplified in the fact that this topic deals with the issue of space (literally). No longer are we confined to planet earth, but deterritorialization has taken us so far as to deal with the dynamics of space. These ideas are touched upon at the end of the video clip provided, suggesting that space is up for grabs.
In the above analysis of the different disjunctive flows, I found myself unsure as to what ‘scape the flow of information would fall under. I am specifically referring to the information that was passed along by Chung. While it could potentially fit under the mediascape category, it doesn’t seem to be altogether represented there. Mediascapes suggests travel along some form of media which is open to the public. In Chung’s case, media wasn’t really put to use. I can’t see the situation fitting into any other category well. This leads me to believe that it should have a category of its own. The problem this presents, is that often, these flows are generally unknown. It is clear though, through the space race that information alone, can prove to be a powerful flow.
Furthermore, the example of the space race brings up questions of dominance. What can be said for flows that are more predominant than others and how does this play a part in the ideas of heterogenization? I am speaking of largescale, widespread issues such as the space race, arms trade or drug trade. If issues are large enough, involve international bodies, and revolve around topics of great consequence (such as the question of power) does this not lead to questions of cultural imperialism and globalization? I would like to turn the tables slightly and note that Appadurai’s description of disjunctive flows and heterogenization tie in quite nicely with my previous blog entry on the inability of cultural imperialism to explain world communication. Appardurai states that “The crucial point, however, is that the United States is no longer the puppeteer of a world system of images but is only one node of a complex transnational construction of imaginary landscapes” (31). This being said, I am not disagreeing with my previous blog’s statements, but I am curious as to how dominant flows play a part in Appadurai’s suggestions.
Works Cited:
Appadurai, A. "Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy". Modernity at Large Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. University of Minnesota, 1996.
The issue of the space race is neatly summed up in the following statement from Appadurai:
“It is in the fertile ground of deterritorialization, in which money, commodities, and persons are involved in ceaselessly chasing each other around the world…”(38)
This particular issue is a great example of the disjunctive flows Appadurai discusses in “Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy”. It is in this topic that, I believe, we can find almost every ‘scape’ discussed in this week’s article. I will briefly touch upon examples of each, to provide a firmer grasp of Appadurai’s connections to the space race.
One can see ethnoscapes in the Time article, discussing how DongFan Chung felt he had ties to his Chinese nation, but was working in the U.S. Furthermore, the transfer of information that took place between Chung and other individuals in China demonstrates a type of disjunctive flow. Technoscapes are clear in this case, where the race itself, on the surface, is one of technology. There is a great deal of money spent, in both the U.S and China, on the development of this technology. One might even go so far as to say, more so than most other advancements in technology. Perhaps arguably one of the most dominant flows arises out of the ideoscape; the development of power that is achieved through even just competing, much less winning the race. Closely tied to this idea, one might consider how the rest of the world perceives such a race and how it is portrayed in the media through the flows of the mediascape. Each of these imagined flows can be compared to one another to determine a variety of different disjunctures (scale, speed, etc.), as Appadurai suggests. For example, one might conclude that power is an extremely dominant flow in this race, flowing outwards, while large sums of money are constantly flowing inwards to create the various technologies. In addition, one might consider the flows that occur internally within each country, or consider comparing the flows of the U.S against those of China. In general, it is clear that within this issue alone, there are numerous disjunctures occurring, and can be considered from a variety of angles.
Appadurai goes on to mention the following: “What I would like to propose is that we begin to think of the configuration of cultural forms in today’s world as fundamentally fractal, that is, as possessing no Euclidean boundaries, structures, or regularities.”(46) This is clearly exemplified in the fact that this topic deals with the issue of space (literally). No longer are we confined to planet earth, but deterritorialization has taken us so far as to deal with the dynamics of space. These ideas are touched upon at the end of the video clip provided, suggesting that space is up for grabs.
In the above analysis of the different disjunctive flows, I found myself unsure as to what ‘scape the flow of information would fall under. I am specifically referring to the information that was passed along by Chung. While it could potentially fit under the mediascape category, it doesn’t seem to be altogether represented there. Mediascapes suggests travel along some form of media which is open to the public. In Chung’s case, media wasn’t really put to use. I can’t see the situation fitting into any other category well. This leads me to believe that it should have a category of its own. The problem this presents, is that often, these flows are generally unknown. It is clear though, through the space race that information alone, can prove to be a powerful flow.
Furthermore, the example of the space race brings up questions of dominance. What can be said for flows that are more predominant than others and how does this play a part in the ideas of heterogenization? I am speaking of largescale, widespread issues such as the space race, arms trade or drug trade. If issues are large enough, involve international bodies, and revolve around topics of great consequence (such as the question of power) does this not lead to questions of cultural imperialism and globalization? I would like to turn the tables slightly and note that Appadurai’s description of disjunctive flows and heterogenization tie in quite nicely with my previous blog entry on the inability of cultural imperialism to explain world communication. Appardurai states that “The crucial point, however, is that the United States is no longer the puppeteer of a world system of images but is only one node of a complex transnational construction of imaginary landscapes” (31). This being said, I am not disagreeing with my previous blog’s statements, but I am curious as to how dominant flows play a part in Appadurai’s suggestions.
Works Cited:
Appadurai, A. "Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy". Modernity at Large Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. University of Minnesota, 1996.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)