Rorty’s Globalization…..
In this essay, Rorty is responding to the idea that the present resurgence of historically connected animosities and cultural concerns stem from a postmodern skepticism and philosophically rooted fragility of universality. He does not agree that philosophy can be the ground on which the world fractures, since this is not the residing place of publicly shared utopian hopes.
He suggests that these two hopes of constructing a classless society have been embodied within Marx’s scenario as well as within the intellectuals’ belief in peace through technological progress, a democratic system and a free market. He then clarifies his opinion that neither of these are happening at present, pointing out the similarities between America and Brazil.
The fact that globalization has driven the economy beyond the control of political boundaries is a problem that Rorty believes to be rectifiable only through a globalization of the political institution. He does not believe that philosophical discourse is capable of changing things on a global scale. He sees the rampant philosophical skepticism to be a symptom of the present state rather than a cause of it. Historically, utopian philosophers have been parasitic to historical narrative. He sees the only progress within this discourse since the time of Mill being the power of philosophers to identify “blind spots”, places that need further attention.
I don’t know if I agree with Rorty or not. Or should I say I don’t know whether he would agree with me or not. I do as well think that philosophy is symptomatic of its time, but I also think that the fusion of philosophy and politics together is the way to create the most dramatic and long-lasting changes. In this situation it is ideally the philosophy that would be the controlling force, and thus can in this sense truly be the root of something new. Perhaps it is not the philosophy that is focusing on defining the present so much as the philosophy that is revealing the present that matters. I suppose the difference is between truly understanding something and forcing something.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Globalization, the politics of identity and social hope
by Richard Rorty
Rorty discsusses the loss of faith in the ieda of a uiversal global culture resulting from the failure of the Maxirst and non-maxist scernarios for utopian global classless society. There has been a shift away from a historical narrative and utopian dreams toward a philosophy and such poics as identity, difference, self subject, truth and reason. He talks of this kind of philosophy as being relevent to politics because it encourages people to have a self-image where democracy is central to that belief. This anti-authoritarian philosphy allows peopple to set aside diffferences in identity to allow for the idea of an image of global human adventure. This seems to me to be just as uptopian as what has come before just adiifferent way of thinking about it it still is tied to an idea of progress and an ideal golbal culture.
Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy
by Arjun Appadurai
Appadurai discuuses the way we as people, our information and technology and money are moved around the world. These are talked about in different scapes, ethnoscapes, technoscapes, financscapes, mediascapes, and ideoscapes which is the model of global cultural flow. The resulting lanscapes create by the disunctures between these different flows is what is of interest to Appadurai.
What interests me anout this article is the discussion of the media and how it is received by different people around the world and that the lines bewtween the ficxtional landscapes that we see is blurred leading to the construction of imagined worlds. I thin this is interesting in terms of how we may imagine a place or thing to be and because we may be so far removed from the actual experience of the thing that we create a sudo reality of our own in our minds that holds ony small bits of reality within it. Imagine then what a fragmented world our world becomes in the minds of so many diverse people all over the world. It is these samnesses and differences among people and the flow s of these scapes that create the radical disjunstures in the landscape that Appadurai is discussing.
by Richard Rorty
Rorty discsusses the loss of faith in the ieda of a uiversal global culture resulting from the failure of the Maxirst and non-maxist scernarios for utopian global classless society. There has been a shift away from a historical narrative and utopian dreams toward a philosophy and such poics as identity, difference, self subject, truth and reason. He talks of this kind of philosophy as being relevent to politics because it encourages people to have a self-image where democracy is central to that belief. This anti-authoritarian philosphy allows peopple to set aside diffferences in identity to allow for the idea of an image of global human adventure. This seems to me to be just as uptopian as what has come before just adiifferent way of thinking about it it still is tied to an idea of progress and an ideal golbal culture.
Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy
by Arjun Appadurai
Appadurai discuuses the way we as people, our information and technology and money are moved around the world. These are talked about in different scapes, ethnoscapes, technoscapes, financscapes, mediascapes, and ideoscapes which is the model of global cultural flow. The resulting lanscapes create by the disunctures between these different flows is what is of interest to Appadurai.
What interests me anout this article is the discussion of the media and how it is received by different people around the world and that the lines bewtween the ficxtional landscapes that we see is blurred leading to the construction of imagined worlds. I thin this is interesting in terms of how we may imagine a place or thing to be and because we may be so far removed from the actual experience of the thing that we create a sudo reality of our own in our minds that holds ony small bits of reality within it. Imagine then what a fragmented world our world becomes in the minds of so many diverse people all over the world. It is these samnesses and differences among people and the flow s of these scapes that create the radical disjunstures in the landscape that Appadurai is discussing.
Week Seven Readings
Arjun Appadurai’s "Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Economy"
Richard Rorty's "Globalization, The Politics of Identity and Social Hope"
In " Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Economy," Appadurai identifies five ‘dimensions’ of global cultural flow, namely: ehtnoscapes, technoscapes, finanscapes, mediascapes and ideoscapes. He uses these ‘scapes’ as a way of describing ebbs and flows of the new global cultural economy.
‘Ethnoscape’ refers to the landscape of shifting tourists, workers, immigrants and refugees throughout the world. ‘Technoscape’ refers to the ever-increasing flows of technology across borders. ‘Finascape’ refers to the flow of global capital through currency markets, stock exchanges and commodity markets. ‘Mediascape’ is used to describe the distribution of information through newspapers, magazines, films, television and other forms of media. Finally, ‘ideoscape’ refers to the concatenations of ideas, terms and images into ideologies such as ‘freedom’, sovereignty’, and ‘democracy’.
Appadurai identifies deterritorialization as a major force in the world, where groups of people are no longer defined by political borders and can create invented homelands wherever they go. Deterritorialization is not limited to people, but can be applied to money and commodities as well as they are, in Appadurai’s words, “ceaselessly chasing each other around the world.”
Disjuncture forms the basis of the flow of these ‘scapes’, becoming both the means of their creation and of identification. Flows of global capital occur because of differences in the cost of goods and labour around the world. Mass media of certain types flow from the areas of its creation to areas where it is not being created. Cultural differences help to create identity. Cultural identifiers flow throughout the world, being adopted, internalized and abandoned as people, ideas, money, media and technology shift across the globe.
In "Globalization, The Politics of Identity and Social Hope," Richard Rorty argues against political deliberation using a philosophical discussion of ‘identity’, ‘difference’, ‘subject’, ‘truth’ and ‘reason’. Rorty argues that John Dewey’s view is more appropriate to political discussion - that nothing “can take precedence over the result of agreement freely reached by members of a democratic community.”
Rorty notes that the achievement of a classless utopia was a goal of both the Marxists and the post World War II capitalists who believed that peace and progress would lead to prosperity within the free market, allowing welfare states to ensure equal opportunity for everyone. Many thinkers and politicians have given up on the idea of creating such a society. With the rise of globalization, an overclass of the super-rich has taken over economies all over the world. Because this overclass operates freely across borders, there is little control left in the hands of governments.
Rorty postulates that the egalitarian utopia is still a noble goal and might be achieved through the belief “that there is no source of authority other than the free agreement of human beings.” He believes that this type of discussion can empower people to more fully inhabit their role in democracy.
Richard Rorty's "Globalization, The Politics of Identity and Social Hope"
In " Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Economy," Appadurai identifies five ‘dimensions’ of global cultural flow, namely: ehtnoscapes, technoscapes, finanscapes, mediascapes and ideoscapes. He uses these ‘scapes’ as a way of describing ebbs and flows of the new global cultural economy.
‘Ethnoscape’ refers to the landscape of shifting tourists, workers, immigrants and refugees throughout the world. ‘Technoscape’ refers to the ever-increasing flows of technology across borders. ‘Finascape’ refers to the flow of global capital through currency markets, stock exchanges and commodity markets. ‘Mediascape’ is used to describe the distribution of information through newspapers, magazines, films, television and other forms of media. Finally, ‘ideoscape’ refers to the concatenations of ideas, terms and images into ideologies such as ‘freedom’, sovereignty’, and ‘democracy’.
Appadurai identifies deterritorialization as a major force in the world, where groups of people are no longer defined by political borders and can create invented homelands wherever they go. Deterritorialization is not limited to people, but can be applied to money and commodities as well as they are, in Appadurai’s words, “ceaselessly chasing each other around the world.”
Disjuncture forms the basis of the flow of these ‘scapes’, becoming both the means of their creation and of identification. Flows of global capital occur because of differences in the cost of goods and labour around the world. Mass media of certain types flow from the areas of its creation to areas where it is not being created. Cultural differences help to create identity. Cultural identifiers flow throughout the world, being adopted, internalized and abandoned as people, ideas, money, media and technology shift across the globe.
In "Globalization, The Politics of Identity and Social Hope," Richard Rorty argues against political deliberation using a philosophical discussion of ‘identity’, ‘difference’, ‘subject’, ‘truth’ and ‘reason’. Rorty argues that John Dewey’s view is more appropriate to political discussion - that nothing “can take precedence over the result of agreement freely reached by members of a democratic community.”
Rorty notes that the achievement of a classless utopia was a goal of both the Marxists and the post World War II capitalists who believed that peace and progress would lead to prosperity within the free market, allowing welfare states to ensure equal opportunity for everyone. Many thinkers and politicians have given up on the idea of creating such a society. With the rise of globalization, an overclass of the super-rich has taken over economies all over the world. Because this overclass operates freely across borders, there is little control left in the hands of governments.
Rorty postulates that the egalitarian utopia is still a noble goal and might be achieved through the belief “that there is no source of authority other than the free agreement of human beings.” He believes that this type of discussion can empower people to more fully inhabit their role in democracy.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Appardurai
Appardurai’s Disjuncture and Difference…
In this commentary on the present globalization and cross-pollination of cultural identities Appadurai is describing a new world construction composed of various scapes. These communication-rich spaces act as the battlegrounds between nations and states, sameness and difference.
He describes these spaces as a way of exploring and understanding present disjuncture between economy, culture and politics. He uses the word ‘scape’ to evoke the fluid and irregular forms that these worlds take, which he believes are similar to the indefinable and complex shifts of international capital. I will briefly touch on the various ones he has defined: ethnoscapes—the landscape of persons in a shifting world such as tourists, immigrants etc.; technoscapes—highspeed exchange of a fluid technology involving communication, production etc.; finanscapes—the movement of mega-money at high speeds THESE THREE SCAPES ARE DISJUNCTIVE AND UNPREDICTABLE ON A GLOBAL LEVEL; mediascapes—the distribution of electronic ability to produce and disseminate information, as in newspapers, television stations etc. (full of ethnoscapes) which invariably produce ‘imagined worlds’; and ideoscapes—tending toward the political, these constructions involve ideologies of states and movements, and are similar in nature to mediascapes. The ideoscape is prone to injections from intellectuals, complicating the fluidity.
It is the disjunctures between these scapes that have become central to global politics. According to Appardurai, deterritorialization has lead to a melding of class worlds, opening a whole new market to connect people back to their homelands. It has created new fears and new tastes. The ground of deterritorialization is where “money, commodities and persons are involved in ceaselessly chasing each other around the world…”(226). The battle between nation and state is a battle of imagination and is intrinsically linked to this complicated global situation
Through ‘production fetishism’ and ‘fetishism of the consumer’, Appardurai believes there is an illusion being created. It is an illusion which is feeding the globalization of culture and firing the battle between nation and state. The state has taken on the role of supporting a repatriation of difference which, according to the author, exacerbates the internal politics of homogenization. Thus there is a continual and mutual state of conflict that is fueled by the disjunctures of these new and uncertain landscapes.
In this commentary on the present globalization and cross-pollination of cultural identities Appadurai is describing a new world construction composed of various scapes. These communication-rich spaces act as the battlegrounds between nations and states, sameness and difference.
He describes these spaces as a way of exploring and understanding present disjuncture between economy, culture and politics. He uses the word ‘scape’ to evoke the fluid and irregular forms that these worlds take, which he believes are similar to the indefinable and complex shifts of international capital. I will briefly touch on the various ones he has defined: ethnoscapes—the landscape of persons in a shifting world such as tourists, immigrants etc.; technoscapes—highspeed exchange of a fluid technology involving communication, production etc.; finanscapes—the movement of mega-money at high speeds THESE THREE SCAPES ARE DISJUNCTIVE AND UNPREDICTABLE ON A GLOBAL LEVEL; mediascapes—the distribution of electronic ability to produce and disseminate information, as in newspapers, television stations etc. (full of ethnoscapes) which invariably produce ‘imagined worlds’; and ideoscapes—tending toward the political, these constructions involve ideologies of states and movements, and are similar in nature to mediascapes. The ideoscape is prone to injections from intellectuals, complicating the fluidity.
It is the disjunctures between these scapes that have become central to global politics. According to Appardurai, deterritorialization has lead to a melding of class worlds, opening a whole new market to connect people back to their homelands. It has created new fears and new tastes. The ground of deterritorialization is where “money, commodities and persons are involved in ceaselessly chasing each other around the world…”(226). The battle between nation and state is a battle of imagination and is intrinsically linked to this complicated global situation
Through ‘production fetishism’ and ‘fetishism of the consumer’, Appardurai believes there is an illusion being created. It is an illusion which is feeding the globalization of culture and firing the battle between nation and state. The state has taken on the role of supporting a repatriation of difference which, according to the author, exacerbates the internal politics of homogenization. Thus there is a continual and mutual state of conflict that is fueled by the disjunctures of these new and uncertain landscapes.
Monday, March 5, 2007
Disjuncture and Difference & Globalization, The Politics of Identity and Social Hope
This article compounds the ideas of the homogenization/globalization to explore the complexities associated as such with these processes. The author inserts a number of coined phrases in order to allocate ideas to parts of a very complex situation. Globalization is not simply the Americanization that is feared (primarily perpetuated through mass media) but acts at a much more local scale.
What becomes hopeful is the 'indigenizing' of imposed culture. However the import and export of goods and humans create a high-speed, fractured globalization for both the imported and the exported. People are not able to enjoy the place because the restrictive qualities of local governments prevent total contact. Globalization is a sporadic but constant event.
Forever being chased is the sense of culture. We have multiple levels of culture each identifiable by the larger umbrella for which it is part. Our culture lies both in the past and in the present. We have links to the past that are only kept alive through the participation in the present.
Distance from pure experience creates need for imagined reality. We need to be grounded some how in order to combat globalization. It is our contact with the past that alleviates the rejection of the superficial media culture that saturates us. Interpretation is key to the examination of cultural retention. We occupy a mindscape(created by direct experience) that filters our view. However collective mindscapes have become blurred so as to disjoin members and rejoin them them to the current alleged mindscape in the media.
So what does all this mean? The article has laid out a complex interpretation of the acts of globalization but what is the current trajectory of these scapes? Do we now go about recognizing these disjunctions and begin to establish better more meaningful connections or is the fragmentation of culture the end game? Who then are the new-comers, does that matter?
Rorty's article becomes quite confusing for me. It is hard to put my finger on what he is actually talking about. The relationship of politics and identity seems disconnected. The the 'Canadian Identity' is a kind of misnomer for it is an umbrella for a complex group of interrelationships. However necessary it is to have a governing body there should be a greater acknowledgement of the stakeholders in the nation.
If it is that our fate is to become a homogenized state, is that what we want. Equality is a possible scenario however equality is a relative term all-too overused by governments to stifle the minority voice.
What becomes hopeful is the 'indigenizing' of imposed culture. However the import and export of goods and humans create a high-speed, fractured globalization for both the imported and the exported. People are not able to enjoy the place because the restrictive qualities of local governments prevent total contact. Globalization is a sporadic but constant event.
Forever being chased is the sense of culture. We have multiple levels of culture each identifiable by the larger umbrella for which it is part. Our culture lies both in the past and in the present. We have links to the past that are only kept alive through the participation in the present.
Distance from pure experience creates need for imagined reality. We need to be grounded some how in order to combat globalization. It is our contact with the past that alleviates the rejection of the superficial media culture that saturates us. Interpretation is key to the examination of cultural retention. We occupy a mindscape(created by direct experience) that filters our view. However collective mindscapes have become blurred so as to disjoin members and rejoin them them to the current alleged mindscape in the media.
So what does all this mean? The article has laid out a complex interpretation of the acts of globalization but what is the current trajectory of these scapes? Do we now go about recognizing these disjunctions and begin to establish better more meaningful connections or is the fragmentation of culture the end game? Who then are the new-comers, does that matter?
Rorty's article becomes quite confusing for me. It is hard to put my finger on what he is actually talking about. The relationship of politics and identity seems disconnected. The the 'Canadian Identity' is a kind of misnomer for it is an umbrella for a complex group of interrelationships. However necessary it is to have a governing body there should be a greater acknowledgement of the stakeholders in the nation.
If it is that our fate is to become a homogenized state, is that what we want. Equality is a possible scenario however equality is a relative term all-too overused by governments to stifle the minority voice.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Paul Virilio and Martha Rosler
The Overexposed City
Virilio discusses how technology is creating a disconnection between us and the real world and that our relationship to it is being ever increasingly mediated by technology. He talks about how there is no longer a sense of place for the city where we nolonger know wether we are in it or outside it or even if an edge even exists anymore. The space that is created by technology, by things like the internet, film, television and telecommunications is a space that needs to be addressed, or incorporated into the idea of the city today. Architecture in his mind should deall with this 'technological space-time'. Maybe our ideas of the edge and boundry need to be revised to go beyong a geographical deviding line, where space is not so easily constrained and sectioned. As in the editing of a movie space can be constructed and deconsrtucted at will where the idea of time can be controlled and manipulated to serve the need of the narritive our life has become controlled by the tools we use and these tools contibute to a ruptured concept of this technological space-time.
In the Place of the Public; Observations of a Traveller
Rosler talks about a disconnection to place in regards to the speed at which one travells. The car or bus, the train and the plane all of which are quicker modes of transportation and the quicker one travels the more of a disconnection that is created. If one thinks of the landscape that passes by in the winow of a train one might be disconnected to a specific sens of place but ones perspective is different in terms of how place is seen in its entirety. This total view or more expansive perspective is heightened even more in a plane as you can see yourself in respect to where you are in a ifferent way. I think there is a pysical disconnection with the place but the altered perspective gives one possibly a heightened mental connection to where you place yourself within the world. Maybe this different perpective and disconnection actually gives one the chance to reposition yourself in terms of place, to re-evaluate your position. I think that the idea of the plane and the airport as a placeless place, and and a place of transition is interesting in how it relates to the idea that it is not the destination so much as the journey that is important. How can or even should the plane or airport be more than it is, a means to an end? In some ways the disconnection that technology introduces is brdged by the face to face accesibilty that is offered by travel but the question may remain in what way the litmitless access to the far reaches of the world give to our understanding of where we belong with it.
Virilio discusses how technology is creating a disconnection between us and the real world and that our relationship to it is being ever increasingly mediated by technology. He talks about how there is no longer a sense of place for the city where we nolonger know wether we are in it or outside it or even if an edge even exists anymore. The space that is created by technology, by things like the internet, film, television and telecommunications is a space that needs to be addressed, or incorporated into the idea of the city today. Architecture in his mind should deall with this 'technological space-time'. Maybe our ideas of the edge and boundry need to be revised to go beyong a geographical deviding line, where space is not so easily constrained and sectioned. As in the editing of a movie space can be constructed and deconsrtucted at will where the idea of time can be controlled and manipulated to serve the need of the narritive our life has become controlled by the tools we use and these tools contibute to a ruptured concept of this technological space-time.
In the Place of the Public; Observations of a Traveller
Rosler talks about a disconnection to place in regards to the speed at which one travells. The car or bus, the train and the plane all of which are quicker modes of transportation and the quicker one travels the more of a disconnection that is created. If one thinks of the landscape that passes by in the winow of a train one might be disconnected to a specific sens of place but ones perspective is different in terms of how place is seen in its entirety. This total view or more expansive perspective is heightened even more in a plane as you can see yourself in respect to where you are in a ifferent way. I think there is a pysical disconnection with the place but the altered perspective gives one possibly a heightened mental connection to where you place yourself within the world. Maybe this different perpective and disconnection actually gives one the chance to reposition yourself in terms of place, to re-evaluate your position. I think that the idea of the plane and the airport as a placeless place, and and a place of transition is interesting in how it relates to the idea that it is not the destination so much as the journey that is important. How can or even should the plane or airport be more than it is, a means to an end? In some ways the disconnection that technology introduces is brdged by the face to face accesibilty that is offered by travel but the question may remain in what way the litmitless access to the far reaches of the world give to our understanding of where we belong with it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
