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.