Maya Disjuncture and Difference

Disjuncture and Difference in the global Culture
By Arjun appadurai


This article begins by asking, “Does globalization mean that local cultures are becoming more homogeneous?

I think that globalization has actually made people more nationalistic because they are searching to define themselves and their culture against the global economy.

I agree that we have to let go of these definitions that are based on opposites, and therefore always create an edge or limit with clear boundaries. We don’t exist in a culture or world with clear boundaries anymore. If “space-time compression” means that we can actually “be” in more than one place at the same time, Internet, travel, networks, blogs, then there are many different associations that define our identity. We are no longer “global/local,” “north/south,” or “black/white.” Instead Arjun Appadurai suggests we must look and think in terms of flows or “scapes” that move through the globe carrying capital, information, images, people, ideas, and technologies.
By changing the terms of reference, or the language we use, we are able to open up a new dimension for looking at our understanding of identity and difference.

He suggests that these “scapes” can be categorized into ethnoscape, mediascape, technoscape, finascape and ideoscape. These “scapes” seem to dynamically organize and move themselves with in a framework of the individual (actor). This could mean that our identity is constructed based on what we do, what we think, where we live and more that actually existing in a constant state of flux.

Issues of deterritorialization in relation to money, commodities, film and people begin to construct a fractured reality. The problem with this new feature of global “scapes” is when two “scapes” fight for power or dominant ideologies. This then creates a disjuncture, evident in nation-state relations. Examples include Quebec separatism, bush invading Iraq, and national and international boarders.

Globalization is not the same as homogenization however it uses a variety of instruments of homogenization. These instruments include armaments, advertising techniques, language, clothing style etc, which are repackaged as national sovereignty, free enterprise, fundamentalism etc. This fight between sameness and difference between these global “flows” and uncertain forms or boundaries of the “scapes” creates a really uncertain placement for individuals and countries. Arjun Appadurai is saying that this is a result of the global cultural process.
Is this is good state to be in? We have acknowledged that globalization does not me homogenization, but does this fluctuating state of the unknown “scapes” with their uncertainties and disjunctures provide us with a stable framework to identify ourselves with? Or will we live in a perpetual state of conflict?