Friday, April 25, 2008

the disappearance of place (1)*

Are we moving towards a world where there are no places anymore, only spaces and flows?

We talk about globalization as a way of promoting diversity, of connecting all the disparate places in the world. But I wonder: does it not just convert our cultural treasures into commodities? Will our saris grace the catwalks of Paris, Milan and New York, before trickling their way to sweatshops and Wal-Marts? Will our ancient mosques and cathedrals suffer the repetive flash of tourist cameras? Will our culinary delicacies end up in a fast food restaurant? Will our ethnic music become a special CD available for sale at the Starbucks at the corner of every block in New York City? Does globalization allow us to experience more? Or does it level everything to a sameness that gives us ever so more, but ever so less. Do we change places into spaces? Spaces where we can go visit, and consume, swallow up all we want from, and then leave.

I graduated from a program supposedly promoting international studies, global exchange and communication. I wonder if it does so much that… or whether it just opens the door for entrance into the “technocractic elite” of today’s global world, those who are disconnected from place, and only inhabit these in-between spaces and flows. When we studied abroad in foreign countries, very few of us took advantage of anything beyond the nightlife, the travel and other forms of consumption afforded to us by our American wealth. But it was easy—because more and more, the so-called globalized world has become organized as such:

"A second major trend of cultural distinctiveness of the elites in the informational society is to create a lifestyle and to design spatial forms aimed at unifying the symbolic environment of the elite around the world, thus superseding the historical specificity of each locale. Thus, there is the construction of a (relatively) secluded space across the world along the connecting lines of the space of flows: international hotels whose decoration, from the design of the room to the color of the towels, is similar all over the world to create a sense of familiarity with the inner world, while inducing abstraction from the surrounding world; airports' VIP lounges, designed to maintain the distance vis-a-vis society in the highways of the space of flows; mobile, personal, on-line access to telecommunications networks, so that the traveler is never lost; and a system of travel arrangements, secretarial services, and reciprocal hosting that maintains a close circle of the corporate elite together through the worshipping of similar rites in all countries.

"Furthermore, there is an increasingly homogeneous lifestyle among the information elite that transcends the cultural borders of all societies: the regular use of SPA installations (even when traveling), and the practice of jogging; the mandatory diet of grilled salmon and green salad, with udon and sashimi providing a Japanese functional equivalent; the "pale chamois" wall color intended to create the cozy atmosphere of the inner space; the ubiquitous laptop computer; the combination of business suits and sportswear; the unisex dressing style, and so on. All these are symbols of an international culture whose identity is not linked to any specific society but to membership in the managerial circles of the informational economy across a global cultural spectrum." (p. 417)


~ The Social Theory of Space and the Theory of the Space of Flows, Manuel Castells

As someone who enjoys the privileges of globalization, and who does enjoy globe trotting, I hope that we can come in contact with other parts of the world the world, without destroying the place, and transforming it into some exotic version of ourselves. I hope that we can tread gently on the different lands of this globe, conferring to each place dignity.

If we do travel, let us not confine ourselves to sanitary hotel rooms and guided tours; let us not turn a blind eye to the skinny, starving children on the streets. Let us not consume a place through the filter of our comfortable privilege, but instead make ourselves vulnerable, and allow ourselves to feel the pain (and the joy) of a location.

Because most notably, Castells’ information elite live far apart from the poor—it is becoming easier and easier for the rich to live in a simulated, safe environment, of their gated communities and airport lounges, far away from the filth and the danger of the streets:

"It is important to grasp that we are dealing here with a reorganization of metropolitan space, involving a drastic diminution of the intersections between lives of the rich and the poor, which transcends traditional social segregation and urban fragmentation…. Rodgers, following Anthony Giddens, conceptualizes the core process as a “disembedding” of elite activities from local territorial contexts, a quasi-utopian attempt to disengage from a suffocating matrix of poverty and social violence."

"Laura Ruggeri (discussing Hong Kong’s Palm Springs) stresses as well the contemporary quest of deracinated Third World elites for a “ real imitation life,” modeled on television images of a mythified Southern California, that “to succeed must be bounded – [i.e.], isolated from the ordinary landscape."

"Fortified, fantasy-themed enclaves and edge cities, desembedded from their own social landscapes but integrated into globalization’s cyber-California floating in the digital ether- this brings us full circle to Philip K. Dick. In this ‘”gilded captivity,” Jeremy Seabrook adds, the Third World urban bourgeoisie “cease to be citizens of their own country and become nomads belong to, and owing allegiance to, a superterrestrial topography of money; they become patriots of wealth, nationalists of an elusive, golden nowhere.”

~ Planet of the Slums, Mike Davis

And I wonder, what will become of the glitz and glamour of globalization, when its underbelly is anything but? What hubris will remain of our legacy? (Sameness? Simulation? The loss of the real?) Because we know all that rises to such Babel-like proportions must eventually fall.

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,
The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

~ Ozymandias, Percy Shelley

* Something that has been on my mind recently. These are scattered thoughts and interest tidbits I have been reading.

8 comments:

Nicholas said...

"elusive, golden nowhere." Beautiful.

When my family goes on vacation, we never stay in resorts and my mom always researches our own itinerary. I like this practice a lot, and to some extent you do get a less two-dimensional perspective on the places you visit.

When we went to Puerto Rico after I graduated high school, instead of staying at a resort in San Juan, we rented the bottom floor of a couple's house in what was more the countryside. One of my first memories of the trip is driving through breathtaking scenery and seeing all of the garbage (not litter, garbage) dumped along the sides of the road.

We usually spend a lot of time getting lost and turning around, but I think the trips have been much more rewarding than they would have been if we bought the packaged set.

M. Weed said...

It all sounds so much like feudalism. "Elite" is just a fancy contemporary word for nobility.

Most people understand that it would be crass to suggest that they are superior by blood. But that's not because they're egalitarians. It's equally crass to suggest that your superiority or entitlement is a result of your own personal achievement, but that is in fact what most people presuppose.

Jonathan said...

I love that poem.

Also, do you think that the there is net cultural destruction inherent in economic development? If not, how do we pursue development while retaining culture? And if so, how do we determine the efficient rate of development? Or, to put it in Economic terms, how do we determine where the marginal benefit from development equals its marginal cost?

l e i g h c i a said...

That's good question. I definitely don't have any answer, but some initial thoughts: I don't think it's very hard for there to be economic development without some cultural destruction. Because economic development is going to change things, which is going to change atleast some aspect of how people live. I don't really think in terms of economics, so maybe the relevant question that I would ask isn't so much about what's the efficient rate of development, but rather how's it pursued, and whether the people whose culture is most being changed, feel like they have ownership or participation in the process (which would probably also mitigate some of the cultural destruction). It's one thing to work in a sweatshop owned by some foreign investor making saris for some foreigner in another country vs. being part of a co-op that makes sari to sell to foreigners. Also, sometimes cultural change isn't bad, because not every aspect of every culture is good. On the flip side, and I think that's what you're suggesting in your comment, economic development isn't an end in itself, and it should only be pursued with an awareness of its costs.

Jonathan said...

I'm interested by the distinction you make between working in a foreign-owned factory vs. in a local co-op. In the absence of coercion, is there really such a distinction? Just because an enterprise happens to be financed by foreign capital, does that make it necessarily exploitive? Or did your use of the word 'sweatshop' imply coercion was present? Do you think that exploitation is inherent in FDI?

You make a good point about development. Often per-capita wealth is taken as a proxy for human welfare. It's a good proxy in that it's highly correlated and easily measurable, but it's easy to forget that it's just a proxy.

l e i g h c i a said...

When I wrote that, I was thinking of sweatshops. But to answer your question: I don’t think foreign capital is necessarily exploitive and it can be used to bring about great good (and on the flip side, oftentimes local ownership/capital can be exploitive). So perhaps I am thinking more along the lines of worker’s rights/power vs. who actually owns the factory. However, in general, I think people are going to feel less ownership over what is happening if it’s financed by outsiders.

I am thinking in particular of this small suburban slum near Buenos Aires, where a Carrefour (sp?) supermarket moved into the neighbourhood. On one hand, it was positive, because it brought in cheaper prices and provided jobs. However, on the other hand, it sent most of the local convenience store owners out of business, and as a result, the neighbourhood felt hurt by globalization because they felt less empowered and more at the mercy of these large multinational corporations.

Jonathan said...

Isn't it funny how words are so often at odds with actions? No doubt people are angry that a foreign-owned business is eliminating local competitors, but the only way this works is if the locals are choosing to buy at the foreign-owned store and not the local stores.

Of course, I'm assuming no coercion or predatory behavior. It's not unheard of for multinationals to abuse their market or political power. But in the absence of that, it's still the consumers who are wielding the ultimate power.

Rachel H said...

1. I love this post.
2. What Matt said about the relationship between the "elite" and "everyone else" as feudalism is spot on.
3. Is it too crass to measure efficiency in marginal cost and marginal benefit? Does economics take into account "community"? It hasn't in my experience, at least on the college level.

I know I've mentioned my favorite Penn class waaaay too much but how can anyone forget a professor who gets 25 undergrad/grad students to come in on a Saturday for EXTRA classes and a Friday night for a "class field trip", WITHOUT any incentive? Can I interest anyone in a syllabus?