Week 3, Day 1

             Concerning the concept of globalization, this week’s readings especially appealed to me. More specifically, “Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy” by Arjun Appadurai especially piqued my interest. Within their article, they focus on an “…elementary framework for exploring such disjunctures” with the economy, culture, and politics (296). This framework viewed five concepts—ethnoscape, mediascape, technoscape, finanscape, ideascape—which all connected ideas of globalization. Interestingly enough, Appadurai’s conversation mirrored many of our earlier lectures. In this response, I will mainly refer to our second week, first class and first week, second class lectures.

         In his section about the ‘ethnoscape,’ he mentioned how people in certain areas move to entirely different areas without their “relatively stable communities and networks” (Appadurai 297). This example brought me back to our second week and our talks about how people would move to entirely new areas and not be able to stay in their career field. Yet in Appadurai (unless I am understanding it incorrectly) almost argues that as these nation-states need change, global people can move to their desired positions and jobs. In retrospect, that idea can also parallel how when nation-states desire certain labor, they call for it. For instance, when the United States sought more labor for its fields, they allowed an influx of Central and Latin American immigrants in on work visas. On a more microscale, individuals and families called upon certain races for their needs. Relying on established stereotypes, they desired, let us say, Hispanic women for domestic work. While there are many more examples of labor needs, the main idea is that sometimes people move and cannot get a job in their past field. However, it seems that when the nation-state calls for a certain type of person or expertise, then people can move to enter that field if they so desired. With that conclusion, Appadurai’s argument is not all too different from our previous lectures.

         Although, the final words for the framework base intrigued me the most. Here, he mentions that the “global relationships between ethnoscape, technoscape, and finanscape” … “is subject to its own constraints and incentives” … “[while] act[ing] as a constraint and a parameter for movements in the other” (Appadurai 298). Although my next point does not necessarily concern our lectures, I still find it important to mention. See, this line reminded me of a sort of spiritual/psychological (or whatever your preferred term might be) existence. In other words, where people and their subsequent actions and ideas not only restrict themselves at times but might also be used to restrict others. Onto our own lectures, recall the term “sanitize sanctorum.” In its essence, based on appearance and smell, one might be “sanitized” to fit what the norm perceives as “clean” or “appropriate.” And so, applying that term here, sanitizing acts to hinder the perceived minority. And in this way, the person or society sanitizing acts as a “constraint” and a parameter in that it puts people into a box. And if you do not fit into this box, then good luck getting a job or entering a society that follows such a standard. However, I want to talk more about the first clause of that mentioned sentence. In restricting others, sanitize sanctorum restricts the society upholding the standards. Following the examples we used in class, the heteronormative patriarchy restricts itself. At this point, we all know well enough how they restrict others and put them into these parameters. However, this conversation should also shift to why this standard is also bad to those enacting it. When this misogynistic, white, cis, usually upper-class man attempts to instill the heteropatriarchy, they are also missing out. But this is not just about that man, it is about all those who try to instill this misogynistic framing. For instance, when this restrictive idea is put out, the people upholding and living in it are missing out on the valuable lessons that could be learned from others. From people who are not under this constant pressure of fitting the norm. Now, I am not saying that “Oh, there should be a society without any norm, etc.” But, when we do have this one supermajority and peer pressure, there are ideas being restricted and lessons being lost.

And these relations circle back into Appadurai’s arguments in a few key takeaways. Firstly, while looking at this connection between ethnoscape, technoscape, and finanscape, we see that all these dimensions play a role in sanitize sanctorum and creating these similar people. When people move like in the ethnoscape example, they have to adapt to these new majorities like with the Pakistani women and the hiring force jobs. And with the technoscape, the distribution of technology and its increasing power help set these trends and standards that are quickly shared and create a more global identity. And in the first part of his articles, he mentions how the global society and foreign areas might be more Americanized and follow this Western example. Moving on though, the finanscape is important because it can give us a look into the economics of following the standard and sanitizing’s fiscal consequences. In other words, it provides numbers into more intangible concepts. All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed Appadurai’s article, and our past lessons provided a great base for understanding it.