Spaces – intertwined, superposed, interpenetrated, shifting, folded and oscillating

If there are two, there are more. This blog started as a project on the distinction local-global and has become a project on spaces.

Our starting point is to assume that communication and space are mutually constitutive: spaces are defined through communicative ties, whereby spaces make communication more likable organizing addressable recipients. We only touch on culture implicitly seeing it as a tertium being constituted (as a dynamic and relational model) through communication in spaces – circulating in turn through communication in spaces and reproducing communicative and spatial patterns. Culture, communication and space are relational concepts.

Our research question focuses hence on how spaces are intertwined, superposed, interpenetrated, shifting and folded through communication.

@arminemannuel will ask what is global about spaces that are referred to as global. @communicaglocal will meanwhile analyze how the concept of „local“ is reorganized: Increasingly “local” might be what is perceived as shared. This would include re-labeling of spaces as „local“ (especially in the so called new media) contributing to a folding of spaces. @mariuszu will gather insights in how political structures and entities (thus spaces) are challenged and whether there is empirical proof of the existence of a global consciousness and of cosmopolitan citizens.@michelled95 will interview local and international students as well as refugees in order to grasp how spaces are perceived: Which spaces are addressed or referred to? Which ties are activated? Is a global consciousness actually emerging concerning certain issues? @izillama will analyze how the social media process and organize oscillating conceptualizations of spaces. How are spaces (external to the social media) cited (referred to) or addressed (included)? How do social media contribute to the superposition and interpenetration of spaces? @martinvaldesstauber will supervise the reflexive approach as well as comment and intertwine the contributions.

Mediatized Worlds as relational localities?

“Spaces are relational” (@izillama) and so is locality.
In the case of online communities for example, community itself as well as interpersonal closeness would not be primarily defined in a spatial way, but rather by using relations such as shared content or interest, common taste, and/or forms of communication – such as posting on a forum, or sending chat messages – which can be seen as using the same shared virtual space. Communication in itself here constitutes community (cf. Gebhardt 2009) – the places in which community exists can be perceived as local, be they geographical or virtual.

Mediatization (cf. Krotz 2001), developing into one of the key concepts of Media Studies and communication, describes the changing reciprocity between media/communication and culture/society. Mediatized worlds (Hepp 2013a: 68 – 75; Krotz/Hepp 2013), the different aspects of life, such as family, home, or work, that are influenced by the use of media, extend into virtual realms. According to Hepp, especially young peoples lives include several of those mediatized worlds (Hepp 2014:11 ), social spheres or realms, in which media plays a more less significant role. This role could be allowing communication, as in the use of instant messaging services, or building the framework for one of the mediatized worlds itself, as in the case of an online community like an image-board or forum.

Of course, “mediatized worlds are ‘intertwined’ with each other. […] We are thus confronted with the ‘segmenting of social worlds’ (Strauss, 1978: 123), not only in the sense that they segment the totality of life-worlds, but also in the sense that they segment internally, producing specific sub-worlds. We can take the mediatized worlds of popular cultural scenes, such as hip-hop, heavy metal, or techno, as examples: the articulation of their mediatized worlds is a segmentation and (re-)invention process.” (Hepp 2013b)

Different mediatized worlds – different localities?

Locality itself still plays an important part in many people’s lives, as is shown in “Mediatisierte Vergemeinschaftungshorizonte junger Menschen” (Hepp 2014: 67-90). Media and content can be included in one’s everyday activities and interests, thereby extending the life-reality into virtual spaces. Not all of those are community building – but some can be. Hepp divides the mediatized worlds of young people into four categories: Localists, centralists, multilocalists, and pluralists.

tbc.

 

 

Gebhardt, W. (2009). Gemeinschaften ohne Gemeinschaft. Über situative Event-Vergemeinschaftungen. In R. Hitzler, A. Honer & M. Pfadenhauer (Hrsg.), Posttraditionale Gemeinschaften (S. 202–213). Wiesbaden: VS.

Hepp, A. (2013a): Medienkultur. Die Kultur mediatisierter Welten. Zweite Auflage.
Wiesbaden: VS.

Hepp, A. (2013b). The communicative figurations of mediatized worlds: Mediatization research in times of the ‘mediation of everything’. European Journal Of Communication, 28(6), 615. doi:10.1177/0267323113501148

Hepp, A., Berg, M., & Roitsch, C. (2014). Mediatisierte Welten der Vergemeinschaftung: Kommunikative Vernetzung und das Gemeinschaftsleben junger Menschen. Wiesbaden : Springer VS, 2014.

Krotz, F. (2001): Die Mediatisierung kommunikativen Handelns. Der Wandel
von Alltag und sozialen Beziehungen, Kultur und Gesellschaft durch die Medien.
Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Krotz, F./Hepp, A. (2013): A concretization of mediatization: How mediatization
works and why › mediatized worlds ‹ are a helpful concept for empirical
mediatization research. In: Empedocles. European Journal for the Philosophy
of Communication, 3 (2), S. 119 – 134.

 

Cosmopolitan Citizens?

The modern thought of cosmopolitanism does not only derive from the great theoretical optimists like Auguste Comte, John Stuart Mill or Karl Marx who strongly believed that humankind will some day finally move, think and act beyond borders. It mainly derives from Immanuel Kant’s sought to “extend republican political philosophy into a wider and essentially legal framework beyond the relatively limited modern republic. With this came the vision of a world political community extending beyond the community into which one is born or lives” (Delanty, 2006 p. 26).

I concluded my last post from May 5th with the thoughts of David Held (1999, p. 9) who states that “communities of fate” are reaching beyond borders. Every region throughout the world will not remain unaffected by overlapping crisis and global challenges.

Theorists such as Kenichi Ohmae (1995) believe we are witnessing the end of the nation state. He argues that the nation state “has become unnatural, even dysfunctional unit for organizing human activity and managing economic endeavor in a borderless world” (Ohmae, 1993, p. 78). With this ‘Erosion of Nation States’, mentioned in my post from the 5th of May, theorists believe that a rise in global governance may lead towards global identities and growing cosmopolitanism (Norris, 2003).

Looking at empirical data one can say that most available data indicate towards a more skeptical perspective on the continuously growing existence of cosmopolitans and so called ‘world citizens’. ‘National identities’ who strongly identify with their nation state are still in the vast majority.

However, before presenting empirical studies and results on this issue it is important to clarify both the concept of having a ‘national identity’ (nationalists) and having the identity of a ‘world citizen’ (cosmopolitans). Nationalists are not only identifying very strongly with their nation state they are also perceived to have very little trust and confidence in multilateral and international institutions. Furthermore, they would always prefer policies of national protectionism over free trade (Norris, 2003, p. 289).

The concept of cosmopolitanism is complex. The re-post of @arminemannuel of the “impression of being a global citizen” does only show one perspective of being a cosmopolitan citizen – the traveling part. Yes, cosmopolitans can be expected to be comfortable with traveling across borders, speaking different languages fluently (Norris, 2003) and are connected to international communication networks such as social media (more precisely see @izillama ‘s post on April 10th). In the contrast to nationalists, cosmopolitans identify with the world as whole. They show faith in international institutions of global governance, are more supportive of free trade and promote an open labor market for migrant workers (Norris, 2003, p. 290).

It needs to be mentioned that cosmopolitans are not anymore an elite class, such as European aristocrats back in the 18th century educated in Paris or Rome who suddenly decided to travel the world (Norris, 2003, p. 288). The hypothesis of the mentioned scholars who believe that “communities of fate” (David Held, 1999) reach beyond borders, is the idea that through globalization cosmopolitanism will spread beyond elites to the mass public (Norris, 2003, p. 288).

Already in 1983 Theodore Levitt describes: “cosmopolitanism is no longer the monopoly of the intellectual and leisure classes; it is becoming the established property and defining characteristic of all sectors everywhere in the world. Gradually and irresistibly it breaks down the walls of economic insularity, nationalism, and chauvinism” (Levitt, 1983, p. 101).

Concerning empirical evidence for cosmopolitanism, cohort analysis throughout the 20th century of the World Value Surveys give some interesting insights:

 

(Source: Norris, 2003, p. 295)

 

From this attached figure it is clearly visible that public opinion in the long term is moving towards a cosmopolitan direction (Norris, 2003).

However, in the 1990s when many scholars predicted growing cosmopolitan identities in a globalized world empirical studies suggest that only a surprisingly small proportion of people identify strongly with being a ‘world citizen’.

In the World Value Surveys (similar to the BBC World Service Poll mentioned by @arminemannuel on May the 1st) people were asked in the early-mid 1990s the following:

“To which  of these geographical groups would you say you belong first of all?

1. The locality or town where you live
2. The state or region of the country in which you live 
3. The country you live in 
4. The continent in which you live
5. The world as whole”

 

The most striking finding of this study was that local, regional and national identification remain much stronger than any cosmopolitan orientation. Nearly half of the people who were asked this question (47 percent) argue that they see themselves as belonging to their locality, town or region within the country. About 38 percent identify strongly with their country. Only 15 percent chose the cosmopolitan orientation of feeling close to their continent or the world as a whole (Norris, 2003, p. 291).

Another very interesting finding of this study are varying attitudes by type of society. The renowned political scientist Ronald Ingelhart believes that depending on whether (financial) insecurities emerge in a traditional society or in a postindustrial society there is either a resurrection in feelings of nationalism (traditional society) or the tendency to transfer authority towards more local and regional communities (postindustrial society) (Ingelhart, 1997).

The current state of cosmopolitanism, as well as its future is discussed vividly among scholars. Pippa Norris (2003, p. 295) describes the results of the mentioned empirical findings on the proof for cosmopolitan citizenship: “as of the cup half empty or the cup half full variety”. On the one side one can argue that a continuous globalization process through mass communication, international trade, the flow of capital and the forces of mass tourism could lead towards growing cosmopolitanism. Furthermore, growing urbanization and a continuously higher worldwide standard of an educational level may also contribute towards more people adapting to the idea of a global citizenship. On the other side one can say that so far globalization has not yet destroyed local and regional ties. Michael Mann (1997) argues that globalization itself has contributed to strengthen national identities in the last decade. Nation States will remain the primary actors within emerging regional blocks as Hirst and Thompson (1996) maintain.

The skeptical view on cosmopolitanism can be summarized with the words of Anthony Smith (1990, p. 188) “we are still far from even mapping out the kind of global culture and cosmopolitan ideal that can truly supersede a world of nations […] cosmopolitanism is unlikely to entail the supersession of national cultures.”

 

 

 

Delanty, G. (2006). The cosmopolitan imagination: critical cosmopolitanism and social theory. The British journal of sociology. 57(1). 25-47.

Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D., & Perraton, J. (1999). Global Transformations: Politics, Economics & Culture. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Hirst, P., & Thompson, G. (1996). Globalization in Question: The International Economy and the Possibilities of Governance. Cambridge: Polity.

Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Levitt, Theodore (1983) “The Globalization of Markets,” Harvard Business Review. 61(3). 92–102.

Mann, M. (1997). Has globalization ended the rise and rise of the nation-state?. Review of international political economy. 4(3). 472-496.

Niedermayer, O., & Sinnott, R. (Eds.). (1995). Public Opinion and Internationalized Governance. Beliefs in Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Norris, P. (2003). ‘Global governance and cosmopolitan citizens.’ Reprinted in The Global Transformations Reader. 2^nd Edition. Edited by David Held and Anthony McGrew. Cambridge, Polity Press. 287-298.

Ohmae, K. (1993). The rise of the region state. Foreign Affairs: New York.

Ohmae, K. (1995). The end of the nation state. New York: FreePress.

Smith, A. D. (1990). Towards a global culture?. Theory, Culture and Society. 7 (2-3). 171-191.

Digging Deeper into McDonaldization

Just listen to the channel to get to know more about Ritzer’s concept on McDonaldization!

International Interviews (Videos)

German Students:

American Students:

Hispanic Students:

International Interviews Summary

Next to the theoretical approaches I felt a personal approach could offer different and refreshing POV to this topic, and maybe give a bit more perspective. I questioned myself regarding what is considered global and local and how to differentiate between these two spaces. I found that by comparing where I come from and where I am residing, it became easier for me to understand and explain what I felt was being meant by a global or local space. I perceived NYC as a global space, and FDH as a local space and compared the two spaces based on what I have lived in each. Other people may have different views and opinions, so I decided to question other international students, like @martinvaldesstauber suggested, and decided to interview them to get their opinion on what is local/global? How did I conduct the interviews? I had gave each interviewee 4 questions and recorded their answers and then under each video summarized their main points.

Questions asked:

1. Compared to where you come from, would you state that your place of origin is more global or local compared to Friedrichshafen?
2. Based on your previous answer, How would you define what is global and what is local?
3. Based on what you just answered, Do you believe the connections or ties you form in a global space are more important than the ones you form in a local space?
4. Has coming to Friedrichshafen heightened your global consciousness concerning certain issues, or do you feel you were already globally conscious in your place of origin?

 

• Evan (German):
  • University with a high international standard, open to more diversity!
  • Global or local is based on the environment surrounding the space or area. Global or local is also defined by the people in that environment that you deal with on a regular bases i.e. colleagues, friendships from all over the world.
  • Nowadays difficult to differentiate between local and global because everything is changing so fast and we have to constantly deal with different cultures, traditions, religions, and people from all over the world. There is NO longer a local space/environment. Everything has been globalized or is in the process of being globalized. Localized areas no longer exist everything is globalized. Global connections are of greater importance.
  • Due to specific regulations for traveling or working at a company people can nowadays just decide where they want to live or work and especially for Germany that gives an example that that makes a place more intercultural/multicultural.
  • Coming to Friedrichshafen has had a high value in forming international connections/ties/relationships. Learn how to deal with international issues and has a broader perspective.
• Jack (German):
  • It is hard to define which is more local/global. In the university there are people from different corners in Germany, but when you go into the town in some places where they don’t have more contact to the university they live in their own world with their own customs. They are more local in some corners of the town while the university is a small form of a global space with so many different mindsets in one place. Where as in big cities they have a huge immigrant culture, so many second immigrants live there. People in big cities live in a more global space because the high amount of diversity with people, culture, religion and mindsets.
  • The main point between local/global, in local areas we only have 1 or 2 mindsets not that many they have a mindset and they all think in the same way, where as in global cities, the word says it itself, so many mindsets, broader minds and perspective different ideas and life style all connected.
  • The world gets connected more day by day to media through immigration and tele connection communication the relations you have in global cities are more important we don’t live in a separated world everything is connected. We are one huge world not little ones put together.
  • When we live in a global culture we are so distracted by things that can entertain us, we are easily distracted by unimportant ideals, we don’t pay attention to certain details, it is very hard to find those moments where you can take a breather and think about the things happening and going on in the world. In Friedrichshafen I have had the time to learn more about the world and about myself.
• Molly (American):
  • Friedrihcshafen is more global than her own small, manhattan Kansas a really small town and extreme narrow mindedness. They are focused on farmland, agriculture, community, and neighborhood. Focused on their own thing and don’t look at the bigger picture. However, Friedrichshafen is local compared to the rest of the world even though it is global compared her small town it has global aspects but is still more local in a larger scale.
  • It is really hard to define what is global and what is local because they are really broad terms and people interpret the terms differently. For global there has to be more than one perspective included while locality is from a single perspective, for local concentrated on a single community and neighborhood. Focused on that single idea and mindset only on that one group and area. For globalization more things play into it. More diversity and cultures and open minded. People come together in a global space while in a local area you only focus on one group of people not the whole.
  • Coming to Friedrichshafen had broadened my horizons. American media focuses on the irrelevant, unimportant, trivial facts. International news centers on important issues and mire encompassing of other parties. Syrian crisis and international politics. International relations course with a newspaper article about what is going on in the world. Learned more about international relations here than where she lives in the states.
• Shaini (American):
  • California is more global in comparison to Friedrichshafen. The general diversity of the population of the state itself in comparison, which allows for more opportunities making it a more global area.
  • Global space is a larger area while a local space is more narrowed and constricted.
  • Global means the ability to be connected to multiple things at any time that can be connecting to many different people, as opposed to local which is much more narrow minded space, only dealing with the dealings of the immediate area and immediate people around you. Not allowing oneself to look to beyond the metaphorical wall surrounding oneself.
  • The connections in a local space are important to keep you grounded to your roots, but in terms of actual growth and development connections in a global space are more important for a chance of progress. Globally speaking, when you connect to someone in a global space you have more opportunities all over the world not in just one area. You connect with people all over the world which allows one to stay interconnected even once separated that is why global connections are importance.
  • Meeting so many students from Germany, France, China, all over the world you get a better sense of perception to what individual life is like. You look at things like foreigners when in the states because you don’t understand as well the things in the world. You understand that certain things are more important.
• Santiago (Hispanic):
  • Both cities are really local because they are not big cities so they are not involved in more diverse aspects of the world, such as trading.
  • Global means big cities and people who interact with people from many different cultures. For a city to be global it has to interact in trading with many other cities outside the same country that allows for more international relations and diversity in the trading’s. Local community does not interact in the trading process often and mainly focuses on activities meant for one single community, and not outside that setting.
  • Both local and global connections are important. In order to have global interactions and connections you need to begin by having local connections.
  • To be global you need to understand the environment where you are, how the people, society and economy works in that space. You need to externalize that knowledge and be able to interact and make connections with places and people all over the world.
  • Coming to Friedrichshafen helped open up the mind and think in other ways different from the thought process while in Mexico because of the different lifestyle and people to which he has had access.
• Cata (Hispanic):
  • El Salvador is very local it’s more about the community, the neighborhood, and they are more reserved and constricted to what they know and what the family has known.
  • Local space is a tiny bubble where you are surrounded by all that you know and the community that you know and feel comfortable with. Global space is a space where cultures and languages are interrelated and interconnected. Different food styles and more open minded. Life styles are different. In local areas life is more calm and slow while in a global area it is more fast paced and in a hurry. Global is a place where we can share many experiences and diverse backgrounds.
  • Local relations and ties that you build are the core to build how to communicate and accept the global space. We are already globally connected, but local spaces haven’t disappeared yet. Globalization allows one to know that the world isn’t just one thing and that it goes beyond everything we know.
  • Studying in Canada 3 years ago made me aware of other issues around the world. Global consciousness was intensified in Friedrichshafen i.e. the Syrian example. How people get involved and help the Syrian refugees.

The Erosion of the Nation State

As @martinvaldesstauber mentioned I will address how political structures are challenged through the impact of globalization. To be more specific, I want to outline the crisis of the nation state.

In the course of the last 50 years (Fäßler 2007, p. 46ff.) a global economy with economic development across borders was strengthened. Nation States began to lose their power to a globally operating financial elite (Hamenstädt 2007, p. 6). In order to cope with emerging global crisis and challenges at the end of the 20. century and the beginning of the 21. century, the ‘international community of states’ decided to strengthen international organizations and to enhance global governance for the purpose of controlling the impact of globalization.

As mentioned in a post from the 11th April, global crisis such as climate change, terrorism or the global financial crisis seem to overburden nation states. Scholars describe it as a the “confusion of nation states” (Willke, 2014). With global crisis emerging nation states seem willing to transfer national sovereignty and national decision making power to international organizations in order to solve problems multilaterally. This “increasing transnational interpretation [of problems] has the potential to transform the international system from a true states system into one in which this external bulwark is eroded and eventually undermined” (Cerny, 1996, p. 123).

Concerning the loss of sovereignty of nation states to international organizations and to the mentioned globally operating financial elite, Strange (1995) maintains that “state authority has leaked away, upwards, sideways, and downwards. In some matters, it seems even to have gone nowhere, just evaporated. The realm of anarchy in society and economy has become more extensive as that of all kinds of authority has diminished.”

However not only global crisis or the existence of a global economy seem to weaken the nation state as whole: @michelled95 personal experience and description of moving from “New York City (big) to Friedrichshafen (small)” is the perfect example of a great willingness of younger generations to move across borders in order to explore different cultures. But not only the wish for experiencing different cultures mobilizes people to migrate across the globe: refugees fleeing from war zones, suppressed religious or ethnic minorities seeking protection, teenagers looking for a better education or better paid jobs are even more significant incentives to migrate across borders. @izillama already indicated how connectedness and information across borders create a ‘sense of community’. Communication and information across borders is beyond control for nation states. Borderless communication is another crucial point where nation states lost sphere of influence.

Summing up this post one can say that “effortless communications across boundaries undermine the nation-state’s control; increased mobility, and the increased willingness of people to migrate, undermine its cohesiveness. Business abhors borders, and seeks to circumvent them. Information travels across borders and nation-states are hard pressed to control the flow […]. The nation-state [is] increasingly powerless to withstand these pressures. (Horsman and Marshall, 1994, p. 60)

Furthermore, it can be stated that the erosion of nation states in the course of globalization and with it the emergence of a ‘confusing’ global system from the “financial, to the ecological, connect the fate of communities in one locale to the fate of communities in distant regions of the world.” (Held et. al., 1999, p. 8)

 

Cerny, P.G. (1996). “What’s next for the State? In Eleonore Kofman and Gillian Youngs (eds.). Globalization: Theory and Practice. London: Pinter.

Fäßler, Peter E. (2007): Globalisierung. Ein historisches Kompendium, Wien/Köln/Weimar: Böhlau Verlag.

Hamenstädt, Ulrich (2007): Der Staat in der Globalisierung. Marburg: Tectum Verlag.

Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D., & Perraton, J. (1999). Global Transformations: Politics, Economics & Culture. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Horsman, M. & Marshall, A. (1994). After the Nation State: Citizens,Tribalism and the New World Disorder. London: HarperCollins.

Strange, S. (1995). “The Defective State”. Dœdalus: Journal of the American Academy of Arts. 124 (2), pp. 209-212.

Willke, H. (2014). Demokratie in Zeiten der Konfusion. Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag.

but why do I need to know what’s going on?

but why do I need to know what’s going on?

So called Social Media or changes in media and communication technologies that occur in processes of digitalization and mediatization (broader media in general) can be analysed in four analytical frames: extension, substitution, amalgamation, accommodation (cf. Schulz, W. (2004): Reconstructing Mediatization as an Analytical Concept. In: European Journal of Communication, 19(1), 87-101.). Media extend on different levels (space, time, sense). Media substitute non-media activities (?) through the success of their extensions. Media thus amalgamate with other activities and play a role in this relation (media saturated everyday life). Media effect and are effected through changes on the different levels and activities.

In their extension media support the construction of spaces through communication and make communication more likeable in organizing recipients on different levels. Form plays the major role, content is determined through culture, which itself is in relation to communication and space – constitutes itself through the processes of communication in spaces.

“A social network site is a networked communication platform in which participants 1) have uniquely identifiable profiles that consist of user-supplied content, content provided by other users, and/or system-provided data; 2) can publicly articulate connections that can be viewed and traversed by others; and 3) can consume, produce, and/or interact with streams of usergenerated content provided by their connections on the site.” (p. 157 in: Ellison, N. B. & boyd, d. (2013). Sociality through Social Network Sites. In Dutton, W. H. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Internet Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 151.172.)

Social network Sites (SNSs) and their technological, material parts (media and communication technologies) play a role as medium in the above way. They perform the general functions of media and differ from these (e.g.) on a structural level: persistence (potentially automatically recorded and archived), replicability (easier duplication), scalability (easier distribution), searchability (archived material and activities can potentially be searched and found) (cf. boyd, d. (2010): Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications. In: Papacharissi, Z. (ed.): Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites, 39-58).

“We are in the epoch of simultaneity: we are in the epoch of juxtaposition, the epoch of the near and far, of the side-by-side, of the dispersed. We are at a moment, I believe, when our experience of the world is less that of a long life developing through time than that of a network that connects points and intersects with its own skein. […] In other words, we do not live in a kind of void, inside of which we could place individuals and things. We do not live inside a void that could be colored with diverse shades of light, we live inside a set of relations that delineates sites which are irreducible to one anther and absolutely not superimposable on one another.”(p. 23 in: Foucault, M. (1986): Of Other Spaces. In: Diacritics, 16(1), 22-27.)

Spaces are relational and can only be understood in such way. SNSs (through specific technologies, e.g. algorithms, as agents – Knorr-Cetina, K. (2014): Scopic media and global coordination. In: Lundby, K. (ed.): Mediatization of Communication. Berlin: De Gruyter, 39-62.) repeat aspects of other spaces (global, local, national, functional, etc.) – here through the creation of profiles, the connection of profiles in specific ways (repetition of existing relations or creation of new ones framed through e.g. specific content). SNSs thus enable the creation of communicative spaces through communication, as well as the discussion, interpretation, thematization of other spaces. They play a role in the superposition of spaces that is always overlapping. Spaces are always culturally-historic specific and thus able to change in form and function – are context reliant. SNSs in their media heavy alignment have the opportunity to function as facilitator in the oscillation between spaces (thus appear to be much faster than other media).

“Social network sites have evolved but their foundational activities—sharing content with a bounded group of users—are fundamentally the same.” (p. 158 in: Ellison, N. B. & boyd, d. (2013). Sociality through Social Network Sites. In Dutton, W. H. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Internet Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 151.172.)

Knowing what’s going on is thus a condition of the streams of content that SNSs provide. These streams of content enable the oscillation between different spaces on a material level. Acknowledging the speed of this content in relation to hegemonic relations one could ask whether it is important to actually know what’s going. Maybe in a very modest way, huge parts of the content are just forms, indicating that something is going on, but that there is no need to know exactly what is going on. Maybe this noise enables the perception of the wider relations that constitute (the construction of) reality.

In this sense changes of media and communications technologies play a role for changes of culture and society and are shaped through changes of these two. To what extend this relation of changes is important is not to be examined here, but rather the idea that there might be a way of engaging with the world and reality, with the oscillation of spaces, that creates a ‘sense of ones place’ through the perception of streaming noise. Not all the time, even if there is a media saturation of the everyday life, but at least in these specific communicative spaces that arrange around SNSs and their media and communication technologies.

Maybe media in general and SNSs in specific are ‘just’ trains? “a train is an extraordinary bundle of relations because it is something through which one goes, it is also something by means of which one can go from one point to another, and then it is also something that goes by” (p. 23 in: Foucault, M. (1986): Of Other Spaces. In: Diacritics, 16(1), 22-27.).

McDonalds Burgers taste everywhere the same way

The US-American sociologist George Ritzer gained special attention in the social science discourse on globalization due to his critical and provocative thesis “McDonaldization of society”, which he has already designed in the 1980s but continuously developing to date. By defining McDonaldization, Ritzer considers the process by which the principles of fast food restaurants dominate more and more sectors of society in America and around the globe (cf. Ritzer, 15).

Ritzer defines globalization as “the worldwide dissemination of methods, the expansion of relations between the continents, the organization of social life on a global scale and the development of a common global consciousness” (cf. Ritzer, 237). In his opinion the McDonaldization can be at least partially seen as one of several processes of globalization. Therefore, McDonaldization can be framed as a process of globalization.

In one of my last posts, I tried to introduce Roland Robertson theory of “Glocalization”. Ritzer agrees to Robertson regarding his theory of glocalization by also defining glocalization as “the interdependence between global and local…which leads to individual results in different geographical regions” (cf. Ritzer, 241f.). Although there is no doubt that glocalization is an essential part of globalization, it does not include all aspects of it (Ritzer, 243f.). Rather, there is another much needed companion of glocalization, which Ritzer coins as the term “Grobalization” (Derived from the verb “grow” = grow). According to Ritzer, grobalization is considered as “imperialistic ambitions of nations, corporations, organizations, and the like and their desire, indeed need, to impose themselves on various geographic areas”(cf. Ritzer, 244.). The main aim, included in grobalization, is about growing power, influence and profits around the world.

When thinking of grobalization, numerous ideas come to mind, which essentially represent the exact opposite result to the principles of Robertson’s theory of glocacalization. Instead of placing special emphasis on the wide variety of different glocalized regions, the theory of grobalization leads to the conclusion, that the areas of the world have become more similar to each other (cf. Ritzer, 243). Ritzer thus acknowledges those who are worrying about an ongoing globalization-related standardization of the world (Ritzer, 243ff.).

In contrast to the theory of glocalization, grobalization assumes that individuals and groups have relatively few opportunities to adapt in a globalized world, to bring forth innovations and to have an orientation themselves.

But the contrary is happening according to Ritzer: The largest structures and forces that are evolved by globalization, mostly threaten the ability of individuals and small groups to be creative themselves in their own world (cf. ibid.).

Furthermore, social processes are running largely in a deterministic way, when thinking “the-grobalization-way” and thus in only one direction. These processes and forces from global to local tremendously, but there is no opportunity for the local to having a strong and significant impact on the global. Therefore, according to Ritzer, the grobalization usually has a stronger impact on life and society compared to localization and the local will be more and more restricted (cf. ibid.).

With his concept of glocalization, Roland Robertson describes the mixing of global and local designated that it causes and arises something uniquely at various locations. George Ritzer has postulated with the theory of grobalization the exact opposite. Ritzer is convinced that the society is increasingly homogenizing in the course of globalization (unification of lifestyles, cultural symbols and transnational practices) an therefore a “world-culture” might be developed one time.

Ritzers handy thesis of the convergence of global culture is quite plausible and comprehensible at first glance. All viewers can draw on their own experiences. For instance, many tourists have, for example, learned that the “Big Mac” should taste in Friedrichshafen, Germany the same like in the U.S. or in Singapore. This could be cited as an increasing Americanization and capitalization of the society. More examples would be the spread of LEVIS- jeans, American TV-series like “House of Cards” or “Friends”. All these examples can be consumed in most parts of the world and the fast spread of these goods and trends, coming from the United States of America, is thanks to globalization.

However, this thesis can be disagreed on when remembering the concept of “cultural theory”, which underlines the paradox and ambivalences of cultural globalization, meaning that when that globalization does not only mean an emphasis only on a global level, because globalization can also mean a stronger emphasis and changing on local development, limited in a local area, beyond the global stage.

Globalization and its processes of hybridization do not only mean a homogenization of the globe as regional cultures can redefine their local and regional particularisms more strongly and thus re-explore their ethical identity (German Popmusic and the phenomenon of Helene Fischer’s success can be an example for that or the strong conception of German citizens that German beer is the best beer in the world thanks to their own so-called “Reinheitsgebot”). Thus, local stuff sometimes develops and emerges with the help of global stuff and globalization.

To conclude, it can be said that Ritzer’s thesis of McDonaldization contains good approaches in some areas and they are partially surely true, but important features of globalization are completely disregarded on the other hand. That indicates, that its scope lacks solidity to interpret globalization completely and especially correctly. To explain the phenomenon of cultural globalization, Robertson’s approach of glocalization is more convincing to be used with its anchoring Global in the Local and Local in the Global.

Source:  Ritzer, George (2011): “The McDonaldization of Society 6”, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, 2011

 

 

architecting communities

Impression of being a global citizen….

Global Culture

From my recent post “on global citizens and avatars“:

A global citizen is not the one that travels the globe rushing from one destination to the next at the furious pace its business demand, but the one that roams the roads of a city or the world open to the opportunities that serendipity will bring, architecting with each moment a fulfilling life devoted to creating value for the communities he touches, combining his skills with the resources available. Such a nice maxim for any traveller, you must be thinking.

It must be a sign of our times that at the peak of my professional career I find myself as a “free agent”, wannabe entrepreneur or as our governments label those in my situation: “unemployed”. Don’t get me wrong, I’m saying this with a very upbeat tone. I do no more than 25 hours of billable work per week…

View original post 408 more words

#ThrowbackSunday: Are you a global citizen?

In this blog, not only the different perspectives of globalization should be examined, but also an approach to expressions like “Global Citizen”, “Global Space”, or “being global” should have been done.

About half a week ago, some news channels and papers published the results of a survey made by the pollsters „GlobeScan“ (a BBC World Service Poll) who questioned around 20.000 people in 18 countries whether they consider themselves as „Global Citizens“ rather than “National Citizens”(cf. BBC, 2016). On the first sight, the results do not seem surprising, as in most countries, especially in emerging countries like Nigeria, China and India, more than half of those asked considered themselves foremost as global citizens, rather than national citizens. However, it is striking that in some more developed countries, e.g. Germany, only 30% of all German interviewees call themselves global citizens.

The reasons behind this phenomenon are not completely clear but what one might suggest is that is due the changing environment and political mood due to Angela Merkel’s open door policy for more than one million refugees last year. Other and more reasons are absolutely considerable, but BBC has not mentioned them any further in the article.

But, one should bear in mind that framing and defining “global citizen” is not easy and scientists are still arguing on a right definition of this term. The article, published by BBC also describes this problem: “ For some it might be about the projection of economic clout across the world. To others, it might mean an altruistic impulse to tackle the world’s problems in a spirit of togetherness – whether that is climate change or inequality in the developing world…for many it will be about migration and mobility.” (cf. BBC, 2016).

This article reminded me of an old school project I have made back in 2010 as a so-called “Facharbeit”. The topic of this paper was: “Economic and social interdependence of globalization” – How the global network has influenced the economic and social situation in Aachen. In this context, I made a survey with 150 Aachen citizens randomly chosen on one of Aachen`s biggest squares (of course the number is for real scientific evidence not high enough, but it can indicate at least a tendency). Two questions were asked:

1.) Can you frame the idea of “globalization”?

2.) Have you felt an influence of globalization?

(own source)

Surprisingly nearly 100% of all persons questioned thought to know the definition of “globalization”, but equally 24 of 150 interviewees indicated, globalization has not influenced their lives. These results have lead to the conclusion that these citizens of Aachen have not yet understood what globalization means. An alarming and shocking situation, whereas the reasons for this are hard to find: Is it pure ignorance, a lack of knowledge or something else? When it comes to evaluating reasons for this attitude, “consumer habits” might have influenced their perception negatively. People have started taking the Chinese restaurant and the “Starbucks Coffee” for granted and they do not recognize the connection to the topic of globalization. Possibly, the situation of being interviewed might surprise people. For example, the statement “Aachen is not a globalized city”, which has been once made, may have been correct from the interviewees` subjective point of view, because they only considered the popular features of globalization, for example big international airports or international container harbors.

But if afterwards a discussion about the “Karlspreis- ceremony” (Karlspreis is one of the most prestogious European prizes, awarded once a year in Aachen), or the international horse championship “CHIO” would have taken place, the respondents would have recognized that they had to revise their assumption.

The survey has however made clear that the majority of the interviewed persons notice that the economic and social impacts of globalization in Aachen exist. When connecting these results to the poll, made by BBC, the results by BBC might not be surprising, because if one might ask whether the 126 citizens of Aachen consider themselves as “Global Citizens”, I would suppose that not all 126 citizens would answer this question “Yes”. If 24 out of 150 people have not felt an influence of globalization back in 2010, one might lead the conclusion that these people do not see themselves as global citizens. It would now be interesting to know what these people think in 2016. Have they changed their opinion?

Sources:

BBC