In “Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy”, Appadurai loos at why culture is a leading cause of tension in global interactions. He starts by stating that most of the arguments that arose were about ‘commoditization’ and ‘Americanization’ but less consideration has been given about the link between these two aspects. It is noticeable that there is the conflict between Iranians and Indonesians, Japanese and Koreans, Indians and Sri Lankans and Russians and Armenians (Appadurai 295). He goes ahead to provide an argument that the scalar dynamic is what is leading to the relationships between nations and states. The global cultural economy is complex and overlapping and cannot be understood using existing center-periphery models. Nations are exploiting the simplification of the forces of homogenization to post global commoditization and that poses a threat to hegemonic strategies (Appadurai 296).
The author goes ahead and proposed an elementary framework to research about the disjuncture and among the key elements he looked at include finanscapes, mediascapes, ethnoscapes, ideoscapes, and technoscapes. Deterritorialization is making people seek the best markets and invest in outside countries and the move raises conflicts such as that involving Japanese and Los Angelenos and between Arabs and the people of Bombay (Appadurai 302). The author then goes ahead to argue that ethnic politics is the greatest force that ignites intimacy in the political sphere and use it as a ground of identification by the people. The politics of mutual effort is the feature that defines the global culture today thus creating differences between parties that try to triumph in enlightening ideas. The author concludes the article by indicating that the radical disjuncture is determining the global flow of cultural processes that end up creating an uncertain landscape for the people.
One of the key elements from the article that I found insightful is how culture plays an essential role in global economy. Culture is what determines the interaction of the people and highly influences other features that drive the economy such as politics, ideologies, religion, media, and technology. Taking a scenario of the current global wars that exist, one can easily note that conflicts arise due to the difference between cultures. That is what is defining the social landscape in the world but more people are now understanding how essential culture is to the people thus the need to embrace and appreciate other peoples culture. Recently, the United States declared more taxation against the Chinese and Turkmans in what is seen as the difference in ideologies thus creating differences. These are the sentiments elaborated by Appadurai as that ends up influences who the countries will do business with and defining the global flow. The impact of the culture on the global sphere is an issue that has been happening and without better policies from especially politicians, the differences will continue to exist.
The sentiments by Appadurai is what is reiterated by Sveshnikova in his article "Global Processes as a Factor of Influence on Identity Development of Russian Citizens." One of the similarities that exist between the two article is both authors elaborate on how culture is defining global processes. The twentieth century gave birth to the century of ideologies that have contributed to deteriorating peace in the world and the pessimistic results are the degradation of modern civilization (Sveshnikova 176). That is similar to what Appadurai defines as scalar dynamics that ends up defining the relationships between nations and states. Another similarity between the two articles is both authors indicate how the world community is defined by conflicts which are a hindrance to the political future of the world. The differences in identity and culture will continue to have an influence on politics, economy, social organization thus ends up defining the global transformation.
There are also some differences between the views of the wo authors. One of the differences is Sveshnikova identifies technology and economy as the fundamental determinant for development to be achieved in the world. Gender changes, nationalism, demassvocalization, and consumerism are the general trends that deform the social space. He goes ahead to argue that people will be tired of the little progress made in the global economy and use the technology to transform the world without looking at their cultural differences (Sveshnikova 177). That is different from what Appadurai’s argument. He indicates that only central periphery models in culture are what will help us change the uncertain landscape of the world. One author believes that technology and economy are what will bring global transformation while the other indicates that culture is the central link between all the global features. In a way, but arguments are valid and in conclusion, I believe the difference in ideologies is what will continue to affect the global landscape and thus continue to define economies, the interaction of the people, and define how technology will be used in the world.
Work Cited
Appadurai, Arjun. "Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy." Theory, culture
& society 7.2-3 (1990): 295-310.
Sveshnikova, Natalia. "Global Processes as a Factor of Influence on Identity Development of
Russian Citizens." Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 82 (2013): 176-180.
