>Louis L'Amour?
>
>DP
heh.
> >>The multiple processes that constitute economic globalization
> >>inhabit and shape specific structurations of the economic, the
> >>political, the cultural, the subjective.
globalization is not a monolithic, uniform process; it manifests itself in specific ways at the "local" level.
(heh. i am reminded that, in high school when prepared for the essay part of all those exams we had to take, i realized that all i had to do was write something like "the Depression affected the economic, the political and the cultural life of the US" and then proceed to illustrate each one and i was all set!)
>In so doing, new
> >>spatialities and temporalities are produced.
We probably need to rethink daylight savings time.
>These new spatialities
>and temporalities of the global do not stand outside the national.
Of course, daylight savings time is a social construct. Jimmy Carter fucked with it didn't he?
> >>They are partly inserted in the national and hence evince complex
> >>imbrications with the latter.
Anyway, globalization produces new ways of organizing how we interact with one another in order to transcend what are seen to be (by some) the limitations of the nation state. (kosovo anyone? wto? chris burford, etc) These are both "beyond" the nation-state, but also thoroughly bound up *in* the nation-state, itself an historical entity. (i.e., see Margaret Sommers on the ways in which claims of citizenship and nationalism varied according to regions in England. American Sociological Review, early 90s i think. excellent article. Mr Byfield ought to enjoy, i think)
obviously, this a way of saying "Aufhebung" so that no one can accuse you of reading the dusty old dude.
>This is especially so because, in my
> >>reading, the global is itself partial, albeit strategic.
The forms of human interaction (emergent social practices and institutions) are not fully developed. Development is uneven. got that! They are most developed in strategic places. It's the economy stupid.
>The global
> >>cannot (at least for now) fully encompass the lived experience of
> >>actors or the domain of institutional orders and cultural
> >>formations;
like the idea of the nation state prior to it, the "global" is too big for the average person to grasp. (so was the nation state at one time)
>it remains a partial condition.
it does not compell or influence or urge the behavior and thoughts and beliefs of most people because it is too abstract to mean anything. (they probably won't go to war for "the global" until we have something akin to baseball, apple pies and chevrolets for global citizenship)
>As a result the outcome
> >>of these multiple imbrications between the national and the global
> >>is overlap and interaction rather than mutual exclusivity.
The nation state and the global are not in direct contradiction to one another. oh no. they are intricately intertwined, mutually constitutive, lessee what other phrase can i make up? they mutually require one another. they are the instrument effect of one another.
that might be like a double dildo. dunno.
>The
> >>extent to which there is overlap and interaction is perhaps one of
> >>the marking features of the current era.
this is unique to this era. <snort>