Developing a mosaic

As I follow several developments in Iraq, Turkey, and many parts of Africa, as well as Iran, Venezuela, and the United States, I begin to see linearity as almost a slippery slope; each story provides a perspective, and almost like a chicken scratching for food, I follow the various strands flowing from each story. I've always gazed at the larger picture, sometimes completely overlooking the ridges and textures, components and landscapes that reside within the wider view. Often it is difficult not to pursue a more narrowly crafted perspective, but like a glutton for punishment I opt to understand all the forces at work in the human environment. I guess that's why globalization, an intellectual monolith, is so intriguing to me.

Cultural imperialism, globalization, and hybridity represent three theoretical frameworks to examine communications, overlapping but providing distinct tools for understanding communications within the condition of modernity and postmodernity. According to Giddens (1990), "(M)odernity refers to modes of social life and organisation which emerged in Europe from about the 17th Century onwards and which subsequently became more or less worldwide in their influence" (p. 3). The distinguishing mark of modernity is threefold: its pace of change, its scope of change, and its nature of modern institutions. According to Giddens, capitalism is the "emergent social order of modernity", and as such, many theorists have explored their concerns about the expansion of this social order, which, throughout it existence, has developed from the West to penetrate lesser developed areas or nation-states. I find the word 'penetration' is lacking in many cases, as the West has also tried to build nation-states, prop them up, or even raze them to the ground.

While some theorists have argued the cultural imperialist critique is fraught with problems (Tomlinson, 1991) or is essentially one-sided (Kellner, 2002), they do not completely dismiss the critique's usefulness. However, they realize these ideas of inequity fit inside a much broader perspective. Globalization is the body of knowledge that seeks to describe the condition of modernity and postmodernity, but vis-a-vis quickly evolving technological advancement, transportation, and an increasingly integrated economic system. Globalization theories are concerned with the increasingly interconnected world, especially where communications are concerned, and they move beyond cultural imperialism, to recognize the unfolding complexity of global reality, the recent developments in communications and technology, as well as their consequences.

This complexity, these developments, and the resultant human environment involve the overlapping categories of economics, politics, and culture. In trying to describe the most recent phase of globalization, many realize prior models and theories simply fail to account for current processes. In fact, Appadurai wrote in 1996 that these processes simply defied description at that time. These developments challenge older ideas of the relevancy of the nation-state and are changing fundamental social organizations, such as familial relationships and identity based on geographic location. Kellner argued in 2002 for a "critical theory of globalization that will will discuss the fundamental transformations of the world economy, politics, and culture in a dialectical framework that distinguishes between progressive and emancipatory features and oppressive and negative attributes" (p. 283). However, the intermingling of positive and negative characteristics is sometimes difficult to separate, and in many cases more difficult to find equilibrium.

Modern transportation allows for migration, and communications allow for constant contact and mediation among individuals at long distances (Appadurai, 1996). These changes lend themselves to the bending of traditional ideas of temporal, spatial, and geographic contexts that the human condition simply has not encountered before. Within this complexity, all levels of the human condition appear: from the individual, to groups, to nation-states, to international organizations, as globalization theorists attempt to map each strand in ever-growing multiplicities of humans existences.

We can view globalization as a multidimensional process, comprised of social, political, and economic interactive levels (Pieterse, 1995). Developments have given rise to new social formations and have challenged the dominant institutions, allowing us to transcend the geographic boundaries of the nation-state. As social formations and culture recede, so too does geographic importance (Waters, 1995). It is precisely this disjuncture that inflames national, religious and ethnic sentiments (Appadurai, 1996). Appadurai argues of a rupture in modernity theory, through which mass mediation and diaspora collude to create new public spheres in a world that he describes as postnational. These global flows of people, media, and finance cannot be easily reconciled; for example, the diaspora exasperates ethnic tensions but could be viewed positively by some with regard to cheap labor.

Moreover, international theories concerning political systems or political economy just simply fail to encompass the complexity of the human condition created by globalization. For example, Wallerstein had envisioned that a pair of mechanisms - the nation and the state - generally evolved to, among others, serve the bourgeois and its newly acquired power. These mechanisms operated in tandem but are now often truncated, depending on the nation-state's level of development, by other nation-states, international organizations, or in most cases corporations. Like other political theories, Wallerstein's world-system theory presupposes a certain arrangement for nation-states in the international system. In this system, it is clear the nation-state plays a role. But in the larger global system, some theorists, like Appadurai, have pondered the utility of the nation-state, arguing that its role might eventually become obsolete. However, he also adds that he is unsure what would take its place; I hope his book, Globalization will shed some light on this.

It's not difficult, then, if you view globalization as a multidimensional process, to see how the international system would come into play, especially with regard to information. Often many perspectives vie for attention, and in many cases, veracious information is obscured by political, social, or economic agendas. For example, while the Iraq War might have global implications and complications, it had inevitably unfolded primarily between two main players, Iraq and the United States. At the time, the dominant idea for the war was Iraq's defiance with its WMD. I ran home from the university because buzz about the war circulated around campus; I wanted to SEE the war for myself, from Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA. It would not be the first time that I watched war on television; clips from the first Gulf War were a mainstay on CNN. But more than a decade had passed, and communication technologies had improved. Below are clips obtained from YouTube, from various sources including Australian, American, and Asian news organizations; I believe the actual footage for all three might have derived from Al Jazeera.







At that moment, the Iraq War was disseminated, and globally the cultural, economic, and political processes changed; politically the Bush doctrine solidified and became a reality. If Afghanistan was a meek wake-up call, then Iraq was boiling pot of water saying, "Get your ass out of bed." The economic and cultural ramifications that followed seemed on par with the political discussions: Americans take and invade; we permeate other cultures to secure our own place in the world and to ensure our own cultural, economic, and political supremacy. Televising the Shock and Awe campaign simply gave these perceptions dimensions and validation. Of course, I'm sure a slew of perspectives exist, and many Americans sat glued to the television, subconsciously happy that we have the artillery.

But understanding the problems relies on information. In this case, many Americans justified the idea of obliterating another nation-state's sovereignty - a no-no in the international order for a while - with the idea of WMD. I think eventually other ideas, such as liberation as well as connections to 9/11, began to emerge, morphed from the original context, (or even pretext including securing access to petroleum and stabilizing the Middle East for our economic well-being), for even entering the country. Thus, the problem becomes apparent. The problem with the American news media resides in its flat portrayal and the consequent understanding of the situations that require much deeper comprehension. Many Americans slide back and forth on a continuum, from the acutely informed to the absolutely ignorant. And this flat coverage has wings, misunderstanding and scant comprehension spreads and morphs as it does, like some crazy virus.

Can Americans withdraw from our inextricable position within a hegemony to understand the actualities occurring in these other countries? Or is the postmodern condition too much with us? If we believe we act righteously, how righteous are the outcomes when the reason for acting is found unjust?

It seems strange that while we open our newspapers or turn on the daily news, absorbing information from official sources, people criss-crossing the globe are communicating information that gatekeepers withhold or discard. If Appadurai is correct, many exchange information that might be vital to our understanding, but these walls of identity, a citadel at which sentries stand in wait to turn away information that doesn't quite mesh with our reality, keep us from sharing or even knowing. And as I travel from website to website trying to get a handle on Kurdistan, or Iraq, or Swaziland, or Venezuela, the problem is not the lack of information, but rather the veracity of the information. Do we believe Iran needs to develop an alternative form of energy, such as the energy provided by nuclear power, or do we believe the Bush administration that Iran intends to produce weapons of mass destruction? That term, weapons of mass destruction, has a familiar feel to it. But it seems this time around the idea of weapons is already colluding with other ideas - Iranians want liberation; Iran poses a threat to its neighbors; Iran aids terrorists.

When you look back at the mosaic of news stories, one must dig deeper to gather the multiplicity of perspectives and work hard to piece them together. And as you add the layers of complexity and human interaction - news organizations, reporters, editors, audiences, reedits, reposts, word of mouth all multiplying meaning - the meaning morphs and changes, like the telephone game gone awry. Some are content with the evening news or reading the local newspaper.

But those who search throughout the net, what is the news standard by which the quality of that work or information is judged? Do we judge the international news product by the same gauge that we judge the American news product? There is no universal standard, and to claim there is - or to lay claim to it - just simply smacks of outlandish ego. But we forget, don't we? We forget that information coming from other places was gathered by those with different cultural norms. How do we, then, begin to come outside ourselves, to realize this mosaic to form a more aligned understanding of the human condition?


References
Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at Large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford University Press.

Kellner, D. (2002). Theorizing Globalization. Sociological Theory. (20)3.

Pieterse, J.N. (1995). Globalization as Hybridization in Global Modernities. In M. Featherstone, S. Lash, & R. Robertson (Eds)., pp. 45-68, Global Modernities. London: Sage.

Tomlinson, J. (1991). Cultural Imperialism. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Wallerstein, I. (1974). The Modern World-System I. San Diego: Academic Press.

Waters, M. (1995). Globalization. London: Routledge.