A (positive) Critique on Appadurai

In his work, "Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy," Arjun Appadurai sets forth several comments about culture and its evolution as the world becomes more and more connected through globalization. I particularly liked how Appadurai framed his article, by addressing how cultures and their accompanying systems had existed before the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Historically, various cultures had interacted mainly through events involving warfare and religious missionaries seeking conversion. This frame illuminates how the world had previously been fragmented, and interactions remained relatively disjointed, save during intense cultural interactions. 

Appadurai, in his transition into discussing modern globalization, illustrates the kick that pushes cultural interactions to modern ones. This kick, according to Appadurai is called "print capitalism" (labeled by Benedict Anderson). The ability to share ideas and information through "mass literature" produced interactions that did not require physical contact between groups of people. Before reading Appadurai's work I had never considered mass print production to be the first major unifier, but it seems very clear now. Perhaps this is a testimony to Appadurai's ability to argue effectively.

Appadurai smoothly transitions into his central discussion of his “scapes” by defining globalization and the tensions that accompany them. He presents the argument that “the central problem of today’s global interactions is the tension between cultural homogenization and cultural heterogenization.” I both understand and appreciate the argument here and I fully believe that through globalization tensions between the “purity” (for lack of a better word), or diversity of cultures. However, I believe that major tensions in globalization could be attributed to varying power structures create inequalities between different cultures, and how these power inequalities influence the flow of resources, which Appadurai describes in his five “scapes.”

Appadurai’s first “scape,” of globalization is the ethnoscape can be defined as the movement of people to other places, which forces us to ask ourselves what happens to culture when the movement of people is constantly fluid. Appadurai assures us that the fluidity is not related to instability, but it is inherent in human nature to move. Appadurai also defines the Technoscape as technology moving from central to peripheral nations (to use the World-Systems Theory). This is where I believe power dynamics come into play and reveal their underlying tensions. In the mediascape information is shared around the world through large news broadcasting systems. In my opinion, this mediascape can be seen as a direct evolution from the “print capitalism” he discusses earlier. The third scape, ideoscape, is more difficult for me to understand, but it is essentially words that represent larger cultural ideologies (such as freedom, honor, democracy), and how those specific ideologies help to shape the cultures with which they are tied. Finally, financescapes describe the flow of capital from various countries, and can be exemplified through large scale establishments such as world banks.

Overall, I though Appadurai’s article was extremely accessible and quite interesting to read. His points were thoroughly explained with diction that was particularly easy to follow, but also explained complex ideas. I thought this article greatly enhanced my overall understanding of globalization and the affects it has upon our society.