The Global Turn. Eve Darian-Smith

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ that individual agency is constrained by social structures also almost inevitably leads to the recognition that social systems are not value neutral. Social and economic systems function, but the existing systems function better for some people than for others. With the recognition of social structure comes the realization that inequality is not a natural or random occurrence. Inequality is socially structured, determined by preexisting patterns, norms, and institutions of society. Structural and critical thinking are hence very closely linked.

      The concept of social structure remains crucial to understanding global issues. We argue, however, that there is a need to revisit the notion of social structure and expand it beyond the modern nation-state and single-society paradigm in which it was developed. We need to rework the concept of social structure so that it can be applied to larger geopolitical economic structures and their varied impacts around the world. This kind of global political economic approach focuses our attention on the structural features of the current world order, highlighting the enduring political and economic inequalities within and between states and a variety of nonstate actors.

      Breaking Down Binaries

      Increasing levels of communication, integration, and interdependence in the global system require us to complicate simple binaries such as East/West, colonizer/colonized, First World/Third World, and developed/developing. Such binaries can be used effectively to emphasize inequality and injustices between continents and regions of the world. These same binaries, however, also obscure the complexity of global issues. We may talk of rich and poor countries, but only a handful of countries are unequivocally rich or poor; the large majority of them fall somewhere in between. Dichotomies such as rich/poor obscure variations between countries, as well as internal variations within each country. Even the poorest countries have wealthy elite, middle, and working classes. Conversely, even the richest regions have poverty and inequality. Moreover, assuming the conventions of a global north/global south divide may preclude us from recognizing a multitude of relations that can be characterized as south/south or south/east (Roy and Crane 2015). These new binaries are themselves problematic in their monolithic essentializing of human difference, yet they are important for shaking up modernist conventions of how to view the world in which “the West versus the rest” has prevailed for centuries.

      Immanuel Wallerstein’s world-systems approach is a good example of systemic thinking that moved beyond nation-states and simplified binaries (Wallerstein 1974). Even though Wallerstein’s core/semiperiphery/periphery model is often used as if it were a simple triad, this is not an accurate portrayal of his work. Wallerstein described a complex global system made up of distributed systemic processes that are deterritorialized in the sense that they can exist side-by-side in the same place. In his approach, core and periphery are the two ends of a spectrum. Along this spectrum some nations have more diversified economies and more total core processes than other nations. It is important to note that in his model this spectrum could also be applied to subnational regions. Within every nation there are subregions made up of predominantly core, semiperipheral, or peripheral processes. “Global cities,” for example, can be understood as core areas containing many diverse core, semiperipheral, and peripheral processes, and these cities are in some ways more closely linked to each other than to the peripheral, rural areas that surround them (Sassen 1991).

      One must always be careful when applying Western binary logics and abstractions to non-Western regions. As the world becomes more globalized, the lines between East and West, First World and Third World, and global north and global south are increasingly blurred. These analytical conventions should be treated with care so as to avoid replicating categories of thought associated with modern imperialism and colonialism. The people and issues that Europeans historically positioned “out there” at the margins are now right next door, and vice versa. At the same time, while it has always been appropriate, only recently have scholars recognized the need to apply developmental and human rights paradigms to postindustrial societies. In global studies and across the humanities and social sciences more generally, scholars should avoid using binary logics that oversimplify and obscure variation and inadvertently perpetuate a singular worldview. We should continually work to develop new terminology that more accurately reflects a wider range of diversity and variation across a continuum.

      Hybridity and Fluidity

      In addition to a strong preference for binaries, Western scholarship has a particular fondness for fixed categorical distinctions. It assumes that categories such as race, ethnicity, class, gender, or nationality accurately describe people’s identities and how people classify themselves. The implicit assumption behind these kinds of schemas is that they are both comprehensive and mutually exclusive. But such categories have many overlapping variations and are never truly fixed, stable, or complete.

      Categories are assumed to be mutually exclusive when a person cannot fit into more than one category. With increasing immigration and a better understanding of the deep histories of human movement, it is clear that our tidy racial and ethnic categories are overly simplistic and essentializing. Similarly, national identities have become complex, hyphenated, and multiple. There have always been groups that don’t fit neatly into the available categories, and globalization is making it increasingly difficult to ignore the limitations of nation-states’ categorical schemata. As Nederveen Pieterse argues, “We have been so trained and indoctrinated to think of culture in territorial packages of assorted ‘imagined communities’ that to seriously address the windows opened and questions raised by hybridization in effect requires a decolonization of imagination” (Nederveen Pieterse 2009: 57).

      Developing new terminology that more accurately reflects the range of possible identities in a globalized world is not sufficient. Any new understanding of hybrid identities also needs to take into account the transient nature of identity production itself. People have the ability to take on different identities in different social settings. People in hybrid racial, ethnic, and national categories can shift back and forth between categories, or occupy their hybrid identities, depending on the context. According to Zygmunt Bauman, “if the modern ‘problem of identity’ is how to construct an identity and keep it solid and stable, the postmodern ‘problem of identity’ is primarily how to avoid fixation and keep the options open” (Bauman 1996: 18; see Darian-Smith 2015). This kind of fluidity indicates that scholars need to increase the range of variation of their conceptual frames, making allowances for overlapping categories as well as movement between categories that in turn may alter the essentialized construct of the category itself.

      GLOBAL STUDIES AS OPPORTUNITY

      The inclusive nature of global studies as a field enables scholars to be interested in a wide range of substantive topics. These include, but are not limited to, human rights and global governance; human trafficking, sex trade, and slavery; conflict, violence, terrorism, and genocide; crime, security, and policing; poverty and inequality; economic and community development; global cities and urban slums; global markets and regional trade agreements; fair trade and supply chain issues; labor, sweatshops, and workers’ rights; the environment, natural resources, and the global commons; energy and sustainability; global social movements, women’s movements, and microfinance; food systems, food security, and traditional agriculture; humanitarian aid and disaster relief; philanthropy; immigration, diaspora, refugees, and asylum; global health, pandemics, nutrition, and epidemiology; education and transnational knowledge production; religions and religious nationalisms; and science, technology, and media (see Anheier and Juergensmeyer 2012).

      In addition to engaging with their own substantive research, many global scholars are active on their campuses developing exciting new curricula, making connections with scholars in other disciplines, and building institutional support for innovative interdisciplinary collaborations. Beyond the campus, they engage with their communities as global citizens, public intellectuals, and activist scholars. They often have enduring interests in world affairs, intercultural exchanges, and the promotion of intercultural understanding. Many also nurture this kind of global citizenship among their students by mentoring students СКАЧАТЬ