{"id":10711,"date":"2020-05-28T18:59:06","date_gmt":"2020-05-28T23:59:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/?p=10711"},"modified":"2021-06-13T22:08:19","modified_gmt":"2021-06-14T03:08:19","slug":"mapping-identities-in-global-cultural-studies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/2020\/05\/28\/mapping-identities-in-global-cultural-studies\/","title":{"rendered":"Mapping identities in global cultural studies"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

People’s identities are an object of study in a range of fields, but it’s the field of cultural studies<\/a> that has most singularly, even obsessively, sought to understand how identities interact with politics in changing media environments. Cultural studies first emerged in a British<\/a> milieu marked by very specific relations between socio-economic classes, media industries, and an industrial-capitalist economic system. As it has struggled to keep up with a changing and increasingly globalized world (e.g., Abbas and Erni 2004<\/a>, Bachman-Medick 2014<\/a>, Connery and Wilson 2007<\/a>, Freeman and Proctor 2018<\/a>, Szeman 2011<\/a>), cultural studies has become necessarily more informed by the sociology of globalization and by the anthropology of “multiple<\/em> globalizations,” with their late colonial, postcolonial, and decolonizing<\/a> contexts and their various relationships with the transnational capitalist economy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Developing theoretical frameworks that cover the entirety of global culture has been challenging<\/a>, and there seems to be a shared sentiment among scholars that no single such framework can ever adequately encompass the study of cultural identities writ large across the world. The following is a framework that I have been finding useful in thinking about the cognitive<\/em> (or worldview<\/em>) dimensions of “global culture,” including emerging manifestations of “ecoculture<\/a>” or “ecocultural identity<\/a>.” It is intended to help us think about how people, as individuals and as communities, make sense of their place (and time) in the world in relation to others. <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

The framework is structured along two intersecting axes, one separating “tradition” (and “traditionalism”) from “modernity” (and “modernism”), the other distinguishing what I am calling “monology” (or “monologism”) from “reflexivity.” Below are some definitions, caveats, and other notes on how I am thinking about these. Together the axes offer an admittedly blunt tool for analysis, and the terms in the blue boxes (or quadrants) are intended to be at best suggestive. I welcome any thoughts, suggestions, or criticisms of this model. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Definitions, clarifications, and caveats<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. Neither “tradition” nor “modernity<\/a>” (nor the latter’s various cognates, such as “development<\/a>,” “progress,” or “advancement”) are stable signifiers. There are multiple “traditions<\/a>” and “traditionalisms,” and there are multiple “modernities<\/a>,” “modernisms,” and “modernizations<\/a>.” There are multiple emic<\/em> (i.e., localized, “insider”) understandings of this tradition-modernity dichotomy. But some form of it, encompassing some understanding of change toward what is or takes itself to be “modern” (and\/or “progressive” and\/or “developed” and\/or “advanced”) is as close to being a universal trope as anything in our historical era. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Cultural analysts need not, and indeed should not, take any of these constructs of “tradition” and “modernity” for granted. They are what is to be explained<\/em>, as are the meanings ascribed to the “modern<\/a>” and its connections to other cultural and economic processes, such as colonialism<\/a> and capitalism<\/a> in their multiple variants and phases. But the presence of something loosely connected to or derived from “modernity” and “modernization,” and by implication something that this modernity either challenges, threatens, or displaces<\/a> (i.e., “tradition”), can rarely be avoided in understanding how people interpret their place in the world. Whether one is a Davos financier, an African farmer or hunter-gatherer, or a refugee or illegal migrant laborer, one is aware of the fact that the world has become or is becoming “modern” and that in doing so it has been moving away from some<\/em>thing that more closely resembled the way one’s ancestors lived. And chances are, one is identified in part with how one locates oneself within that relationship. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

For instance, “tradition” may tend to suggest repetition, inertia, and constraint, while “modernity” tends to suggest innovation and novelty, as well as a (unilinear or multilinear) progressive advance forward. But none of these connotations should be taken for granted: tradition can and does advance (or is invented<\/a>), while modernity can affix, stabilize, constrain, and even imprison<\/a>. The arrows in the diagram do not move in one direction (from tradition to modernity); they stretch in both, with the possibility of movement from either to the other, and with the possibility of both ends changing forms. Again, these are what is to be explained — they are neither fixed nor settled in their meanings, but the background assumptions around them can rarely be avoided entirely, and are liable to be found in any realm of cultural life from protest, popular culture<\/a>, and sports<\/a> to heritage<\/a>, religion<\/a>, and philosophy<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. By “monology” I mean an unwavering commitment to a singular worldview (set of narratives about time and space, with accompanying values, etc.) and a seeming incapacity to accommodate other, radically different worldviews. By “reflexivity” I mean a capacity to self-critically accommodate or at least seriously entertain multiple and divergent worldviews or worldview possibilities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The two terms are not obviously and directly counterposed, in part because there are multiple forms that reflexivity can take. For instance:<\/p>\n\n\n\n