When ethnomethodologists and/or siruated aprroach says "local, situated
actions", the meaning of "local" here is not opposite term of global.
Rather, it implies that the difference between rule governed vs rule oriented
or plan governed vs plan oriented.
Or the term "local", "situated" addresses contingency of interaction.
So, it is possible to say that locally organized globalizing alghough it
depends on the meaning of globalizing.
Anyway, the dimesion Latour tried to show by the term "localizing" seems to
slip off the dimension situated approach tried to show by the term "local"
This is because the term "local" easily reminds us of the term "global" as
opposite term.
Local, situated actions are often regarded as "operation" level in the
activity theory as well. It is also misundestanding.
There is another similar, much more popular misunderstanding. That is
context specific and context general.
In the argument concerning context in 80s, the term "context" has been
often treated as the opposite term of "context free" or "context general".
That was (is) also the staring point of big misunderstanding of
cognitivists.
Formulating learning as "context specific to general" was really bad and it
has really confused the issue of context.
Naoki Ueno
NIER, Tokyo