[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Culture as dialogic relation and space

Thank you Eugene for your response:

"... But my proposal is not about "bridging, boundary
crossing, hybriding or third spacing". I'm struggle against any "space" for
"spaceless flow"."

I am not sure if I understand your notion of 'space' and 'spaceless flow.'
My understanding about spatiality is that one can not step outside of "the
space" --one goes from one kind to another, or changes one space to another.
I can understand people producing space dynamically as a flow. But any flow
produces its space, physically, in imagination, and in both. Ontologically,
space is relational, in a similar way that you define culture. It seems to
me that space and culture (which has its own space) are both produced by and
produce human activity.

"Boundaries create space -- without boundaries there is no space."

I would suggest the other way around: spaces (like cultures and languages)
create boundaries. Then we should ask what do we do about the boundaries
that are produced by these spaces? What do we do to link the spaces of two
different languages? Translating, bridging, boundary-crossing, or
eliminating the other one.

"Boundaries mean disconnect, discontinuity, gap, breakdown." 

I agree completely about what boundaries and gaps are and what they do to
us. But is it not that boundaries and gaps are part of our spatialized and
culturalized lives? 

"No boundaries -- no space -- no cultures." Or at least very temporary
boundaries, very temporary space, very temporary cultures. The later is
probably a more realistic proposal."

I think we are getting close! If we can not exist in spaceless and
cultureless world, then lets produce them in flux, and look at them as flows
of spaces and cultures (as you suggest temporary cultures and temporary
spaces). I think we are already there! I am reminded of interesting recent
post by Jay on (self) reflexivity; one crosses her own boundary by producing
new space (with new boundary to be explored).  

I suggest looking at the opposing forces we are facing today: 

1. a fundamentalist approach that lives by producing 'space-fix' and
'culture-fix' in world culture and in global geography; a 'citadel
mentality' imposition on the world. The space of this approach is
characterized by formality, verticality, and a controlling global 'network'
imposing competition (including war). After Deleuze, a 'territorializing'

2. A cosmopolitan approach that you and I seem to seek; a world of temporary
cultures and spaces--flows of them. The space of this approach is
characterized by informality, horizontality, and equality-seeking 'meshwork'
of localities wanting to link globally. A 'deterritorializing' force.


PS. These same forces perhaps can be related to the old contradiction
between exchange value and use value.