Hi everyone,
I can't believe this is our last post for the semester!
Paul du Gay explores the discourse of economy and economic management in the context of economic globalization alongside national economic securitization. Understanding globalization as a form of common sense, du Gay insists on a distinction between what was once a rhetorical logic of homoeconomicus to its contemporary iteration of entrepreneurial self/man. (119-120) I wan to posit a question on method, how do we come to name a new constitutive formation? To me, both of these sound oddly similar. From my understanding, entrepreneurial man is coded to be in constant making of the self (attempting to erase the "losers" of capitalism as always self making; i.e. unemployment), one whose status is perpetuated by the convergence of state and market logics. So while I think I follow where there is distinction, how do we become perceptive to the complexity of the contemporary moment without flattening distinctions of what is occurring now than what was occurring before?
Nestory Garcia Canclini's engagement with hybridity (intersections and mixings between cultures--p.41 and the generative space of creating new structures/new practices--43 a field of energy and sociocultural innovation--49) was very illuminating for me. Canclini argues that hybridization is taken up by Hall to resist detainment he states, "boundaries, borders, instead of detaining people, are places that people cross in a continuous manner illegally." (50) How is the literal border a site of constant negotiation, or a space of sociocultural innovation troubled/challenged by migrating bodies?
Comments
Post a Comment