In Global Matters, Paul Jay writes, “The process we call globalization is characterized by the conflation of cultural and economic forms” (34). By establishing this relationship, Jay designates globalization as a complex process, determined by both economic and cultural factors. Jay cites Stiglitz to introduce economic globalization as, “…the complex product of dramatically increased and unregulated economic exchanges across national borders and the creation of institutional structures to manage and equalize those exchanges” (54). On the other hand, Jay presents literary narrative, cinema, television, and live performances as cultural forms and goes on to assert that these, “…are commodities”(55). In this sense, culture flows through the consumption of products related to these areas: books, movies, TV shows, and music. The aforementioned theorist presents this argument as a response to those who tried to explain globalization exclusively from a materialistic or a cultural approach, saying that, “…these forms of exchange have always overlapped” (56). Jay’s argument portrays the complexity and interdependence of cultural and economic processes. Furthermore, we are predisposed to accept this reasoning due to the fact that it is unlikely for a single factor to determine a transnational process in the complex world in which we live. Nevertheless, we ought to ask if cultural forms are reduced to literary narratives, cinema, television, and live performances. What constitutes a cultural form? Is the flow of culture confined to these expressions? And if they are, do they portray culture accurately? Is the culture being portrayed idealized, contaminated or is it a reliable portrayal?
Additionally, Paul Jay’s linkage of economic and cultural forms is based on Appadurai’s theory of global flows and the role of the imagination in the configuration of imagined selves and worlds (35). Jay uses the “scapes” proposed by Appadurai (ethnoscapes, mediascapes, technoscapes, financescapes, and ideoscapes) to prove that there is a connection between economic and cultural forms. He states that for Appadurai they are “a complex set of global flows that have set loose contexts for the imaginative reformation of subjectivity across the borders of nation-states” (35). By portraying these flows as a set, Jay validates their interrelation. Even if we accept that these global flows are related, there is no impediment for us to question Appadurai’s assertion of the importance of imagination in the formation of subjectivity. Is the imagination paramount in our acceptance, imitation and appropriation of what we see in movies, read in books and listen in music? Is this in fact how culture flows? And ultimately, are these expression the only medium through which culture flows?
Paul Jay’s exegesis is very appealing. It incorporates different points of view, interpretations and explanations about cultural interactions. Nonetheless, there is an implicit assumption that culture only flows through mercantile operations of cultural products.
I find this to be a solid argument, and chose to comment on this post specifically because I do agree with the arguments you make. What Jay calls the ‘conflation’ of cultural and economic forms is essentially in agreement with his stance on redefining formerly rigid and binary ways of looking at globalization and transnationalism as a whole. Jay makes the argument that we ‘we cannot neatly separate economic from cultural commodities”, and even goes as far as to say that ‘commodities, currencies, and cultures are inseparable”. His dialectical approach therefore brings me to your point of questioning the definition of cultural form. While Jay does mention examples of “literary narrative, cinema, television, and live performances” as cultural forms, I most certainly do not believe that Jay argues that it ends here. When considering Jay’s argument that it is ‘nearly impossible to figure out where economic globalization stops and cultural globalization begins’, the question of cultural and economic forms and their components seem even more daunting. His vision for incorporating transnationalism into the study of globalization is essentially based on reducing binary categorization in all aspects while embracing the complex and often undefinable elements it involves. This change in the way transnationalism and globalization are approached must then begin with the redefinition of the key terms they encompass. Essentially, that the way we look at, define, and consider culture must be drastically redefined in less binary terms. Jay supports this in stating that there are ‘no such things as pure, autonomous cultures that are not ‘contaminated’ by productive contact with each other.” If we take this to be true, we can then assume that culture, cultural forms, and the definitive components contained within these terms must also be re-imagined due to the constant ‘productive’ exchange that occurs.
I particularly appreciate the quote you used from Jay that emphasized the role of the ‘conflation of cultural and economic forms.’ Through Jay’s readings, I continuously returned to the varying definitions that he provided regarding borderlands/borderlines, referencing Anzaldua’s and Glissant, among others. Personally, the notion that at these borders cultural and material exchange produce a new entity, whether it be classified as purely cultural, economic or something else, returns to the idea of conflation or ‘presencing,’ using Bhabha’s term, because it emphasizes the appearance or emergence of this new ‘identity.’