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.