In Doreen Massey’s “A Place Called Home?” there is a discussion on how we give concepts such as ‘home’ and ‘place’ a certain identity.
There is a significant relationship between identity and place that help to define “home.” Is home more than a geographical location in which a group of people relate? Is home a state of being where an individual finds comfort and security or a place where our identities are constructed?
Massey explains in detail the effects of globalization and sates “The link between culture and place, it is argued, is being ruptured.”(160) Do you agree with this statement on how a location’s culture is being defined by the products is exports? Do you believe these exports would be a strength or weakness to the overall representation of that culture?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think that as Arial suggested, a home is a state of being where an individual finds comfort. As Massey point out near the end of the piece, “the identity of place is always and continuously being produced” (171). In other words, a place is never just one thing, but rather is constantly changing and evolving. Bell points out that often home serves as a stable and comforting place during times of “estrangement and alienation”. However Massey makes it a point to say that places are not created from a long past history but “derive, in a large part, precisely from the specificity of its interactions with ‘the outside’ (169). Therefore, she is saying that we create place, and that is why the identity of a place is “unfixed” (169).
Massey speaks a great deal about the globalization of place, and in doing so makes some confusing, but at the same time valid points. Her repeated phrase of “time-space compression” was a bit hard to grasp in the beginning of the piece. However I began to understand more clearly the meaning of this “compression”. With technology constantly advancing, the barriers between what used to be deemed far places are being broken. Massey believes that technology has made “communications round the world, by electronic mail, by fax, virtually instantaneous” (162). She believes that this has left many feeling “placeless and disoriented”(163). Although the products certain locations export certainly contribute to the culture there, I’m not sure you can say they are defining it. To say that the products define the place takes away from all that the people living there contribute. The truth is that technology is going to continue to advance as long as people continue using and praising it. However, I don’t think it is fair to say that with globalization comes a loss of culture.
I agree with Erin that globalization does not necessarily constitute a loss of culture. Just because aspects of the culture change and evolve, this does not mean that the original must be completely lost. Thus, a culture may currently be defined by its exports, but that does not mean that it is not also defined by its people, et cetera. Simply because new aspects of culture aid in developing its definition, this does not mean that the original defining characteristics are disregarded. It is clearly evident where parts of society evolved from, thus, the original is always preserved even as globalization takes over.
Massey refers to the fact that it is harder to maintain these connections with our past due to globalization. Though this may be the case, we as people recognize that we must not abandon our past. The importance of history in the definition of a given place proves this fact. Maintaining a connection with the past allows for people to formulate a sense of place, as Massey points out. I believe that we recognize the importance of preserving our history in order to define our present place and predict our future. This leads to the other part of Ariel’s question, which asks what constitutes a home? I think that a home is where a person feels comfortable, however, in order to feel comfortable, a person must feel a sense of history in the place. For example, upon moving into college, a student does not feel like Stonehill is home because he or she is not comfortable there yet. The only way to become comfortable is to spend time there and to develop you own “history” with the place.
Home definitely exists as more than just a physical object. Home is attributed to comfort and security. It is also subject to change according to the individual. Home is defined by who we are. It is not a single place and does not exist in one space. Home is a collection of both the mental, physical and emotional aspects of our lives. Rather than being embodied in physical objects it is more a state of mind, where your memories and experiences evolve. Anywhere can be home, but you have to want it to be. You can make a place your home, or you can have a place that you have always considered home.
I believe that globalization does, to some extent, erode culture. But maybe erode isn't the right word, for it more transforms culture. Technology's constant advances create new aspects to culture in the place of old. If America's major export was crops, it doesn't mean that our culture is represented by farm country. A technology savvy country could export bananas, but that wouldn't change the fact that they are one of the most technological advanced countries in the world. There's a fine line between culture and the materialistic market.
I thought the Massey article was a really interesting way to look at place and home. It was more literal than some of the other pieces weve read but in some ways a little more overwhelming to grasp. By using the idea of home and place in the context of globalization and big companies, Massey created a view of the world that is utterly disconnected; "Their own national identities become confused or irrelevent" (160). I definately think that a sense of home is more than just where you live, or where you work out of or where a company is based. And I agree with Massey that the boundaries between culture,(especially pop culture) and the worlds seperate national identities are becoming foggy. The concept of "americanization" is a big factor in this, as Massey mentions "coca-cola, and mcdonalds penetrate different national markets in different national ways". But moreso, is american pop culture that has infected other countries. Every person in europe can name the six (?) characters in friends, or Madonna's latest album, or who is going to star in the next transformers movie. National identites are just as hard to determine in the popo culture world as in the world economy. While I cant name any norwegian, or italian, or german tv show, our culture is largely taking over theirs. As Massey says "It has long been the exception rather than the rule that place could be simply equated with community" (163), but when a place is defined by its exports, often times the two are torn apart. While technoology has added to the "placelessness" of home for much of the world it is nice to actually have a physicality to the word home.
I think home affords us a sense of comfort and security in that we are more familiar with the forces that affect us in our chosen "home". We are able to understand the certain social interactions that form who we are. Massey states that place "is always formed by juxtaposition and co-presence there of particular sets of social interactions" (168) So as individuals we see this juxtaposition and recognize it as our own: we know both how we act and how we don't act. I thought it interesting thought how Massey phrases this type of identification as "positive interrelations" (169) which I took to mean we identify ourselves as similar to others, not different from (the long held idea).
Her thoughts on globalization were interesting too. "Globalization can in no way be equated with homogenization" (160) caught me off guard because that is opposite of the point she was going to conclude. Her logic though stands because every global product there is, is received differently in each community. "Each geographical place in the world is being realigned in relation to the new global realities" (161) shows to me that despite the "time-space compression" Erin mentioned, places will want to remain individual, but will eventually succumb to the global economic pressure (meaning they will eventually have to conduct business in similar fashions, not become similar entirely). I think that desire to remain independent will allow the different niches of aforementioned global products to remain open. Japan will never want to be like the United States wholly, so there market will continue to need, desire and aspire for different things.
Post a Comment