The postcolonial realm has produced global cities and massive diasporas. Global movement exponentially accelerates; this, however, is not solely due to the processes of capitalist globalization, a top down fluidity, but often in spite of it. The following chapter traces several theories of ‘autonomy of migration’ through a Spinozian lens. Through the works of Mezzadra, Mitropoulos, Papadopoulos, and many others, political agency is revealed in the processes of migration and its concurrent challenges to the confinement and control of capitalist structures, the state, and other forms of power. In opposition to the works of theorists such as Agamben and Arendt, this paper attempts to provide a concept of politics and ‘rights’ that do not require either a polis or transcendental duty bearer. The migrant is explored as fundamentally in opposition to political exclusion: a stateless politics is revealed.
Despite the recent financial crisis and zeal for austerity measures, the social enterprise model is continuously hailed as the local grassroots, organisational solution for both the empowerment and development of the poor. On the one hand it is a market-friendly model that answers to UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s call for the Big Society and on the other hand, a democratic answer to autonomy. This chapter tracks the growth of the social enterprise to the universal figure of the rational entrepreneur that largely stemmed from the global neoliberalisation of development. Through the lens of the global-is-local, the political social implications of Aboriginal management in domestic policy undoubtedly coexist with the rise of the social enterprise in Indigenous Australia.
The chapter examines local understandings of intellectual disability among Ecuadorian families. It argues that a global imposition of concepts and definitions of disability have blurred the local knowledge acquired in time and space by families. It also enquires about the strategies that disabled families and their impaired members have developed to negotiate, to accept, to reject or to confront global discourses that are present in such a construction. Misinterpretations of family practices in the so-called countries of the South have been globally disseminated creating the image of disabled families’ life as linear and invariable. In this chapter, intellectual disability has been analysed as a local construct that although it responds to professional, bureaucratic, moral and cultural categories; a category of intimacy and mutuality could have been adopted by families to resist a globalising process of professional domination. Consequently, more ethnographic research is needed in order to unveil the impact of global definitions on disabled families and to rescue local knowledge and intimate experiences of intellectual disability.
This chapter is an initial exploration into the multiple ‘reals’ that the logic of zero, as manifest in Western economics, is at work in. In the spirit of postcolonial radicality and through enlisting post-Marxist psychoanalytical modes of scrutiny it seeks to disassemble the capitalist edifice, breaking apart its supposed univocity. It argues that high capital is totalising only in the field of its own speaking position. It explores neo-liberal fiscal governance as a subjectivising programme and compares it to value systems whose ontologies are outside of ‘the West’, thereby postulating that it is at the level of the subjectivisation of the individual that resistance to ‘Western’ hegemony must be thought. It argues that no longer can such resistance be posited at the level of a unitary capital vs. multiple but equally lumpen and subjugated subalterns.
This chapter is devoted to the following questions: what is a composite monoculture? How does it form structures and order things? What sort of new composite human do these structures and orders produce? The composite monoculture controls schemes of thinking and processes of desire through a super-marketization of society and the creation of a symbolically centralized democracy – how is this achieved? These questions are based on the presumption that production, distribution, and consumption are schematized practices of thinking, which form a system of persuasion; therefore, the article considers not only material, but also ideational products. With this in mind, the concept of production is separated into the following categories: universal, mass, monopolizing, totalitarian, global, and composite monocultural components. The concept of monoculturality signals a kind of production independent of the traditional capitalist production monopolists, small businesses, and state economies. Monoculturality concerns not only goods, but also demands, desires, and ideas; it makes unities of human beings. The article seeks to explain why people choose and trust symbols, names, pictures, and theories common to many countries, institutions, and groups, and why they like to be monads that eschew swarms of qualities. Monoculturality is considered a subaltern form that can be interpreted similarly to concepts such as Herbert Marcuse’s one-dimensional man, Guy Debord’s society of the spectacle, Jean Baudrillard’s simulacrums, Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari’s desiring machines, and the global imaginary as theorized by Bhaskar Mukhopadhyay. Super-marketization is interpreted as the main principle for moulding life into a monoculture. It produces deserts of culture by spreading the same names, symbols, goods, and orders into large territories, which produces an illusion of diversity that hides the monoculturality lying at core of contemporary thinking and behaviour. However, anthropologists and new critical nomads see the diversity for what it is – an illusion – and see the potentially disastrous results of the growth of a composite monoculture and its super-marketization. These anthropologists and nomads seek to build new structures for understanding the world. This article underscores the importance of obscurity, self-othering, transgression, and creative disruptions as key means for providing unique cultural and life niches. The main thesis here is that the dialectic of host-and-guest in the deinstitutionalized process of open organizations and through the dynamics of creative groups can help to resist the tendencies borne of monoculturality.
This chapter explores the idea of the proliferation of heterotopian emplacements under conditions of globalization, seeing it as a spatial transformation. Utilizing theories from Foucault, and Deleuze and Guattari, among others, the chapter raises questions about possible alternative ways of existence that oppose themselves to the monocultural tendencies of globalization. It looks at the process of consumption, and the spaces in which consumption unfolds, emphasizing the desire of global brands and simultaneous desire for the Other. In addition to exploring the ideas of spatial transformation and possibilities of nomadic thought as opposed to one-dimensional thought, the chapter offers reflections on experiencing of wandering in transforming spaces, in particular in New Delhi, India.