Imagined Worlds and the Global Flow.

I was interested in Appadurai’s discussion of imagination, imagined worlds and scapes. His argument seems to be centered on the idea that cultural transactions and interactions are more readily available and instantaneous now more than ever. The previous problems that existed globally, like time, distance and limited technology were eliminated as a part of ‘Print Capitalism’. This unleashed new technologies and power, little need for face-to-face communication and a new type of ‘neighborliness’. Here Appadurai suggests the importance of imagination as a new form of social practice and how it links scapes and dimensions of global flow.

There are five dimensions of Global Flow:

-ethnoscapes- landscape of persons who constitute the shifting world (tourists/immigration)

-mediscapes-landscape of images, distribution of electronic capabilities to produce and disseminate information

-technoscapes- global configuration, fluidity between technology and how it moves at high speeds across boundaries

-finanscapes-dispoition of global capital and how its source is mysterious

-ideoscapes-concatenations of images- directly poltical and frequently have to do with ideologies of states and countercultures

These scapes point to imagination or imagined worlds that take on an irregular shape and influence Print Capitalism or global interactions. Here I want to point out the argument of what makes a public sphere. Considering that these scapes are new ways in which the world is connected and the way the world is ordered, it in itself is a new public sphere.

Knowing Jodi Dean’s essay: The Internet is Not a Public Sphere, in combination with Habermas’ arguments on what makes a democratic public sphere I question whether this new imagined world is an accurate landscape or sphere. The problem is most obvious when we consider the ‘ethnoscape’. Tourists or immigrants may or may not have knowledge of technology or be capable of taking part in this imagined world. Therefore they may not be able to take part in Habermas’ public sphere as argued by Dean. The lack of need for face-to-face communication as articulated by Appadurai directly contrasts Dean’s argument that face-to-face communication is necessary for a democratic public sphere. These scapes clearly outline the changing spheres, caused by Print Capitalism; however is it true that imagined worlds or technology cannot be a true public sphere?