Rannie Appadurai

Appadurai presents the idea of scapes to describe global cultural flow, and that previous ideas of center-periphery models are too simplistic. The author proposes five dimensions of global cultural flow: ethnoscapes, mediascapes, technoscapes, finanscapes and ideoscapes. All of these apply to international capital and their fluidity and irregularity is emphasized. These are perspectival constructs, which do not always have the same meaning or hold the same relationships between them. For example, historical, political and linguistic context looks different for different actors, who can range from individuals, to small groups, to entire nations and states.

“These landscapes thus are the building blocks of what (extending Benedict Anderson) I would like to call imagined worlds, that is, the multiple worlds which are constituted by the historically situated imaginations of persons and groups spread around the globe.” (Appadurai, 1990; 7). This statement speaks to subjectivity, that people see issues from multiple perspectives, which are different but not necessarily at odds or wrong. Appadurai claims that “many persons on the globe live in such imagined worlds” p. 7. I agree with Appadurai’s conceptualization, but I believe it has not been taken far enough. Isn’t this how everyone everywhere constructs their view of reality? In a way, it feels like the process being described is simply how everyone sees the world around them. I think the point that Appadurai is getting at with this text is that for some people, their imagined world lines up with the general discourse or narratives of their nation-states or communities, but not for others, which could have been emphasized more.

While the breakdown of these scapes is an interesting thought experiment, the fluid nature of the construct itself makes it difficult to categorize issues or people into one category and not the other. For example, a major migration of skilled factory workers has an element of ethnoscape (because people are moving around), technoscape (because the factory work requires technological knowledge) and finanscape (because presumably the goods from the factory will be sold and make up part of a community’s economy). In addition to these material and tangible aspects, the ideoscapes and mediascapes of the factory, company and the work in general are also important for the factory and how it is viewed, locally and globally. Thus, the idea of scapes is helpful in the sense that it breaks some of these forces into categories so that we may better understand them. However, because many phenomena consist of all of these factors, such a breakdown could be more artificial than not.

Perhaps these ideas of scapes can be applied to violence against women, and more broadly to male supremacy. Out of all of the scapes, the mediascape is probably the most dominant in constructing narratives and meanings about what violence is, what counts as violence, who is a legitimate victim and what should be done about it. “What is most important about these mediascapes is that they provide (especially in their television, film and cassette forms) large and complex repertoires of images, narratives and ethnoscapes to viewers throughout the world.” (Appadurai, 1990; 9). For example, framing domestic violence as a problem of wives not obeying their husbands or as pathological behavior perpetrated by few individuals means that the narrative centers around those constructs. These ideas and constructions of reality therefore start to frame how we see this problem on a global scale, which influences what we think should be done about it. The other types of scapes, such as idioscapes, ethnoscapes, finanscapes and technoscapes can then be connected to these ideas in a more peripheral manner. For example, male domination serves to use women’s unpaid labor in the home and community to further the interests of that family. This labor usually goes unrecognized in the global context, limiting women’s autonomy on the international stage. This is true, even in the Western, ‘gender equal’ world. Appadurai’s work is an interesting framework which I think could be used widely to study violence and global male domination.

Question for the class

What are the limits to Appadurai’s concept of scapes? Are there any topics or places to which the concept does not apply? Or is it so flexible that it necessarily fits all issues? Is that a strength or a weakness?