« Conversations Across Distances | Main | The Abyss of Objectivity »

February 27, 2005

Comments

Jay Rosen

I love this story, Doug. And you made the right call. But it is missing something. You had a neat ending, which was to be laconic: I finally changed the name (after she said all that.)

But as a reader I want to know: what did you make of what Chloe said? How did it register in your own language game? What sense did you emerge with, or what was the insight of hers that made you change your mind? You left that out.

You told me what she said. Now complete the post. Tell me what you heard that made you change your mind.

Jane Shevtsov

To Chloe, if she ever reads this:

I think I understood what you said, although I greatly prefer English to postmodernese. But I saw how you privelege the local over the global and, as the person who, for better or for worse, coined "worldplace" as a more euphonious alternative to "glocal" (fish in throat), maybe I can explain a little about what it is.

I study ecology and geography and have become intensely interested in local-global interactions. As Denis Wood puts it in his book Five Billion Years of Global Change, each particular place is the result of an intersection of global flows, be they physical, biological or social. At the same time, the global emerges from the local. This is not new but thinking about it IS new and may require some new words and concepts. I don't know what connotations Friedman intended for "glocal", but to me, thinking in worldplace terms means honoring the particular and local while seeing it as intimately connected to the general and global. Doug McGill does an excellent job of this.

The comments to this entry are closed.