"The new global cultural economy has to be seen as a complex, overlaping, disjunctive order, which cannot any longer be understood in terms of existing center-periphery models....The complexity of the current global economy has to do with certain fundamental disjunctures between economy, culture and politics which we have only begun to theorize" (Appadurai, Page 6)
Arjun Appadurai's theoryscapes on "global cultrual flow" are effective at talking about the cite of recent cultural flow and perhaps 'disjuncture.' Although I understand the ethnoscape (Page 7) as the human network in the cultural system*, and the technoscape (Page 8) as the realm of (recently digital) mechanized systems of creation and distribution, the last three theoryscapes are less clear to me. The finanscape (Page 8) seems to be the cultural area where mysterious ideas and ideals about capital come into existence, but is their origin really mysterious or just hidden? Next we arrive at the mediascape and ideoscape (Page 9) which I thought were very related. I'm pretty sure that most of what I think of as the way I am effected by a global ideoscape comes from the mediascape and all the mediascape stuff comes from the technoscape right? And it's all reliant on money, which is the finanscape?
This complex interrelated multidimensionality reminded me of two similarly confusing things: string theory and political institutional bureaucracy. To try to better understand it, I thought I could eliminate one or two. Maybe I could say that the mediascape and technoscape were just the glue between the enthnoscape and the ideoscape, running on some finanscape fuel. But then I realized I didn't understand what the fuel was? What is capital, the substance of the finanscape? I'm not sure the finanscape exsists or if it's just a thing used to suppress the working class. Maybe emerging imagined networks, characterized as 'disjuntures' and potential crises, are simply the result of the technosphere gaining so much power, it is expose sing the finanscape as a part of an ideoscape created by certain enthnoscapes useing technoscapes.
Do some of the scapes control and/or create the other scapes? Is that what is causing disjuncture, hierarchy and the resulting revolution of the suppressed 'working class' used for the cultural benefit of the controlling party? Marxism as a part of natural selection, demonstrated as machines of the technoscape revolute against being used to create suppressive ideoscapes, mediascapes and finanscapes.
Part of the enthnoscape includes the migrant communities Appadurai focuses on, but also the owners of media which Appadurai mentions during the discussion of mediascape on page 9. Enthnoscapes demanded self-improving technoscapes and used them to create mediascapes which sold the idea that finanscapes and ideoscapes are different things (because no matter your ideology, your a part of capitalism and finananscapes, right?). Now, as technoscapes are improving at the rate of Moore's law or faster, enthnoscapes cant seem to keep up with their control of the ideoscapes through mediascapes. Does this make sense? I will hopefully explain this blog post in class because it's gotta end now.