not a cod question but i do wonder what you are trying to investigate/show?

Featherstone was the best reference I found on global culture when I was working on globalisation and culture in Latin America some time ago

maybe see where the debate is at and where you can intervene?

The paper I'm tidying up is about the immigration influx in Europe or 'crisis' as it is often described, and the documented 'crisis' in the rise of Nationalism. My argument is for the wider acceptance of 'personal experience narratives' as a folkloric item, as it might present a practical aid to constitutional patriotism: That collecting and sharing stories might be a good tool for social cohesion. This question I suppose is broader and more tangential to the actual research.

Thanks for the Featherstone reference - I shall follow that up.

constitutional patriotism a new one to me, sounds interesting

migration debate is a hard one ok

sure is! - thanks again Ronaldo

The answer is glocalization, or global and local;

and the last is impossible without (local) CH.

On globality, you might look at Seyla Banhabib's article "Twilight of Sovereignty" to inform your question. Are we in a globalized spot to raise the question of citizenship without boundaries? She seems to be tackling this quite well.

Human cultures are dynamic and multifaceted. Particular cultural identities blend with and are in tension with mainstream or globalising contexts, and people develop at least a bicultural or a multicultural capacity.

Thanks for the reference Joshua and your thoughts David. I feel inter-culturalism rather than multi-culturalism may be the answer here though - it seems to align more readily with Jurij's contribution to the thread of glocalisation? what do you think?

Yes, interculturalism may be more precise but on the other hand it may obscure the complexities of adaptation and blending of cultural elements.

In my opinion, depending on the topic being observed. The common interest in the global community would expect a similarity of cultural identity, so there is no cultural difference. However, for the local interest of course the cultural identity of each important as a form of inheritance of values ​​to the next generation. At the very least, let a different identity develop with the same purpose. If no one strikes a difference, it certainly will not develop into a conflict that may be prolonged. Thank you

I am a venerable psychological anthropologist and I initially thought your question was rhetorical. Cultural identities are absolutely essential to everyone and if, by ‘one global culture’, you refer to a homogenized entity lacking diversity and texture, I believe that would be worse than tragic. As evolution thrives on diversity, so too does cultural and social progress. At the same time no culture is ever unchanging and the alterations that occur generally arrive from external stimuli: new ideas, new procedures, even new foods lead to new combinations and unforeseeable lines of progress. Whether through osmosis, cultural diffusion, long-term acculturation or even the outright domination of one culture by another, cultures change ––– but often in ways difficult to anticipate. The old saying that “Rome Conquered Greece, but Greece conquered Rome.” Is a fine example of the surprises and benefits that can be encountered due to cultural change.

Thanks Douglas - i’m In complete agreement with you - I did mean a homogenised culture. I find it difficult to understand why there are social and political groups in action to that very end. When it strikes me that it could surely only end disastrously for the reasons you mention. Although you’re right I should feel comforted by the Darwinian style effects and movements of culture/s.

I appreciated Douglas' (Dr. Raybeck?) response as well. From my Development Anthropology training, the original premise of the 'modern nation-state' ('modern' as in the modernist time-frame of the 19th and mid-20th centuries) is to coalesce (coerce?) different ethnic peoples to be molded into a homogenized, "united," polity - with a "national" language, "national" culture, and "national" codified values, etc. The discourse of 'modern development' is fraught with ideas, terminology, and concepts that rail against the acknowledgment - let alone the preservation - of distinct ethnicity within the plurality of "imagined communities" (Anderson's [1983] term). Indeed, Benedict Anderson's classic tome might be another monograph to reference in regards to "tidying up" your paper along these lines...

Cultural diversity (at all levels - personal, familial, societal) is a pillar for making a sense of self and others.

How does a so called global culture (if meant to be a uni-versioned culture at personal, group, and social levels) contribute to a sense of self and others?

Mark is right; Anderson's book will be very useful to you. (Mark, I tend to eschew titles. One of the brightest persons I have known only had an eighth grade education, but a most remarkable mind.)

Seffetullah: You open a very helpful perspective. George Herbert Mead suggested that we only know ourselves through our interactions with and feedback from others. You are suggesting that this should obtain at the societal level and I would agree.

Culture is one of the main features of one's identity. It is through interaction with others that we are aware of cultural differences. So I believe that it makes more sense to keep such an identity marker, otherwise we'll feel no difference at all from each other.

Mark, Douglas, thanks for the reminder about the text (Anderson's) as it happens I'm using this on another chapter I'm writing at the moment. I don't know why the link didn't happen?!

Is Nationhood then only of benefit to fiscal manipulations of culture then: NationX PLC.

I think (he wrote uncertainly) that Nationhood can be beneficial or problematic depending on the wider context. During the last few centuries, the West 'created' Nation States in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia for reasons that were largely economic. In doing so, they usually mashed together different cultures, speech groups and ethnicities that had little in common and were not infrequently hostile to one another. Alternately, Nations that arose and evolved on their own tended to be stronger, better integrated and capable dealing effectively with outsiders, e.g. Japan.

Yes but very few nations actually emerged 'on their own' did they?

Nation state formation is also linked up with the emergence of capitalism and the need to consolidate an internal market.

And in Africa yes as you say its related to the sorry story of European colonialism

From an African reader’s viewpoint the question itself has a bit of eurocentric connotation, which is reinforced by the suggestion that Western Europe “created” nation-states in Africa and elsewhere in the Southern Hemisphere. Actually, it mainly managed to coercively build up surrogate formations. Such entities either split asunder (India/Pakistan) or still struggle to survive (most Africa) since the end of World War II.

Historical studies shed light on the question posed. I would suggest adding to the list of references authors like Eric Hobsbawm’s trilogy about European history, Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth, Albert Memmi’s Portrait du Colonisé…

Thanks Tierno, a valuable perspective, I agree Hobsbawm is a cracker for such a debate. I'm not familiar with the other references so will have a look. Tierno, do you think then that there is a more 'natural' situation for African states that does not rely upon notions of nationhood and capitalism?

Despite its systemic socioeconomic flaws, capitalism remains quite resilient. Although in his Capital in the 21st century, Thomas Piketty draws parallels with past societal convulsions, and he foresees major crises ahead. Unless glaring inequalities are addressed… For even the digital revolution and globalization may not shield the capitalist system from its egregious — and non-recoverable— errors. Witness, for instance, how the global village ushered in by World Wide Web, has begun to splinter due to heavy pressure and irreconcilable contradictions between nation-states.

As for Africa, it is still stuck in the role assigned to it by the Colonial Pact of 1898. That means that it remains a dumping ground for cheap and overpriced commodities, on one hand, and a source of raw materials (mining, lumber), on the other. And, now compounding the situation, the world watches as thousands of African youths drown every year in the Mediterranean, as they try to reach the unwelcoming shores of Europe, the former colonizer and bearer of the “civilizing burden…”

But there is a plight worse than the economic plunder. It is the cultural alienation of post-colonial Africa’s rulers. Every country on the continent is, at least, a two-tiered society in which a tiny minority of cadres fluent in the former colonial language, control power and dictate upward mobility. The rest, i.e. the majority of the peoples do not speak French, English, Spanish or Portuguese, and they couldn't care less. Their collective identity and cultural heritage are embedded and carried on in their own languages. Consequently, though, they are stuck in the lower social strata. It’s true that, through a nationalist discourse, African “elites” proclaim that they belong. However, very early on in the 1950s, their speech behavior and rhetoric didn't fool Frantz Fanon, psychiatrist and Algerian Independence War hero. He famously diagnosed their schizophrenia in four stinging words : Peau noire, masques blancs (Dark skin, white masks). The shoe still fits today.…

African progress depends on some well-known prerequisites and priorities:

• the separation of the three branches of government, the rule of law and upholding human rights
• eradicating illiteracy in the local languages
• focus on the rural world (environment, water management, enery production/distribution, health care)
• small manufacturing to lessen the dependency on imports

Thank you Tierno a great insight. Colonialism has a great deal to answer for. Some of what you talk about resonates with me in my small part of Britain. The aspects of language in particular - as a Cheshire dialect speaker. The BBC voice (standard English and received pronunciation) has also a great deal to answer for, in terms of the ostracization of people from their own cultural inheritance, and way of understanding the world. Of course it is nothing in comparison to what you are describing, but the same affects are noticable, I don't say this lightly or in a belittling manner, but I do often ponder over how colonialism as a 'national' force or discourse also colonizes the supposed colonizer.

I think it is important to keep every single culture in the planet because every culture has a different angle for looking at the Absolute Thruth that nobody has. The good way for any culture to grow is to Learn from the other cultures. Its angle and vision become wider and closer to the Absolute. However, Wisdom and Human love are needed.