Rob Wilson and Wimal Dissanayake layout the problem for us in their «Intro-
duction: Tracking the Global/Local;' and it is not just the problem of this
volume, but the problem critical intellectuals and, perhaps, allpeople must now
face. We see the problem in something like an aside, in their mention of Henri
Lefebvre's classic study of space, a book that, as we all now know, influenced
Jameson and others, in drawing attention to the problems of space over and
against what had seemed modernism's obsessions with time. Oddly, though,
the problem emerges in the temporal or historicist nature of this aside, and we
should look into it for a bit. What Wilson and Dissanayake do there is let us see
how in place the models and movements of historicist thinking remain even in
a time of severe displacement of almost all relations, a displacement it is the
purpose of this volume to excavate, and of possible opportunities for new
formations of transnational local communities to emerge in the spaces of capi-
tal's intense but uneven global localizations.
The gesture is interesting, though, for many reasons. First, of course, it
shows us that good scholars know the movements of thought and can follow
lines of resistance, what appear to be turns and fractures within thinking, and
draw them out for us to see: "Lefebvre prefigured the rise of post-Fordist geog-
raphers in the 1980slike David Harvey, Mike Davis, [and] Edward Soja ...
for whom the local . . . is [fully] global in its uneven and contradictory
makeup, . . . [and] transpacific filmmakers likeRidleyScott or Stephen Okazaki
for whom Tokyoand Southern California comprise an interlocked Asian/ Pacific
space" (p. 4). Tracinglines acrossthe spacesof intellectual-cultural production is
one accepted task of culture-workers within modernity-no matter the politics
involved.The effect is, as Deleuze might say,to "striate space."Also,though, the
Previous Page Next Page