Week 3 question 1

The concept of cultural deterritorialization is defined by Gil-Manuel Hernandez-Marti as "the growing presence of social forms of contact and involvement which go beyond the limits of a specific territory". Do you view deterritorialization as a problem in today's world? Discuss Hernandez-Marti's definitions on both deterritorialization and reterritorialization and how they could be connected to or influenced by new media.

Deterritorialization is nothing to worry about!

cnaff0:

think deterritorialization is definitely occuring, but I don't necessarily view it as a problem in today's world. I do think that new media is speeding the process of the Westernization of the world (which I DO believe is a problem), but I think the benefits of new media in this realm outweigh the costs. For instance, Hernandez-Marti discusses how new media aids localities in the preservation of cultural heritage by boosting tourism and by encouraging "relocalization" of local cultural assets. In other words, I see deterritorialization not so much as a problem, but more as a process which gives the rest of the world a window into the culture of distant lands, and which empowers those cultures to assert and preserve their heritage.

lilylog:

I had a very hard time understanding what Hernandez-Marti was trying to explain, but I believe that deterritorialization is not a problem in today's world. From what I understood, deterritorialization has to do with culture, heritage, and cultural heritage. From what I was reading though, it seemed like he was portraying culture as something that was static, but culture is always changing. For this reason, cultural heritage is also always changing. While heritage is the past, cultural heritage is what the culture believes to be important about the past. People think that different things are culturally important, thus culture is always changing and is always different. For that reason, deterritorialization (as I understand it) would not be a problem in the world today. Deterritorialization would be helping to change culture and help for populations to change, and change is not always bad. Deterritorialization and reterritorialization are both able to be influenced by new media because new media is so prevalent in the world today. As people make new media an important part in their life and as they continue to utilize new media, it will begin to change their culture and therefore it will change how they view their cultural heritage. By having contact with things beyond a specific territory, people's lives change, meaning culture changes because of how much contact. New media induces contact from other 'worlds.'

richan:

Hernandez-Marti defines deterritorialization using three of its characteristics- homogenization, differentiation, and hybridization. The ideas that stuck out to me is “…deterritorialization does not mean the end of the locality at all, but its transformation into a more complex cultural space, characterized by varied manifestation, tendencies, and cultural effects”. Here, they imply that deterritorialization does result in a loss of a culture; instead, it results in a transformation of a culture. Through homogenization, differentiation, and hybridization, a “culture” can be transformed. However, this does not mean that it has lost only of its values. Culture, in this context, is just like matter. You cannot create it or destroy it. It is just shifted from one setting or form to another. Deterritorialization is described as a means to transform some local cultural views and revitalizes them.

Reterritorialization, on the other hand, re-roots the cultural values and beliefs that were initially present in a culture. It does not only “relocalize” old values, but also places new values in perspective. Both reterritorialization and deterritorialization go hand in hand. They are both needed in order to understand the cultural values of a current society.

I do not think that deterritorialization is a problem in today’s world. If anything, it is beneficial. It encourages transformation of a culture. It does not deteriorate a culture. It promotes evolution of views and values of a particular society. Therefore, it is a positive idea from my perspective.

New media certainly influences deterritorialization and reterritorialization. It allows people to grow in their social contact, regardless of their territory. Furthermore, it also connects people back to their “old” views and helps them understand it from a new perspective. New media serves as an asset to accomplish these concepts. This is apparent when we ponder on the fact that we can not only talk, but also see a person who is on the opposite side of the world. New media’s accessibility makes it source of deterritorialization and reterritorialization.

rlinville:

Deterritorialization is not really a problem in today's world. It has connected cultures and created unique subcultures, almost like a continuously growing web or matrix. However, there are always concerns that older heritage and traditions will be dwarfed by the growing new cultures created by deterritorialization. Hernandez-Marti describes deterritorialization and reterritorialization through the use of the concepts of homogenization, differentiation and hybridization. Reterritorialization cannot occur with some aspect of deterritorialization. One must give up something to preserve something, and that something is usually altered in the end. Hernandez-Marti's zombie metaphor is a good demonstration of this, and it can be used to describe deterritorialization and deterritorialization's connection to new media. Old media was the living person before the apocalypse. Then, the emergence of new media, like the Internet, is the apocalypse. This apocalypse changes the dynamic of how everything works, such as previously paper articles being posted online, and the emergence of new media changed the old media, but didn't completely eradicate it. Therefore, the end result is the media zombie of today. It has aspects of both old and new media, living and dead, and the apocalypse is still progressing in a sense for communication has changed and social dynamics and such have changed. Everything is still changing, and we will always have aspects of old media. It won't completely die. Instead it will continue to mix with new media, creating something different, like a hybrid.

anschwarz:

Based on Gil-Manuel Hernandez-Marti’s paper, deterritorialization is not necessarily a problem as much as it is an evolving issue to be further understood and dealt with. They reference Robertson who identifies “glocalization,” in which “deterritorialization and reterritorialization constitute both sides of the same coin of cultural globalization.” There is no way to go back to the pre-globalized world. However, we are caught between pendulum swings of deterritorialization and reterritorialization. Because of this we are not simply deterritorialized from place, but also from time.

I see the “hipster” movement as evidence of this. Gil Manuel Hernandez-Marti’s passage entitled “CULTURAL HERITAGE: a zombie f modernity” states that “The concept of cultural heritage is paradoxical because, while it expresses the tragic and nostalgic awareness of the fracture implied in the longing for the past, it tries to overcome it, sublimate it and compensate it with the construction of a concept which, at the end of the day, becomes an imaginary representation socially constructed from the needs of the present.” I believe that hipsters are characteristic of the tension between deterritorialization, reterritorialization, past, present, and future.

madisonwoodward:

I don't see this deterritorialization as an issue. I actually see it as a great thing for communication and exchange of information. As we have been talking about, the great thing about New Media is there is so much new information out there and circulating through the internet every second. In that respect, I think it is great, as long as we do not let it take over our lives.

johnpiwolfe:

While I'd agree it's certainly progressing at an unprecedented rate, I fail to see how it could be a problem. Cultures certainly diffuse across geography through new media, deterritorializing the ideas- but the upshot of this process is the ability to glean new ideas from other cultures and regions. This is a process which has been going on for ages, albeit at a much slower rate- the adaptation of Arabic numerals by the western world, the introduction of Western medicine to the Far East- globalization just makes it go faster. What also occurs more quickly is the gradual change to cultures over time- once again, an ever-ongoing process. The concerns over cultural deterritorialization seem to bear the sentiment that a single snapshot in time of ever-evolving culture is worth preserving simply so that it does not get lost- rather than allowing the regular pattern of development to continue.

mfretto:

I do not view deterritorialization as a problem in today's world. Instead, I view it positively because it allows the world to feel like a smaller place. Deterritorialization allows news from all over the world to be read and experienced by those that may be across the world. It allows the world to be more aware of what is going on in areas that we may not be able to go to. With social media sites like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, as well as email and chat rooms, people can stay in contact with each other, even if they live across the country or across the world from each other. Before the dawn of the Internet, people who lived across the world from each other would have virtually no way to stay in contact with each other, and I think that the fact that we can do this today is a good thing. Hernandez-Marti's definition of deterritorialization is that it "implies the growing presence of social forms of contact and involvement which go beyond the limits of a specific territory." Reterritorialization is defined as the restructuring of a place or territory that has experienced deterritorialization. New media can influence deterritorialization because the Internet spans the world and is not confined to any sort of boundaries and people across the world can communicate. New media can influence reterritorialization because the Internet can change the way a culture interacts and goes about its business. The Internet can open an unknown culture to the rest of the world.

iao1:

What I got from it was that New Media is allowing people to blend together cultures and communities that otherwise would be localized if not for the new media. I think this is good because it allows people who are otherwise restricted by their location to get involved in communities built up by people from everywhere. The space of internet is not physical, unlike normal space. When entering into the internet space you deterritorialize and then you can reterritorialize online.

benwu:

Hernadez-Marti defines deterritorialization as the "the growing presence of social forms of contact and involvement which go beyond the limits of a specific territory". Simply put, this is the idea that we can now communicate beyond traditional territorial boundaries. This has been heavily influenced by New Media. The internet allows us to gain access to parts of the world they we have never had before. I can stay educated on current events happening in Nigeria if I chose. I could even play an active role in current events in foreign countries through channels such as Facebook or YouTube. Cell phones allow us to have interpersonal communication with people who do not live near us. For example, neither of my parents live in Arizona anymore. However, I am still able to keep in touch and discuss issues with them. The effects of territory is weakened in this sense by New Media.

Hernadez-Marti defines reterritorialization as the partial territorial relocalization of old and new cultural productions. I believe that this means that certain cultural ideas can become more associated with a local culture. One example of this could be New Medias role in the emergence of several music genres. One genre in particular is trap music. This is a style of hip-hop that is characterized by loud, aggressive synth beats and lyrical content. However, the genre of music has become associated with the South. With the internet, anyone can gain access and recreate the sound of trap music, but the genre has become cemented with a certain territorial region.

I do not believe that deterritorialization is a bad thing. I think it is great that we are able to communicate without the limitation of physical boundaries. I believe that this greatly stimulates the flow of information and scientific progress can happen at much greater speeds. As more people are allowed to collaborated, more ideas can be generated. This is extremely exciting to me and one of the reasons I view deterritorialization as good.

rkbergsma:

Hernandez-Marti defines deterritorialization as "the growing presence of social forms of contact and involvement which go beyond the limits of a specific territory." He also defines reterritorialization as "certain relative, partial territorial relocalizations of old and new symbolic productions.” For me, these term are very hard to grasp as Hernandez-Marti defines them; however, he does put it more simply as well. The deterritorialization is the loss of the natural physical interaction between culture and the social and geographic territories. Reterritorialization is more the localization of cultures and identities that can still come about from the advent of globalization. Hernandez-Marti goes on to further subdivide the deterritorialization into more detail, such as homogenization and heterogenization, and the pros and cons that may come with each. However, I do not view deterritorialization as a problem in today's world. I understand how it is not considered by some to be "natural," however, I think that there are many benefits to deterritorialization and globalization. For example, in many wealthier areas of the country people are more aware of the problems the poorer cultures of the world are experiencing, and are therefore more likely to help them (financially or some other way). This is directly driven by new media, which is created by many and distributed to many very quickly. However, on the flip side of the coin is that the people in the poorer areas of the world do not have access to new media, which is a comparative detriment for them. However, with a broader knowledge of different cultures people can see how others live, which will in turn create a more global community.

paytonstauch:

I do not think this is really a problem in today's world. People know what they are getting themselves into when they sign up for these social media networks and if they did not want the over exposure then they should not be apart of it. Everyone know not to put inappropriate pictures or what not on your Facebook account because your future employers will someday look at it and if you are uncomfortable with that thought and think those employers are crossing a line the solution is simple, do not have a Facebook. I think maybe to some people these new social medias are crossing a line or a territory but the only way to actively stop that is to not participate.

dleonard12:

I consider deterritorialization to be a very prominent phenomenon in modern day--one which includes both benefits and consequences to society. Deterritorialization gives individuals from all across the world the opportunity to communicate with one another and make their opinions heard, overcoming physical boundaries. However, it can also weaken cultural identity because with no physical boundaries, there is no absolute way to distinguish from different cultures--anyone around the world can have the same beliefs as you because of the new possibilities given to us by new media. Regarding Marti's idea of reterritorialization, it suggests that new, cultural "boundaries" are being established through the extension of new media. Essentially, physical boundaries have been defeated, but different cultural ideas and beliefs still remain--thus new boundaries are naturally being created in new media.

ptrcortes:

Before reading this article I would have said that I don't think it's a big problem, but after reading what he said about a homogenized culture being a vehicle for mass marketing, Orwellian images were spurred in my head.

If there's one global culture, everyone could become a target to get turned into a corporate drone.

If deterritorialization is losing local cultural identity because of the influence of an outside source, reterritorialization is searching for (and from the wording of the author, scrambling together,) a cultural identity.

The influence of social media is readily apparent for deterritorialization, facebook produces ads, and its users interact with each other across borders. Over time this can contribute to a fusion of culture. As talked about in the Hernandez-Marti paper, people sometimes turn to outside media to reterritorialize themselves. Social media can be used to acquire some cultural aspect they think they're missing, or new media can be generated and shared through social media, with the source being the territory trying to reterritorialize themselves.

It isn't a problem... But it is significant!

lydiap:

Hernandez-Marti argues that deterritorialization and reterritorialization combine together as a central aspect of globalization, where deterritorialization is when the geographic space and natural aspects of culture in that geographic area no longer match up, and reterritorialization where the new and old ideas are relocated. Not only has the ability of new medias many to many interactions been a large part of globalization, they also influence other aspects of culture, which indirectly affect globalization such as tourism. I believe deterritorialization is both a positive aspect as well as a negative aspect of globalization. Deterritorialization has helped to spread awareness and understanding of cultures internationally, which I believed is part of what is moving our country, and perhaps the world into the beginning of another progressive era. It has allowed for new ideas to spread to new cultures, and an entirely new sense of diversity, linking local innovations transnationally. However, new media, which allows many to many interaction, is spreading ideas, cultures, and heritages, to a massive audience, delocalizing something as important and individualistic such as a heritage, and opening it up to be globalized. In this sense, what was was a heritage or culture unique to certain area, specialized in both functionality and interpretation to fit the needs of those people in that place, is now being diffused and muddled to a "universal neighborhood." Playing off of this idea of a universal neighborhood is also the consequence of the loss of local community and unique identity.

hpark12:

It is true that valuable cultures around the world with tradition spanning thousands of years are continuing to fall apart. That is sad... but only from an anthropological and historical standpoint. But isn't it just greedy for civilized nations to look at these cultures from afar and not interfere for the sake of watching them? The reason that the world is becoming so globalized is because of the convenience that technology brings and how it boosts standards of living to unfathomable levels compared to the past. The greatest strength of humanity lies in its intelligence and ability to grow and communicate with each other. People may argue that developed nations are bullying smaller nations to succumb to their culture and that is probably true, but I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing.

kevincorporation:

Deterritorialization, or the loss of the 'natural' relation between culture and the social and geographic territories, is not so much a problem as it is a movement. It is natural for things to change and it is also natural to encounter resistance to the change or those that want to revert to old ways, trying to reclaim what they perceive as lost, hence reterritorialization.

Regardless, both these terms are part of the same thing (something I believe deserves the most notice), that is, cultural globalization. However, when talking about media, we fall back to breaking down cultural globalization into its component parts once more.

According to the article, the spread of mediatization is what is causing this deterritorialization. In of itself, new media is not necessarily mediatization but I do believe that new media is the primary vector of mediatization, or at the very least, the most effective vector. This is because it is an effective means to spread news and ideas that helps spread the and catalysis deterritorialization.

On the other hand, reterritorialization (being of the opposite side, yet same coin as deterritorialization), cannot exist without its opposite and thus, uses the same means to spread. This, as Hernandez-Marti explains, is the beginning of the paradox of globalized modernity. The diffusion of a heritage asset through  the mass media (or new media) allows it to enter the conscience of uncountable individuals who live in distant contexts, and they will therefore be able to incorporate it into their own phenomenical world. Paradoxically, in order to allow identification between the members of the universal neighborhood and the local asset, through world heritage, a neutralization or expurgation of the asset’s original functionality and interpretation will be required; this way it acquires a clearly deterritorialized status as far as the structure of its meaning and its range of values are concerned. Therefore, as Hernandez-Marti mentions, “the Buddhas of Bamiyan will not be considered just “pagan” idols, nor the Mystery Play of Elx conceived as just the representation of a Catholic dogma, nor the square of Djemma-El-Fnaa in Marrakesh, Morocco, considered only as an important local market.”

In the end, what this means is that new media is nothing in it of itself but in terms of globalization, it will be used to either turn things more so to deterritorialization or reterritorialization based off its content.

justinebacchus:

Certainly the Internet allows for deterritorialization since people can connect with people throughout the world. Facebook, for example, can rapidly spread information of other cultures as long as a friend shares it. Tumblr provides even more anonymity which helps this deterritorialization; people do not know exactly who they are following unless the user posts a picture of themselves or explicitly states where they live/are from. Language, of course, is still a barrier, but location is not a boundary for spreading social or cultural information. Hernandez-Marti seems to have a pessimistic view of deterritorialization and reterritorialization in that it leaves people with a "cultural rootlessness". I think that people can maintain their personal, local culture while experiencing new media's ability to break down the territory barriers. This issue of reterritorialization on such a large scale is clearly something this generation must face, but it is not a negative problem - it is a challenge, or task, that this new world must face in order to function peacefully.

celarkin:

I wouldn't say that deterritorialization is a "problem," exactly, because that sounds very negative. I think that it has the possibility of bringing great (in both magnitude and quality) changes to the world. (However, given that my understanding of Hernandez-Marti's article was fuzzy at best, we'll see how accurate the rest of this answer turns out to be.) He talks about how deterritorialization brings common knowledge to people found all over the world of other specific cultures and locales, and I think that that is one of the first steps toward what is very broadly and hopefully termed by modern society as "world peace." When everyone in the world has at least a baseline understanding of everyone else in the world, I think we'll all be able to see beyond what differences we may have and focus on how much we have in common.

However, and I think this is the reterritorialization bit, too much deterritorialization might pose a "problem" in practice. Like the author says, too much tourism and other cross-cultural interaction can lead to a significant blurring of lines, and too much integration of another culture into one's own can leave people feeling disjointed and like they've lost some of their specific heritage. In that way, deterritorialization presents some inherent difficulties, but I think that those issues can be overcome in one way or another without the entire concept/practice becoming a legitimate problem.

crystalblueg:

I think that deterritorialization has more of a presence now than ever before. New media is highly influenced by this new aspect of "social media"- this idea and plan of connecting people from all over the world via different forms of media. This is causing the lines in territories- government and non-government- to become blurred and somewhat non-existant. When new media is being used as a vessel for globalization, deterritorialization increases exponentially.

tsneff:

No I do not view these concepts as being a problem in today's world, but actually a good thing because cultural diffusion helps to bring us all closer and help eliminate some misunderstandings. This has always been a part of our world, new media has simply amplified this phenomena. Older examples are the cultural diffusion that occurred under the mongol empire, the unification of so much of asia allowed for communications and trade to flourish and cultural lines blurred. New Media allows for this effect to take place on a much larger scale and far faster.

Week 3 question 1

Deterritorialization is definitely a problem...

amandarobinson:

While I mostly just found this essay extremely challenging to read, understand, and stay focused on, based on the above definition, deterritorialization does not sound like a problem to me. Rather, it sounds like a way to bring people of different cultures together and to spread ideas. New media absolutely influences this; now information can travel faster than ever before, and people with similar ideas and beliefs can connect with each other regardless of their physical location.

benwu:

As the University of Chicago reading indicates, the word rhizome originates from botany and is used to describe things such as ginger roots. The Oxford English Dictionary defines rhizome as "a prostrate or subterranean root-like stem emitting roots and usually producing leaves at its apex; a rootstock." The term has been applied to New Media theory as a proposed structure of the internet.

I believe that Zuckerman would argue for the tree structure because he is approaching the internet from a news gathering and distribution perspective. The decreases in international stories despite the fact that access to them is so much easier is a big indicator that there is some sort of hierarchical structure to the internet. Somewhere, someone is deciding exactly what stories get pushed to the general public and which stories get rejected. I believe that Deleuze and Guattari would argue for the rhizome structure because every on the internet is so interconnected. Wikipedia is a great example of this. Starting from any page on Wikipedia, one can get to almost any other page. Although this is an isolated example, it still shows that the internet is interconnected in ways that we can't even imagine. There is almost no structure to the internet. Sure most searches originate from Google, but it is not the only source of information. I believe that Hernadez-Marti is in the midd

le of these two. The internet allows for deterritorialization because there is so much access to information. However, there is still structure in that New Media can also reterritorialize.

I personally do not view the internet as a full rhizome. I also do not view the internet as rigidly structured as a tree. With that being said, I feel like the internet is more rhizome than tree. There are many multiple access points to a variety of information. When one link to a piece of information is severed, many more take it's place. However, there is a weak underlying structure to the internet. There still exists censorship and harassment of certain websites. There are still companies like Google who exert an extreme amount of influence over internet users. Their continual pushing of Google+ is a good example of this. I do not believe that the power these groups have can control the internet.