Suchergebnisse

Frontmatter -- Contents -- Acknowledgments -- Introduction A Certain Rush of Energy -- Part I: The Social in the Subject -- Chapter 1: Modern Savagery Mana beyond the Empiricist Settlement -- Chapter 2: Ecstatic Life and Social Form Collective Effervescence and the Primitive Settlement -- Part II: The Subject in the Social -- Chapter 3: Anxious Autonomy The Agony of Perfect Addressability and the Aesthetic Settlement -- Chapter 4: Are You Talking to Me? Eros and Nomos in the Mimetic Archive -- Notes -- References -- Index

Frontmatter -- CONTENTS -- Illustrations -- Acknowledgments -- Introduction -- 1. Locations: Advertising and the New Swadeshi -- 2. Elaborations: The Commodity Image -- Part One -- 3. Citizens Have Sex, Consumers Make Love: KamaSutra I -- 4. The Aesthetic Politics of Aspiration: KamaSutra II -- Part Two -- 5. Bombay Global: Mobility and Locality I -- 6. Bombay Local: Mobility and Locality II -- Part Three -- 7. Indian Fun: Constructing ''the Indian Consumer'' I -- 8. Close Distance: Constructing ''the Indian Consumer'' II -- Notes -- Works Cited -- Index

This article suggests that although there is not much of an explicitly defined anthropology of populism, anthropologists have nevertheless been working for many years on the things we talk about when we talk about populism. Anthropologists should thus be exceptionally well situated to divert the debate on populism in creative ways. In particular, I argue that the term populism registers an intensified insistence of collective forces that are no longer adequately organized by formerly hegemonic social forms: a mattering-forth of the collective flesh. The article also shows why populism is such an awkward topic for anthropologists. In part, this discomfort has to do with a tension between anthropologists' effectively populist commitments to the common sense of common people at a time when that common sense can often look ugly. In part, it has to do with how the populist challenge to liberalism both aligns populist politics with anthropological critiques of liberal norms and puts pressure on anthropology's continued dependence on liberal categories for its own relevance to broader public debates.

▪ Abstract  This chapter reviews the literature on media and globalization. It develops the argument that this literature foregrounds a problem that, ironically, it also largely disavows: namely, the question of mediation as a general foundation of social life. I explore the origins of this contradiction in the emergence of globalization studies out of earlier traditions in media and cultural studies. I suggest that the failure to move beyond this impasse has perpetuated a surprising and debilitating reliance on substantialist and essentialist models of culture, models that are both at odds with the critical thrust of globalization studies and fully complicit with the agendas of public and commercial bureaucracies. The review tracks the recurrence of such thinking in several key strands of globalization studies and proceeds to outline an alternative ethnographic and theoretical strategy on the basis of a general theory of media and mediation.