The Journal of International Communication

ISSN: 1321-6597 (Print) 2158-3471 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rico20

Globalisation, development and communication

for localisation
RICO LIE PhD
To cite this article: RICO LIE PhD (2001) Globalisation, development and communication
for localisation, The Journal of International Communication, 7:2, 14-24, DOI:
10.1080/13216597.2001.9751907
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13216597.2001.9751907

Published online: 04 Apr 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 160

View related articles

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rico20
Download by: [Universitara M Emineescu Iasi]

Date: 07 October 2016, At: 03:29

Globolisotion, development ond

'(ommuni(Otion for IIKolisotion'
RICO LIE
INTRODUCTION

Linking development communication to globalisation is necessary. Globalisation is now omnipresent. and integrating it with development communication is required. However, development communication is immediately associated with localisation, instead of with
globalisation. This seems to be a more logical association because of the small-scale character of both processes. But the existence of localisation (as an inward process of articulation
and reinforcement of local identities and local community characteristics) can hardly be
ignored anymore in any study of globalisation. In fact, the increased awareness of localisation seems to be a result of the still booming interest in globalising processes. Some people
even state that localisation is a counter to globalisation. This intrinsic linking of globalisation/
localisation thus justifies an exploration of how localised participatory development communication is linked to globalisation.
Most work done in the area of globalisation is about 'economic globalisation' or about
the 'globalisation of governance'. Culture/communication, especially in relation to development, seems to be marginalised in these debates. This situation in the 'culture/communication versus political economy' dichotomy remains unbalanced, but has improved over the
past two decades. Culture/communication gains importance, but the majority of the work
still problematises the internationalisation of political economy and discusses the increasing interdependence and integration of markets, trade and capital flows.
This new gaining of importance by culture in the debates about localisation/globalisation
is not entirely unproblematic. First of all, if communication/culture is addressed in the debates on economic and political globalisation, people often refer to ICTs and macro-structural problems in the fields of providing hardware and infrastructure. As far as culture is
concerned, questions often focus on the international flows of so-called 'canned culture'
(especially television programs and Internet content) not on 'lived culture'. The focus is primarily on the economic side of 'canned culture' and addresses transnational companies,
such as Time Warner, Disney and Viacom.
Second, and this is of a more fundamental nature. although culture is addressed more
often than it has been, culture is often not integrated into the discussions. Instead. it is often
treated under a separate heading. The problem here is that addressing culture under such a
separate heading implies that culture can be treated on the same level as the other headings

14

THE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION (200 I), 7(2)

LIE

(e.g. politics, economy, society, communications), whereas in fact it cannot. Culture runs
through the whole parade of arguments. It seems to be one of the essential determining
factors in looking at any of the other headings. Due to culture, a discussion about globalisation
- or for the same matter about localisation and participation - will be different among
politicians, factory workers, mothers, backpackers, fishermen, students of law and computer specialists, and this again will be different in Kenya, Indonesia, Colombia and Germany.
This cultural basis might be best illustrated by the fact that it is possible to do a cultural
analysis of political or economic globalisation, but it is impossible to do a political or economic analysis of culture. Culture does not exist as a separate entity. It cannot be studied in
the same way as one can study entities like political systems or economies. Although culture
can be seen as a system (for instance a system of meanings or symbols), such a system is not
comparable to a social system, a political system or an economic system. A cultural system is
of a different order. It is made up of components that are of a different nature, and in this
nature it determines the functioning of other systems.
Despite the dominant interest in the globalising political economy, a growing minority
of detailed work that treats culture on an integrated basis is concerned with micro-level
processes of, for instance, participatory education, local health problems, peasants, women
and environmental movements. These movements are often approached as being primarily
of a communicative and cultural nature. They are also primarily local movements. Only
secondly are these movements placed in a context of economic or political globalisation. It is
especially at the local level that cultural communication plays an essential role and it is within
this locality that alternative media, non-mass mediated communications and participatory
communications come into the picture. It is this local development that should be given a
proper space in the debates about globalisation.
Almost all scholars now agree that an increase in global cultural contacts or an increase
in intercultural communication does not necessarily mean that we are heading towards a
single world culture, as the cultural globalisation thesis in its simplest form implies. Nobody
underwrites this thesis without some critical notes. These critical notes range from simply
denying that we are heading towards a world culture to pointing at cultural diversity. Diversity not only exists between cultures, but also within cultures. All cultures are plural, creole,
hybrid and multicultural from within. There are no (more) authentic, pure, traditional and
isolated cultures in the world, if they ever existed at all. So what is the fuss about cultural
globalisation? Why do we think the world is going to have one single culture? The premise is
that all cultures are heading in the same direction. However, there is little evidence for this,
with the exception of pizzas, Coca-Cola, IBM clones, the Big Mac and similar examples. These
examples, which are often given to prove that we are heading towards a single culture, are
almost always, as is the case with soap operas, reshaped to fit the local culture. McDonald's
in Brussels, Jakarta, Sydney or Moscow are different in, for instance, non-verbal behaviours
like services and other context variables that go beyond the visual symbols. Besides, people
will give the phenomena a position in daily life that depends on the existing local cultural
lifestyles and interpretations. And it even goes further than this. The boom in bed & breakfasts (B&Bs), which is identified by Ritzer ( 19 9 3, p.lS) as a reaction against McDonaldisation,
THE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION (200 I), 7(2)

15

LIE

has also its local and regional cultural varieties, like those in the northern provinces
Groningen and Friesland in the Netherlands.
Problematising the emergence of the global political economy is very important, but we
should not forget that participation always starts at a local level. Participation is always about
people and thus intrinsically linked to direct interaction and human education. Participatory development communication is therefore about how people can participate in change
-change at the level of the system, but also at the level of individual growth and small scale
collective learning. This contribution therefore explores participatory change and development by addressing 'globalisation from below' in a structural political environment on the
one hand, and the power of interpretation and participation as an aspect of 'communication for localisation' in a non-political context on the other.
GLOBALJSATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Cochrane and Pain (2000). in an Open University book edited by Held (2000), distinguish
between three different perspectives on globalisation: (1) a globalist perspective, (2) a traditionalist perspective, and ( 3) a transformationalist perspective. 1 They define the perspectives as follows:
globalists: They see globalisation as an inevitable development which cannot be resisted or significantly influenced by human intervention. particularly through traditional political institutions.
such as nation-states.

traditionalists: They argue that the significance of globalisation as a new phase has been exaggerated. They believe that most economic and social activity is regional, rather than global. and still
see a significant role for nation-states.

transformationalists: They believe that globalisation represents a significant shift. but question
the inevitability of its impacts. They argue that there is still significant scope for national. local
and other agencies. (Cochrane & Pain 2000, pp.22-23)

Cochrane and Pain (2000, p.22) subdivide the globalists into optimists and pessimists.
The optimists, or positive globalists, point mainly to the benefits of new technologies, global
communications and increased cultural contacts. Pessimists (pessimistic globalists), on the
other hand, emphasise the dominance of major economic and political interests and point
mainly to the uneven consequences of globalisation. Traditionalists are the sceptics. They
believe that globalisation is a myth and emphasise continuities between the past and present.
There is nothing really new. All we are witnessing is simply a continuation and progression
of evolutionary change. The transformationalists can be found somewhere in between. They
recognise the complexity of the phenomena and try to move beyond the sometimes arid debate between the globalists and the traditionalists.
My interpretation of this classification is that the globalist and the traditionalist perspectives are both very extreme in their views. The globalists advocate that the world changes
towards a more homogenous global culture and towards all kinds of new global structures.
The traditionalists take the other extreme stance and advocate that nothing really revolutionary is happening. Still. in my opinion. the transformationalist perspective is not so much
16

THE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION (200 I), 7(2)

LIE

a compromise between the two as it is a less extreme and more modest interpretation of what
is happening. Transformationalists argue that the world does go through changes - in a
sense as it has always gone through changes- but they do believe that some of these changes
form a conglomerate of changes that does account for something to be interpreted as new.
Elsewhere, I made an inventory of such a conglomerate of changes in a cultural atmosphere
(Lie 1998) and identified the following components: ( 1) the interrelated processes of the
emergence of interdisciplinarity, (2) the increasing role of the power of culture. (3) the birth
of a new form of modernisation. (4) the changing role of the nation-state, and ( 5) the emerging attempts to address the link between the global and the local. The total conglomerate of
changes accounts for something new, but especially the last issue of linking the global with
the local was identified as a central point of change. But how can this conglomerate of
global changes be linked to development and political-economic and social change at
local levels and from within local levels? What is the relationship between globalisation and
development?
I. G/obalisation as development

A first perspective could be termed 'globalisation as development'. Such a perspective is

grounded in a political-economic approach and the dominant part is sometimes referred to
as 'globalisation from above' (see e.g. Beck 1996 ). Globalisation here is still regarded as a
universal applicable end point of changing societies. This end point is different from the ideal
end point of the modern nation-state. as it was common to pursue within the so-called modernisation paradigm (see e.g. Servaes 1999). Different from modernisation theory- as it
was promoted in the field of development and development communication by, for instance,
Rostow, Rogers, Lerner and Schramm in the decades immediately following the Second World
War - globalisation pursues an economic change and a change in governance towards a
global scale. The internationalisation of national economies is regarded to be a necessary
condition for development. The questions are of course: 'Who is this global development
for?'. 'Who profits from globalisation?', 'Is this kind of development creating new forms of
inequality?', and 'Is the global gap between the rich and the poor, the information haves and
have nots widening?'. The protests at the summits of the WTO in Seattle (December 1999)
and the IMP/World Bank summit in Prague (September 2000) made it very clear that not
everybody agrees with the hypothesis that globalisation is development. Development in the
perspective of 'globalisation as development from above' is primarily seen as a structural
global political. but mainly economic change. Some of the critiques that were formulated on
the paradigm of 'modernisation as development' still apply to the paradigm of 'globalisation
as development from above'. Some of these critiques concern: 'the linear way of thinking'.
'the non-plural and homogenous way of thinking'. 'the positivistic and behaviouristic way
of thinking'. 'the western/northern way of thinking' and 'the approach that development is
primarily of an economic nature'. Further critique is that most of the elements in the conglomerate of changes are not considered in approaching globalisation as development. Aspects of interdisciplinarity, the power of culture and linking globalisation with localisation
remain under-addressed.
THE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION (200 I). 7(2)

17

LIE

Globalisation from below

'Globalisation from below'- sometimes also referred to as 'grassroots globalisation', 'governance from below' or 'counterglobalisation'- refers to the work done by, and the rise of,
transnational communities in the field of NGOs concerned with mobilising highly specific
local. national and regional groups on matters of equity, access, justice and redistribution
(Appadurai 2000, p.15). Beck (1996) refers in this context to 'global subpolitics', and sees
globalisation from below as pursuing globalisation ' ... e.g. through new transnational actors
operating beyond the system of parliamentary politics and challenging established political
organisations and interest groups' (Beck 1996, p.l6 ). Globalisation from below is thus primarily oriented towards inequalities and injustice and promotes democracy and liberty.
Globalisation from below is about change for the betterment of the people, and this positive
change is thought to come from below, from the grassroots, from the local. It is advocated
that change should fit the local circumstances, however diverse these local circumstances
might be in different localities. Communities that try to channel this quest for 'grounded
change' range from local NGOs to indigenous groups, women's groups, peasant groups and
all kinds of epistemic communities.
This globalisation from below is through transnational networking among these communities, through transnational movements of all kinds of groups, and the building of a
transnational civil society mainly aiming at structural political change. It is collective counteraction in order to be heard within a political system and to change the system from outside by channelling the voices of the local to the political inside. Globalisation as development from below is thus primarily a political project and participation here is based on counteraction by all kinds of movements. Participation, in the case of globalisation from below is in
the opposition.

2. LDcalisation as development
A second perspective on linking globalisation and development is through the intrinsic link
with localisation. It can therefore be termed 'localisation as development'. The interconnected
processes of globalisation and localisation - or 'glocalisation' as some prefer - are operational at different societal levels and between different societal levels. In the case of glocalisation,
globalisation does not only refer to contacts between the level of nations or macro international
bodies (as was common in the dependency paradigm, and is mostly referred to by those who use
the term 'globalisation'), but also to intercultural contacts at more grounded levels of societal
organisation. Globalisation is a process that not only applies to nations, but also to small-scale
communities and individuals, including development facilitators. These inter-level contactsalso referred to as 'flows' to more specifically emphasise the flow of cultural products and development messages - and especially the interpretations of the cultural products and messages
by individuals in local communities, form the basis for a more localised perspective on
globalisation, and seeing development as localisation.
It is then at the local level that one can identify processes of localisation. First of all, in
order to be able to accept localisation as a form of development. we need to ask ourselves
what it entails. Localisation is more or less referring to the same as 'localism'. Localism might
18

THE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION (200 I), 7(2)

LIE

even be the more common term to use, but I prefer localisation because of the processual
character that is included in the term of localisation. and because of the linguistic contrast
it makes with the term globalisation. According to Nadel-Klein ( 1991 ), localism refers to
'the representation of group identity as defined primarily by a sense of commitment to a
particular place and to a set of cultural practices that are self-consciously articulated and to
some degree separated and directed away from the surrounding social world' (Nadei-Kiein
1991. p. 502). Localisation can thus be seen as a process of articulating locally grounded
cultural practices and reinforcing cultural identities at local community levels by contrasting it with other cultural localities, be these localities near (a neighbouring community) or
far (a television program produced in another continent). In some cases localisation is explicitly seen as a reaction to the process of globalisation (see e.g. Van Ginkel1992). People
deal with globalisation aspects ('outgroup' messages) from their own local contexts and this
interaction could lead to more emphasis on small-scale cultural processes: 'In ... attempts to
theorize the present phase of globalization, world-wide interconnectedness does not result
in the creation of a "global society". It yields. on the one hand, a decentred set of subnational
and supranational interactions -from capital transfers and population movements to the
transmission of information- and these interactions help multiply. invent and disseminate
cultural differences. rather than overcome them' (Buell 1994, p.lO). So. even on the national level, with reference to national cultures and the nation-state, globalisation does not
necessarily stand for cultural integration as 'the globalists' underwrite. It is instead assumed
that globalisation and localisation are interrelated processes and that globalisation can somehow stimulate processes of localisation. Localisation, in a development discourse, means
that explicit emphasis is put on the articulation of local cultural identities and local community characteristics.
The paradigm of 'localisation as development' emphasises grounded social and individual
change and puts a high value on communication/culture. As such. it is very closely associated with the multiplicity paradigm (Servaes 1999). In the sphere of communication/culture, the link between development and globalisation is not so much directly concerned with
globalisation. The link development has with globalisation can only be established by taking
the concept of localisation seriously and by exploring the link between globalisation and
localisation in-depth. This in-depth exploration can start with centralising local processes of
interpretation. It are these processes of interpretation that account for world connectedness
from within the local. Additionally to globalisation from below in the political arena, we can
therefore distinguish another bottom-up dimension in the specific field of communication/
culture. Although all acts of (counter)action are based on processes of interpretation, this
dimension has been relatively unaddressed in many discussions on globalisation. Development as localisation can thus be seen as being highly associated with this power of people's
interpretations.

The power of interpretation

Interpretation empowers people in the sense that the people themselves are the real actors in
any kind of human (development) process. This power of interpretation is in many cases
THE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION (200 I). 7(2)

19

LIE

non-political, meaning it is not organised or structured in political terms. It is the people, in

a non-political atmosphere, who decide what to do with what is offered to them. It is the
people themselves, not the NGOs or the organisational movements that represent them, that
this kind of localising development is concerned with. By the act of interpretation, people
localise the exogenous, and make them relevant for their daily lives. This process of interpretation can be concerned with a television program like Dallas (see e.g. Liebes & Katz 1990),
but it is also concerned with any kind of campaign or other intervention promoted by a
development agency. These acts of interpretation can be interpreted as counters to
globalisation, but in a more positive perspective they can be seen as acts of localisation. It is
through interpretation that people empower themselves.
This non-political interpretation can of course lead to political participation and can
then be voiced by all kinds of organisations, but it can also lead to non-political participation. Non-political participation does not mean that the established relationships are without power. All human relationships have elements of power, but it refers simply to participation in non-political organisations, like (extended) families, circles of friends, formal and
informal educational groups, health institutions, clubs and associations. Sometimes this distinction between political and non-political is not as rigid as it seems. Media participation.
for instance, can be highly politicised in one country, where it is not in another.
Development can thus be understood as accentuating these localised processes of interpretation. Interpretation is a cultural communication process. A local cultural reference
frame is used to deal with everything that comes from the outside, be it a McDonald's or a
population intervention program.
TOWARDS 'COMMUNICATION FOR LOCALISATION'

'Globalisation does not only concern the creation of large-scale systems, but also the transformation of the local. and even personal. context of social experience' (Giddens 1994,
pp.4-5). What is emphasised here is that globalisation not only refers to abstract changes
taking place at a macro level. It also refers to how people. situated at local levels. perceive
these changes. This aspect points to what Braman (1996) has termed 'interpenetrated
globalisation'. With this she means that the relationship between the parts and the whole
may be understood as mutually constitutive: the global never exists except in the local. In
fact, this seems to be one of the new fundamental issues in thinking about globalisation.
Thinking about cultural globalisation is not something completely new. but builds on already existing theories and ideas such as 'the global village', dependency thinking. Americanisation/westernisation. cultural imperialism. media imperialism and cultural synchronisation. But linking it in an intrinsic way to a process of localisation seems to be a breakthrough. We now recognise that globalisation and localisation are two polar points on a
continuum and that studying globalisation from a people-centred local perspective should
not be the exclusive domain of fieldwork anthropologists. Globalisation and localisation. as
far as they refer to culture. are interpretative processes. This means they are not objective
processes, but defined differently by different subjects. belonging to different communities.
in different times and different spaces.
20

THE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION (200 I), 7(2)

LIE

Building on Tomlinson (1994) and with him. reflecting on Giddens. the globalisation
thesis is in fact about structure, and 'our day-to-day experience of locales is certainly structured by forces which are, ultimately, global' (Tomlinson 1994. p.15 3 ). But, it 'is surely not
a central figure in most people's everyday awareness' (Tomlinson 1994, p.154). If it is not a
global structure that plays a central role in people's daily experience, what does? Building on
interpretative approaches in communication studies (Carragee 1990: Evans 1990: Servaes
& Frissen 1997). anthropology (Geertz 1973: Keesing 1987) and sociology (Berger &
Luckmann 1967). reference frameworks, worldviews, cultures and structures that guide
daily activity can. first of all, be sought in the local. An interpretative approach centres people's interpretations in a local context. In such an interpretative way, daily structure is far
more local than global. So. if we return to Giddens' claim and Tomlinson's critique. I would
like to state that phenomenal worlds are still truly local, instead of global. But how do we
include the global level or, for the same matter, everything that comes from the outside, in
the locally based interpretations?
In my opinion. the cultural flow, be it local or global, is interpreted in the local context of
everyday life. Daily life is as such the primary context in which people deal, in an interpretative sense, with 'outgroup'- as well as 'ingroup'- messages. A (cultural) identity that is
constructed (partly) based on these locally embedded interpretations is however derived from
different societal levels, e.g. the global level. the macro-regional level (e.g. the Pacific Islands
region or Europe), the national level (nation-states). the meso-regional level (e.g. provinces
or counties). the local level (e.g. cities, neighbourhoods. communities. but also (extended)
families) and the individual level. This is the case because the cultural flow incorporates
elements which are derived from these different levels or from bodies operating at these different levels. In this line of thought the global has indeed an influence on the construction
of identity. but this influence cannot be overemphasised because the interpretations. which
are local cultural interpretations. precede the construction of identity.
This process of interpreting people. institutions and products (PIPs) (including information) that originate from different societal levels (see also Servaes & Lie 2000) can be termed
cultural localisation. Though. to give it a more active connotation I would like to call it 'communication for localisation'. With communication for localisation I basically mean that processes of cultural change and flows of knowledge, culture or information should be interpreted and analysed in a local context instead of trying to place them directly in a global
context. The flow may have a global or outside character, but the interpretations of these
flows are, frrst of all. local. Communication for localisation is particularly interested in the
subjective dimensions of globalisation as a bottom-up process of interpretations.
A consequence of such a position is that one favours 'the right to culture' from an internal point of view (from the inside out). Article 2 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights ( 1948) states: 'Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the
community.' And one of the statements at the 1968 UNESCO conference on cultural rights
as human rights was: 'The rights to culture include the possibility for each man to obtain the
means of developing his personality. through his direct participation in the creation of human values and of becoming. in this way, responsible for his situation, whether local or on a
THE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION (200 I), 7(2)

21

LIE

world scale' (emphasis added, cited in Hamelink 1994, pp.18 7-188 ). The point that is stressed
here is that the world scale or the global reference framework is not an outside force in the
creation of an individual or even a collective cultural identity. The reference frame is indeed
nothing more than a framework that guides, structures, surrounds and frames the locally
embedded cultural interpretations.
The other. more action-oriented dimension of communication for localisation has already been addressed under the heading 'globalisation from below'. The concept stands for,
among other things, the activities of grassroots social movements concerned with cultural
or ethnic issues. It is these activities that try to counterbalance global cultural flows and
express concern with local cultural identity. Here. the first concern is also with localisation
and not with globalisation. When scholars talk about global grassroots social movements,
they refer to areas in which these movements have global tendencies. e.g. the environment
and human rights. It is in these areas that we face common, global risks, and in these cases
there are no 'others'. But with culture there are others. Moreover, we are not even sure that
our anxiety shared with others can produce the experience of, to say it with Tomlinson (19 94.
p.63). a 'global we'. The global warming and the rising of the sea level are. for instance,
catastrophic for many Pacific Islands because they will literally lose their land. But in this
case there is still no 'global we'. This example illustrates that we might have bigger changes
to add to sustainable developments by starting in the local. because even without the 'problems' of ethnic diversity, fundamental religious differences and cultural variety, we have great
difficulty in creating a 'global we'.
CONCLUSIONS

To sum up. communication for localisation can be ascribed two dimensions. First, it is concerned with local interpretations and local cultural identity construction, a construction
that is (partly) based on these interpretations. Interpretations of the cultural flow. be the
flows global or local. are always locally contextualised using a local reference frame. However, because the flow incorporates elements from many different levels, the construction of
identity also incorporates these elements- though. because of the fact that these elements
are first interpreted in a local context. they are also locally reshaped. Second. communication for localisation is concerned with action. As an active concept it refers to supporting the
voice of the local (which in some cases can also mean national or even macro-regional) or
disadvantaged groups (either in a global, macro-regional. national, regional or local arena).
in order to counterbalance the global communication flow and to positively favour 'the right
to culture' from the inside out. This dimension has now generally been termed 'globalisation
from below'.
Rico Lie (PhD. Catholic University of Brussels. Belgium) is an assistant professor at the Department of Communication and is as a social anthropologist working at the Research Centre 'Communication for Social Change' (CSC). He is based at the Catholic University of Brussels (K.U. Brussel) in Belgium. His recent publications include the articles 'Globalization:

22

THE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION (2001), 7(2)

LIE

Consumption and Identity. Towards Researching Nodal Points' (2000); :Alternatives in

Globalisation' ( 1998, in Dutch): 'Researching the Global in the Local in a Participatory Way'
(1997): :An Anthropological Escape Route from Mediacentrism' ( 199 7, in Dutch); 'What's
New about Cultural Globalization? ... Linking the Global from Within the Local' (1997), and
the co-edited books Media and Politics in Transition. Cultural Identity in the Age of Globalization
( 199 7) and Communication in Social Change: A Culturalistic Perspective (1996, in Dutch).

NOTES
1.

In an earlier publication by Held. McGrew, Goldblatt & Perraton ( 1999), reference is made to
the three positions under the headings of 'hyperglobalizers', 'sceptics' and
'transformationalists'.

REFERENCES
Appadurai, A. (2000) 'Grassroots globalization and the research imagination', Public Culture, 12:1,
pp.1-19.
Beck, U. (199 6) 'Risk society as cosmopolitan society?', Theory, Culture and Society, 13:4, pp.1- 3 2.
Berger, P. & Luckmann, T. ( 1967) The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Doubleday.
Braman, S. ( 1996) 'Interpenetrated globalisation: scaling, power, and the public sphere', inS. Braman
& A. Sreberny-Mohammadi (eds), Globalisation, Communication and Transnational Civil Society, Cresskill:

Hampton Press. pp.21-36.

Buell, F. (1994) National Culture and the New Global System, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Carragee, K.M. ( 1990) 'Interpretive media study and interpretive social science', Critical Studies in Mass

Communication, 7:2, pp.81-96.

Cochrane, A. & Pain, K. (2000) :A globalizing society?', in D. Held (ed) A Globalizing World? Culture, Eco-

nomic, Politics, London: Routledge, in association with The Open University, pp. 5-45.
Evans, W.A. ( 1990) 'The interpretive turn in media research: innovation. iteration, or illusion?' Critical

Studies in Mass Communication, 7:2, pp.14 7-168.

Geertz, C. ( 19 7 3) The Interpretation of Cultures, New York: Basic Books.
Giddens, A. ( 1994) Beyond Left and Right: The Future of Radical Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hamelink, C.J. ( 1994) The Politics of World Communication; A Human Rights Perspective, London: Sage.
Held. D.. McGrew. A.. Goldblatt. D. & Perraton, J. ( 1999) Global Transformations. Politics, Economics and

Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Held, D. (ed) (2000) A Globalizing World? Culture, Economic, Politics. London: Routledge, in association
with The Open University.
Keesing, R.M. (198 7) :Anthropology as interpretive quest', Current Anthropology, 28:2, pp.161-l76.
Lie, R. ( 1998) 'What's new about cultural globalization? ... Linking the global from within the local', in
J. Servaes & R. Lie (eds) Media and Politics in Transition: Cultural Identity in the Age of Globalization,
Leuven: ACCO, pp.l41-155.
Lie, R. & Servaes, J. (2000) 'Globalization, consumption and identity-towards researching nodal points',
in G. Wang, J. Servaes & A. Goonasekera (eds ), The New Communications Landscape: Demystifying Media

Globalization, London: Routledge. pp.307-332.

THE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION (200 I), 7(2)

23

LIE

Liebes, T. & Katz. E. ( 1990) The Export of Meaning: Cross-Cultural Readings of 'Dallas', New York: Oxford
University Press.
Nadel-Klein, J. (1991) 'Reweaving the fringe: localism, tradition. and representation in British ethnography', American Ethnologist, 18:3. pp.500-517.
Ritzer, G. ( 19 9 3) The McDonaldization of Society; An Investigation Into the Changing Character of Contem-

porary Social Life, Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.

Servaes, J. (1999) Communication for Development: One World, Multiple Cultures. CresskiU: Hampton Press.
Servaes, J. & Frissen. V. (eds) ( 199 7) De Interpretatieve Benadering in de Communicatiewetenschap: Theorie,
Methodologie en Case-studies, Leuven: ACCO.
Tomlinson, J. (1994) :A phenomenology of globalization? Giddens on global modernity', European Journal of Communication, 9:2, pp.149-172.
Van Ginkel. R. (1992) "'Groen-zwart, Texels in het Hart"; Over Articulatie van Identiteit op een
Nederlands Waddeneiland', Amsterdams Sociologisch Tijdschrift, 18:4, pp. 7 6-9 9.

24

THE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION (200 I), 7(2)