Global Ethnography

10 Jun 2002 20:42 AR AR163-12.tex AR163-12.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: ILV 10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.140945 Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2002. 28:271–95 doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.140945 Copyright c °2002 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved GLOBAL ETHNOGRAPHY Zsuzsa Gille1and Se´ an ´ O Riain2 1Department of Sociology, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, Illinois 61801; e-mail: [email protected] 2Department of Sociology, University of California, Davis, California 95616; e-mail: [email protected] Key Words globalization, transnationalism, local-global relations ■Abstract Globalization poses a challenge to existing social scientific methods of inquiry and units of analysis by destabilizing the embeddedness of social relations in particular communities and places. Ethnographic sites are globalized by means of various external connections across multiple spatial scales and porous and contested boundaries. Global ethnographers must begin their analysis by seeking out “placemaking projects” that seek to define new kinds of places, with new definitions of social relations and their boundaries. Existing ethnographic studies of global processes tend to cluster under one of three slices of globalization—global forces, connections, or imaginations—eachdefinedbyadifferentkindofplace-makingproject.Theextension ofthesiteintimeandspaceposespracticalandconceptualproblemsforethnographers, but also political ones. Nonetheless, by locating themselves firmly within the time and spaceofsocialactors“livingtheglobal,”ethnographerscanrevealhowglobalprocesses arecollectivelyandpoliticallyconstructed, demonstrating thevarietyofwaysin which globalization is grounded in the local. INTRODUCTION Globalizationposesa challengeto existingsocialscientific methodsof inquiryand units of analysis by destabilizing the embeddedness of social relations in particular communities and places. By locating themselves firmly within the time and spaceof socialactors “living theglobal,” ethnographerscan revealthe socioscapes that people collectively construct of global processes (Albrow 1997), thus demonstrating how globalization is grounded in the local (Burawoy et al. 2000). At the same time, globalization also poses problems for ethnography. The potential and uneven delinking of the spatial and the social under conditions of globalization upsets ethnography’s claim to understand social relations by being there and thus demands that we rethink the character of global ethnography.1 1Appadurai (1995) poses a similar question to anthropology: how can we undertake ethnography in a world where locality is contested and shifting. 0360-0572/02/0811-0271$14.00 271 10 Jun 2002 20:42 AR AR163-12.tex AR163-12.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: ILV 272 GILLE ¥´ O RIAIN Globalization has exploded onto the sociological agenda in the past 10 to 15 years.2The first generation of globalization studies was concerned with how to defineglobalization;whichaspectsofglobalizationrepresentedhistoricalcontinuity and discontinuity; and how to theorize the relationship between globalization and modernity, postmodernity, and postcoloniality. As such, these studies were concerned primarily with understanding the character of globalization as a social phenomenon (Beck et al. 1994, Featherstone & Lash 1999, Giddens 1991, Harvey 1990, Robertson 1992–see Guillen (2001), Lemert (2002), and Waters (1995) for reviews of this generation of studies). More recently, however, scholars have begun to ask what implications these sociohistorical changes may have for socialscience itself, andtheyhaveaddressed themetatheoretical, epistemological, and political implications of that older body of literature (Abell & Reyniers 2000, Albrow 1995, Gane 2001, Hargittai & Centeno 2001, Kilminster 1997, Pieterse 2000, Tsing 2000). A few studies have even started theorizing the nature of global ethnography (Amit 2000, Burawoy 2000a, Ethnography 2001). Our goal in this review is to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize the achievements of these newer responses to the challenges globalization poses to sociological inquiry, especially as they apply to qualitative methods and fieldwork. In the first section of the paper we analyze existing attempts to re-define the character of social relations in an era of globalization. We pay special attention to howtherelationshipbetweensocietyandspaceistheorizedandtheimplicationsfor ourunderstandingofethnographic sites.Whereisthe “there”wherethesetheorists imply global ethnographers should be? Some advocate replacing ethnographic place-based sites with locations within networks and flows, within transnational social formations, or at the borders of places where difference is produced. We argue that place still provides a foundation for global ethnographers, but as a location from within which ethnographers can explore the sociopolitical projects that are remaking social relations and places. The second section reviews a series of global ethnographies. Here we’ll differentiateamongthreeperspectivesofglobalization:theglobalasforces,connections, and imaginations. The third section turns to methodological issues raised by our redefinition of ethnographic sites as politically constructed. We explore the implications of working in sites that extend across multiple places and spatial scales, that extend in time, and the boundaries of which are deeply contested. 2According to the Cambridge Sociological Abstracts, between 1985 and 1990 twenty-nine ofthestudiesabstractedassignedglobalizationasakeyword,incontrasttothe14abstracted between 1965 and 1984. There were 240 such works in the first half of the 1990s, 410 in 1995 alone, and a whopping 985 in 1998. Today the cumulative total of sociological studies (including reviews) addressing globalization is 4,876. While these data of course can only be suggestive, the trend is clear: From 1990 there is a sudden increase in sociological efforts studying globalization, culminating in close to a thousand annual publications and conference papers by the new millennium. 10 Jun 2002 20:42 AR AR163-12.tex AR163-12.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: ILV GLOBAL ETHNOGRAPHY 273 REIMAGINING THE SOCIAL IN GLOBAL ETHNOGRAPHY Ethnography is uniquely well placed to deal with the challenges of studying social life under globalization because it does not rely on fixed and comparable units of analysis, as do survey and comparative research. However, it also faces significant challenges in reconfiguring itself for a global era—ethnography explicitly seeks to analyze the social by locating the researcher in the space of the social relations beinganalyzed,andthisabilitytostraightforwardlyaccessthesocialbygoingtothe local becomes problematic under conditions of globalization. In the following we will survey recent attempts in sociology to redefine the social under globalization. Disembedding the Social? Theconventionalpostwarsocialscienceviewassumesthatthenationisacontainer for everything within it, while international relations are assumed to account for all relations outside of the national. Even in world-systems theory, the subunits of the system are almost always nations, whose relationship to each other is ordered by capitalist development and interstate competition. Ethnography tends to accept these categories—either, as in sociology, generalizing to the national society or, as in anthropology, taking the local as the site of culture, which is often analyzed in terms of its relationship to the world of nations (colonialism, nation-building, etc.). However, thematic approaches to globalization identify a new empirical phenomenon that has undermined, or at least destabilized, these established hierarchies of the local, national, and international. Even as debate rages bitterly over the precise meaning and extent of globalization, including the destabilization and transformation of the nation state, the decentering of national societies is increasinglywidelyaccepted. Inourdefinition, buildingonMato’s(1997)typology, globalization signifies the increasing significance of trans-local relations, local-global relations,andglobal-globalrelations attheexpenseofnational-nationalrelations.3 Some scholars claim that globalization fundamentally reorders the classical relationship between self and the other, society and knowledge (Beck 1992, Beck et al. 1994), local and global (Dickens 1992, Hall 1991a, 1991b), and most 3Matoclassifieslocal,national,transnational,andglobalagents,basedontheimpactoftheir activity (1997:170–71). Local agents are those individuals and organizations whose social practices are mainly concentrated in the same locality in which they are based, although from time to time they develop these practices beyond this locality and maintain relations with social agents from abroad. Depending on the level of analysis this locality may be regarded as a small town or community, a system of towns or communities, a state or province, or a subnational region. National agents are those whose practices are regularly developed at national levels. Transnational agents are those whose practices are regularly developed across international borders. Global agents are a subclass of transnational agents whose practices are regularly developed not just transnationally but at worldwide levels. 10 Jun 2002 20:42 AR AR163-12.tex AR163-12.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: ILV 274 GILLE ¥´ O RIAIN importantly between space and society. According to these authors, we must redefine the concept of the social itself. Giddens (1991) argues that under conditions of globalization social relations are disembedded from the local and can operate in contexts where space no longer matters because shared systems of symbols and knowledge circulate globally. While disagreeing with Giddens about the modernist nature of globalization, Albrow (1995) later takes up this term to argue more broadlythatsocialrelationsaredisembeddedfromspace;Albrowarguesfor aconceptof “globality” asa newlevel oforganizationthat hasno organizingagent,thus freeing sociality from state control. Altvater & Mahnkopf (1997), arguing more strictly from an economic perspective, define globalization as the culmination of the disembedding of economy from society (the original meaning of the word in Polanyi), leading to a world market unbound. While we find that these social theorists have a propensity to exaggerate the extent of this disembedding process and to ignore its unevenness, we grant the claimthatglobalizationbreakstheone-on-onemappingofthelocalontothesocial. This in turn, makes the classic ethnographic strategy of being there much more problematic.Beforeweaddressthisissue,letusseehowsociologistshaverewoven the broken thread connecting the spatial and the social. The Social as Flow or Network Lash & Urry (1994) argue that this disembedded “social” is increasingly constituted by flows of people, information, goods, and particularly signs or cultural symbols. For them the starting point of a “sociology after societies” (Urry 2000) is these “mobilities,” replacing the hallowed concept of “community.” For Appadurai(1990),theentitiesthat“flow”aroundtheworldare“scapes”orcultural formations around finance, media, ideologies, technologies, and peoples. Yet another group of scholars relies on the network as their central concept. Hannerz (1992) sees society as constituted by “networks of networks,” down to networks among individuals. For Castells (1997) the networks are between places, and a space of flows is being superimposed upon, and replacing, a space of places. Those places left outside the space of flows are profoundly disadvantaged by their structural exclusion. Whereas Castells may not have fully elaborated the implications of the network metaphor and did generally ignore the literature on networks in sociology (Abell & Reyniers 2000), a newer set of studies consciously borrows the network concept from economic sociology and talks of a new geography and the need to draw new maps (Am. Behav. Sci. 2001). For all their differences, each of these approaches disconnects the social from any particular place—seeing contemporary social relations as characteristically stretching across places. Such approaches tend to reify these networks, flows, and other mobilities (Urry 2000) as themselves defining society. Despite recognizing thatnetworkscanbeexclusionary,theseapproachesprovidelittleanalysisofpower relations within networks and therefore find it difficult to explain reproduction and change in networks. Such explanations require that place-based resources and 10 Jun 2002 20:42 AR AR163-12.tex AR163-12.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: ILV GLOBAL ETHNOGRAPHY 275 processes be included in the analysis. Furthermore, these approaches neglect the agency of actors and their sense-making activities as forces in shaping the flows themselves. While the network is at least activated by and even defined by the connectionsamongactors,theconceptofflowspositsaworldofdisembodiedflows of information, signs, finance, and other resources—it is the actor’s connection to these flows that defines the actor, not how they activate connections as in the network metaphor. In such a view, places disappear entirely. In order to go beyond theoppositionof“thespaceofflowsversusthespaceofplaces”(Castells1997),we mustdevelopourunderstandingofhowplacesandnetworksconstituteoneanother, ratherthanseeingthemasopposingprinciplesofsociallife.Thisconceptualization of the social as fluidity, mobility, and connectedness dooms the local to a stoppage insuchflows,perceivesitasastaticplace,renderingmethodsfocusingonconcrete places irrelevant. With Sassen (2000), we see globalization as a repatterning of fluidities and mobilities on the one hand and stoppages and fixities on the other, rather than an all-encompassing world of fluidity.4 The Social as Transnational Others have sought to retain the insight that cross-national networks are increasingly significant while still providing an analysis of the structured social relations withinthosenetworks(Kearney1998).Schiller(1997)definestransnationalstudies as the study of various types of border-crossings by people, texts, discourses, and representations at various geographical levels. Portes et al. (1999) limit transnationalism to activities of immigrants, migrants, transnational entrepreneurs, and cultural groups from the sending country regularly traveling to entertain emigre communitiesinrecipientcountries.Theauthorsportrayathus-definedtransnationalism as the antithesis of globalization, which is understood as a project initiated by and for the benefit of multinational corporations and by nation states. For these authors (Portes et al. 1999, Schiller 1997, Smith & Guarnizo 1998), the emphasis is on studying globalization or transnational social relations as a new subjectmatter,andassuchaconsiderableamountof conceptualrigorisrequiredto delineate what might be properly deemed a qualitatively new social development or institution worthy of a novel term. Portes et al. (1999) define transnationalism, a narrower term than the subject matter of Schiller’s transnational studies would suggest, as an emergent research field, in fact a measurable object of inquiry. Theconceptoftransnationalismprovidesmanyinsightsintothestrategicaction of social actors developing a new scale of social activity between the national and the global. However, this comes at the expense of a historical view that would reveal how fields of activities (including stages of production, the distribution of culture, regulatory moves, etc.) are transformed by a new division of labor among different scales. Some activities that were once the legitimate province of actors 4This view also contrasts with Harvey’s (1990) much referenced idea of a universal timespace compression. 10 Jun 2002 20:42 AR AR163-12.tex AR163-12.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: ILV 276 GILLE ¥´ O RIAIN at the national level may now have shifted to the scope of authority and expertise of global actors, while other activities may now have moved from the global to local levels, and so on.5On the one hand, the focus on the transnational level of analysis is a necessary condition of these often revealing studies and, admirably, Smith & Guarnizo (1998) provide a clear analytical and methodological basis for their preferred research program of comparative transnationalisms (pp. 24–29). However, while the focus is on understanding the transnational social formation itself, it is difficult to move beyond this site to understand how the relationship among multiple scales of social activity is being reorganized. The Social as Border Zone Other authors are more concerned with social relations at the borders and boundaries of social orders. Marcus & Fischer (1986) opposed the imagery of global versus local with a view of still distinct cultural worlds increasingly in communicationwithoneanother.Their“anthropologyasculturalcritique”soughttoexplore therecombinant,hybridformsofculturallifethatwereemergingattheseboundary points of cultures in contact with one another and enhancing the possibilities for other societies to provide us with tools for cultural critique of our own society. However, conceiving of the social as a border zone and emphasizing connections and contacts means that the cultural worlds that come into contact with each other are still conceptualized as self-contained, territorial worlds with readily identifiable differences that then clash. Conceiving of the social as a border zone often implies that boundary-localities are liminal, hybrid, syncretic, and fluid, an assumption that can only hold if we abstract away from the powers that create and maintain boundaries. Alejandro Lugo’s (2000) ethnography of the United StatesMexico border, for example, promotes a view of borders not as spaces of mobility and hybridity but as places produced by increased surveillance at the border and discipline in the maquiladoras.6Berdahl’s (1999) Where the World Ended is also an ethnography of an actual borderland: that dividing the former East and West Germany.UnlikeMarcus andFischer, shecallsfor anunderstanding ofboundaries not as escaping but rather as deeply enmeshed in existing social and power relations. Her borderland is also less a place of diversity, fluidity, and hybridity than a “place of intense and inflexible lucidity,” a site in which various features of the economic, cultural, and political regime on one side of the border are crystallized and manifest in their purest form. Both the East Germans’ and Mexican workers’ experiences of being stuck on one side of the border call forth other imagined boundaries, racial, ethnic, and both internal and external. Based on these ethnographies, instead of the assumption of liminality and hybridity (Kearney 1998), 5Sassen (2001) for example talks about the production of new legal subjects as local actors areincreasinglyabletoapplyinternationaltreatiesandappealtosupranationalorganizations in their struggles against a corporation or a nation state. 6Lugo explicitly takes issue with Morales’ application of Foucault’s notion of heterotopia to the experience of living in border zones. 10 Jun 2002 20:42 AR AR163-12.tex AR163-12.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: ILV GLOBAL ETHNOGRAPHY 277 we call for a focus on “the production of local differences,” the political processes through which places are produced, when studying social action at the margins (Gupta & Ferguson 1997). The Social as Place-Making Projects Each of these approaches to redefining the relationship between the social and the local is limited, but each offers a different avenue for future conceptualization. From the discussion of flows, we see the need to redefine place in light of the multiple connections cutting across places. From the study of transnationalism, we see the critical importance of the emergence of new scales of social action and the reconfiguring of relationships among the multiple scales within which places are embedded. Finally, from the study of borders, we see the vital importance of seeing place as politically produced and contested. Together we can combine these various threads into a concept of the social as increasingly embroiled in place-making projects7that seek to redefine the connections, scales, borders, and character of particular places and particular social orders. These projects are the critical sites through which global ethnographers can interrogate social relations in an era of globalization. Wehavearguedthatplacecontinuestobecentraltoglobalethnography,albeitin a reconceptualized form. Our starting point in tackling these challenges therefore is to build a revised definition of place that builds in large part on geographer Doreen Massey’s concept of a global sense of place. Massey proposes a concept of locality based on four key arguments: (a) places are not static, (b) places do not have the kind of boundaries that warrant a simple counterposition to the outside, (c) the identity of a place is not homogenous, yet (d) places are unique and their specificity resides in the distinct mixture of local and wider social relations. In short, the locality—the site—is historically produced in interaction with a variety of external connections, and this process also produces distinctive patterns of inequality internal to the locality. Together, these propositions form the basis of a global sense of place (Massey 1994). Albrow (1997), similarly to Massey—and quite in opposition to the authors advocating the idea of the social as network and flows that imply the fixity of the local—argues that communities in globalized places are fluid and scape-like as well. People may live in the same neighborhood or town, but their meaningful social lives may reach beyond that locality to a highly uneven degree. These reaches or networks constitute what he calls sociospheres, “distinct patterns of socialactivitiesbelongingtonetworksofsocialrelationsofverydifferentintensity, spanning widely different territorial extents, from a few to many thousands of miles”(Albrow1997,pp.51).Whilepriortothecontemporaryeraofglobalization, these sociospheres usually intersected in the locality, new intersections are now 7The concept of place-making appears in Gupta & Ferguson (1992) and Tsing (2000), but Appadurai’s (1995) notion of the production of the local conveys a similar idea. 10 Jun 2002 20:42 AR AR163-12.tex AR163-12.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: ILV 278 GILLE ¥´ O RIAIN forming that he calls socioscapes. Socioscapes are fluid imaginations of spatial belonging and of the social formations created by and making possible the reach of social relations beyond the locality. Taken together, Massey’s and Albrow’s contributionis to advancea newsense of placethat, while itis relevant tolocalities before this era of globalization, is all the more salient today. Such concepts of place treat all places as if they occupied the same level in a spatial hierarchy. However, as we have seen, at different periods of history, social action is legitimated at different scales. Neil Brenner (1999, 2000) argues that any understanding of space as socially constructed requires that we take into account notonlytheexternalconnectionsandbordersofaplacebutalsohowitislocatedin the“politics of scale”—thenegotiationof thehierarchy and legitimacyofdifferent scales of social action. Brenner argues that the contemporary era of globalization consists not simply of a shift of power and of social interaction upward from the national to the global but of a destabilization of the existing hierarchies of spatial scales. While creating a crisis in national social formations, this also opens up opportunities for social actors to develop new combinations of local, national, transnational, and global social relations. This spatial analysis is echoed in recent discussions of social structure in sociology, although the two literatures rarely enter directly into dialogue. In contrast to compositionist views of social structure, treating high levels of social structure as theaggregateoflowerlevels,andhierarchical views, treatinglowerlevelsofsocial structure as the effects of higher levels, Kontopoulos (1993) argues for a view of socialstructures asheterarchical, withdifferentlevelsintegratingin differentways in a structured but uneven manner. Given the densely intertwined multiple levels of analysis, how can we hope to interrogate social relations and social structures from particular places? We argue that the key to this is to recognize that these shifting socio-spatial relations between levels of analysis are themselves socially and politically contested, not only in academia, but also in the real world. This interest in the political contestation of place extends anthropologists’ interest in the production of difference between places (Gupta & Ferguson 1992, Marcus & Fischer 1986). Tsing (2000) argues, for example, that scholars assume a global level of analysis at their peril and must begin their analysis by seeking out place-making projects that seek to define new kindsofplaces,withnewdefinitionsofsocialrelationsandtheirboundaries.Places matter because it is in places that we find the ongoing creation, institutionalization, and contestation of global networks, connections, and borders. Instead of a comprehensive account of a self-contained set of social relations, the ethnographer now uses her location to interrogate a variety of intersecting place-making projects as they are manifested in a particular spatial location. Reflecting changes inthe worlditself, location inplace is crucialfor understanding thesocial relations that extend beyond it. The ethnographer is less a chronicler of self-evident places than an interrogator of a variety of place-making projects. How the ethnographer analyzes the intersection of scales depends in part on her position in a particular set of place-making projects. Such a concept of global ethnography enables us to 10 Jun 2002 20:42 AR AR163-12.tex AR163-12.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: ILV GLOBAL ETHNOGRAPHY 279 make sense of the variety of ethnographies dealing with global processes and to classify them according to how they identify their subjects’ relations to certain place-making projects. GLOBAL ETHNOGRAPHY Ethnographyisanespeciallysuitablemethodologywithwhichtoinvestigatesocial structures that are constituted across multiple scales and sites. Even the most sophisticated statistical methods tend to rely on a nested hierarchy of scales and units of analysis, whereas ethnography can strategically locate itself at critical points of intersection of scales and units of analysis and can directly examine the negotiation of interconnected social actors across multiple scales. In this section weoutlinethiscontributionby reviewingavarietyofglobalethnographiesthrough the lens of three slices of globalization—global forces, global connections, and global imaginations (Burawoy et al. 2000)8. In studies of global forces the social actors and places being studied are caught upinaplace-makingprojectconstitutedwellbeyondtheirinfluencethatcanhardly be shaped by them—although they may develop complex forms of adaptation, avoidance, and survival. Studies of global connections show how certain social actors are able to take advantage of the destabilization of sociospatial hierarchies centered on the nation-state to build new translocal and transnational connections. Thesocialactorswhoconstructglobalimaginations—alesseasilyclassifiedgroup than those in the other two slices—are most explicitly engaged in place-making, contesting definitions of local, national, and global scales and of the relations among them. None of these three “slices” of globalization can be understood in terms of a simple shift upward in power, a relocation of power from the national to the global, but each reflects one way in which the global order as complex multiscalar place-making projects is experienced. For this reason, studies of particular social phenomena tend to cluster together under a particular slice—studies of modernization under forces, of migrants under connections, and of political initiatives of environmentalprotection,regionaldevelopment,andespeciallyculturalconsumption and production under imaginations. 8There are perhaps only a handful of ‘global ethnographies,’ narrowly defined. However, we review a wide range of studies here in order to illustrate some of the potential directions which global ethnography might follow. Many of the studies are anthropological due to the importance of ethnography within the discipline and the rethinking of anthropological concepts which has been prompted in particular by post-colonial thought and which has focused anthropological theories on globalization for quite some time now. A relatively small portion of sociological ethnography addresses the kind of macro processes that we discuss in this review but we have included some studies (such as Katherine Dudley’s The End of the Line) in order to illustrate how they are shaped by particular aspects of globalization, even if the study as a whole could hardly be called ‘global ethnography.’ 10 Jun 2002 20:42 AR AR163-12.tex AR163-12.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: ILV 286 GILLE ¥´ O RIAIN extension of ethnography in time through the incorporation of historical analysis; and the changing subject position of the global ethnographer. Extending in Space: Ethnography Across Sites and Scales In his 1998 volume Ethnography Through Thick and Thin, George Marcus argues that the study of an increasingly globalized world requires multisited ethnography or at least a multisited research imaginary. He proposes to extend fieldwork to multiple sites, extending the research site in space, in order to study localities tied to the outside world in complex and consequential ways. Multisited research is designedaroundchains,paths,threads,conjunctions,orjuxtapositionsoflocations in which the ethnographer establishes some form of literal, physical presence, with an explicit, posited logic of association or connection among sites that in fact defines the argument of ethnography. The extension of ethnography to multiple sites is a seemingly excellent way to meet the challenges posed by globalization to place-based studies. However, while finding connections is certainly not difficult, deciding which of them are worth pursuing seems somewhat arbitrary, a feature of multisited ethnography that Marcus acknowledges when he calls it a kind of constructivism (1998, p. 90). Marcus identifies the methods of such construction: connecting sites by following people; following objects, metaphors, plots, stories, allegories; following conflicts andbiography.Whattiestogetherfieldworklocationsistheethnographer’sdiscovery of traces and clues, her logic of association. The methodological imperative of being there is replaced by that of chasing things around, things that are identified more by the ethnographer’s interests prior to entering the field than by the field itself. Marcus provides little guidanceand a rather scanty list of models that would allow us to answer pressing questions such as how to identify all the relevant sites or what weight each of the sites should carry. This dilemma is only aggravated if we recognize that ethnographic sites are always and everywhere embroiled in an intermeshing network of multiple sites of social action, operating across multiple spatial scales and levels of social structure. Historically, sociology has been largely guilty of what, after Doreen Massey (1994), we may call the confusion of the level of analysis and geographical scale with the level of abstraction. Even theorists who have made important theoretical contributionsto thesociological understandingsof globalizationtend toequatethe globalwiththeuniversal,andthelocalwiththeparticular(Harvey1990,Robertson 1995, Wallerstein 1991). However, in multiscalar research sites we cannot a priori identify a dominant level of analysis. How do we identify the limits of a community we are studying when the community is constituted across a variety of spatial scales (local, national, global, transnational etc.)? This interweaving of ethnographic sites across a range of spatial scales, and therefore units of analysis, poses serious challenges to established ethnographic practice—challenges that have barely been raised within sociology as a whole let alone among ethnographers. While we do not deny the place of constructionism in 10 Jun 2002 20:42 AR AR163-12.tex AR163-12.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: ILV GLOBAL ETHNOGRAPHY 287 research, sociologists are likely to find Marcus’ definition of a multisited research imaginary to be wanting primarily because social relations among sites can never be reduced to the connections forged by the ethnographer’s imagination and logic of association. Conceiving of ethnographic sites as internally heterogenous and connectedtoother placesbyamyriad ofsocialrelationsrequires thattheextension of fieldwork to several sites be dictated not by the logic of the ethnographer but by the character of these social relations themselves, both within and between sites. Amongtheethnographieswehavereviewed,onlyasmallnumberpursueamultisited approach. The ethnographies of transnationalism discussed above provide useful examples of the multisited approach and show where it works well—when there are clearly defined patterns of connection between relatively highly concentrated sites, e.g., in the case of studying migrants. Donham’s (1999) study of Marxistmodernizationin Ethiopiainvolves twosites,buttheseare sitesthatcanbe understood as clearly located within a well-established hierarchy of scales—the national capital, which is the center of mobilization of modernization projects, and a village where they are implemented and contested. Such situations where clearly defined relations exist between two sites or across two scales are relatively rare, however, and do not address the dilemmas of investigating the multiple sets of external connections, borders and scales within which global places are often located. Eade and his collaborators (1997) take a different approach—fixing their ethnographic site in London but using a variety of studies carried out by a large research team to explore the multiple connections of their research site to many parts of the world. The need to pursue actors through space and time in order to explore placemaking projects seems likely to increase our use of interviews, history, tracing networks, and so on and to decrease our time spent simply being on site. The classic model of extended stays in a site extends to multisited ethnography quite poorly—forthereasonswehavediscussedandalsoforthepurelypracticalreasons of time and other resources (see V. Smith 2001 for a revealing discussion of the demands of the “work of ethnography” in the “ethnography of work”). Becoming partofasiteremainsacriticalpartofethnography—theissueofgainingentry—but the very nature of that membership changes for the ethnographer as it changes for those around her or him. Place becomes a launching pad outward into networks, backward into history and ultimately into the politics of place itself. Extending in Time: From Context to History Social relations change, and with them, the sites in which they are embedded. Marcus’ multisited ethnography, however, ignores the dynamic process by which sitesaretransformedbytheirexternalconnections.Furthermore,multisitedethnography does not allow us a sufficient amount of critical attention to political efforts to naturalize the local community because it provides no space from which to notice that such construction occurs. It takes places for granted and leaves no room for accounting for the production and transformation of sites. In short, in 10 Jun 2002 20:42 AR AR163-12.tex AR163-12.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: ILV 288 GILLE ¥´ O RIAIN multisited ethnography, history remains an afterthought rather than a factor that has implications for what can be seen as a site (Gille 2001). Because we focus on dynamic social relations rather than static sites and see localitiesaspoliticallyandhistoricallyconstructed,ourapproachtoglobalethnography requires the historicization of the locality and of local and extralocal social relations. Social relations are, by definition, dynamic, and as such they affect how the issues we study manifest themselves at a particular time. In sociology, historical analysis has too often implied unilinear development, as spatial variation is translated into temporal variation or stages in social change (see Dove’s 1996 critique of world systems analysis). In the literature on globalization, this unilinearity expresses itself in a model of a (non-Western) local simply reacting to the (Western) global—while the global remains apparently unaffected by the localglobal relation (e.g., Miller 1995). Wonderful correctives to this view of history and local-global relations are MarshallSahlins’s(2000)upsettingethnographies,aboutwhoencompasseswhom in the process of development, and the work of the Comaroffs (1992). Their practice of historical ethnography defies the imposition of the microsociology/ macrosociology dichotomy on the local/global one. “Even macrohistorical processes—the building of states, the making of revolutions, the extension of global capitalism—have their feet on the ground. Being rooted in the meaningful practicesofpeople,great andsmall,theyareinshort,suitablecasesfor anthropological treatment” (1992, p. 33) Furthermore, this ethnographic history treats the agents of such events (missionaries, settlers, etc.) as a complex collectivity with its own history and practices with which they attribute meaning to their participation in one or another of these macrohistorical events. Mary Des Chene finds that this historical ethnography is still too bound to a particular locality. As she argues, “spatial contiguity is not essential to every kind of historical anthropological research” and “the field may not be a place at all, but a period of time or a series of events, the study of which will take a researcher to many places” (1997, p. 71). BothDes CheneandtheComaroffsaccept archivalresearchas partofhistorical ethnography. However, both redefine its role in a novel way—the former treating thearchives themselvesas asite,while thelattertreat itasa sourceoftextualtraces of a field of arguments, which the ethnographer can reconstruct without having to accept archives as objective documentary record. While much of comparativehistorical sociology has relied on historical documents, letters, diaries, official record, etc., this approach requires that sociologists reevaluate archival research. Ethnographic research can be a powerful entrance into such reinterpretation of archivalmaterials,oftenaidedbyanalysesofsocialmemory.Contemporarystories regarding historical events can be measured against the archival record to reveal how historical events are reconstructed and contested as part of contemporary culture. While ethnographic interpretation can be aided by historical materials, the detailed knowledge of the contemporary site can cast new light on archival materials and the intended and unintended consequences of historical actions. Of course, history can be incorporated more directly into ethnographic research, albeit over a more limited time span. Donham’s (1999) study of Marxism 10 Jun 2002 20:42 AR AR163-12.tex AR163-12.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: ILV GLOBAL ETHNOGRAPHY 289 in Ethiopia provides a fascinating example of a historical ethnography-only in this case incorporating revisits to sites of earlier fieldwork.9While such revisits to the siteof anearlierethnography areverydemandingof individual ethnographers,one way to introduce a historical component to ethnographic research is to revisit the sites (or similar sites) studied by other ethnographers. Burawoy (2000b) argues that while revisits typically seek to debunk the original study, they may be better deployed to analyze historical change—using the earlier ethnography as historical data, as occurred through good fortune to Burawoy himself through his research on a Chicago factory previously studied by Donald Roy. Transformations of Ethnographers: How Do Relations with Those We Study Change? The extension of the ethnographic site in space and time sharpens one’s sensibilities to the political consequences of defining a site or sites. The subject position of the ethnographer in global ethnography is fraught with difficulties. What might be the implications of the methodological dilemmas discussed above for the political position of the ethnographer? Does the classical problematic of gaining entry and maintaining trustworthiness change in this new type of ethnography, in which the field is composed of multiple sites and the social relations in which the sites are enmeshed? Marcus provides an interesting evaluation of the shifting assumed identities of the observer. He claims that doing ethnography in multiple sites amounts to activism, rather than just to mere ethnography. Using the example of Emily Martin’s (1994) Flexible Bodies, he argues that in a kind of ethnography in which one is a medical student in one site, an AIDS volunteer in another, and a corporatetraineeinthethird,theethnographerwillfindherselfsometimesworking with the subjects she observes, sometimes against them. These conflicts, according to Marcus, are resolved “not by refuge in being a detached anthropological scholar, but in being a sort of ethnographer-activist” (p. 98). This circumstantial activist figure appears to be superior to the “traditional self-defined activist role claimed by left-liberal scholars” (p. 98) perhaps because it actively participates in and negotiates among different sets of subjects (Gupta & Ferguson 1997). However, this mobile activism can be expected when the sites are linked only by the connections forged in the researcher’s imagination. In Martin’s case, for example, the link is a metaphoric one—that is, she follows the metaphor of the immune system through various locales, but the sets of subjects she connects are not necessarily in a concrete conflict with each other (though they may have 9Donham spent time in Addis Adaba, the Ethiopian capital, and Maale, an area in Southern Ethiopia. With major visits in 1974–75, as the revolution began, and in 1983–84, after the revolutionary state had consolidated itself, Donham spent a total of three years in Ethiopia, spread across twenty-five. Partly through good luck, arriving in Maale just before therevolution,andpartlythroughdedicatedandtime-consumingfieldwork,Donhamisable to give concrete form to the historical transformation of not only Ethiopian society but to the meaning of Marxism and modernity itself within Ethiopia. 10 Jun 2002 20:42 AR AR163-12.tex AR163-12.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: ILV 290 GILLE ¥´ O RIAIN differing perspectives on the particular issue) and may not even know of each other. In this case, maintaining the position of an AIDS activist is relatively easy, as long as the targets of AIDS activism do not know about the commitments and presence of the ethnographer in the other locations. But how could one maintain any meaningful sense of activism when the sites are in actual conflict with each other, when one is visibly affiliated with certain of the parties in conflict and when consequently opposing parties are more likely to consider the ethnographer a spy for their opponents? Gille (2000, 2001) found herself in such a situation. She went into the field expecting to conduct her research on the politics of location of a waste incinerator in an open and reciprocal manner. In contrast, she found the conflict around the incinerator had become so bitter that she had to revise many of her expectations regarding her position as an ethnographer–relatively mundane matters as where to live, compensating interviewees, discussing local affairs, and so on were deeply politicized. Even if not located in such a precarious political spot, the ethnographer who is following connections through a network will almost inevitably find herself also making connections. For to be in a network is also to practice networking— such is the mode of existence in decentralized networks. The ethnographer, as someonewith manyconnections acrossmultiple cliques, isalso likelyto becomea potentiallyvaluableresourceforotherswithinthenetwork—aswellasapotentially dangerous figure who knows too much. The relation between ethnographer and subjects is also transformed when the ethnographer is much more accessible to many of their subjects, even when they return to their computer in the university. The relation of the anthropologist who returns from the far off village, and of the sociologist who returns from the inner city,topeopleintheirsitesisverydifferentfromtherelationshipthatexistsbetween activists in transnational social movements and the researcher who studies them (see Bickham et al. 2001 for a discussion of similar issues in a program designed to create dialogue between academics and activists). We are left then with a vision of the global ethnographer extending herself in time and space to attempt to uncover the multilevel social processes at work in her site. But these extensions take a toll—they must be negotiated and relationships must be managed that are often contradictory or even directly conflictual. There is no easy answer to the dilemmas of power in global ethnography—if anything, it is less clear for whom the ethnographer should speak under these conditions than it has seemed in the past. CONCLUSION Our travels toward global ethnography have taken us across many terrains and connections—thechangingrelationshipbetweensocietyandspace,theimportance of locating the site in relation to place-making projects, the varying ways in which ethnographers have sliced into the study of globalization, and the dilemmas of undertaking ethnography under these conditions. We have argued for a global 10 Jun 2002 20:42 AR AR163-12.tex AR163-12.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: ILV GLOBAL ETHNOGRAPHY 291 ethnography that still locates itself firmly in places but which conceives of those places as themselves globalized with multiple external connections, porous and contested boundaries, and social relations that are constructed across multiple spatial scales. The place-bound site becomes a platform from which a variety of place-making projects can be investigated. These projects provide a way in to the investigation of heterarchical social structures and deeply intertwined scales of social life. We have suggested that global ethnographers have investigated such sites as homes to particular place-making projects, leading to the experience of globalizationsaseitherglobalforces,connections,orimaginations.Whichofthese experiences prevails in a given ethnographic project has much to do with the topic beingstudiedandthesociallocationofthosesocialactorsbeingstudied.Finallywe have argued that while ethnography may be particularly well suited to uncovering global processes in their multiple and overlapping contexts, significant challenges exist for the would-be global ethnographer. The extension of the site in time and space poses practical and conceptual problems for ethnographers but also political ones. Grounding globalization through ethnography will present challenges and dilemmas but also rich rewards. The Annual Review of Sociology is online at http://soc.annualreviews.org LITERATURE CITED Abell P, Reyniers M. 2000. On the failure of social theory. Br. J. Sociol. 51(4):739– 50 Agnew J. 2001. [No title.] Presentation at session on ‘Citizenship and Identity’ Annu. Meet. Am. Sociol. Assoc., Aug. 17–20 Albrow M. 1995. The Global Age: State and Society beyond Modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Albrow M. 1997. Travelling beyond local cultures: socioscapes in a global city. See Eade 1997, pp. 20–36 Altvater E, Mahnkopf B. 1997. The world market unbound. In The Limits of Globalization: Cases and Arguments, ed. A. Scott, pp. 306– 26. London/ New York: Routledge American Behavioral Scientist. 2001. Special issue on Globalization. 44(10) Amit V, ed. 2000. Constructing the Field. London/ New York: Routledge Appadurai A. 1995. The production of locality. In Counterworks: Managing the Diversity of Knowledge, ed. R Fardon, pp. 204–25. London/New York: Routledge Appadurai A. 1990. Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy. Public Cult. 2(2):1–24 Beck U. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage Beck U, Giddens A, Lash S. 1994. Reflexive Modernization. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press Berdahl D. 1999. Where the World Ended: ReUnification and Identity in the German Borderland. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Bickham Mendez J, Wolf D. 2001. Where feminist theory meets feminist practice: bordercrossing in a transnational academic feminist organization. Organization (4):723– 50 Boli J. 1997. World culture in the world polity: a century of international non-governmental organization. Am. Sociol. Rev. 62(2):171– 90 Brenner N. 2000. The urban question as a scale question: reflections on Henri Lefebvre, urban theory and the politics of scale. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 24(2):361–78 10 Jun 2002 20:42 AR AR163-12.tex AR163-12.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: ILV 292 GILLE ¥´ O RIAIN Brenner N. 1999. Beyond state-centrism? Space, territoriality, and geographical scale in globalization studies. Theory Soc. 28:39– 78 Burawoy M. 2000a. Introduction: reaching for theglobal.SeeBurawoy,etal.2000.pp.1–40 Burawoy M. 2000b. The ethnography of revisits.PresentedatUniv.Chicago,May11,2000 Burawoy M, Blum JA, George S, Gille Z, Gowan T, et al. 2000. Global Ethnography: Forces, Connections and Imaginations in a Postmodern World. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Burawoy M, Burton A, Ferguson AA, Fox KJ, Gamson J, et al. 1991. Ethnography Unbound. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Castells M. 1997. The Information Age. 3 vols. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Cho SK. 1985. Labor process and capital mobility: the limits of the new international division of labor. Polit. Soc. 14(2):185–222 Comaroff J, Comaroff J. 1992. Ethnography and the Historical Imagination. Boulder, CO: Westview Constable N. 1997. Maid to Order in Hong Kong: Stories of Filipina Workers. Ithaca/ London: Cornell Univ. Press Cook S. 1998. Mexican Brick Culture in the Building of Texas, 1800s–1980s. College Station: Texas A&M Univ. Press Darian-Smith E. 1999. Bridging Divides: the Channel Tunnel and English Legal Identity in the New Europe. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Des Chene M. 1997. Locating the past. See Gupta & Ferguson 1997, pp. 66–85 De Soto HG. 2000. Contested landscapes: reconstructing environment and memory in postsocialist Saxony-Anhalt. In Altering States: Ethnographies of Transition in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, ed. D Berdahl, M Bunzl, M Lampland, pp. 96– 113. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press Dickens P. 1992. Society and Nature: Towards aGreenSocialTheory.Philadelphia:Temple Univ. Press Donham D. 1999. Marxist Modern. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Dove MR. 1996. Rice-eating rubber and people-eating governments: peasants versus statecritiquesofrubberdevelopmentincolonial Borneo. Ethnohistory 43(1):32–63 Dudley KM. 1994. The End of the Line: Lost Jobs, New Lives in Postindustrial America. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Eade J, ed. 1997. Living the Global City: Globalization as Local Process. New York: Routledge Ethnic and Racial Studies. 1999. Special issue on Transnationalism. 22(2) Ethnography. 2001. Special issue on Global Ethnography. 2(2) Falk Moore S. 2001. The international production of authoritative knowledge: the case of drought-stricken West Africa. Ethnography 2 (2):161–90 Featherstone M, Lash S, eds. 1999. Spaces of Culture: City, Nation, World. London/ Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Ferguson J. 1999. Expectations of Modernity. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Ferguson J. 1994. The Anti-Politics Machine: ‘Development,’ Depoliticization, and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press FernandezKellyP.1983.ForWeAreSold,Iand My People: Women and Industry in Mexico’s Frontier. Albany: State Univ. NY Press Freeman C. 2000. High Tech and High Heels in the Global Economy: Women, Work and Pink-Collar Identities in the Caribbean. Durham/London: Duke Univ. Press Gane N. 2001. Chasing the ‘runaway world’: the politics of recent globalization theory. Acta Sociol. 44(1):81–89 George S. 2000. “Dirty nurses” and “men who play:” gender and class in transnational migration. See Burawoy et al. 2000, pp. 144– 74 GiddensA.1991.The Consequences ofModernity. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press Gille Z. 2001. Critical ethnography in the time of globalization: toward a new concept of site. Cult. Stud.-Crit. Methodol. 1(3):319–34 Gille Z. 2000. Cognitive cartography in a European wasteland: multinational capital and 10 Jun 2002 20:42 AR AR163-12.tex AR163-12.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: ILV GLOBAL ETHNOGRAPHY 293 greens vie for village allegiance. See Burawoy et al. 2000, pp. 240–67 Ginsburg F, Rapp R, eds. 1998. Conceiving the NewWorld Order:TheGlobalPoliticsofReproduction. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Goldman M. 2001. The birth of a discipline: producing authoritative green knowledge, World Bank-style. Ethnography 2(2):191– 218 Gowan T. 2000. Excavating “globalization” from street level: homeless men recycle their pasts. See Burawoy et al. 2000, pp. 74– 105 GuillenM.2001.Isglobalizationcivilizing,destructive or feeble? A critique of five key debates in the social science literature. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 27:235–60 Gupta A, Ferguson J, eds. 1997. Anthropological Locations. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Gupta A, Ferguson J. 1992. Beyond ‘culture’: space, identity, and the politics of difference. Cult. Anthropol. 7(1):6–23 Hakken D. 2000. Cyborgs @ Cyberspace? An Ethnographer Looks to the Future. New York/London: Routledge Hall S. 1991a. The local and the global: globalization and ethnicity. See King 1991, pp. 19–40 Hall S. 1991b. Old and new identities, old and new ethnicities. See King 1991, pp. 41–68 Haney L. 2000. Global discourses of need: mythologizing and pathologizing welfare in Hungary.SeeBurawoyetal.2000,pp.48–73 Hannerz U. 1992. The global ecumene as a network of networks. In Conceptualizing Society, ed. A Kuper, pp. 34–58. London/New York: Routledge Hargittai E, Centeno MA. 2001. Defining a global geography. Am. Behav. Sci. 44(10): 1545–60 Harvey D. 1990. The Condition of Postmodernity: An Inquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Oxford: Blackwell Hondagneu-Sotelo P. 1994. Gendered Transitions: Mexican Experiences of Immigration. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Hossfeld K. 1990c. ‘Their logic against them’: contradictions in sex, race, and class in Silicon Valley. In Women Workers and Global Restructuring, ed. K Ward, pp. 149– 78. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press Kearney M. 1998. Transnationalism in California and Mexico at the end of empire. In Border Identities: Nation and State at International Frontiers, ed. TM Wilson, H Donnan, pp. 117–41. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press Kempadoo K, Doezema J, eds. 1998. Global Sex Workers: Rights, Resistance and Redefinition. New York/London: Routledge Kilminster R. 1997. Globalization as an emergentconcept.InThe Limits of Globalization: Cases and Arguments, ed. A. Scott, pp. 257– 83. London/New York: Routledge King AD, ed. 1991. Culture, Globalization and theWorldSystem:ContemporaryConditions for the Representation of Identity. Binghamton: State Univ. NY, Binghamton Press Klawiter M. 2000. From private stigma to global assembly: transforming the terrain of breast cancer. See Burawoy et al. 2000, pp. 299–334 Kontopoulos KM. 1993. The Logics of Social Structure.Cambridge/NewYork:Cambridge Univ. Press Kyle D. 2000. Transnational Peasants. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press Lash S, Urry J. 1994. Economies of Signs and Space. London: Sage LemertC.2002.SocialThings:AnIntroduction to Sociological Life. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Lin J. 1998. Reconstructing Chinatown: Ethnic Enclave,GlobalChange.Minneapolis:Univ. Minn. Press LopezS.2000.Contestingtheglobalcity:Pittsburgh’spublicservice unionsconfronta neoliberal agenda. See Burawoy et al. 2000, pp. 268–98 Lugo A. 2000. Theorizing border inspections. Cult. Dyn. 12(3):353–73 Marcus GE. 1998. Ethnography Through Thick and Thin. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press Marcus GE, Fischer MJ. 1986. Anthropology as Cultural Critique: an Experimental 10 Jun 2002 20:42 AR AR163-12.tex AR163-12.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: ILV 294 GILLE ¥´ O RIAIN Moment in the Human Sciences. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Marcus GE, Myers FR, eds. 1995. The Traffic inCulture:RefiguringArt andAnthropology. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Martin E. 1994. Flexible Bodies: Tracing Immunity in American Culture From the Days of Polio to the Age of AIDS. Boston: Beacon Massey D. 1994. Space, Place and Gender. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press Mato D. 1997. On global and local agents and the social making of transnational identities and related agendas in “Latin” America. Identities 4(2):167–212 McMichael P. 1996. Globalization: myths and realities. Rural Sociol. 61(1):25–55 MiesM.1986.PatriarchyandAccumulationon a World Scale: Women in the International Division of Labor. London: Zed Books Miller D. 1995. Worlds Apart: Modernity ThroughthePrismoftheLocal.London/New York: Routledge Mills MB. 1999. Thai Women in the Global Labor Force: Consuming Desires, Contested Selves. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press Nash J, 1979. We Eat the Mines and the Mines Eat Us: Dependency and Exploitation in Bolivian Tin Mines. New York: Columbia Univ. Press Nash J, Kelly P, eds. 1983. Women, Men and the New International Division of Labor. Albany: State Univ. NY Press OngA.1987.SpiritsofResistanceandCapitalist Discipline: Factory Women in Malaysia. Albany: State Univ. New York Press Ong A. 1996. Anthropology, China and modernities: the geopolitics of cultural knowledge. In The Future of Anthropological Knowledge, ed. H L Moore, pp. 60–92. London/ New York: Routledge Ong A. 1999. Flexible Citizenship: The Cultural Logics of Transnationality. Durham: Duke Univ. Press Parre˜nasRS.2002.Thecare crisisinthe Philippines: children and transnational families in the new global economy. In Global Woman: Essays on Women and Globalization, ed. A Hochschild, B. Ehrenreich. New York: Nation Books. In press Phillips RB, Steiner CB. 1999. Unpacking Culture: Art and Commodity in Colonial and Postcolonial Worlds. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Pieterse JN, ed. 2000. Global Futures: Shaping Globalization. London/New York: Zed Books Portes A, Guarnizo L, Edwards L, Landolt P. 1999.Introduction:pitfallsandpromiseofan emergent research field. Ethnic Racial Stud. 22(2):217–37 Robertson R. 1992. Globalization. London: Sage Robertson R. 1995. Globalization: time-space and homogeneity-heterogeneity. In Global Modernities, ed. M Featherstone, S Lash, R Robertson, pp. 25–44. London/Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Rouse R. 1991. Mexican migration and the social space of postmodernism. Diaspora 1(1):8–23 Sahlins M. 2000. Culture in Practice: Selected Essays. New York: Zone Books Salzinger L. 1991. A maid by any other name: thetransformationof“dirtywork”byCentral American immigrants. See Burawoy et al. 1991, 139–60 Salzinger L. 2000. Manufacturing sexual subjects:‘harassment’,desireanddisciplineona Maquiladora shopfloor. Ethnography 1(1): 67–92 SassenS.2000.Spatialitiesandtemporalitiesof the global: elements for a theorization. Public Cult. 12(1):215–32 Sassen S. 2001. [No title.] Presentation at Session on ‘Citizenship and Identity’ Annu. Meet. Am. Sociol. Assoc., August 17–20 Scheper-HughesN.1992.DeathWithoutWeeping: The Violence of Everyday Life in Brazil. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Schiller NG. 1997. The situation of transnational studies. Identities 4(2):155–66 Smith M. 2001. Transnational Urbanism: Locating Globalization. Oxford, UK: Blackwell 10 Jun 2002 20:42 AR AR163-12.tex AR163-12.SGM LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: ILV GLOBAL ETHNOGRAPHY 295 Smith MP, Guarnizo L, eds. 1998. Transnationalism from Below. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Smith V. 2001. Ethnographies of work and the work of ethnographers. In Handbook on Ethnography, ed. P Atkinson, A Coffey, S Delamont, L Lofland, J Lofland, pp. 220–33. Los Angeles: Sage Thayer M. 2000. Traveling feminisms: from embodied women to gendered citizenship. See Burawoy et al. 2000, pp. 203– 34 ThayerM.2001.Transnationalfeminism:readingJoanScottintheBraziliansert˜ao.Ethnography 2(2): 243–72 Tsing A. 2000. The global situation. Cult. Anthropol. 15(3):327–60 Turkle S. 1995. Life on the Screen. New York: Touchstone/Simon Schuster Urry J. 2000. Sociology Beyond Societies. London/New York: Routledge WallersteinI.1991.Thenationalandtheuniversal. In Culture, Globalization and the World System, ed. A King, pp. 91–105. London: Macmillan Waters M. 1995. Globalization. London/New York: Routledge WhitefordLM,MandersonL,eds.2000.Global Health Policy, Local Realities: the Fallacy of the Level Playing Field. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Wolf DL. 1992. Factory Daughters: Gender, Household Dynamics and Rural Industrialization in Java. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press