Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
International Sociology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Helvacioglu, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Globalization in the Neighborhood

From the Nation-State to Bilkent Center

Banu Helvacioglu

Bilkent University

The main premise of this article is that globalization is both a universal phenomenon with common characteristic tendencies and a condition of plurality defined by the historical and geographical specificities of particular localities. This paradoxical point is explained in the theoretical context of the spatial configuration of globalization. The main concepts used to that end are Robertson's notion of glocalization, Castells' notion of polarization, Sassen's notion of global city and Appadurai's conception of imaginary worlds. The main objective is to elucidate, both in theory and in practice, a series of contradictions, ambiguities and irregularities that result from particular articulations of global and local developments. Turkey is used as a case study in order to analyze the practical implications of globalization(s) at both the national and local levels and at the level of neighborhoods. Borrowing from Appadurai's distinction between a locality and a neighborhood, the article argues that an empirical analysis of globalization(s) in neighborhoods helps us problematize the unsettling consequences of practical modes of glocalizations. Such problematization is necessary to understand the universal condition of globalization as an open-ended process that shapes and is shaped by particular cultural, political and spatial patterns.

Key Words: global city • global culture • globalization • glocalization • Turkey

International Sociology, Vol. 15, No. 2, 326-342 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/0268580900015002011


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Current SociologyHome page
V. Roudometof
Transnationalism, Cosmopolitanism and Glocalization
Current Sociology, January 1, 2005; 53(1): 113 - 135.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
International SociologyHome page
J. Auyero
Glocal Riots
International Sociology, March 1, 2001; 16(1): 33 - 53.
[Abstract] [PDF]