ìíinterpublic discursive interactioní. Craig Calhoun (1995, 242) has suggested that we therefore think in terms of ëspheres of publics,í conceptualizing these as ëmultiple intersections among heterogeneous publics, not only as the privileging of a single overarching publicíî (37). Except the blog is currently only one siteÖsuppose, a blog per class plus A Place in Space as the central heterogenous point? Experiment! ìConflictî independent study with Leda, Joanna, +? Raz? He could run an ìinternationalî blog while I run a domestic one? We could hide the URLs, keep the names private, not have the two groups read each otherís stuffÖ.until later, a point in time to be determinedÖ = ìpublic life in late-capitalist democracies involve a plurality of discourses competing for position in national spaceî (37).
~ Philip Schlesinger: Media and Belonging: The changing shape of political communication in the European Union in The Postnational Self, Hedetoft & Hjort (Eds) 2002.
Critique of PNS by Stephen Mueke. "The problem with the idea of the postnational self is that no sufficient or useful theory of subjectivit exists for selfhood thus conceived."
Why the international/domestic "boundary" as the empirical problem?
There is, according to Hedetoft & Hjort, ìa basic distinction inherent in the concept of ëbelongingí: that there is a world of difference between imagining that ëthe globe,í like material possessions, memories, and ideas, belongs to ëusí (or rather, ëmeí) ñ and that ëweí belong to ëthe globeí and ëglobalityíî (xix).
ìglobality ñ or, for that matter, Europeanness [or, say, "departmentality"] ñ is not an emotionally convincing substitute for nationality, no matter how intellectually and morally appealing such wider identifications might be (Weiler 1997)" (xix).
The "problem" is to construct (?) emotional appeals, or perhaps to the frame the question around the emotions, affect, habitus (?), subjective "comfort" or whatever else we might come to call the familiarity to be found in the international/domestic sub-groupings.
The macro/micro metonymy here is some kind of synergy or simultaneity. I suspect governments at the nation-state level cannot construct peace unless/until or as a developmental counterpart to microsocial versions.
By peace, I mean only the absence of war. There are PLENTY of other ways we can "fight" with each other, and we need to discover what these are and implement them!
End of (trying to be) persuasive soundbyte. :-)