Bhattacharyya’s treatment of globalization as “the only game in town” certainly resonates the rhizomatics of knowledge societies where in order to attain social control, it is necessary to compete on a global scale through differential accumulation. Bhattacharyya’s unique approach to globalization suggests that global interaction is not an option but a necessity. In agreement with Bhattacharyya, it is important to note that to be “globalised does not mean the same to all. On the contrary, where and who you are will shape your experience of being globalised to such an extent that it can be hard to chart the continuity between different moments” (21). Traffick further concretizes the arguments made above surrounding the materialities of life that are linked to the virtual productions of bodies and the dividualities of control societies. Consequently, it is imperative to consider the neocolonial operations of knowledge societies that produce rhizomatic bodies through the circulation and expansion of information and communication on a global scale. It is therefore not enough to simply critique the roles that multinational corporations and NGOs play in the virtual production of biotechnologies; it is also essential to consider the “underbelly” that stimulates these productivities. It is on this note that I wish to conclude this paper with the hope of creating an open space to think through these complexities from equity and social justice perspectives. A starting point could be for us to rethink how our own work and lives contribute to the rhizomatic networks of knowledge societies.
Director at Learning Change Project – Research on society, culture, art, neuroscience, cognition, critical thinking, intelligence, creativity, autopoiesis, self-organization, rhizomes, complexity, systems, networks, leadership, sustainability, thinkers, futures ++
4500 Posts in this Blog
- Follow Learning Change on WordPress.com