The structure of contexts cannot and should not be derived entirely from the logic and morphology of texts. The production of the text and the production of the context have different logics and metapragmatic characteristics. Contexts are produced in the complex imbrication of discursive and non-discursive practices, and so the sense in which contexts imply other contexts, so that each context implies a global network of contexts, is different from the sense in which texts imply other texts, and finally all the texts. . Intertextual relations, of which we know quite a bit, probably do not work in the same way as intercontextual relations (Adorno, 2005, 65). Last and most daunting is the prospect that we will have to find ways to connect theories of intertextuality to theories of intercontextuality. A socioculturally strong theory of globalization will probably require something we certainly do not have; a theory of intercontextual relations that incorporates our current sense of intertexts. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayThe relationship between a neighborhood as a context and the context of neighborhoods, mediated by the actions of local historical subjects, acquires new complexities in the form of the world we now live in. In this new type of world, the production of neighborhoods increasingly takes place under conditions in which the system of nation-states constitutes the normative cornerstone for the production of both local and trans-local activities (Appadurai, 2010, 200). This situation, in which the power relations that influence the production of locality are fundamentally translocal, is the central concern of the next section. What has so far been discussed as a set of structural problems (localities and neighborhoods, texts and context, ethno-landscape and lifeworlds) must now be explicitly historicized. I have already indicated that the relationship of locality (and neighborhoods) with contexts is historical and dialectical, and that the context – the generative dimensions of places (in their capacity as ethnolandscapes) is distinct from their context – providing characteristics (in their capacity of neighborhoods) ) (Appadurai, 2010, 98). How do these statements help to understand what happens to the production of locality in the contemporary world? Contemporary interpretations of globalization (Balibar and Wallerstein, 1991, 92) (Featherstone, 1990, 55) (King, 1991, 4) (Robertson, 1992, 67) (Rosenau, 1990, 77) appear to indicate a shift from the emphasis on globalization the global journeys of capitalist modes of thought and organization towards a somewhat different emphasis on the spread of the nation, especially as dictated by the contemporary spread of colonialism and print capitalism. If there is one problem that seems to be the dominant concern of the human sciences today, it is that of nationalism and the nation-state (Anderson, 1991, 5). Although only time will tell whether our current concerns about the nation-state are justified, the beginnings of an anthropological engagement with this topic are evident in the growing contribution of anthropologists to issues of the nation-state (Borneman, 1992, 77). Some of this work explicitly considers the global context of national cultural formations (Hannerz, 1992, 182). However, a framework for relating the global, the national and the local has yet to emerge. In this section, I hope to extend my reflections on local subjects and localized contexts to outline the contours of an argument about the special problems that beset the production of locality in a world that has become deterritorialized (Deleuze and Guattari. 1987, 66), diasporic andtransnational. This is a world where electronic media are transforming the relationships between information and mediation, and where nation-states are struggling to maintain control over their populations in the face of a range of subnational factors, and transnational movements and organizations. A full consideration of the challenges to producing locality in such a world would require extensive treatment beyond the scope of this chapter. But some elements of approach to this problem can be outlined. Simply put, the task of producing locality (as a structure of feeling, a property of social life, and an ideology of the situated community) is increasingly a struggle. There are many dimensions to this struggle and I will focus on three: The steadily increasing efforts of the modern nation-state to define all neighborhoods under the sign of its forms of allegiance and affiliation. The growing disjunction between territory, subjectivity and community. social movement and the constant erosion, mainly due to the strength and form of electronic mediation, of relationships between spatial and virtual neighborhoods (Appadurai, 2010, 65). To make things even more complex, these three dimensions are themselves interactive. The nation-state relies for its legitimacy on the intensity of its significant presence in a continuous body of bounded territory. It functions by policing its borders, producing its people (Balibar, 1991, 100), building its citizens, defining its capitals, monuments, cities, waters and soils, and constructing its places of memory and commemoration. The nation-state carries out across its territories the bizarrely contradictory project of creating a flat, contiguous and homogeneous space of nation and, simultaneously, a set of places and spaces, calculated to create the distinctions and internal divisions necessary for state surveillance , discipline and mobilization. The latter are also the spaces and places that create and perpetuate distinctions between spectator and performer, text and performance. Through apparatuses as diverse as local performance histories, the nation-state creates a vast network of formal and informal techniques for the nationalization of all space deemed to be under its sovereign authority. States vary, of course, in their ability to penetrate the nooks and crannies of everyday life. Subversion, evasion and resistance, sometimes scatological (Mbembe, 1992, 35), sometimes ironic (Comaroff and Comaroff, 1992, 321) sometimes hidden (Scott, 1990, 111), sometimes spontaneous and sometimes planned, are widespread. The failures of nation-states to contain and define the lives of their citizens are amply evident in the growth of shadow economies, private and quasi-private armies and police forces, recessive nationalisms, and a variety of non-governmental organizations that provide alternatives to national control. of livelihoods and justice. Home groups have always encouraged women to focus on articulated anger and dissatisfaction and evolved through discussing new interpretations of their experience that challenged and rejected previous ways of processing and making sense of what they had observed or heard. But these sessions were less of a spontaneous outburst. and even more so a reading against the grain, which was often so risky, socially and psychically, for the individual that it needed the combined resources of a group to make feminist interpretation possible. Not least among the achievements of the awareness was the solidarity it engendered among the women who were closely involved, as well as the new self-confidence and sense of power it produced, even if in minimal quantities. A study in consciousness.