The big comment yesterday was the relevance (or the lack of it) of the national. Is the State symbolic or is it significant? Do the powers of globalisation rely on the State for its functioning through hierachies and networks like local government, local authorities, police, provincial governments and national governments?
At the surface, there seems to be this unholy alliance that exists between the State, various actors within it and the forces of globalisation. This then creates situations where some people are more equal than others and a small but influential minority control and monopolise decisions. This is done through a variety of ways including the logic of economics (let the market decide), activism (through the co-option of various NGOs), civil society (I dont know what that is too well) and various other forces.
The interesting thing about this alliance is that it embraces the ideas of apolitical decision making as well as use some idea of fairness and justice in the propogation of its ideas. Standards, methodology, process, indicators etc etc all become crucial in this world of depoliticised decision making. All of us have heard of the reputation that statisticians have and the phrases that are used for them. However, this is precisely the kind of people that we turn to in order to solve our problems in this new age where being ŽunbiasedŽ and being seen as unbiased are crucial.
Little else on Empire right now. More as the mind clears up