On translocality & scale
The De:link//Re:link research project foregrounds 1) local perceptions and practices in the context transnational and transregional infrastructure projects, and 2) is interested in how local perceptions and practices shape and possibly define new geocultural and geopolitical regions - be it a coherent or a fragmented one. It does so by using the BRI as a lens to examine how regional, national and local reactions of participants and avoiders of the large infrastructure projects of the BRI unfold and become manifest.
In focussing on LINKS - acronym for local insights and new knowledges - the concepts of locality and scale are integral to our research and thinking process. We started to tackle the local by the concept of translocality, as mobility, connectivity and exchange are key elements of our research project - nevertheless remain receptive for ruptures and rifts that occur when being in flux.
As a starting point, we have read texts by Ou & Gu (2020), Freitag & von Oppen (2010), and Porst & Sakdapolrak (2017) (full references see below).
TRANSLOCALITY basically denotes the production of space, space that emerges through social practices and interaction, the dynamics of mobility and embedding, and the use of language. Translocal space is hence socially constructed by people of different cultures and localities who leave and arrive at places and start to interact, it is a discursive and dynamic social practice. Its internal structure changes with every individual entering or leaving the translocal space and norms are negotiated and renegotiated when changes occur. Labelling intercultural communication as translocal space by focussing on social and linguistic practice (Ou & Gu 2017)broadened our understanding of the concept of translocality as lens through which power relations can be analyzed. In defining translocality from a praxeological perspective, Gu & Ou (2017) include agency and power relations into the concept of translocality. It further framed the case study on the use of language of international students at an international Chinese university as a descriptive one. As Freitag & von Oppen (2010) have indicated, translocality can be used either a descriptive, as analytical or as methodological tool in research.
Just like the translocal space, SCALE is not a rigid/fixed structure. Ou & Gu refer to it not as scale but as scaling practice. It is depicted as a tool that helps to address asymmetrical power relations within the translocal space of intercultural communication. Scaling is an active process, something that social actors “do” who are also referred to by Ou & Gu as “scale makers” and thus emphazising the dynamic and constructive nature of scaling. To us, one interpretation of scaling is to see it as a process in which one is moving on a horizontal axis between different resolution levels. It is possible to zoom in and thus enlarge/amply and look at details or to zoom out and look at the same item, structure, phenomenon from a broader perspective. Scale also puts us into relation to what we are looking at and temporarily sets our perspective/level of observation. It is also possible to move around within the level and change the focus of observation.
By focussing on scale as practice, the notion of negotiation and construction of social and linguistic norms are foregrounded - a figure of thought that we find a vivid example for multilinguality as translocal space.
References:
Freitag & von Oppen. 2010. 'Translocality': An approach to connection and transfer in area studies. Freitag & von Oppen (eds.) Translocality: The Study of Globalising Processes from a Southern Perspective. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
Porst & Sakdapolrak. 2017. How scale matters in translocality: uses and potentials of scale in translocal research. Erdkunde Vol. 71, 2, p. 111-126.
Ou & Gu. 2020. Negotiating language use and norms in intercultural communication: Multilingual university students’ scaling practices in translocal space. Linguistics and Education, Volume 57, 100818.