(rebuttal)(rebuttal)

You propose a transcultural brand. Your concept is based on several premises: (1) ‘brands,’ as we know them, have national identities (2) each national identity has its own unique aesthetic (3) a transnational identity exists and therefore (4) said transcultural identity merits a unique aesthetic, i.e. a ‘brand.’ I agree with your logic but am yet unsure whether a transcultural style is, indeed, possible.

The reason: I can’t help but see culture (and cultural production) as inextricably linked to place. Attempting to evade, or transcend, or avoid, the natural and cultural barriers that distinguish one locality form the next (geospatial, linguistic, political) seems dangerously ‘unearthly.’ It seems unearthly in the way that multinational corporations seem unearthly, transcending cultural barriers and in doing so muting, or deadening local cultures. I worry that in creating a brand that transcends national identity we will inadvertently advance the ‘monocultural’ ideal and thereby detract from rather than augment what you call the transcultural identity.

Whether or not we identify as transcultural, our sense of the ‘local’ is undoubtedly in flux. It now hinges less on our geospatial position and more on our level of connectedness, on the amount of time we spend online, communicating. We may not know our neighbors or vote in our local elections, but we certainly do belong to a ‘social network,’ or several. The question that remains is this: What form will ‘cultural production’ take in these placeless localities? What form will a transcultural brand take?

m.c.