Article

European Journal of Social Theory

2016, Vol. 19(3) 391–408
Theorizing glocalization: ª The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permission:

Three interpretations1 sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1368431015605443
est.sagepub.com

Victor Roudometof
University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

Abstract
This article presents three interpretations of glocalization in social-scientific literature as
a means of reframing the terms of scholarly engagement with the concept. Although
glocalization is relatively under-theorized, two key interpretations of the concept have
been developed by Roland Robertson and George Ritzer. Through a critical and com-
parative overview, the article offers an assessment of the advances and weaknesses of
each perspective. Both demonstrate awareness regarding the differences between glo-
balization and glocalization, but this awareness is far from explicit. Both interpretations
fail to draw a consistent analytical distinction between the two concepts and ultimately
succumb to reductionism: either glocalization is subsumed under globalization or glo-
balization is transformed into glocalization. Next, a third interpretation of glocalization
as an analytically autonomous concept is presented. Working definitions of glocalization
and of glocality as analytically autonomous from globalization and globality are developed
and examples are offered. By addressing the key themes of power and temporality, this
third interpretation transcends the limits of the other two interpretations.

Keywords
culture, diffusion, globalization, glocalization, theory

To date, there is no glocalization theory or theories as such. In spite of the growing popu-
larity of ‘the glocal’, as evidenced in the literature (see Roudometof, 2015), there has not
been any attempt at a distinct theorizing of glocalization on its own terms. Instead, there
are relevant interpretations of theorists who have sought to creatively engage with glo-
calization. This article presents key interpretations and offers a critical assessment of the

Corresponding author:
Victor Roudometof, Department of Social and Political Sciences, University of Cyprus, Post Office Box 20537,
Kallipoleos 75, Nicosia CY-1678, Cyprus.
Email: [email protected]
392 European Journal of Social Theory 19(3)

advances and weaknesses of these theorists’ perspectives. The first theorist is Roland
Robertson, whose pioneer work helped introduce the concept of glocalization into the
social-scientific vocabulary. Next is George Ritzer, whose work is a creative response
to Robertson’s ideas. These two theorists’ perspectives have been formed under the
influence of opposing meta-theoretical presuppositions. This general critical assessment
of the two theorists’ treatment of the glocal helps set the stage for the argument advanced
in this article’s third section – a view of glocalization as analytically distinct from glo-
balization. This is yet a third interpretation of glocalization.
In the following discussion the aim is to offer a new view of the notion of glocaliza-
tion and reframe the terms of scholarly engagement with the concept. By way of intro-
duction, it is important to caution the reader that, in the following pages, the focus of the
analysis is restricted to glocalization. That is, the discussion, overview and critical eva-
luation of various arguments presented here should not be seen as a comprehensive
analysis or authoritative critique of the theorists’ general frameworks or theories of
globalization. Rather, the argument proceeds through a critical overview, the aim of
which is to show that: (1) there is already a level of awareness regarding the difference
between globalization and glocalization; (2) this awareness is not entirely self-reflexive
or explicit; and (3) social theorists fail to draw a distinction between globalization and
glocalization consistently, thereby leading to different forms of analytical reductionism
(i.e., in some cases subsuming globalization under glocalization or vice versa). In effect,
their engagement suggests a failure to grant analytical autonomy to the concept of the
glocal. That is the task undertaken in the article’s final section.

Globalization as glocalization
Robertson (1992: 173) introduced glocalization into the social-scientific discourse, and
his image of glocalization has been elaborated in a series of articles, chapters and ency-
clopaedia entries (Giulianotti and Robertson, 2004, 2006, 2007a, 2007b, 2012; Robert-
son, 1994, 1995, 2001, 2004, 2006, 2013; Robertson and White, 2007). Overall, the
central meta-theoretical image that governs his treatment of the glocal is that of monism.
Monism suggests that a variety of existing things (the local and the glocal, in this case)
can be explained in terms of a single reality or substance (the global, in this case). The
global is not outside of the glocal or local but exists within them; for Robertson (1992),
globalization entails the particularization of universalism and the universalization of par-
ticularism. The global interpenetrates the local; the result is an image akin to the Hindu
conception of deities. These are seen as manifestations of a single entity, but can take
multiple forms, and thousands of them exist. In Robertson’s writings, globalization is
realized in concrete forms that are local. It does not exist ‘out there’ and its articulation
is not separate from that of the local. The local is never quite ‘pure’ or outside the global;
it is always constructed in part in response to and through influences from the global.
Robertson’s conceptualization appears irrefutable, but the real issue is its temporality –
that is, the degree to which temporal variation shapes the relationship between the
global and the local. In Robertson’s (1995) interpretation, Radhakrishnan (2010: 27)
notes:
Roudometof 393

We are confronted with the dilemmas of theorising a phenomenon that contains at once a
spatial component . . . but also a temporal one . . . Yet, in . . . attempts to reconcile the
local and the global in a coherent theory of cultural globalisation, the opposition . . . per-
sists. How are ‘local’ and ‘global’ cultures to be identified as analytically separate if they
are completely enmeshed in one another, as the same theories claim?

Radhakrishnan’s (2010) solution is to look for theory constructed from the ‘bottom up’,
an appealing yet highly bounded strategy for interpretation. Still, her criticism raises
precisely the issue under consideration. Robertson’s interpretation becomes a good
approximation of social reality when time is infinite (t  1, where t ¼ time) or non-
existent (e.g., his statement holds true in snapshots of time, where time is effectively sus-
pended). The vexing issue though is how to deal with shorter or meso-temporal levels of
change (from t1 to t2), and it is in that particular time frame that Robertson’s formulation
is less helpful. To put it differently, there is no answer to the question of the specifics of
interaction – of ‘how’ the global–local relationship is reconfigured within time intervals.
Because the exercise of power is rendered visible in the context of temporality, it is
not surprising that criticisms suggest that Robertson’s perspective does not allow for the
effective treatment of power – especially in the popular view of juxtaposing the local
with the global and reading the local–global binary as a power relationship. Although
the local is viewed as a depository of communal and social concerns, the global often
is viewed as the purveyor of corporate or transnational capitalism (Korff, 2003; Thorn-
ton, 2000). Oppositional politics in particular tend to view the local–global binary rela-
tionship not as mutually constitutive but, rather, as redressing the exploitation–resistance
binary. Ritzer and Ritzer (2012) echo this line of criticism when they argue that gloca-
lization does not allow for a critical perspective.
Since the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, the popular understanding of
globalization has privileged approaches that focus on political economy, whereby globa-
lization often is viewed as an expression of ‘global’ or transnational capitalism. Robert-
son’s invocation of the glocal was precisely an attempt to resist the temptation to
postulate global integration as an end state (a telos) of globalization. Unlike Robertson’s
(1983) understanding of globality, contemporary trends suggest that globality is seen in
terms of economic integration (Wilson, 2012). Glocalization offered the means to high-
light Robertson’s (1994, 1995) insistence that globalization involves both homogeneity
and heterogeneity – and in this respect, the McDonaldization (Ritzer, [1993] 2000) and
cultural imperialism theses (Beck et al., 2003) or other similar arguments in favour of
cultural homogenization fail to include a critically important aspect of global processes.
Increasingly, and as a result of growing research published in a variety of disciplines
and fields, the glocalization thesis was extended to offer a more general treatment of glo-
balization as such (see Khondker, 2004, 2005). According to Khondker (2005: 187),
glocalization is similar to a sophisticated version of globalization. Its main elements are:

1. Diversity is the essence of social life.

2. Not all differences are erased.
3. History and culture operate autonomously to offer a sense of uniqueness to the
experiences of groups (whether cultures, societies or nations).
394 European Journal of Social Theory 19(3)

4. Glocalization removes the fear that globalization resembles a tidal wave erasing
all differences.
5. Glocalization does not promise a world free from conflict but offers a more his-
torically grounded and pragmatic worldview.

Over time, Robertson (2013; Robertson and White, 2007) has also endorsed this view
of globalization as self-limiting. This view adopts Turner’s (2007) ‘enclave society’ the-
sis; it means that globalization does not translate into global integration but, instead, into
the fragmentation and construction of various enclaves that cut off a neighbourhood or
suburb or other unit from its surrounding environment while connecting it to other ‘far-
away’ places.2 Accordingly, globalization involves not only the construction of new
units of integration but also the systematic fragmentation of pre-existing units and the
construction of new units and groups that exist behind new barriers to unrestricted com-
munication and movement. Globalization therefore delivers a multitude of fragmenta-
tion – hence, in effect, it is glocalization.
At its core, this interpretation looks upon ‘globalisation as glocalisation’.3 Glocaliza-
tion and globalization are analytically conflated, or to put it differently, glocalization is
subsumed under globalization. This formula allows Robertson to maintain a unity
throughout his corpus of work – which dates back several decades – without an explicit
break. This turn has not gone unnoticed: Ritzer (2007: 6) points out that ‘Robertson and
White [(2007)] . . . imply that glocalisation is globalisation’ – and that is precisely the
point. By erasing the conceptual line between the two, Robertson can maintain continu-
ity without a major revision.
However, that turns out to be highly problematic. Robertson’s work has been devel-
oped in relationship to – and to a degree as a response to – the world polity or world
society perspective developed since the 1970s by Stanford-based sociologist John W.
Meyer and his collaborators.4 Initially, it focused on strong commonalities in interna-
tional discourses but eventually covered a wide range of topics, ranging from human
rights to environmentalism. Although variation in specifics is observed, these common-
alities embody broadly shared assumptions that operate as common blueprints that
generate conformity among countries. Extensive empirical research has documented the
top-down process through which global models and discourses diffuse into nation-states
– especially in those with strong organizational links internationally. This similarity
across societies, or their isomorphism, is accounted for as conformity to dominant, legit-
imate views. Conventional ideas about governance, organizations, science or education
are seen as cultural models: blueprints or recipes that define what ‘normal’ or appropriate
nation-states, organizations or institutions look like. These models suffuse the interna-
tional sphere and lead to a global diffusion of ideas and policy models. The world society
perspective stresses the historical build-up of international organizations and structures
that serve to institutionalize cultural models. The uniformity of these models is explained
in terms of the institutional isomorphism responsible for the creation of contemporary
world culture (Boli and Thomas, 1999; Drori et al., 2006; McNeely, 1995; Meyer,
2010; Meyer et al., 1997). Lechner and Boli (2005) suggest that, even though riddled
with tensions and contradictions, this culture saturates social life through law, organiza-
tions, religion, national identity and even anti-globalization movements.
Roudometof 395

World society theorists argue that globalization produces cultural standardization.

Robertson’s key innovation and departure from the basic tenets of this neo-institutional
perspective lie in suggesting that globalization is also difference-producing. And that argu-
ment in effect is directly linked to the introduction of glocalization into the social-scientific
vocabulary. Globalization raises the problematic of global social integration or the old
question of whether societies display convergence or divergence alongside their develop-
mental pathways. But if globalization is self-limiting, then that is inherently incomplete
and that implicitly questions the claims of the world society perspective.5 But the
empirical record of world society scholarship offers a wealth of evidence that shows
that institutional isomorphism is real. The result is an insoluble conundrum – one that
exists only insofar as the globalization as glocalization thesis is accepted. The conun-
drum is immediately resolved if the proposition of glocalization’s analytically auton-
omy is accepted – and that is discussed in the article’s third section.

Glocalization as globalization
Ritzer’s approach is a creative response to Robertson’s insistence that heterogeneity and
homogeneity are both facets of the global – and hence, the McDonaldization thesis (Rit-
zer, 1993) fails to account for cultural heterogeneity. In Ritzer’s (2003, [2004] 2006)
interpretation, glocalization and the related notion of cultural heterogeneity are explicitly
acknowledged – at least in principle – as a viable theoretical alternative. Ritzer neverthe-
less concentrates upon the negative aspects of capitalism. Ritzer’s conceptual opposite to
glocalization is ‘grobalisation’, which he defines as the ‘imperialistic ambitions of
nations, corporations, organisations, and the like and their desire, indeed need, to impose
themselves on various geographic areas’ (Ritzer, [2004] 2006: 73). This process aims to
overwhelm the local, and its ultimate goal is to see profits grow through unilateral homo-
genization, thus earning its name: grobalization.6
Ritzer argues that the broader idea of grobalization is implicit under different headings:
capitalism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, Westernization, Americanization, McDonaldi-
zation, Disneyization, etc. In his view, globalization is used by transnational corporations
as a means of promoting the grobalization of culture. For him, glocalization and grobaliza-
tion are the two leading paradigms in the study of the globalization of culture. Ritzer
([2004] 2006: 141–61; see also Andrews and Ritzer, 2007) offers re-readings of work from
the sociology of sport and McDonaldization, effectively turning the authors’ interpretation
on its head: scholarship and cases that are meant to demonstrate glocalization are reinter-
preted as offering support for grobalization. This exercise reveals that the vexing issue
involved in the glocalization–grobalization conceptualization has nothing do with empiri-
cal reality7 – it has to do with the choice of theories. In other words, grobalization can also
offer persuasive accounts of processes interpreted as glocalization. Ritzer ([2004] 2006:
140) summarizes his own perspective as follows:

1. Globalization is a broad process that encompasses major sub-processes. These

form a continuum ranging from ‘glocalization’ on one end to ‘grobalization’
on the other. In fact, glocalization is threatened by grobalization (Ritzer and Rit-
zer, 2012: 803).
396 European Journal of Social Theory 19(3)

2. The idea of a continuum makes it clear that most of what is thought of as globa-
lization lies somewhere between these two poles. Both glocalization and groba-
lization are ‘ideal types’ with few, if any, actual processes being one or the other.
Global phenomena should be assessed in terms of their mix of glocal and grobal
elements.
3. The local is downplayed in this formulation largely because it has been, or is
being, decimated by the grobal. Its remnants are integrated into the grobal.

Unlike Robertson’s monistic perspective, Ritzer’s perspective is shaped by dualism.

The key concepts are pairs of binary concepts set in opposition to each other: glocaliza-
tion–grobalization is one of these pairs. By far the most interesting application of this
dualism is in Ritzer’s interpretation of the local–global binary relationship. In his view,
the global and the local are mutually exclusive: one cannot exist within the other, as
Robertson would have it. When the local is incorporated or subsumed under the global,
then it morphs into the glocal. And the glocal is not ‘really’ local; something is irretrie-
vably lost.
Ritzer’s meta-theoretical view is exceedingly familiar to the Western audience
because it employs deeply entrenched modalities of thinking in Western science and phi-
losophy. It offers an image in which the global intersects with the local – that intersection
is the glocal. Ultimately, because the global and the local are mutually exclusive, the
spread of globalization means that the local disappears; all that is left is the glocal, and
that is of course insufficient to challenge capitalism. The key point is simply that it
becomes impossible to understand the glocal as outside the global, and once inside the
global, then the system’s logic prevails. Hence, Ritzer’s interpretation is that of ‘gloca-
lization as globalization’: glocalization is subsumed under globalization. Although
Ritzer has taken an important step toward the analytical autonomy of the glocal, his
‘systemic’ perspective does not allow this autonomy to be fully realized. But Ritzer’s
achievement should not be minimized. Faced with the impossibility of intersecting
power into Robertson’s interpretation, Ritzer articulated through grobalization a concep-
tual alternative that can accomplish this objective. In turn, that reveals the importance of
intersecting power into the analysis of glocalization.
An excellent example that illustrates Ritzer’s dualism can be found in an article by
Hoogenboom et al. (2010). These authors’ criticism of Ritzer’s thesis prompted a
response (Ritzer and Ritzer, 2012) that further clarifies matters and offers a reaffirmation
of this interpretation. Hoogenboom et al. (2010) examined the case of Vlisco, the Dutch
textile printing company that, since 1846, has produced batik cloth for the West African
consumer market. Initially, the company used its market innovations to defeat compet-
itors but, over time, batik cloth in West Africa became a local status symbol that in turn
has shifted the relationship between the Dutch company, on the one hand, and its con-
sumers and local trade partners, on the other hand. The authors hence concluded that,
in the long term, globalization does not necessarily result in the transformation of
authentic and locally conceived products into empty mass products – but rather it can
generate new cultural forms of glocal ‘authenticity’. Their article and critique of Ritzer’s
thesis prompted a reply by Ritzer and Ritzer (2012) who argue, among other criticisms,
that the authors have completely misunderstood the basic notion of Ritzer’s perspective:
Roudometof 397

In Ritzer’s view, once a product or service has been touched by the global (and virtually
everything has been by now touched in that way), it is better thought of as a mix of global
and local, as glocal. In other words, it can never again be thought of as ‘purely local’ (if
anything ever was purely local). A total cessation – impossible in the global age – of local
interaction with global processes would be required for something to be considered ‘purely
local’. (Ritzer and Ritzer, 2012: 802)

In other words, the local exists outside the global: global and local are mutually opposite
terms and cannot coexist. Once a product or service has been touched by the global, it
can no longer claim to be local.
The fundamental problem that immediately arises from such an interpretation is that
almost nothing remains in the world today that could claim the status of ‘local’ under this
definition (Ritzer, 2003: 207–8). Ritzer’s interpretation stands in stark contrast to
Robertson’s interpretation in terms of its treatment of temporality. Ritzer’s scheme
describes a process of social change within time intervals (from t1 to t2) – that is, it con-
cerns precisely the time intervals in which Robertson’s perspective is least helpful. It is,
of course, far less effective in other temporalities, e.g. when time is infinite (t  1) or
non-existent. In fact, his end state is that of a system whereby the local no longer exists; a
highly problematic conclusion that effectively denies the possibility of introducing any
meaningful social change. In short, Ritzer’s and Robertson’s perspectives are comple-
mentary; each is strong in those temporalities in which the other is weak.
Ritzer’s interpretation suffers from positioning glocalization as the mere opposite of
grobalization – that is, it limits the term’s applicability and ignores the multiple uses of
the glocal across disciplines and fields (see Roudometof, 2015; forthcoming). Hence, his
interpretation of glocalization lacks a trans-disciplinary perspective that could take into
account the varied uses of the glocal across disciplines and fields of study. Whereas
Robertson believes in the effervescence of (g)locality, Ritzer (2003) argues that locality
disappears. Ritzer and Ritzer (2012) argue that this thesis is meant to sensitize people to
this prospect in order to further oppositional politics. But Ritzer’s argument, if correct,
suggests the ultimate meaningless of such a quest. By arguing along these lines, Ritzer
effectively denies the possibility of the glocal being anything other than an instrument of
global capitalism.8

Glocalization: in favour of its analytical autonomy

The third interpretation of glocalization suggests that glocalization should be viewed as
an analytically autonomous concept. This notion of analytical autonomy is adopted from
Alexander’s (2003) strong programme of cultural sociology, although its origins lie in
the strong programme in the sociology of science. Alexander argues in favour of cultural
autonomy, e.g. the autonomous status of culture as a factor that contributes to meaning-
making and social life. In a similar fashion, the analytical autonomy of glocalization is
meant to provide a foundation for using the concept to designate a process possessing
analytical autonomy vis-à-vis other related concepts (local, global). This requires the
specification of the process or mechanism that offers an explication of this autonomy.
As shown in the preceding discussion, Robertson subsumes globalization under
398 European Journal of Social Theory 19(3)

glocalization whereas Ritzer subsumes glocalization under globalization. Both interpre-

tations suffer from this conflation, as theorists fail to grant the glocal the analytical
autonomy it deserves. To do so, it is necessary to look at the precise manner in which
the relationship between the global and local is shaped. One way of doing this is to adopt
a systemic view of the global, as Ritzer does. In such a case, the local is incorporated into
the global and nothing is left of it; and vice versa, the global is by no means seriously
affected or modified by the local.
In contrast, for Robertson and White (2007: 62), the answer to the issue of the
mechanism of glocalization lies in the concept of diffusion, insofar as they suggest that
‘diffusion has involved concentration upon the ways in which ideas and practices spread
(or do not spread) from one locale to another’, and, generally speaking, ‘diffusion theory
. . . anticipated what we now call glocalisation in very important respects’. But framing
the problematic of glocalization in terms of world culture’s diffusion is counterproduc-
tive.9 According to world society theory, diffusion and institutional isomorphism result
in worldwide uniformity with regard to numerous cultural items. If diffusion leads to cul-
tural homogenization, then one is left without an empirical mechanism that could capture
the reality of how glocalization works. It is necessary to highlight that world society the-
orists assume the presence of cultural linkages that render exchanges among ‘actors’
(states, organizations, individuals) not merely relational but also cultural. Diffusion for
world society theorists occurs through its ‘theorization’ by those who adopt items – and
is effective insofar as the adopters have strong relations to the models they adopt. When
such relations are absent, then this theorization of diffusion in effect helps innovation
masquerade as diffusion (Strang and Meyer, 1993). That is an excellent entry point for
introducing glocalization. But unlike the neo-institutionalists’ strong Durkheimian inter-
pretation of culture, glocalization can be effectively theorized by considering interac-
tions that occur within the world stage but without making assumptions about the
presence or absence of a shared ‘culture’ (in the world society’s understanding of the
word).
At their core, both Ritzer (Ritzer and Ray, 2010) and Robertson accept the conceptual
metaphors of liquidity or diffusion as ways of thinking about the spread of globalization.
Alternatively, it is possible to view globalization as spreading in a wave-like manner
(Therborn, 2000).10 If conceived in such a fashion, then globalization’s relationship with
the local can be seen differently. The notion of the wave as a conceptual metaphor has
been popular in historical descriptions of globalization.11 It is particularly well suited for
analysing the general notion of globalization, i.e. the ‘globalization of X’, whereby X can
be a specific topic, process, condition, artefact, etc. (see Albrow, 1997: 88). A plethora of
articles and books exists that examine the globalization of X – that is, the relationship
between globalization and some facet of human behaviour. By definition, the general
notion of globalization implies that: (1) globalization logically precedes glocalization;12
and (2) globalization refers only to those instances where a locally instigated wave
spreads throughout the globe or close to it – in contrast to transnationalization, which
refers to a relatively small number of cross-border connections.
It is therefore necessary to complement the age-old conceptual metaphor of diffusion
with the conceptual metaphor of refraction. Refraction refers to the fact or phenomenon
of light or radio waves being deflected when passing through the interface between one
Roudometof 399

medium and another or through a medium of varying density. Refraction offers a con-
ceptual metaphor that allows the reinterpretation of the relationship between globaliza-
tion and glocalization. The strategy rests on: (1) conceiving of globalization as a generic
process in terms of waves spreading around the globe; and (2) using the notion of refrac-
tion of waves as a means of understanding the global–local binary.13
In the case of the globalization of X, what actually takes place is the migration and
spread of X into different localities. If one further views these localities as having vary-
ing degrees of density or ‘thickness’, or to put it differently, as having different wave-
resistance capacities, the process can then operate in two different ways. First, the
wave-like properties can be absorbed and amplified by the local and then reflected back
onto the world stage. That process of reflection is rather accurately described by world
society theorists – and in many respects it is the very mechanism through which institu-
tional isomorphism comes into existence. Second, it is possible for a wave to pass
through the local and to be refracted by it. And that is precisely what happens in some
instances: glocalization is globalization refracted through the local. That is a yet third
interpretation of glocalization – one that explicitly allows its analytical autonomy from
globalization. The local is not annihilated or absorbed or destroyed by globalization but,
rather, operates symbiotically with globalization and shapes the telos or end state or
result.
The above allows the clarification of a mechanism or process that shows the manner
in which globalization is responsible both for homogeneity and heterogeneity (as both
Robertson (1995) and Ritzer suggest). In glocalization, the global and the local shape the
end state. The result is heterogeneity; just like light that passes through glass radiates an
entire spectrum, so does globalization passing through locales radiate a spectrum of dif-
ferences. In this sense heterogeneity becomes the end state of globalization. Strictly
speaking, glocalization (and globalization) as such are an abstraction: in real life, the
globalization of any single cultural item or form or object or another property (for exam-
ple, pop music or organizational technique or religion, and so on) leads to various glocal
formations constructed through this refraction. Variation is systematically produced.
Whether such variation amounts to ‘real’ authenticity is beside the point here – for it
is not claimed that this variation is characteristic of the local but rather that it is consti-
tutive of the glocal.
Subsequently, the end condition produced by glocalization or to be accurate, by mul-
tiple glocalizations, is glocality, or again, to be accurate, it is a multitude of glocalities.
Just like glocalization, glocality is an abstraction; it exists in multitudes produced
empirically in various contexts through local–global interaction. Although glocalization
designates a process of refraction through the local, glocality designates a condition
whereby the end state of glocalization is glocally experienced. Perhaps the best way
to define it is by contrasting glocality to globality. Globality is experienced through the
possibility of living parallel lives or through the awareness of the physically absent but
communicatively present ‘other’. This leads to simultaneity, e.g. doing things ‘together’
at the same time while physically apart from each other. Globality further involves the
ability of synchronous comparison. This means that people can compare their own situ-
ation vis-à-vis others in real time – and then they can use this knowledge to re-formulate
their own projects, policies, strategies, and so on. Examples abound: From the 1989
400 European Journal of Social Theory 19(3)

revolutions in Eastern Europe to the May of 1968 to the revolutions of 1848, synchroni-
city is an important facet of global historical developments. Both simultaneity and syn-
chronicity pose particularly difficult challenges when making meaningful comparisons;
their presence does not allow one to consider specific historical cases as truly indepen-
dent of each other. For example, the sheer awareness and experience of the 1776 Amer-
ican Revolution or the 1789 French Revolution or the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution
contributed to their employment as a reference point or a model for other revolutionaries
to emulate (or at least try to emulate). Conservatives tried to avoid the duplication of
what they considered to be these revolutions’ causal factors in their own contemporary
settings and have also used past or present historical examples as a reference point
(Bayly, 2004; Johnson, 1991).
Globality, however, is not by itself sufficient to capture the complexity of social rela-
tions. Rather, one has to acknowledge and incorporate into one’s theoretical vocabulary
the fact that the phenomenological encoding and decoding of global events do not neces-
sarily negate or obliterate the local lenses that can be used to decode or interpret an event
or determine the local level of participation. That is not merely a theoretical argument
but, rather, one derived from Norris and Inglehart’s (2009) conclusions, in which the
authors confirm that the national filter remains an important factor shaping the impact
of cross-cultural communication.
To put it simply, there is a systematic delay in the experience of globality: one’s life is
a little out of sync with those who are communicatively connected but physically absent,
and one’s simultaneity is mediated by one’s locale. Perhaps the most straightforward
example is the time delay in the operation of the world’s financial markets: on a daily
basis, the brokers in the New York Stock Exchange can anticipate at least in part the
shape of events based on prior knowledge of what already has already happened in the
world’s other financial markets the very same day. That is the consequence of the fact
that a ‘24-hour day’ begins in Asia and, by the time it is morning in New York, the day
will have run its course in the major financial markets in Europe and Asia. The result is
that brokers can anticipate the markets’ reactions based on their knowledge of what has
already happened elsewhere on the same day. This example shows how location frac-
tures global synchronicity and that simultaneity is not immediate but time-delayed.
Moreover, the local perception of the global is often determined by agency, and
agency makes a difference. The ABC News television broadcast of the 2000 Millennium
celebrations made this point forcefully by contrasting the regions of the globe where suc-
cessive celebrations were taking place to those regions where poverty or cultural tradi-
tion excluded them from participation in what was deemed a ‘global’ event. The
Millennium celebrations of Tokyo and Peking contrasted to the silence of Jerusalem,
hence reflecting not only differences in calendar alone but also the ultimately political
projects behind the construction and observance of calendars. Another example concerns
the television coverage of the Olympic Games, whereby stations ‘glocalize’ their cover-
age – that is, they cater to their own national audiences by playing close attention to the
athletes representing their nation, sometimes even at the expense of adequately covering
the games as such. In mass communication, an entire research programme exists that
explores the extent to which media reception and decoding of broadcasting do not lead
to the viewers’ ‘cultural doping’ (Fiske, 1998; Griswold, 2008; Sigismondi, 2012).
Roudometof 401

Simultaneity, synchronous comparison and the living of parallel lives do not necessarily
obliterate the difference of a distinct geographical location.
It is precisely the realization that ‘global’ events, such as the Olympic Games or the
FIFA World Cup, can be decoded from within very different lenses that leads to the
notion of glocality. Glocality is defined as experiencing the global locally or through
local lenses (which can include local power relations, geopolitical and geographical fac-
tors, cultural distinctiveness, and so on). In this regard, most global events have a highly
relevant glocal dimension: Witness, for example, the contrasting reactions by different
publics when the news of 9/11 circulated around the globe. Glocality is a source of prob-
lems when constructing narratives intended for global consumption: In 2004, NBC was
threatened with a lawsuit because of its coverage of the opening ceremony of the Athens
Olympics. The ceremony involved a possession of replica statues from classical anti-
quity, whose nudity was deemed scandalous by U.S. conservatives. These examples can
be multiplied ad infinitum: readers can conduct their own thought experiments and come
up with their own examples. In the twenty-first century, ‘the evolutions of communica-
tion and travel have placed an interconnected global matrix over local experience’, and,
as a result, ‘we now live in ‘‘glocalities’’. Each glocality is unique in many ways, and yet
each is also influenced by global trends and global consciousness’ (Meyrowitz, 2005:
23). The more exposed one is to how others experience the same events, the more aware
one becomes of glocality.
The preceding discussion clearly enables the theorization of meso-temporal levels of
change (from t1 to t2) without necessarily accepting the proposition of a total integration
as the final outcome (e.g., a telos whereby the local disappears completely). The local
can alter the final outcome, and it ultimately implies that resistance to grobalization is
not (theoretically) futile. In the framework outlined above, it is possible to map power
relations and therefore to analyse the local–global relationship in terms of power differ-
entials. Power relations are not conceived as one-sided, that is, as emanating from a sin-
gle source or as flowing exclusively in a single direction (from the global to the local)
but, rather, as involving the ability to project or resist waves of globalization. In other
words, power emanates and potentially can reside in all actors participating in global–
local interactions. The theoretical a priori is that power does not necessarily rest in a sin-
gle container. Specifically, power intersects in the following circuits:

 The ability of a locale to originate waves consistently and persistently across the
world stage or the cultural, political, economic and military power that enables a
configuration of power to play a critically important role as a source. This could
be described as a locale ‘globalizing’ itself from within (Beck, 2000) but this
notion is meaningful only by excluding relationships with other localities. The
West used to be the main ‘globalizing’ historical actor. In past centuries, it served
as the origin of modernist influences. In the twenty-first century, that is rapidly
changing both with the ‘re-orienting’ toward Asia (and more specifically
China) and through the rise of the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) group.
The proposed framework does not assume that all power rests inherently with
the West – and that in turn means that it can examine shifts in the global bal-
ance of power.
402 European Journal of Social Theory 19(3)

 The ability of a locale to be wave-resistant (or what is referred to above as its

thickness), the ability to insulate itself from waves of ‘undesirable’ outside influ-
ences. Some famous examples here include North Korea or Afghanistan under
Taliban rule. Of course, the degree of thickness in most cases does not assume
such extremes. But thickness, whether cultural, institutional, political or military,
is a powerful means through which a locale (a nation, a region, etc.) can enable a
process of selective appropriation of global influences. This allows the possibility
of allomorphism through concept-borrowing without the assumption of a shared
cultural model and effectively suggests that the world society’s isomorphism is
not the only outcome of global–local interaction.
 The ability of a locale to modify or alter the waves that pass through it, a well-
known and often evoked ability to cause mutations, alterations or fractures into
whatever is introduced from ‘outside’. Glocality entails the construction and pro-
liferation of hybridity and the experience of cultural pluralism and ethnic or reli-
gious difference in everyday life. In post-colonial theory and cultural studies,
hybridity, creolization, syncretism and mestizaje have all been used to capture a
notion akin to glocality (see Canclini, 1995; Cohen, 2007; Kraidy, 2005). It is
undeniable that this glocal hybridity represents perhaps the most important visible
consequence of this process of continuing and intensifying cultural refraction
experienced in the twenty-first century (Pieterse, 2009).

Conclusion
In this article, I have sought to offer an overview of three interpretations of glocalization
in the social-scientific literature. While arguing in favour of the third interpretation – that
of glocalization as analytically autonomous – the objective is a broader one: to present
three different ways of conceiving and theorizing the glocal. In light of the growing
engagement with glocalization across disciplines and fields, the argument set forth here
aims to present, compare and criticize existing interpretations.
Robertson’s and Ritzer’s respective interpretations of glocalization operate under dif-
ferent meta-theoretical assumptions but are in some ways complementary to each other.
Although Robertson’s perspective offers a comprehensive or general view, it is less help-
ful with meso-temporal levels of change and, as a result, it does not offer the means to
address issues of power. Ritzer’s perspective offers a dynamic view that directly
addresses issues of power and social change, but it is less helpful in the overall view,
as it denies the ability of agency to make a difference. Instead, it postulates the disap-
pearance of the local and views the glocal as a mere appendage of global capitalism.
Both theorists ultimately do not recognize glocalization as analytically autonomous.
In Robertson’s framework, globalization is ultimately transformed into glocalization,
whereas in Ritzer’s framework, glocalization is ultimately seen as a facet of globaliza-
tion – as the way in which global capitalism incorporates the local.
Beneath these choices lies the employment of the conceptual metaphors of liquidity or
diffusion as central ways of thinking about the spread of globalization. I have introduced
a third interpretation that is predicated upon shifting from the conceptual metaphors of
Roudometof 403

liquidity or diffusion to a conceptual metaphor of wave transmission. The bare essence of

my argument is that it is possible to view the general process of globalization (the glo-
balization of X) as involving waves (of X) that pass through the local in a way similar to
that of light passing through glass. The result is not only a reflection of its qualities back
onto the world stage but also refraction through the local. Glocalization is therefore
defined as the refraction of globalization through the local. The result is glocality – a
blend of the local and the global. In the article’s third section, examples were offered
to clarify the conceptual differences between globality and glocality. This mechanism
enables a view of glocalization as analytically autonomous from globalization. That is
a key departure from the interpretations of Robertson (globalization as glocalization) and
Ritzer (glocalization as globalization).
Undoubtedly, the extent to which the suggested solution sufficiently solves the theo-
retical dilemmas and related issues in the respective frameworks remains an issue for fur-
ther debate. The main objective here was to merely introduce this problematic. Due to
space restrictions, I did not address two issues of paramount importance. First, I did not
address the issue of glocalism as a specific point of view, outlook or world-view that
aims to offer flexible solutions to policy-making. Suffice it to say that a general presen-
tation of the glocal as analytically autonomous requires a tri-faceted explication of the
glocal as a process (glocalization), social condition (glocality) and world-view, ideology
or blueprint for action (glocalism). Second, my argument is restricted in merely introdu-
cing the analytical autonomy of glocalization. I do not trace the consequences of its ana-
lytical autonomy upon related concepts. If glocalization is analytically autonomous from
globalization, that requires reframing globalization. The preceding discussion has impli-
citly attempted to take an initial step toward such a task, but there is considerable theo-
retical terrain left untouched. Also, if globalization and glocalization are analytically
autonomous from each other, that in turn raises the question of the local as possessing
similar analytical autonomy. Finally, this article has been confined to theory and does
not refer to the growing body of empirical work on glocalization (on this, see Roudome-
tof, forthcoming).

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

Notes
1. An earlier version of this article was presented at the 12th conference of the European Socio-
logical Association (Prague, the Czech Republic, Aug. 25–28, 2015). The author would like to
thank the journal’s reviewers for their constructive remarks.
2. This view is also shared by a multitude of perspectives that highlight the significance of the
new geographical relations that are inscribed by globalization and which can reconfigure prior
units of analysis, such as nations, cities or places (Barber, 2013; Sassen, 2006).
3. It can be (and has been) argued that this is a view of ‘glocalisation as globalisation’ (Khond-
ker, 2004). This phrase more accurately characterizes Ritzer’s treatment of the concept, dis-
cussed later in the text. The contrast between the two approaches is made more explicit by the
formulation adopted here.
404 European Journal of Social Theory 19(3)

4. The initial impulse for the world society tradition came out of comparative research on edu-
cation and governance in the 1970s. Education systems in Sub-Saharan Africa, for instance,
seemed surprisingly like those of Western societies despite differences in their respective
labour markets (Schofer et al., 2012). Krücken and Drori (2010) have edited a splendid col-
lection of Meyer’s writings.
5. Drori et al. (2013) have put forward a reinterpretation of glocalization as basically identical to
the process of ‘loose coupling’ that is part of the world society perspective. This interpretation
seemingly aligns the two notions, but only insofar as the assumptions of world society theory
are maintained. That is in turn problematic, as explained in the text.
6. In Ritzer’s (2004: 175) view, US textbooks are an example of grobalization: although
‘oriented to rationalizing, McDonaldizing, the communication of information’, these books
are sold out worldwide and students absorb the information given to them. Ironically, Ritzer’s
work has been criticized as a ‘Ritzerisation of knowledge’ (Roberts, 2005) that applies
market-driven promotion techniques to knowledge production as a means of offering sim-
plistic accounts of complex processes that are easily consumed under the disguise of
knowledge.
7. And of course McDonald’s can be seen as a case of glocalization (see Turner, 2003). However,
Ritzer’s binary opposition might not be the best means of capturing social complexity. For
example, in his study of McDonald’s in Israel, Ram (2004) argues that homogeneity occurs
at the structural–institutional level, whereas heterogeneity emerges at the expressive–sym-
bolic level. Caldwell (2004) also argues that Russians conceive of McDonald’s as an indigen-
ized brand. Marling (2006) further suggests that appearance and reality are often at variance
when discussing the extent of homogeneity and heterogeneity.
8. In contrast, it is possible to suggest (for example, see Fasenfest, 2010) that the glocal can pro-
vide the means for organizing resistance and developing solutions that reconcile local action
and global goals.
9. The heavy emphasis on diffusion can lead to the impression that world society theory suggests
the diffusion of everything. But world society theory is as much a theory of non-diffusion as
diffusion (see Meyer, 2010). Models that fail to assert collective goods over private interests,
models that fail to articulate with prevailing global institutions, and models that lack interna-
tional organizational carriers are unlikely to diffuse, regardless of support from powerful and
interested actors.
10. The conceptual metaphor of the wave is distinct from the popular notion of liquid modernity
and of thinking about social relationships using the metaphor of fluidity (Bauman, 2000; Urry,
2002). Liquidity does not necessarily alter the foundations of modernist narratives, as it is
famously derived from Marx’s description of modernity as a condition in which ‘all that is
solid melts into the air’ (Bergman, 1982).
11. For specific examples, see Therborn (2000), Robertson (2003) and Roudometof (2013). The
voluminous literature on the historicity of globalization cannot be cited here. For general dis-
cussions on the varieties of historical approaches to globalization, see Pieterse (2012) and
Roudometof (2014).
12. From the perspective of methodological glocalism, the glocal could be seen as the ‘natural’
state of affairs; with globalization as one possible derivative of this condition (Holton,
2007). Such a reading of Holton’s (2007) proposition equates the glocal with the hybrid. But
the two are far from synonymous (for further discussion, see Roudometof, forthcoming).
Roudometof 405

13. There is a multitude of definitions of globalization, and these embody different sets of assump-
tions. That issue is not addressed here (see Axford, 2013). Suffice it to say, the wave concept
metaphor is not necessarily inconsistent with several other views on globalization.

References
Albrow M (1997) The Global Age: State and Society Beyond Modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Alexander J (2003) The Meanings of Social Life: A Cultural Sociology. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Andrews DL and Ritzer G (2007) The grobal in the sporting glocal. Global Networks 7(2): 113–53.
Axford B (2013) Theories of Globalization. Cambridge: Polity.
Barber B (2013) If Mayors Ruled the World: Dysfunctional Nations, Rising Cities. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Bayly C (2004) The Birth of the Modern World 1780–1914: Global Connections and Compari-
sons. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Bauman Z (2000) Liquid Modernity. Oxford: Polity.
Beck U (2000) What Is Globalization? Oxford: Polity.
Beck U, Sznaider N and Winter R (eds) (2003) Global America? The Cultural Consequences of
Globalization. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
Bergman M (1982) All That Is Solid Melts into the Air: The Experience of Modernity. London:
Penguin.
Boli J and Thomas GM (eds) (1999) Constructing World Culture: International Nongovernmental
Organizations Since 1875. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Caldwell ML (2004) Domesticating the french fry: McDonald’s and consumerism in Moscow.
Journal of Consumer Culture 4(1): 5–26.
Canclini NG (1995) Hybrid Cultures: Strategies for Entering and Leaving Modernity. Minneapo-
lis: University of Minnesota Press.
Cohen R (2007) Creolization and cultural globalization: the soft sounds of fugitive power. Globa-
lizations 4(3): 369–84.
Drori GS, Höllerer MA and Walgenbach P (eds) (2013) Global Themes and Local Variations in
Organization and Management: Perspectives on Glocalization. London: Routledge.
Drori GS, Meyer JW and Hwang H (eds) (2006) Globalization and Organization: World Society
and Organizational Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fasenfest D (2010) The glocal crisis and the politics of change. Critical Sociology 36(3): 363–8.
Fiske J (1998) Television Culture. London: Routledge.
Giulianotti R and Robertson R (2004) The globalization of football: a study in the glocalization of
the ‘serious life’. British Journal of Sociology 55(4): 545–68.
Giulianotti R and Robertson R (2006) Glocalization, globalization and migration: the case of Scot-
tish football supporters in North America. International Sociology 21(2): 171–98.
Giulianotti R and Robertson R (2007a) Forms of glocalization: globalization and the migration
strategies of Scottish football fans in North America. Sociology 41(1): 133–52.
Giulianotti R and Robertson R (eds) (2007b) Globalization and Sport. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Giulianotti R and Robertson R (2012) Glocalization. In: Ritzer G (ed.) The Wiley-Blackwell Ency-
clopaedia of Globalization. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9780470670590.
wbeog254.
406 European Journal of Social Theory 19(3)

Griswold W (2008) Cultures and Societies in a Changing World (3rd edition). London: Pine Forge
Press.
Holton R (2007) Global Networks. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hoogenboom M, Bannink D and Trommel W (2010) From local to grobal, and back. Business His-
tory 52(6): 932–54.
Johnson P (1991) The Birth of the Modern World Society, 1815–1830. New York: HarperCollins.
Khondker HH (2004) Glocalization as globalization: evolution of a sociological concept. Bangla-
desh e-Journal of Sociology 1(2): 1–9.
Khondker HH (2005) Globalisation to glocalization: a conceptual exploration. Intellectual Dis-
course 13(2): 181–99.
Korff R (2003) Local enclosures of globalization: the power of locality. Dialectical Anthropology
27: 1–18.
Kraidy MM (2005) Hybridity, or the Cultural Logic of Globalization. Philadelphia, PA: Temple
University Press.
Krücken G and Drori GS (eds) (2010) World Society: The Writings of John W. Meyer. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Lechner F and Boli J (2005) World Culture: Origins and Consequences. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Marling WH (2006) How ‘‘American‘‘ is Globalization? Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity Press.
McNeely CL (1995) Constructing the Nation-State. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Meyer JW (2010) World society, institutional theories and the actor. Annual Review of Sociology
36: 1–20.
Meyer JW, Boli J, Thomas GM and Ramirez FO (1997) World society and the nation-state. Amer-
ican Journal of Sociology 103(1): 144–81.
Meyrowitz J. (2005) The rise of glocality: new senses of place and identity in the global village. In:
Nyı́ri K (ed.) A Sense of Place: The Global and the Local in Mobile Communication. Vienna:
Passagen Verlag, pp. 21–30.
Norris P and Inglehart R (2009) Cosmopolitan Communications: Cultural Diversity in a Globa-
lized World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pieterse JN (2009) Globalization and Culture: Global Me´lange. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Pieterse JN (2012) Periodizing globalization: histories of globalization. New Global Studies 6(2):
1–25.
Radhakrishnan S (2010) Limiting theory: rethinking approaches to cultures of globalization. In:
Turner BS (ed.) Routledge International Handbook of Globalization. London: Routledge,
pp. 23–41.
Ram U (2004) Glocommodification: how the global consumes the local – McDonald’s in Israel.
Current Sociology 52(1): 11–31.
Ritzer G ([1993] 2000) The McDonaldization of Society. London: Sage.
Ritzer G (2003) Rethinking globalization: glocalization/grobalization and something/nothing.
Sociological Theory 21(3): 193–209.
Ritzer G ([2004] 2006) The Globalization of Nothing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Ritzer G (2007) Introduction. In: Ritzer G (ed.) The Blackwell Companion to Globalization.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 1–14.
Roudometof 407

Ritzer G and Ray PJ (2010) Conceptualizing globalization in terms of flows. Current Perspectives
in Social Theory 27: 247–71.
Ritzer G and Ritzer Z (2012) Still enamoured of the glocal: a comment on ‘From local to grobal,
and back’. Business History 54(5): 798–804.
Roberts J (2005) The Ritzerization of knowledge. Critical Perspectives on International Business
1(1): 56–63.
Robertson B (2003) The Three Waves of Globalization: A History of a Developing Global Con-
sciousness. London: Zen Books.
Robertson R (1983) Interpreting globality. In: World Realities and International Studies Today.
Glenside, PA: Pennsylvania Council on International Education, pp. 7–20.
Robertson R (1992) Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. London: Sage.
Robertson R (1994) Globalisation or glocalization? The Journal of International Communication
1(1): 33–52.
Robertson R (1995) Glocalization: Time–space and homogeneity–heterogeneity. In: Featherstone
M, Lash S and Robertson R (eds) Global Modernities. London: Sage, pp. 25–54.
Robertson R (2001) Globalisation theory 2000þ: major problematics. In: Ritzer G and Smart B
(eds) Handbook of Social Theory. London: Sage, pp. 458–71.
Robertson R (2004) The conceptual promise of glocalization: commonality and diversity. Artefact.
Available at: http://artefact.mi2.hr/_a04/lang_en/ (accessed 6 February 2014).
Robertson R (2006) Glocalization. In: Robertson R and Scholte JA (eds) Encyclopaedia of Globa-
lization (vol. 2). New York: Routledge, pp. 545–8.
Robertson R (2013) Situating glocalization: a relatively autobiographical intervention. In: Drori
GS, Höllerer MA and Walgenbach P (eds) Global Themes and Local Variations in Organiza-
tion and Management: Perspectives on Glocalization. New York: Routledge, pp. 25–36.
Robertson R and White KE (2007) What is globalization? In: Ritzer G (ed.) The Blackwell Com-
panion to Globalization. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 54–66.
Roudometof V (2013) The glocalisations of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. European Journal of
Social Theory 16(2): 226–45.
Roudometof V (2014) Nationalism, globalization and glocalization. Thesis Eleven 122(1): 18–33.
Roudometof V (2015) The glocal and global studies. Globalizations. Available at: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/14747731.2015.1016293
Roudometof V. (forthcoming) Glocalization: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge.
Sassen S (2006) Territory, Authority, Rights: From Medieval to Global Assemblages. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Schofer E, Hironaka A and Frank DJ (2012) Sociological institutionalism and world society. In:
Amenta E, Nash K and Scott A (eds) Blackwell Companion to Political Sociology. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
Sigismondi P (2012) The Digital Glocalization of Entertainment: New Paradigms in the 21st Cen-
tury Global Mediascape. New York: Springer.
Strang D and Meyer JW (1993) Institutional conditions for diffusion. Theory and Society 22(4):
487–511.
Therborn G (2000) Globalizations: dimensions, historical waves, regional effects, normative gov-
ernance. International Sociology 15(2): 151–79.
Thornton WH (2000) Mapping the ‘glocal’ village: the political limits of ‘glocalization’. Conti-
nuum 14(1): 79–89.
408 European Journal of Social Theory 19(3)

Turner BS (2003) McDonaldization: linearity and liquidity in consumer culture. American Beha-
vioral Scientist 47(2): 137–53.
Turner BS (2007) The enclave society: towards a sociology of immobility. European Journal of
Social Theory 10(2): 287–304.
Urry J. (2002) Global Complexity. London: Polity.
Wilson E (2012) Globality. In: Ritzer G (ed.) The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Globalization
(1st edition). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Author biography
Victor Roudometof is Associate Professor in the Department of Social and Political Sciences at
the University of Cyprus. His major interests include culture, globalization, nationalism and reli-
gion. He is the author of three monographs and over 50 articles and book chapters. He has edited
several issues of refereed journals and book volumes on transnationalism, collective memory, reli-
gion, nationalism and religion (www.roudometof.com).