Q What do you think of the essay “It’s Istanbul (Not Globalisation)” by Hashim Sarkis? He writes: “The dynamics underlying Istanbul’s exponential growth in the past 20 years have been consistently ascribed to the advent of globalisation. Whether describing the financial and gold markets, the textile and fashion industries, or the construction and real estate enterprises, the city’s reach is increasingly beyond the immediate geography of Turkey and the confines of a national territory – Istanbul’s economic influence stretches to a second ring of regional, geographic proximities in Central Asia and the Balkans, and also to the world. As is the case with many global cities, Istanbul’s economic activities are rooted geographically and historically.” The (reconstructed) argument is not that “globalization” has not played a role in the growth of Istanbul (or almost any other major city in the world) but the underlying question is whether we are not too easily inclined these days to invoke “globalization” to explain almost every phenomenon -- without (also) studying or analyzing the pertinent local histories and contexts. Of course, the distinction between the “local” and the “global” is sometimes (or increasingly) not simple, but is it possible that the globalization discourse (with its tendency toward homogenization, and this is also a contentious claim) de-emphasizes or is making us to de-emphasize (significant) attention to local particularities?