Although one could argue that something which is the same on its face but different inside is either diverse or merely scopic, two things stand out in the conversation. But that sign has difference within sameness- whether as meaning or actual content the signifiers are promiscuous. More than linguistic relationships and captial formations we need to investigate social process as well. Any discourse is double edged. Globalization is often an assumption for Westerners whereas in countries who have only been the objects of the conversation, the possibility of participation globally is not necessarily negative, rather it is frought with possible perils.
Localization is a way of life for many countries.
The search for lost uniqueness of localized product is discussed through the western system as reclaming history, pastiche, and nostalgia. Meyer is wise to remind net readers that the way things are is quite different when the options are different, whether we are in Paris or San Francisco or Chiapas. Perhaps the problem is that we dont really care about what is happening to groups of Maya in Chaipas. It is not an abstraction for Maya who have experienced systematic destruction of their cultural system for more than 500 years. They are fighting not so much against tyranny as for life, even though those two things may intersect.