Here’s a thought I’m trying to work out. There are three broad levels of social organization: the local, the national and the international. But given economic globalization, migration, the pervasive presence of electronic communication and the wild circulation of ideas/people/goods these realities entail, it would seem that the national, as a category of effectual alliances, is diminishing. It is my impulse to position the national as an artificial subset of the international, marking boundaries where they are mostly falsely maintained. There are concerns and conversations that inflect daily life in the sense of walking down the street, of performing the neighbour. And there are projects and plights that extend further, that involve a relationship to people for whom there is no tangible relationship other than (dis)interest. To demarcate this second kind of sociality at political borderlands seems absurd. Yet, what stands as an obvious counterpoint in the art world is that, in Canada, there is governmental support of culture that has resulted in a vibrant scenography of artist-run centres. This phenomena is neither local nor international. It is a specific consequence of national politics that too rarely translates elsewhere. And so, obviously, the national ain’t nothing, but maybe it’s a lot less than other somethings?