This is a paper about voices and spaces. It raises a number of questions about the capacity and consequences of minority groups to occupy what I want to call the global commons. It addresses the potential of the new, and the less than new, global media for the construction of sociality, for the creation of a minority, marginal, diasporic, presence, both locally and globally, in cultural and in political space.My argument is based on a number of presumptions. The ® rst is that the media must be central to any analysis of the global: that through the media the world, the globe, is re¯ected, refracted, represented, imagined, claimed and re¯ected upon. The media provide, as technologies and as cultural forces, 1 the infrastructure for the kind of connectivity that most of those who write on globalization as a new dimension in social relations focus upon: seeing globalization as the new, the latest, perhaps the last, twist in modernity's tail; one in which time and space are transformed as, indeed, is our capacity, in one or sense or another, to reach, and be reached by, the other. The media are, in this view, one of the principal links between the global and the local, whose interrelationships are themselves de® ned and rede® ned in the dialectics of the media's own representation of them.The second presumption is that the process of global and globalizing mediation is, in the broadest sense of the term, a political process, historically conditioned, sociologically contested, and driven by various contradictory longings and ambitions: for pro® t, for identity, for community. 2 The historical and sociological variations visible, but often ignored, in the march of the global, are, however, thoroughly analyzed by David Held and his co-authors (1999), who call the lie to those who see this politics as a singular one, and one especially that heralds the collapse of the nation-state. Indeed such a view requires, in its sensitivity to difference, the recognition that in this globalizing world the forces of, and for, nationhood, commerce, culture and social connection are not mutually reinforcive. And it is far from clear, as a result, how the various movements of`objects, signs and people across regions and intercontinental space ' (Held et al., 1999, p. 329) will play out; and what consequences they will have for the global, the national or the local citizen.Thirdly my argument presumes that those who claim a piece of this increasingly digital world, and a place in it, must contend powerfully with the other. For while there is a struggle to be waged to ® nd a voice in global media space and then to secure it, the bottom line of this cultural, political, effort is