The nation (localism) stands forth as the enduring substratum through which individuals are guaranteed a life beyond the purely biological, finite life. This supposed organic power for giving birth is insinuated by the etymological link of the nation (what is local) with “nativity” and
“birthing” [my emphasis].
The Tijuana-uterus suffers from extreme Topophilia. This involves the over-protection of the foetus-cultural life of the city, rendering separation from the womb/point of origin impossible. Separation anxiety makes it difficult for the subject to develop her own autonomous identity and her own explanatory cartography.
In the case of the Tijuana-uterus the mother does not allow her progeny to separate from her. The offspring idealizes uniqueness (whether it is positive or negative) through hyper-definition:
The Tijuana-uterus has been transformed into an aesthetic object in order to be utilized by those who do not “belong” to it in the sense of being “originally from”—those who are referred to as outsiders. The curators, researchers, and cultural organizers who exalt the uniqueness of the region, in turn, reveal their own desire to be “discoverers” and preservers of the “new native’s” creative genius, which is fostered in conditions of material deprivation. A place that has long been marginalized is now provisionally included—as long as it is potentially useful. It is mobilized for, and adjusted to, the ideologies of the moment: globalisation - homogenisation, the exoticisation of the fashionable trend, and the use and abuse of the concept of “authentic” Western civilization. This
Where once the “global” was too global now the “local” seems to suffer an excess of localism. Is it possible to stop seeing-using the so-called “third world” as a projection of the frustrations-needs of the so-called “first world” without relegating it to some Rousseaunian ideal or converting it into a homogeneous global entity? Is it possible to cease establishing difference through reference to “authentic” and “original” oppositional categories such as third world/first world, creative/practical, hidden/exposed, inside/outside? Is it possible to imagine a more lucid understanding of distance-proximity, related to Freud’s notion of “the uncanny,” rather than “the strange” as the synonym of the foreign and the unusual?
Perhaps the time has come for other cartographies, detached from mothers/god-mothers and their protections/projections.
 Pheng Cheah, Spectral Nationality,
 “Topophilia” describes the “affective bond between people and place or setting,” and the values of human perception of spatiality (Tuan Yi-Fu, Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perceptions, Attitudes, and Values, Columbia University Press, 1990, p. 4).
 T. Dean and J. Millar, Place, Thames &
 Antonio Navalón, the Mexican business representative of the Spanish Prisa group, defined local space in order to position it in counterpoint—along with the space of the United States space—to the space of “religious fundamentalism”: “We are facing a total war among civilizations in which the elements that unite equal or similar civilizations should be more important than the cultural and legalistic fears that separate us. In this respect, the fact that Mexico and the other countries that produce emigrants belong to Western civilization, should bear greater weight than the effort to separate and pit the members of those same communities against one another through abstract fears. The common enemies on the Mexico-US border are those whose religious fundamentalism—pre-supposing the existence of social anarchy in the frontier— leads them to attempt to attack the methods and values common to free and democratic societies…” (Montezemolo-Sanroman, Replicante, 2005, p. 44).
 “A new world.