The work of producing localities, in the sense that localities are life-worlds constituted by relatively traversed and legible spaces and places, is often at odds with the projects of the nation-state. This is partly because the commitments and attachments that characterize local subjectivities (sometimes mislabeled “primordial”) are more pressing, more continuous, and sometimes more distracting than the nation-state can afford. It is also because the memories and attachments that local subjects have to their neighborhoods and street names, to their favorite walkways and streetscapes, to their times and places for congregating and escaping are often at odds with the needs of the nation-state for regulated public life. Further, it is the nature of local life to develop partly by contrast to other localities by producing its own contexts of alterity (spatial, social, and technical), contexts that may not meet the needs for spatial and social standardization prerequisite for the modern subject-citizen.