EditorialOne of the aims of this journal is to be 'stimulated by contemporary, critical perspectives in understanding cultural practices and intercultural relationships' (Language and Intercultural Communication [LAIC], n.d.). In this respect, this journaland the association which spawned it (International Association of Language and Intercultural Communication [IALIC], n.d.)does not shy away from analyses of language and culture which explore the ways in which relations of power are constructed, maintained and transmitted, either within intercultural contexts of single-language use, or within multilingual and multicultural contexts. Intercultural communication is often linked to the concept of globalisationindeed, how often have we listened to presentations or read papers which start: 'in the current era of globalisation … ', or some suchas if globalisation is something new, or a relatively recent phenomenon. In our view, and in the views of not a few others more learned than ourselves (e.g. Hindess, 2008;Hirst, Thompson, & Bromley, 2009), globalisation has been around for hundreds of years.However, we would concede that we are living in a distinctive era of globalisation, quite possibly intensified by David Harvey's famous 'space-time compression ' (1990). This certainly has implications for the use of language and the conceptualisations of 'culture' and cultures worldwide, which are sadly marked as much by collision as by harmonious synthesis. However, we would suggest that this 'era of globalisation' is quite possibly also marked by a distinctly neoliberal taint which has had some considerable impact upon our field. The great French theorist, Michel Foucault, engaged towards the end of his final, posthumous series of lectures (2008) with a review of what he called 'American neo-liberalism', which he regarded as being responsible for reconfiguring human capital as a matter of economic importance. He regarded the economic rationalisation of mobility as being one of the features of the enhancement of human capital brought about by this modality of capitalist thought. On this argument, migration is a form of investment on the part of an economic subject. It can be analysed as a balance between costs and benefits: on the one hand, it involves both a psychological and material cost 'due to the fact that the period of adaptation will certainly prevent the individual from receiving his [or her] previous remunerations, or those he [or she] will have when he [or she] is settled' (p. 230). It is not often that Michel Foucault speaks directly to the concerns of our association, but it strikes me forcibly that this analysis has powerfully informed the warfare, skirmishes and hand-to-hand combat that International Association of Language and Intercultural Communication (IALIC) has been engaged in since its inception, and has indeed been fought out in our field for very much longer. For this passage reminds me just how squarely much of the voluminous literature in our field that engages with intercultural adaptation and int...