When I am engaged in any kind of international event in architecture, I am always confronting the difficulty of "internationality." What is it? And what is the "internationality" of architecture in the world of globalization today?

 The internationality is profoundly tied up with universality which multiculturalism pursues in the studies of sociology. Indeed, it appreciates the coexistence of cultures rooted in various peoples beyond nations; yet on the other hand, we have already noticed that the multiculturalism is the reverse side of a coin of nationalism. The nationalism, in this context, is to support internationality. It is also obvious that the same goes for regionalism. Here, in short, we might define the internationality in architecture as follows: "Internationality in architecture is what nationalism or regionalism sustains in architecture." And therefore, internationality in architecture has sometimes been utilized as a tool of political games for cultural hegemony. The games will never end in the future as long as human desires exist. Moreover, in essence, we will never eliminate our bias for cultures as we may understand that the multiculturalism is a representation of nationalism.

In short, emotion is creative (first, because it expresses the whole of creation, then because it creates the work in which it is expressed; and finally, because it communicates a little of this creativity to spectators or hearers). 
From Gille Deleuze, Bergsonism (English translation 1988, New York: originally published in France as Le Bergsonisme, 1966, Paris)