Is "Contact Zones" my Bridge Concept?

This morning, I came across a serendipitous convergence amongst the secondary sources I have been reading for two different projects (my upcoming departmental talk on media/language spaces and the "millenarian subjectivities" chapter of my book manuscript). It's the idea of "contact zones."

According to Lomnitz in Deep Mexico, Silent Mexico, contact zones are concrete arenas integrated into a broader space (in both metaphorical and physical senses) of national identity production. Contact zones are the interface between, on the one hand, state institutions that define rights and obligations for citizens and produce images and narratives of nationality, and, on the other hand, processes of local and class identity production that are equally critical (p. 130, cited in Demont-Heinrich 2005, 80).

Linke doesn't cite Lomnitz in her Anthropological Theory article (entitled "Contact Zones: Rethinking the Sensory Life of the State") but holds a similar interest in concrete, local arenas of practice as they instantiate the broader political field. What is distinctive about her approach is its emphasis on the sensory and affective dimensions of this interface. The contact zone, for her, is where "the political field asserts its presence through bodily experience and engrafts itself– even if only through the ‘taste of words’ (Bakhtin, 1981: 293) – in and through the memory of the senses" (2006, 206). More succinctly, in zones of contact "the political field assumes a somatosensory gestalt."

Things to work on next:

1. Dig into the genealogy of the "contact zone" term. Does it begin with Mary Louise Pratt?
2. Consider whether the idea of "contact zone" might be useful as well for my AAA paper on circulation and syncretism. For one thing, perhaps it could assume some of the vital conceptual work around movement that has made the framework of circulation theoretically appealing, while at the same time allowing one to step back and look critically at the trope of movement itself. Also, if the idea does begin with Pratt, then it might work especially well with  material I'm working with in this paper (Mary of Agreda's Virgin Mary and the Mahal na Ina).
3. Explore the idea of the "contact zone" as a framework for my Mourning Bilingualism talk. In what ways are both Lomnitz' and Linke's approaches helpful ways of conceptualizing media/language "spaces" in metaphorical as well as actual terms? (In this connection, one thing I was just thinking is that what really sets off these spaces from each other in concrete terms is the visible difference of Devanagari and Roman scripts, which marks an absolute boundary even as that boundary is continually breached within each space by virtue of the extensive and ongoing transliterated borrowings. This is both a sensuous matter as well as an one with a great deal of institutional force behind it, at least historically. Currently, the border between these spaces is being renegotiated within the contact zone of the mobile phone screen - and here I wish I knew more about patterns in the adoption by Hindi speaking mobile users of font and inputting systems.)
4. Might it be helpful to incorporate the idea of Mt. Banahaw as a "contact zone" into the chapter on millenarian subjectivity that I'm currently working on? For example, it might provide a clear way to flag the simultaneously physical and metaphorical levels on which Mt. Banahaw is being figured as "space" within this specific chapter, if not in the book as a whole.
5. Consider developing "contact zones" into a the cornerstone of my tenure narrative statement, a concern that bridges my first and second projects despite the seemingly great discrepancy in setting and topic.