Chapter 5 The cultural dimension of globalization As our opening discussion of the 2010 Football World Cup has shown, even urrry .ifinrt introduction to jjhibalLKatUin wiyulri he woefuUy inadequate without an examination of its cultural dimension. Cultural globalization refers to the intensification ami expansion of cultural flows across, the globe, Obviously, 'culture'1 is a very bruad cunceirt; it ii frequendy used to describe the whole of human experience. In order to avoid the ensuing proMem of uver^cneralbuitiiin. il is important to make analytical distinctions between aspects of social life, For example, we associate the adjective 'eunKHnk' with the production, exchange, and consumption of commodities, [f we arc discussing the 'political', we mean practices related to the ueneratkm and distribution of pnwieT in societies. If wr are Ulking about the "cultural",, wr arc concerned with lite symbolic construction, artnulaliun, and ,1 -•-■-•i-.iii.ili-i-i.,- -iii-.iiiii.;. (iiven lh.it l.i i-. ir-i-»- ,:■ iiium-.. ,i i.l ■mages constitute the inajor forms of syml»dicexpre.jsiun. they assume specinl siflnilinuiiTT- in UiRAphcrcnf culture-. The exploding network of cultural intrrconmvtions urul jilterdepeiide-JieleS in the last decades lias ltd. some commentators :.i sii^i'si lii.i: l iiltnrnl practices lie at the very heart uf 1.1111!'. uipuian ^lobiiliuituui Yet. cultural globalisation did uul start with the woridwixlc dissemination nf mrk 'n' roll, Cnrj-Cola, or football. As noted In Chapter 2, expansive chibiaixjiial exchanges are much older than Modernity. Still, die vulume and extent af cultural transmissions in th*" rontcmpOTBiy penod have far exceeded those of earlier eras. Facilitated by the Internet and our proliferating mobile digital nevicmt, the dominant symbolic systems of meaning of our age—sueb as individualism, consumerism, and virion* religinux discofli™* circulate more tredy and widely than ever before. Aa images and ideas con be more easily and rapidly transmittal from one place to annther. ihey profoundly impact the way people experience their everyday lives. Todaiy. cultural practices have esoaprd lived localities such a* town and nation, ei*ntua]ly acquiring new meanings io interaction with dumuiant global themes. 'the thematic landscape traversed In' scJioLars ritrultnr.il jr,lnbali7Atinn i=. vast and the questions they raise are tuo numerous 10 be fleshed out in tikis short introduction. Rather than offering a long laundry list of relevant topics, this chapter will focus on three important themes: the tension between sameness and difference in the emerging glnhjil culture; the crucial role of transnational media corporations in disseminating ]Kipular culture; and the globalisation nf language*. Global culture; sameness or difference? lines e.ji:.|)aJixaUon make people around ih<- world it..... alike 01 Ttmncdifferent? This is- the questiun tnusl Ircqucnllv ra:~td in discussions on the suhject nf cultmnl globalisation. A group of commentalors we might call i^siiiiLnlic'hyperKlahuJcMrs argue in favour of the former. They suggest 1hat we arc not moving towards a cultural rainbow that reflects die diversity ofthe world's existing cultures. Itather, we are witnessing the rise of ail increasingly homogenized, popular culture underwritten In-a Western 'culture industry' haser] in New York, Hollywood, t/mdoTi, and Milan, As evidence for their interpretation, these commentators pnint to Amazonian Indians wearing Nike training shoes; denizens of the Southern Sahara purchasing Yankees 7.1 re baseball i-iipe; and Palestinian youths proudly displaying their Chicago BuUk sweatdurla in dnwnt-iMii H.inuillah. Referring U> the ditJusiiin ut Anglu-Anii-rkun laJuex andconsumergoods as the American! zAtton of the world', the proponents of this cultural homogeniyatiun thesis argue (hit Westrrn norms and lifestyles are overwhelming mow vulnerable cultures. Although there have been serinU5 attempts by some countries to reiist these forces of "cultural imperialism'-for example, n ban nn satellite dishes Ut Iran, aA(l the French impositionof tariff* anil quotas01 imported Him and television—the spread of American popular culture seems to he unstoppable. But these mn infestations of sameness are also evident inside the dominant countries of the global North. American sociologist Ueorge Ritacr coined the term 'McDonuldiaation 1o describe the wide-ranging snciocultural processes by which the principles of the fast-fooil ■ L'stu-.ir:n:l are turning to dominate more and more sectors (if American society as well as the rest of the world. On the surface, these principles appear tu l«- rational in their attempts to oiler efficient and predictable ways, of serving people's needs. Huwever, looking behind the facade of repetitive TV commercials that claim ro'luvr to see you smile', we can identify a nuinhcr of serious problems, For one, the generally low nutritiunn] value of fast-food meals—and particularly their high fat content— has been implicated in the rise of serious henlth problems such as heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and juvenile obesity, Mormser. the impersonal, routine operations uPraOnnaT fiat SeTiica establishments actually undermine expressions of forms of cultural diversity. In the long mn, the Mel fcmaldizatiun of the world amounts; to the imposition of uniform standards that eclipse human creativity Bud dehumanize social relations (see Figure G). One particular thoughtful analyst in this gluup i if pessimistic hyperBlnhalirer* is American political theorist Benjamin Barber. In his popiil.ii lnx>k Ci-n.snmid iOOJ . hcw:ini> his readers N against an 'ethos of infantilis inn' tliat sustains global capitalism, turning adults into children through dumhed down advertising and consumer goods while? also targeting children as consumers, This ethos is premised on the recognition that tilt re is not an endless market tor eoiuumerist goods as was once thought. Global inequality contributes to Stirling the growth of markets and of capitalism In order to expand markets and make a profit, global capitalists axe developing hmfnogewKis global products targeting the voting and wealthy throughout the world as well as turning children] bito consumers. Thus, global consumerism becomes increasingly soulless and unethical in its pursuit of profit. Optimistic hyperglobalcjrrs agree with their pessimistic colleague; that cultural globalization generates more sameness, but they consider this outcome to he a good thing. For example. American social theorist Francis Fukuyama explicitly welcomes the (Jobal s]>rend of Anglo-American val ue.i and lifestyles, equating the Americanization of the world with Uie expansion of (lemocTary and friv markets (see llluslnition y;- but optimistic hyperglobalmers do not just come in the form of American chauvinists who apply the old themr of manifest destiny to the global arena. Some representatives of this camp consider llwrnsehes staunch cosmopolitans who celebrate the Internet as the harbinger of* homngcnlzed Median-culture', Others are free-market enthusiasts who embrace the values of global consumer capitalism. It is one thing to acknowledge the existence of powerful homogenizing tendencies in the wurld, but it is quite another to assert tliat the cultural diversity casting on our planet is destined in vanish, til laet, severnl inllnentud conintentators offer a contrary assessment trial links globalization to new forms of cultural expression. Sociologist RoLnd lv iiu-rls.>:i. for example, contends that global cultural flows often nrinvigurate local cultural niches. Hence, rather than being totally obliterated by the Western ciHisumerist forces of sameness, local difference and 77 ■ - WW wuW-ii«BilJ iK^m-o^p^.^wmijr«) «iic^^H^.ii.l.i uipduuuii^Mu^^dnf ■ Tlnr. juwq uni||lli ;« ti u; i^fcBk «fimiHii. t«H"»W r*ni«k ^iv"piiuiirĽo»-^.^.*«M»i.i«í»» kpMnTWlňMNgtalMPIi Ciur. 'JtJ.tJ; »iiywjL nŕ|m< Jiiaysu l»m*>n ní ij »i|ipif|Hf |iíl«J.j(MU'>*|LiiíWTrainiiř-»i|«IO(,»iil;niuiiKl vn^tmnn^uuLiii /«ftyh«|—n-^Vllaitj "1KH 'iWlí uu^HfW/J ■vqmtyillji.ims ■ -1HuIfjO~ l|1!>»S J !);DaauS flu .liliu* uufjatirv sil 'f> %9* otfr umí (kxj'ih uiji)| quíir.ifcH in nitiuun jhjkíu.i pír > p?ip .m.w jaj 04« nut.ijjoiuv j*i ,iSW-ni,i.u.i,[ HU ,i||«iuiii! uiiiidiii nsixu jaSxnquivi| flys.fl Jqi íq p.unfHmI .ijmtiip uixjjt;) jaflinquivil Hu jifnu i».t i i.iX.rw|uin| jaqiunu iítjíav Miwl jaHrnquiWt| puq}-]xcf Jf!h][ pnu icSinf ^q.iUUwiUMpi! |n i)qoi(| jVLamil auiuil jxijnmj agodlll íM|diii i«t)i iiutuM lufZi^ULip* jo j^iniu>Ky wnoq s 9)mm. Mil ílu ptisdc minu i.Kuy -Kirii rt.-fiij.iiv unu{fc 1-1iv. j.H.i ,u !fii|i|.iiiiv. (ni.ióS viiKMjainv .íuin jSaia^v bllllHipUL III |KMIj (SUJ ltui||,lh VA pcqir capitalism need to pay attention in its negative consequences, Midi as the dramatic decline of traditional communal sentiments as well as the commudifiration uf wicicty ami nature. The role of the media To a large extent, the global cultural flows of uur time are KeneTated and directed b> global media empires that rely on powerful ctimmunLcatum technologies to spread their message. Saturating global cultural reality with formulaic IV show? and mindless adierlisemeTits, these corporations increasingly shajie people's identities and the structure of desires around the wwld. The rise of the global imaginary is inextricably connected to the rise of the glohal media. During the last two decades, a small group of very large TNCs have come to duminate the glnhal market for entertainment, new™, television, and film, [n 'JOOfi, only eight media conglomerates—Yahoo, Google. AOL/Time Warner, Microsoft, Viacom, General Electric Disney, and New Corporalkin—accounted far more than two-thirds nf the US$250-375 billion in annual wxwldwide revenues generated by the communications industry, In the first half of that year, the wiluine of merger deals in global media, Internet, and leleronimunicatkins totalled USKJOO billion, three time* the figure for the first si* months uf 1900 As recently as fifteen years ago. nut one of the giant corporations that dominate what Benjamin Barber has Appropriately called the "infotainment teksectnr' existed in its present form as a media company. In 2001, nearly all rafthese corporations ranked among the largest .'MW non-financial firm* in the wurld. Today most media analysis concede that the emergence of a global coTOmeraal-mcdia market amounts to the creation of a global oligopoly similar tn that of the oil and autoonotiv* industries 111 the early part af the 20th century .The crucial cultural innovators of earlier decades—small, independent record labels, radio stations, mosie theatre*. newspapers, and book pubHahtr» h— become H vi rtually extinct as they found themwlves incapahle of competing wilh the mcdLa giants. The commercial values disseminated by transnational media enterprises secure not only the undisputed cultural hegemony of popular culture, but also lead in the depolarization of social reality and tli* weakening of civic bonds. One of the most glaring developments of the last two decades has been the transformation of news broadcasts and educational programmes into shallow entertainment show^—many of them ironically touted as 'reality' shows. Given that news is less than half as profitable as. entertaiiunrnt. media firms are increasingly tempted In pursue higher profits by ignoring journalism's much vaunted separation of newsroom practices and business decisions. Partnerships and alliances between news and entertainment companies are last becoming the norm, making it more common for publishing executives to press journalists in cooperate with their newspapers' business operations. A sustained attack on the professumal autonomy of Journalism i5, therefore, also part of cultural global izattort. The globalization of languages One direct method of measuring and evaluating cultural change.' brought about by globalisation is to Study the shifting global patterns of language use. The globalization of languages can be viewed as a process by which some languages are increasingly used in international communication while others lose their prominence and even disappear for lack of speakers. Researchers at the Globalization Research Center nt tl»e University of Hawai'i have identified five key variables that Influence the glubalttation of languages: 1. Number cfianfiaigt* The inclining n:ni!«-i ,,! I different parts of the world points to the strengthening of homogenizing cultural forces, II 4NWE-O0ff[ 'p|j" Vi ."ilf l plllIHlli: *.liľ!(lhHH[ Ji ■ j.h| III Uli Hlll!lip.l|..^j ,j 0O[/Cíki',íí uoi/oocroi oor/ooij'ci oni ii.:-l•;.f O0t/00S>[ fil/OOfi'l fil/OSE'E st/ssst li.' W/ffS*'t Tisy e/str. ť/OOfř B/BOf K/S« oeVocm's tw/oogic OC/OWV TĽ1IJIV ff[/ei:i"i n/oort ^íx5 n«-| (%/-wi) iiniii.i,;)