I still don't really understand globalization. I know I've seen it, I know people are anxious about it, and I know that it is not easily defined. The debate over the extent of globalization's reach is involved in every facet of international relations. Free trade agreements and deregulatory measures provoke a looming fear that with transnational economic integration comes the fall of what Thomas Friedman would call 'the olive tree' at the expense of promoting the values of the 'Lexus' (actually, I honestly only kind of read that book)... Sinclair voices the side of some current globalization theorists who play down the fears of cultural imperialism-put forth by Schiller, that 'the export of consumerism' is a homogenizing force that pushes the Western capitalist agenda. Rather, Sinclair gives agency to the individual to make choices, and also says that the hegemonic, economic forces weren't necessarily successfully imposing those values by merely existing. In my eyes, whether a product of globalization or not, capitalism has taken root and is the foundation through which people in developed countries still fear the dilution of their native culture. Like Sinclair says, citizens have choices. But maybe what makes some people uneasy is that they can see people making lifestyle choices that are outside of the traditional norms.
Appadurai also has a phrase, "community of sentiment" which I think is what many people are afraid of losing. One's culture, and the cultural artifacts that help make their culture unique, is what helps form a shared sense of community and belonging. So when people see these things are at stake, it may make them feel like they are losing their community. Not just old people, either. Well, mostly old people..
In my travels I've seen some examples of these difficult kinds of compromises. There was a well-publicized incident in Korea where an elderly man struck a young girl who was wearing a skirt he deemed too short. You can say this was just an isolated incident, but it's not. It's one type of generational gap caused by the importation of Western standards (via media), which sometimes fit awkwardly into the collectivist culture that is Korea. In Belgium I was eating at this Belgian waffle place with a friend who was proudly saying how the Belgian waffle could only be produced by a Belgian. The restaurant was reinforcing it too, by stating on their menu that this product was unique to their restaurant and their country. Yes, it was a marketing gimmick, but I think underlined by a sense of pride and propriety to their cultural artifact. But they were also selling bags of this waffle mix on the menu, so obviously they were willing to let this artifact escape into the hands of foreigners, in the name of revenue. Not exactly practicing what they preach. I don't know if these are really true examples of globalization, or in the Korean case, cultural imperialism, but they are tensions that are undoubtedly caused by the same anxiety that globalization provokes.
Globalization does seem to cause anxiety, especially in non-Western or developing nations. However, this globalizing trend has also encouraged local cultures to find ways to protect their identities.
ReplyDeleteIn the “Lexus and the Olive Tree,” Thomas Friedman argues that the system of globalization today is much different than it was during the Cold War, and much different than World Wars I and II. Division was the defining factor of Cold War era globalization – mostly between democracy and communism, – but this current era is marked by integration, especially because of the Internet. The ability to quickly move capital and information across boundaries and distance is the defining characteristic of globalization.
According to Wikipedia, Friedman, “posits that the world is currently undergoing two struggles: the drive for prosperity and development, symbolized by the Lexus, and the desire to retain identity and traditions, symbolized by the olive tree.”
This seems to fit with your suggestion that “capitalism has taken root and is the foundation through which people in developed countries still fear the dilution of their native culture.”
Globalization affects all different aspects of international relations – politics, economics, communications, etc. It seems to represent this complex system of interconnectedness and dependability. Although the west seems to dominate the political economy of the global media system (the main medium through with we experience this interconnectivity), local cultures somehow manage to maintain their cultural or national identity.
According to Sinclair, sociological theorists agree that “the control of space and time [is] the defining abstract principle behind globalization.”
Even though these international media companies export images and narratives about culture from a Western perspective, the rise of local and regional media outlets gives people the power to control the “space” in which they try to maintain their values and traditions. This is evidenced by the rise of Al Jazeera in Arabic countries, Zee TV in India, and Televisa in Mexico.
Are these cultures anxious? To me they are taking the media and globalization into their own hands and owning it.