Global Culture Conceptualizations - Article Example

?Globalization Global Culture Culture is widely acknowledged as hard to define in an adequate manner. Thus, the term “global culture” is similarly hard to define. Actually, some are very reluctant to link the term culture with what they consider as the ordinary nature of consumerist and media products being distributed around the universe by the West. Others view this reluctance as the importance of high versus low culture argument in the past. The former (high or the elitist) is viewed as superior to the latter (the low or mass). Others look for new ways of describing what they consider as a new cultural phenomenon - a phenomenon that should not be burdened with loads from the past. Indeed, a number of individuals warn that it is a huge mistake to “carry into the study of globalization the kind of view of culture that we inherit from the conventional analysis of the national society” (Benyon and Dunkerley, 2000, p. 13). Global Culture Conceptualizations Most of people such as journalists and academics use the term global culture and it is evident that there are different understandings of “culture” regardless of the different meaning devoted to the phrase “global culture.” There are different conceptualizations of global culture. First, global culture emphasizes spatialization and plurality. All cultural forms or different cultures are categorized based on their differences from one another. The cultural result of different individuals from some parts of the world which through the processes of electronic communication, migration, come to represented in a particular place. Cultural practices and form, which were characteristic of one region or location, have now been diffused in many different regions of the world. Plurality and spatialization are also emphasized by the non-isomorphic and multi-centred flows around the world. As an assortment of cultural phenomena or artefacts from different regions of the universe are now in one place; previously, they were thought as not belonging there, but now, they are perceived to be there (King, 2004, p. 26). Secondly, global culture emphasizes the deconstruction of the country state. Bodies of knowledge, lifestyles, conventions, and sets of practices have grown in ways through which they have become independent of the nation-states (King, 2004, p. 26). Global culture is seen in the forms of arts and the media, emerging from different regions and nations which are diffused across national borders. Global culture in this context sees the globe as a finite, inevitable bounded space, a place in which all the collectivities and the nation-states are drawn upon inevitably. Thirdly, global culture emphasizes American cultural imperialism. Global culture is mainly considered as an American cultural imperialism. This is because the American commodities, malls, fast food, and media culture are developing a new global culture that is extremely the same on all continents (King, 2004, p. 27). Fourthly, global culture emphasizes a new or a homogenized system of culture. The surfacing of a new collection of globally shared practices and images, and an influenced condition of universality is mainly attributed to the idea of global culture. A completely new system of culture has emerged from the diffusion of cultural beliefs, practices, and values in the world, and this has taken a new attribute which has changed in the process. Therefore, global culture is a sole homogenized system of importance. Lastly, global culture emphasizes planetary. Global culture is a practical impossibility; however, it is possible in the context of inter-planetary terms. A global common culture was created as a reaction to the supposed threat to the continuous viability of life on the world through some ecological catastrophes (King, 2004, p. 27). Is There a Phenomenon Such As Global Culture? Does global culture really exist, and if it does, then what is it? The most tangible and obvious form of cultural globalization is the Western media products. These products include (a) television, which has the capacity of immediate transmission through the satellite, (b) global icons like Madonna and Michael Jackson, and (c) global increase of products like McDonald’s and Coca-Cola, and a number of Western consumer items. However, the impact and reception of these cultural goods are difficult to assess. This raises a number of issues because those agree that it exists do not necessarily have to agree to its value or composition. Global culture is thought to be a recent-driven media construct. National and local cultures have strong overtones for huge numbers of individuals, but global culture is deprived of such ethnic connotation. Although global culture can be drawn upon national and folk cultures, it is not based on shared universal memories and stories (Benyon and Dunkerley, 2000, p. 13). In this sense, global culture is dependent on the profit searching of mass-mediated symbols and signs, and it is a memory less syncretistic. Local culture is closely linked to time and place, whereas global culture is not constrained by these elements; thus, it is de-territorialized, disembedded, and disconnected, existing outside the normal position to geographical territory (Benyon and Dunkerley, 2000, p. 13). O’Riordan (2001, p. 31) argues that global culture has been described as an extension from the present Western cultural occurrences of postmodernism. The global culture is premature, and this is due to the fact that the meanings of the images communicated by worldwide telecommunication networks are still developed by social status and historical experiences of the populations getting them. Thus, the globe does not have the collective cultural identity needed for common understanding and perception. In other words, historic experiences make up the national culture, but the global culture is memory less if viewed in national terms. Arguments that suggest the existence of global culture seem to indicate that the structural transformations of economic globalization will result into impetus, content, and conditions of a global culture (O’Riordan, 2001, p. 31). Consumption of cultural commodities in the context of Diaspora does not indicate a shared culture. Culture needs a great deal of synchronization between the individuals that the quantitative experience of production and consumption. It would be deceptive to suggest that a global culture exists when in reality there are just shared experiences with certain broad phenomena. It is more accurate to state that globalization takes on the appearance of a participating culture. Nationalism and culture may flow through one another, but, eventually, globalization cannot be defined as a single broad experience the manner in which nationalist expressions can be. It is important to note that globalization increases the potential of bringing cultures into contact and, therefore, to augment pluralism. Diaspora requires a reproduction of a hybridized sameness. For instance, the African identity notion is maintained through generations in the Caribbean and Americas (Kien, 2009, p. 117). If global culture is conceived in a particular way (namely westernization), it is possible to identify those who conform and those who do not flow the Western values and norms. Thus, the al-Qaeda network and Osama bin Laden could be said to perform this function. Their actions are generally regarded by the leaders in the West as disobeying the international order and, thus, they are accused of operating beyond the civilized society. The Western perspective of an international order is the rule of law, human rights, and democracy. There are many factors that militate against the creation of a global culture regardless of its manifestation or form. The manners in which the globalizing processes are functioning suggest that the emergence of a unitary global culture will not be possible (Hopper, 2007, p. 108). Scholars like Mike Featherstone argue that rather than perceiving global culture as a common culture, it should be viewed as field through power struggles and differences are played out. A more productive approach is to view global culture in the plural of global cultures. For instance, we are witnessing the appearance of several global cultures in the modern time, including Buddhism and Christian evangelicalism, a globalizing Islam, a world music community, a global football culture, a global environmental movement, and a universal anti-globalization movement (Hopper, 2007, p. 108). These movements have one thing in common: their adherents, devotees, or supporters identify with a specific cultural form that distinguishes them from others. Therefore, they have something distinctive that joins them, and, consequently, their commitment is probably stronger. In other words, the global cultures maintain a particularistic dimension. The idea of global cultures is also the acknowledgement of the fact we occupy multiple cultures, as well as those at the universal level (Hopper, 2007, p. 109). For instance, a Muslim will be recognized with the ummah (a universal Islam community) which extends to all regions of the world; however, he or she may be interested in world football, and thus, getting involved with another global culture. From this approach, we can see the types of global, cultural homogenization such as westernization, Americanization, and McDonaldization. These cultures have spread across many areas and into new regions as competing global cultures rather than a single global culture. In fact, thinking of a global culture as a single entity is to ignore the absolute diversity existing in the world and being unrealistic in the evaluation of how modern globalizing processes are functioning. Despite the fact “there is not a dominant homogenizing cultural power at work, this does not mean that homogenizing forces do not exist, and are being experiences and engaged with by peoples across the globe” (Hopper, 2007, p. 109). If the existence of global cultures is accepted, there will be a better understanding of how the local and the global interact, particularly in relation to the self-constitution process. In other words, if a single global culture existed, there would be a probability that the majority of the people in the world would reject it. In contrast, there will be something to identify with in the context of global cultures, and this will come to develop part of the frames of reference or the cultural outlook. Put simply, rather than the local culture informing us of how we perceive diverse, global cultures, the global cultures can shape part of the context in which we think and interpret the world. It indicates that consequent global cultural flows will be understood in the context of this association between the local and the global as a part of the ongoing practice of self-constitution (Hopper, 2007, p. 109). For others, global culture exists. This is based on the changes seen in electronic technology, which has ultimately affected economic and political events in almost all parts of the world. A global educational system, a global form of artistic expression, and a global language have all emerged. Migration, travel, and trade have created a common, popular culture, which is inevitable. The transformations have enriched and delighted some, but they have angered other people. The most persistent components of global culture have originated from the West, and this has raised concerns about cultural imperialism. Cultural imperialism is defined as the dominance of one culture over the others through technological or economic superiority or through a deliberate policy (Bulliet, et al., 2010, p. 920). Critics complain that icons in the entertainment industry have flooded the global television screens and movie theatres with Western images. They also claim that goods that cater for Western tastes are produced in other nations with low production costs such as Indonesia and China are flooding the international markets (Bulliet et al., 2010, p. 920). They state that this is a form of cultural imperialism from the West. Popular culture globalization has been heavily criticized; however, cultural associations across ethnic and national boundaries at the elite level have created little controversy. The global elite culture is an emerging global culture. Modern science, higher education, and the English language have become the main components of the global elite culture. In other words, these three components make up the global elite culture. English has become the preferred language for the majority of the business meetings, diplomatic gatherings, and academic conferences. Technology and science have become standardised elements of global culture. Standardization of weights and measures, computer codes, and scientific terms trigger the global expansion of commerce. The curricula and structure of contemporary universities are almost similar around the universe, making the experience of the students the same across the national boundaries (Bulliet et al., 2010, p. 922). Reference List Benyon, J. and Dunkerley, D., 2000. Globalization: The reader. London, UK: Routledge. Bulliet, R., Crossley, P. K., Headrick, D., Hirsch, S., Johnson, L. and Northrup, D., 2010. The earth and its people: A global history. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Hopper, P., 2007. Understanding cultural globalization. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Kien, G., 2009. Global technography: Ethnography in the age of mobility. New York, NY: Peter Lang. King, A. D., 2004. Spaces of global cultures: Architecture, urbanism, identity. London, UK: Routledge. O’Riordan, T., 2001. Globalism, localism, and identity: Fresh perspectives on the transition to sustainability. London, UK: Earthscan. Read More