Cultural Protectionism - Essay Example

CULTURAL PROTECTIONISM By: + While various countries are engaged inconsistent and diverse relations, each of them has varied cultural practices and beliefs. Many times, each country strives to ensure that its cultural values remains a waste. Most significantly, it does offer support and influence to its allies. The uniqueness of these countries tends to be witnessed through various channels including the film industry. However, in the recent times, the US has come under intense pressure because of the seemingly propagation of its culture to other nations. Normally, this happens through its Hollywood franchise where the movies produced tend to portray the American’s culture as the best; one that is rich in values. Conversely, other countries’ cultures are portrayed as backward, oppressive and at times, barbaric. Recently, many countries have tried to protect various cultures especially through the film industry. As expected, this has drawn varied reactions with some criticising this move while others in support of the same. This paper will analyse if movies are just like any other goods. Furthermore, it will dig out the various ways countries ought to shield respective film industries. Movies are different The critics of the cultural protectionism often argue that movies are like any other commodity hence, there is no point to emphasize on the same. According to Sanson (2014), movies are just used as a form of entertainment just like other commodities that are bought by people from different countries. Baughn and Buchanan (2011) made an argument that cultural protectionism especially in the movies is unrealistic. To solidify the argument, a case of France was cited where the government tried to reduce the importation of movies but the local consumers still failed to buy the local content. As a result, it is argued that cultural protectionism is unrelated to movies. Often, in order to ensure cultural protectionism is done, governments employ the tactic of high tax for imported movies. Additionally, local film industry is funded in a bid to enable it produce more of the content the government would prefer. It is here that critics argue that this step does not guarantee protectionism because the industry would then be subjected to manipulation (Heinemann, 2012). Instead of using movies as a way of cultural protectionism, the government is urged to employ other methods. In short, these critics are arguing that the film industry has nothing to do with the issue of culture. Notwithstanding these assertions and examples provided by the critics, the proponents of the cultural protectionism argue that this approach is beneficial to the local industry. In rebutting the notion, that funding by the government mounts to manipulation, Mingant and Tirtaine (2012) argued that developed countries seldom seek to employ this tactic. For instance, in the case of France, the government showed and extended support to the industry not in a bid to manipulate but rather give it more ability to produce more of its contents. Additionally, the government had decried the increase of American’s movies in its country and the influence it had on the national identity. In addition, support of the local film industry is paramount as it offers jobs to the locals besides ensuring the continuity of cultural protectionism. Some argue that movies cannot be like other commodities because development of local film industries enables the locals get their jobs. In other words, besides using the filmmaking to safeguard the vital cultures, the industry goes a step further to provide the much-needed employment (Crane, 2013). Other commodities like clothes or electronic products have no chance of influencing a culture but the same cannot be said of movies. This is because movies are based on plots, which have to do with other people’s cultures. Therefore, in the end a film has more likelihood to influence a culture than any other commodity. Many times, the debate does not lie mainly on the issue of government influence of creation of jobs but rather the importance of cultural protectionism. As noted in the case, Hollywood has always come under intense criticism for its supposed lies and misleading portrayal of the American people. Often, the firm produces movies showing Americans as patriotic people with a passion to defend the country at all cost yet in reality this is not the case. Again, when playing about other countries, Hollywood shows others as countries low in civilization (Cavusgil et al, 2008). It is such issues that raise the debate on cultural protectionism with almost everyone having own opinion on the topic. While it may seem that movies are similar to other commodities purchased by different people worldwide, these assumptions are not correct. First, movies cannot be equated with other products because of the influence the former has, not to mention its psychological effect. Movies have the capacity to change one’s perception toward certain areas of live including people, self among other things (Young, 2012). In the US itself, a debate is still raging on whether movies influence young people especially in the cases of using guns and exhibiting violent behaviour. Like in other areas, the views expressed vary but the point is that there is evidence on the effect on movies. In light of this, it would be appropriate then to conclude that movies are never like other goods, and if not assessed, have the potential to override a culture. As stated in the case, movies constitute a different category mainly for the reasons stated above, and there is evidence to show foreign movies can have influence on other industries too. It was noted that in Poland, the film industry has evolved with time where censorship was once practiced. Later, this was somewhat reduced but the issue is that the Polish film industry is significantly influenced by the American’s movies (Mazierska and Goddard, 2014). A case in point regards the 1982 film called Interrogation, which was greatly influenced, by the American films. In this Polish movie produced by Ryszard Bugajski, the plot is about the torture of a woman who is falsely accused. Even though the movie was banned for seven years, the plot was a direct influence from American’s movies of the same nature. Evidently, movies could be used in influencing a culture negatively or otherwise. In light of the above facts, it is then understandable why governments in various countries, including the US, limit the foreign movies. A disagreement had been going between the US and China concerning the number of movies the US can export to China. It was reported that in 2011, the Chinese market for US movies grew to 47% then to 52% in 2012 (BBC, 2012). Prior to this growth, the two countries had fiercely disagreed on the number of imports the Chinese can have from the US in terms of movies. The greatest fear for the Chinese was the cultural influence and decline for its film industry. Therefore, it is apparent that movies cannot be grouped the same as other commodities mainly because of the influence on different cultures. Countries should support and shield own film industries but not through protectionism. So far, this paper illustrated just how influential a movie can be especially when it comes to cultures. In addition, it is imperative to understand that many of the flourishing film industries had some support from the government. Hollywood, for instance, continue to have support from the government in various areas which has subsequently seen its growth to become the most preferred in terms of movie production. Even though critics of government’s intervention cite manipulation as the major threat, even Hollywood has on some occasion succumbed to the same. According to Shevlin (2014), this American-based organisation was manipulated in 1917 where movies were produced portraying Americans as highly trained in a quest to scare the enemies. Recently, the film Argo received an award having shown the American-Iran situation, with many claiming that the film was a government project (Shevlin, 2014). Therefore, argument on government interference is not concrete enough. Instead, governments ought to support the film industry but without necessarily having to influence the content that ought to be produced. Instead of merging with the film industry in determining the kinds of movies to be produced, governments ought to avail the necessary resources and provide help as opposed to any other influence. It was earlier reported that the approach by the French government to influence the film industry in that country flopped. The major reason blamed for this farce was due to the tendency to suggest the kind of programming the industry ought to adopt. Instead of flourishing, the industry in France, did not reach its intended height because the consumers still preferred the American-like films. Similarly, the Polish film industry has taken a similar trend where local producers have tried in vain to sell local content. Mazierska and Goddard (2014) reported that Polish films have become influential mainly after collaboration from the American filmmakers or basing movies on the American-like plots. For instance, Daniel Olbrychski is a renowned Polish director whose input in the 2011Salt film played the role of a Russian. Even though the movie had an American plot, the Polish played a Russian character but the accent was unmistakably Polish meaning cultural protectionism can be done without interfering with the industry (Mazierska and Goddard, 2014). This examples shows that the issue affecting many countries is not necessarily influence of foreign films but rather lack of effective systems that can support local films. For this reason, cultural protectionism is possible even without any interference from any quarters. To continue with cultural protectionism, encouragement of creativity and supporting the industry would be more effective. While the Hollywood has been accused severally of being a government mouthpiece, it is adored worldwide because of remaining conscious of the American values. One thing evident from the argument of cultural protectionism is that the American film industry propagates the wrong view about the American culture. Therein lies the problem because the critics do not understand that with the help of the government, film industry can be used to portray anything including the cultures. In other words, the Hollywood may have been used to portray blurred American culture but the same can happen elsewhere if their film industry has necessary support. Obviously, the reason the American film attract huge following is the tendency to portray its own country as a just, committed and such qualities. It, therefore, means other countries could follow suit and propagate the same about their values. However, not all countries are ignorant of this fact as evidenced by the Polish government to set aside funding for the Polish Film Institute (PFI). The government has set an annual funding of 34m Euros for the industry to flourish. This figure has increased from 22m Euros in 2010, and is normally used film production. The funding is always transparent with filmmaker’s applying for the funds online and the process done in a straightforward manner. Normally, these funds are meant to fund the local film industry but can also be used in the promotion of the Polish films produced outside the country (Mazierska and Goddard, 2014). Even after budgeting for the industry, the Polish government seldom interferes with the activities of the film industry. Therefore, for the film industry to flourish, governments ought to offer the necessary assistance but steer clear of manipulation or interference. Instead, the industry ought to be allowed to grow on its own and propagate its own ideas. By using this approach, there is a likelihood that cultures will be preserve because, a noted earlier, many of the movies are based on cultures. The US films tend to portray either war or scientific prowess mainly because they are the foundational factors defining them. By remaining committed to their culture, the film industry has grown into what it is today meaning other countries could set their movies on similar trends. Not via protectionism As illustrated in the preceding section, the film industry has the capacity to grow irrespective of its countries. Concisely, cultural protectionism is possible but not through manipulation from the authorities. It was illustrated that France failed in its quest to have its identity protected through its film industry. Worth noting here is that the intention was good but the approach was poor because as Mingant and Tirtaine (2012) noted, the film industry tends to grow when left alone. In other words, the slightest interference in the industry is likely to have negative impact. Mainly, the reason for this is that the consumers have their preferences, which tend to contradict what the authorities would prefer. However, when left alone the industry will most likely incorporate the local culture in its movie production. Also, cooperation with other countries would also boost in the cultural protectionism with very little government’s help. Recently, the Polish film industry entered into treaties with countries such as Israel, Germany, Canada and France. In the agreements, the industries would work together in a bid to boost their respective film industries (Mazierska and Goddard, 2014). Most likely, this cooperation will see the development of films of each of these countries. Earlier, it was noted that the aspect of culture would always be evident in a movie. Therefore, the cultural protectionism will proceed depending on the treaty’s success. In the end, these countries will likely have a mark in the international film market. The current problem in this market is various governments’ approach of trying to force cultural protection through direct interference. However, as illustrated here, the best approach would be creating an atmosphere where filmmakers are free to be creative and work with others in the industry. Other cultural industries to protect Up to this point, it has been proved two things are vital here: the government’s help is imperative to the film industry. Two, government’s interference is detrimental to the same meaning that it is important to understand what role the government plays. The role of the government is to protect not just the film industry but the other cultural industries as well. When the government plays its role effectively, the end result is well evidenced by the Hollywood success. Currently, any pirating of films in the US attracts hefty fines or punitive jail term or both. The federal government takes the issues of pirating pretty serious and offenders are normally charged without much delay. As a result, the film industry has grown tremendously in the US. Similarly, other cultural categories like the radio, TVs and magazines are well protected, and copyright infringement is an issue taken quite seriously. Conversely, the Chinese market, despite its early inception, has been plagued by piracy. Then, unlike the US cultural industry, which enjoys unlimited freedom, Chinese other industries like magazines and newspapers are highly manipulated by the government. Consequently, its international penetration has been derailed because its contents have to be censored to fit the local cultural regulations. Sometimes, this censorship has proved to be detrimental even to the country’s economy because the foreigners wising to invest in the Chinese industry have to be subjected to similar rules (Crane, 2013). Actually, some international magazines have to edit their content for the Chinese market. For this reason, many tend to either keep off the country or limit the number of magazines to sell there. Protection of the cultural industry is important in every country but may government tend to view apply manipulation as the only way to do it. However, Mingant and Tirtaine (2012) asserted that the best way to protect each of these industries is by granting them freedom and ensuring external forces are mitigated. For instance, it was earlier noted that the Polish government offers a considerable amount of money to the film industry each year. In addition, the industry is not manipulated; actually, the government invited even international filmmakers to work in the country. Due to these measures, the Polish industry has been projected to grow drastically in the future if these are maintained (Mazierska and Goddard, 2014). To sum it up, movies cannot be categorised the same as other products because they can be termed as vessels capable of transformation. Movies evoke ideas, emotions and tend to lead to a change in perception and at times incite an action. For that reason, cultural protectionism is imperative because not everything portrayed in the movies is factual. As noted in this paper, much of the impressions created by the American films do not necessarily represent the cultures of the majority of the Americans. Nonetheless, many, if not all, of them are influenced greatly by the cultures meaning these two are somewhat inseparable. As a result of the tenacity applied in propagating these films, many countries feel their cultural practices are threatened, and rightly so. However, the steps taken in trying to ensure cultural protectionism is maintained tend to only worsen the situation. Instead of trying controlling the film industry, governments need to ensure freedom and protect it against external threats like piracy and others. In short, it is creativity on the filmmakers’’ part and freedom from government that will see cultural protectionism succeed. Bibliography Baughn, C. and Buchanan, M. (2011). Cultural protectionism. Business Horizons, 48(4), pp.5. BBC News, (2012). China agrees to foreign film deal. [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-17099980 [Accessed 17 Feb. 2015]. Crane, D. (2013). Cultural globalization and the dominance of the American film industry: cultural policies, national film industries, and transnational film. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 20(4), pp.365-368 Heinemann, A. (2012). Government Control of Cross-Border M&A: Legitimate Regulation or Protectionism?. Journal of International Economic Law, 15(3), pp.843 Mazierska, E., & Goddard, M. (2014). Polish cinema in a transnational context. New York : University of Rochester Press Mingant, N. and Tirtaine, C. (2012). Global Film and Television Industries Today: An Analysis of Industrial and Cultural Relations. French Journal of media representations, 23(2), pp.232-234. Sanson, K. (2014). Location and labor: critical crossroads in global film and television. Creative Industries Journal, 7(1), pp.54-55 Shevlin, S. (2014). Argo: how the CIA and Hollywood pulled off the most audacious rescue in history. Journal of Intelligence History, 14(1), pp.70-71 Young, S. D. (2012). Psychology at the movies. Chichester, West Sussex, Wiley-Blackwell. Read More