Are Cultures Converging Across the World - Essay Example

Converging Cultures It is hard to argue that the world is becoming smaller. There is the internet and massive communications technology that helps us stay in contact across national boundaries as if they dont exist. People in China are able to study at schools in the United States and companies in the United States are able to get cheap workers in India. Because of all this exchange, cultural groups are starting to lose their sense of unity and individuality as many of the larger civilizations adopt a Westernized viewpoint in order to compete in the capitalist system. The way these cultures are converging is called globalization. Its a process that has been talked about a lot in political and social circles, and on the media, for many years. In most cases, it seems to be concluded that this convergence of cultures is a necessary and unavoidable aspect of the future global environment. A lot of people have said globalization is evil because it increases the current inequality between nations by privileging the nations that behave like the United States and punishing those that try to hold onto their own cultures. It also threatens jobs and living standards for people in all countries either as the talent is pulled from each nation into a shrinking number of openings or as jobs are outsourced to areas that have lower living standards and therefore the people are willing to take lower pay. With the way these cultures are colliding, the natural social progress of every country has been affected. Even though it isnt likely that there is a way to stop this process or to reverse it, it is important to try to understand how the individual nations and the people in them are changing in good ways and in bad ways to see that the cultures are collapsing. As it became easier and easier to communicate across very long distances and even share files and participate in live, face-to-face meetings with the use of two screens with the internet, businesses and organizations have forced cultures to come together. It is an important part of capitalism to try to increase the productivity of the company at the same time that it tries to reduce the amount of money spent to make that productivity happen. It is for this reason that many corporations have participated in the process of bringing cultures together. They will often outsource their production processes to countries where there are fewer restrictions and they can pay lower and sell the products to countries that have more money so they can charge more for it. “Global markets offer greater opportunity for people to tap into more and larger markets around the world. It means that they can have access to more capital flows, technology, cheaper imports and larger export markets” (International Monetary Fund Staff 2002). This process seems like a great idea to move products and services around the world. There is a great chance for wealth to be redistributed into areas that dont have much wealth. However, “in practice, this has meant that the governments of the advanced capitalist countries, along with the I.M.F., the World Bank, and the W.T.O., have increasingly sought to force other nations to adopt market economies, privatize public companies and resources, abandon labor and environmental regulations, reduce social services, and embrace ‘free trade’ and the free movement of transnational capital” (Smith 2002). Because most of the globalization is being led by the big companies that have a lot of political influence in the Western capitalist countries, these cultures are able to force their own values, policies, and agendas down the throats of less developed nations who are so desperate for some help that they have to adopt these ideas as their own instead of sticking true to their own ideals. Although the amount of money coming into the less developed countries is welcome, these cultures are collapsing under the weight of conforming to the pressures of stronger cultures at the same time that they are not necessarily benefitting like they should. The International Monetary Fund (2002) says that “globalization offers extensive opportunities for truly worldwide development,” but they point out that the increased efficiency and division of labour is not as helpful as it seems. Big companies are able to come into these areas, bringing their better access to resources and their bigger bank accounts so that they can afford to cut prices way low. This means they can price their products below the price of their competitors and smaller businesses find it difficult to survive. Instead of adding to the richness of the culture or helping to spread knowledge of the culture to other parts of the world, bringing these cultures together is really causing a decrease in diversity of cultures. It is also leading to a decrease in the choices we have about the places where we shop and therefore the culture we support. “As we all search for the best deal for our consumer dollars, regional superstores and on-line shopping drives our Mom and Pop shops, local manufacturing and local service companies out of business. As local businesses close their doors, the number and diversity of local jobs decrease” (Salmons & Babitsky 2002 p. 4). This fact of local stores closing down and local people having to go to work at large, multi-national corporations also begins to wear away the concept of local culture. The concept of a “shrinking world” is forcing more and more companies to try to compete on the worldwide market through the internet, because of great advances in transportation and communication. “The globalization of markets has certainly accelerated through almost universal acceptance of the democratic free enterprise model and new communication technologies, including satellites and the Internet” (Cateora 2005). However, many of these companies that dont know how to compete in other cultures overseas tend to just assume that their ideas will be as easily accepted into foreign markets as they are in the local place. This also speaks to the idea that cultures are collapsing since most of these companies assume that their Westernized approach will be successful no matter where they market and, generally, they are right. However, companies that try to just stay competitive at home are also forced to adopt these strategies to stay competitive even in their home markets. The tendency for business to contribute to the collapse of cultures is also encouraged by the developing nations since they want to encourage big businesses to move into their borders. They encourage this because these businesses, even when they arent taking care of the individual citizens, can bring a lot of money into the country. There is a lot of evidence that this relationship happens between companies and countries as a means of counteracting isolationist deterioration. “In the inter-war era, the world turned its back on internationalism … and countries retreated into closed economies, protectionism and pervasive capital controls. This was a major factor in the devastation of this period, when per capita income growth fell to less than 1 percent during 1913-1950. For the rest of the century, even though population grew at an unprecedented pace, per capita income growth was over 2 percent, the fastest pace of all coming during the post-World War boom in the industrial countries” (International Monetary Fund Staff 2002). The huge growth was caused by greater interaction between countries through international business and finance. “Outward-oriented policies brought dynamism and greater prosperity to much of East Asia, transforming it from one of the poorest areas of the world 40 years ago. And as living standards rose, it became possible to make progress on democracy and economic issues such as the environment and work standards” (International Monetary Fund Staff 2002). Part of the reason why cultures are collapsing around the world is that the globalization process does not happen evenly around the world. Some cultures have greater strength than others and can drown out the weaker ones. Companies expand into parts of the world based on how much that area can meet the needs of the company, either by providing cheap labor, lots of resources, fewer restrictions, or greater numbers of consumers who will buy their products. Countries that offer the most of these things to the companies are the ones that are integrated faster into the global economy than others, putting even more pressure on hold-out cultures to conform. As the other countries are able to quickly grow and reduce overall poverty, neighboring countries that try not to give in to the mostly Western big companies are forced to admit they need the help and make bargains, eventually leading to loss of culture and loss of the ability to look after their own people. “A larger number of developing countries have made only slow progress or have lost ground. In particular, per capita incomes in Africa have declined relative to the industrial countries and in some countries have declined in absolute terms” (International Monetary Fund Staff 2002). Since so much of the countrys wealth is based on the single company that moved in, many of the policies and rules that are enforced in that country are based on what the company wants. That means that decisions that affect things like worker rights, environmental protection, and safety procedures are changed so that cutthroat business practices end up being encouraged. All of these factors leading to the collapse of cultures is having very deep affects on the individual citizens. Since they cant be sure of their income since there are fewer jobs available and fewer rights at the job, it has become very difficult for poor people to work their way out of debt at the same time that they have no choice but to contribute to making the wealthy richer and with more power. In order to get the jobs that are available, individual citizens often have to be willing to adopt the culture of the company and give up whatever is important in their own culture. For example, if the company culture decides that the factory will be closed on Sundays because that is important to the company owners but the local culture holds Fridays sacred, then the person who wants the job will have to be willing to work on Friday and take Sunday off. “Those with jobs know that they could lose them at any time. Downsizing by companies moves the bulk of workers into contract and temporary employment” (Salmons & Babitsky 2002). Since theres a much greater competition for jobs, theres a much stronger push to a Westernized style of living that places emphasis on fast lifestyles. People feel a constant pressure to keep up with the latest technologies and social opportunities in order to have a chance at the best jobs. “In this world of intense competition, social networking is everything. Who you know and how they can help you is the coin of the realm. The result is that we increasingly isolate ourselves into gated communities and exclusive membership organizations” (Salmons & Babitsky 2002). The only way to advance in these climates is to give up the important values of culture and to sacrifice family values and traditional belief systems. This is necessary in order to fit in with the correct social crowd without culture clashes to obtain the types of employment that will provide them with the lifestyle that the corporate culture has said is best. With this constant blending of cultures to meet the corporate ideals, cultural differences are disappearing in an effort to be politically correct. Family roles are changing as individuals are forced to convert to the company culture and they clash with other family members that try to cling to the old culture. The pressure to become a part of the successful culture filters quickly into the society as it is first adopted by the adults and then passed down to the children. “Parents increasingly feel that they must help their kids learn how to get in the race as early as possible to increase their chances for the best jobs and a good life in the future” (Salmons & Babitsky 2002). The people who either dont fit into this model or who refuse to convert to the set standards of the company or give up their cultural heritage are usually pushed to the bottom of the income stack and are prevented from taking part in the greater society, even when they represent the original culture. “The gap between social classes widens as a result of this voluntary sorting” (Salmons & Babitsky 2002). Even though the corporations work hard to instill their own culture in the areas where they operate, local customs and belief systems are still considered important in the lives of many of these individuals, but they push these cultural differences down as much as they can to fit in with a global culture. Replacing the culture isnt always completely possible, such as in the case of cultural symbols and color meanings. These are parts of culture that are difficult to simply replace with something else. This is because these symbols and meanings have been developed over centuries of that cultures existence and they play a big part in individuals lives. Even if they are subdued in the workplace, they are still important in the homes and it is what is important in the homes that companies need to use in order to sell to the available consumers. In “Why global brands are not always cost-effective,” Lindsay Williams quotes Laurie Young, global head of marketing at PricewaterhouseCoopers as saying “Local culture is a powerful barrier to the success of a global brand. It really is time that we recognised the power of cultural differences and their effect on global enterprise” (Williams 2004). Even though cultures are collapsing around the globe, there are still aspects of these cultures that have to be recognized in order to be exploited. No matter where a person lives, it is possible to see that cultures are collapsing as a dominant capitalist attitude moves in. In order to appeal to the local market, companies do sometimes work to recognize the local cultures, but overall, they tend to try to bring everyone under the same umbrella culture. Although not everyone may want globalization to spread because of the way it tends to encourage the collapse of cultures, there doesnt seem to be any way to stop this process. The exchange of cultures has been happening since the beginning of time when camel caravans made their way across the desert sands, but todays culture is much more aggressive, almost forcing weaker cultures to give in if the people want to survive. The big question is not how to stop the process of cultural mixing, but rather how to help cultures survive in the face of greater competition. References Bodine, Larry. (2005). “Penetrating local markets with branding.” Thomson FindLaw. Cateora, Phillip R. and John Graham. (2005). International Marketing. Columbus: McGraw-Hill. Gailbraith, Jay. (September/October 2001). “Building organizations around the global customer.” Ivy Business Journal. International Monetary Fund Staff. (January 2002). “Globalization: Threat or Opportunity.” International Monetary Fund. Mougayar, William. (2002). “Globalization 2.0: The new globalization imperative and its impact on corporations.” Cyber Management. Pastore, Michael. (June 17, 2005). “With globalization, all intranets are local.” Internet Journal. Salmons, Jim & Babitsky, Timlynn. (March 23, 2003). “Shamrocks and Nanocorps: Business Model and Technology Innovation to Bridge the Digital Divide.” 2002 Northern Montana Technology Exposition [keynote presentation]. Smith, David Michael. (August/September, 2002). “The Growing Revolt Against Globalization.” Impact Press. Available June 21, 2012 from Williams, Lindsay. (2005). “Why global brands are not always cost-effective.” The Business. Read More