Asia-Pacific Media - Essay Example

A series of ‘izations’ have been affecting the society leading to dichotomy between the traditional and modern societies. These izations range from globalization to industrialization, liberalization, internationalization and bureaucratization and is based on the assumption that it would be possible to make this globe in to one homogenous society (Ommen, n.d.). These led to societies undergoing transitions which affected the social virtues, the good and the bad, and the social relations. These izations were supposed to make the global society modern but according to several social science theorists and theories modernity has led to destruction of religious and spiritual beliefs and notions, of traditional culture and non-naturalistic metaphysics (Smith, 2006). Modernity according to them created secularism and gave rise to a materialistic outlook. This view of social science theorists underwent a radical change after the World War II. After that modernity was supposed to be universal, uniform, predictable, and inevitable dynamics inexorably transforming the world. It was then believed that modernity and modernization was inevitable but modernity produces predictable patterns of uniformity and standardization. The concept of multiple modernities them emerged giving rise to diverse opinions on the subject. After the World War II, there developed a structural differentiation across a wide range of institutions in most societies. These covered arenas like family like, economic and political structures, urbanization, modern education, mass communication, and individualistic orientation. Each of these arenas were defined and organized differently in different periods of development thus giving rise to multiple institutional and ideological patterns (Eisenstadt, 2000). While these patterns were distinctively modern, they were influenced by specific cultural premises, traditions and historical experiences. Using the Western project as the reference point, all the regions developed distinctly different dynamics and modes of interpretation. Even though in the non-Western societies certain themes were developed and depicted strong anti-Western themes but all were modern. It progressed rapidly after the Second World War and demonstrates that the cultural programs evolved continuously. This is referred to as multiple modernities because each region or society had their own way of being modern or interpreting things and situation differently. This was a process of ongoing reconstruction of multiple institutional and ideological patterns. These were carried forward by specific social actors in close connection with the social, intellectual and political activists. These social actors were in close connection with social movements that pursued different programs of modernity and each of them held widely different views on what makes societies modern. These actors were responsible for unique expressions of modernity. Thus the understanding of multiple modernities developed differently in different nation-states and within different ethnic and cultural groupings. Very often modernity has been confused with Westernization but the two are not identical although westernization is used a reference point. The question then arises what constitutes modernity. According to Weber, the beginning of modernity can be traced to the moment when the preordained social order began to decline (Eisenstadt, 2000). According to this concept multiple modernities emerged when the unchanging cosmos ceased to be taken for granted but this view was opposed based on the premise that what is unchanging is not the social order. Thus modernities are responses to existential problems that formulate visions of life and one practiced to live within it and not beyond it. According to Ommen multiple modernities has been conceptualized due to three reasons. The first was the empirical experiences of the Second World that was technologically modern like the First World but radically different – socially and politically. Secondly, East Asia emerged as an economic power, particularly Japan and the Asian Tigers, which too were modern but different modern than the First World. Thirdly, the Latin American society had a dependent modernity as it adopted or shared the religion, culture and language of the First World but had a different economic base. According to Smith (2006) various other reason and situations gave rise to modernity. Apart from Japan emerging as an economic powerhouse, questions were raised about the relationship between modernization and westernization and this gave rise to several alternative forms of Asian modernity. The Islamic and quasi-Islamic states too are applying modernity in different degrees and forms. They are applying it in more customized fashion than traditional modernization theory would have accepted. The Muslims living in urban centers of Western Europe are selectively adopting western ways and consider themselves to be modern. China too has become modernized at an unbelievable pace but it is not conforming to the western model. Globally there has been a growing force of terrorism which uses modern technology to promote “anti-modern” agendas. Thus, this concept of different permutations and combinations in different societies gave rise to the concept of multiple modernities. The notion of modernity was however articulated differently by four Founding Fathers of Sociology (Ommen). Thus modernity according to Emile Durkheim means structural differentiation, it is rationalization according to Max Weber, history making project according to Karl Marx and modern lifestyle according to Georg Simmel. Through their perceptions of modernity, all these four classical thinkers expressed their discontent of modernity. Structural differentiation indicates societal transformation where the society has changed from simple to complex, from tradition to modernity, from community to society, from sacred to secular, from status to contract, and from folk/rural to urban. There came about occupational differentiation in the society, division of labour, plurality and interdependence. In the process each society became different from the others, specialized in one sector, became less self-sufficient and hence dependency increased (Ommen, n.d.). Modern technology also led to industrialization that gave rise to a specific type of social differentiation but has been seen modernity in a socialist and capitalist society differs. This implies that structural differentiation can account for only certain dimensions of modernity. As technology advanced people started relying more on science and technology and moved away from religion and super natural powers. They started relying on facts and figures and reasoning. This rationalization led to de-personalization of social relations. At the same time, there is a segment of ‘modern’ society that does rely on faith rather than science; they rely on superstition rather than science, which again acknowledges that rationalization, is again not the criterion for modernity. Thus these two concepts – structural differentiation and rationalization are applicable only to the capitalist society while they neglect the socialist society. Modernity gave rise to the individual being guided and motivated by the will of the self or in other words the birth of the individual self is an indication of modernity. As the individual became conscious of his own self, he started questioning all established social relationships. There arose an incessant quest for knowledge. The working class evolved and new society came into being. This is what Karl Marx refers to the history making project. The working class movement articulated into different forms – different professional associations were formed, trade unions were formed, along with a variety of interest groups. History was created by different feminine movements, youth movements, environmental and ecological imbalances started taking place, and all of these factors became a project of making history. Each society formed its own history and had their own prerogatives due to which there was no common history. The concept of modern life style as articulated by Simmel occurred due to shrinkage of time and space due to advancement in communications and transportation (Ommen). There were rapid transactions, very fast paced changes and the life of people in the society was constantly in a state of flux. Importance was given to the money power, the type of house one lived in, the car, the mode of travel, the holidays you took and the number of books a writer could sell, the royalty that he could get. There was neither intrinsic motivation nor intrinsic value. Everything was valued in terms of money. When the credit card came into the society, the distance and the difference in currency were further reduced. These concepts of modernity and the evolving globalization unsettled the South Asian societies as they had been following the hierarchical and the traditional form of society. Some ‘modern’ societies gave more importance to values rather than technology. There was unlinear movement from tradition to modernity but since there were multiple traditions, it led to multiple modernities. According to Smith (2006) the concept of multiple modernities provides the most helpful and theoretical way to frame and it interpretively explains the failure of the homogenizing version of the modernization theory. Smith quotes Eisenstadt according to whom modernity is an open-ended horizon and has space for multiple interpretations. The concept of globalization and its consequences raised questions about the relationship between modernization and westernization. It suggests that there could possible be several alternative forms of “Asian modernities”. Charles Taylor too had similar views. He adopted a cultural approach to modernity and expressed that transitions could be termed as modernity. He warned that modernity would produce different results in different civilizations reflecting their divergent starting points (Smith, 2006). Modernity first moved into the Asian societies like Japan, India, Burma, Sri Lanka, China, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Indonesia and Malaysia and the finally reached Africa (Eisenstadt, 2000). By the middle of the 20th century the entire world as encompassed into the first wave of globalization and the concept of modernity could be heard. Each of these countries gave rise to a new dimension of modernity with new problems arising as a consequence. In each of these societies transformation was shaped by a combination of their respective historical traditions and the different ways in which they became incorporated in the new world system. In India, the colonial imperial experience and the Indian political traditions shaped the distinctive features of modernity. Even though modernity may be western in origin and has reached and transformed people globally, but the transformation is not uniform. Within East Asia there were a variety of cultural manifestations. The different Asian societies entered modernity at different points in their histories. Some adopted modernity out of weakness while some during the height of their accomplishments. Some exchanges took place through trade, some through war and some through intellectual interchange. Thus modernity meant differently to different people; it demonstrated divergent potential and it proved to be an agent not only of homogenization but also of heterogenization (Lau, n.d.). This has been observed in different fields. In the case of movies the interpretation of each society differs. Cinema was popular in South Korea but less popular in Taiwan. The movie Titanic evoked different sentiments in different societies. While some considered it to be an expression of love and luxury, the Chinese Prime Minister Jiang Zemin found the message “never overburden oneself with a wishful or oversized project”. Even within Asia responses differed on various issues. CNN and other new agencies released the information about the 1989 Tiananmen Square equally in Hong Kong and China but the two countries responded differently. In Hong Kong there was a massive demonstration by the people against China’s action but the responses in Taiwan was lukewarm. This multiplicity of responses shows the fragmented nature of cross-cultural, cross-boundaries communication. Even though East Asian societies share commonalities, individual societies also exhibit differences. Each society has its own history of modernization. Japan was the first of the Asian nations to become westernized. China adopted modernization but the change was inconsistent in the beginning and has picked up pace only in the last decade. South Korea underwent military dictatorship and the modernization was a forced process until the 1990s. While Taiwan modernized under the influence of Japan, Hong Kong was a British colony and enjoyed a laissez-faire economy. The Chinese society boasts of values like filial piety and worshipping ancestors and working hard for the family but modernity to people means differently to people who have grown in major cities of China, Hong Kong and Taipei (Chang, 2006). Modernization impacted the courtship process, mate selection, marriage arrangement and premarital intimacy in these societies. Loosening of the sexual mores in these societies indicates that societies have become more modern, open and western. There is reduced value of virginity and where earlier some people were referred to as ‘open’ today some are referred to as ‘conservative’. Premarital cohabitation is an important part of the marriage for two people to get to know and understand each other. The people know that their parents would not approve of it but they nevertheless want to do it. Despite this free attitude towards sex, which might be termed as modernity, the young people in China region have not disengaged from the traditional values. Filial piety is still of immense value among the young Chinese. They still wish to take care of their parents, and actually do so. They enjoy Hollywood movies and utilize western skills to pursuer their Chinese dreams but the core elements of Confucian tradition remains intact. Thus the concept of multiple modernities can now be extended in the areas of sex and family life without distorting the social values like filial piety. Multiple modernities reflect in the way each nation has not given up its cultural heritage and food habits. Companies like McDonalds have understood the concept of multiple modernities but they also realize that they have to suit the local taste and needs in their product mix. McDonald’s wanted to standardize the items that taste the same whether in Singapore, Spain or South Africa but they had to adapt to local environment, local taste, laws and customs (Vignali, 2001). While in Israel Big Macs are served without cheese in several outlets, in India they serve vegetable McNuggets and a mutton-based Maharaja Mac. As Hindus do not eat beef, Muslims do not eat pork and Jains do not eat meat at all, such adaptation becomes necessary. In Malaysia and Singapore they had to undergo rigorous inspection by Muslim clerics to ensure ritual cleanliness. They sell Teryaki burgers in Japan and vegetable burgers in the Netherlands. In Thailand they introduced the Samurai Pork Burger with sweet sauce. At the time of the Chinese New Year Celebrations, its ‘Prosperity Burger is popular in China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore. While the local people may be eating burgers, which is not their traditional food and hence they may be termed as modern in their outlook, but when it comes to sentiments, the multinationals have to respect them. Nations are not prepared to compromise in the sentiments despite being modern in several areas. For instance, in Israel, the Golani Brigade figures prominently in Israeli military history. The intersection in Lower Galilee was named as Golani Junction as a mark of respect. When McDonalds opened its restaurant next to the memorial, it turned into a controversial issue as it seemed to overpower the Golani site in the local landscape. It was said to be the ‘Americanization’ of the Israeli culture and society (Azaryahu, 1999). NIVEA, a global brand name in skin care products wanted to categorize their market under five different regions – Asia, Africa, Australia, Europe and South America (Bastian, 2006). Then study found that a certain degree of divergence in demographic characteristics, brand assessments, and behavioral characteristics of country-specific segments was unavoidable. They also found that the same education levels in two countries did not fetch the same profession. Differences were also perceived in brand awareness, advertisement recall and the usage of the product between two different countries even within the same region. The choices of location of purchase also differed as the distribution channels used were different. There were also differences in the media type available in different countries. Multiple modernities are reflected as differentiation has to be maintained in the overall marketing strategy across boundaries. Even though Islamic countries appear to be very modern in their approach in certain areas, they do not like women wearing tight-fitting clothes. Due to this Levis had to alter their product dimensions for the Islamic countries and they also found that the entire Far East Asian market demands much shorter inside leg measurements (SD, 2005). The commercial that they ran in Europe was censored in South East Asia. Hence they had to develop another promotional strategy in this region. All these lead one to believe that the previous theories and concepts that modernity could converge and bring about uniformity across the globe, is not possible. Modernity itself is not coherent (Smith, 2006). Modernity in different societies has definitely liberated people in varying degrees from the bonds of liberation but at the same time also given them multiple choices. At the same time, it has also imposed certain forms of discipline and social control that is against the principles of individual liberation. It is important to understand modernity as a cultural project of purposive human agents operating with different beliefs about humanity, society, morality and purpose of life. Thus the concept of modernity has evoked different explanations and theories from different social researchers. Modernity was found to be different in different regions which gave rise to the concept of multiple modernities. It has also been often confused with globalization and westernization but the interpretation of modernity itself differs from nation to nation. Modernity started with Japan in Asia and gradually spread at different times in different nations. The modernity that was acceptable and adopted by each nation within Asia also differed as it is based on the traditions and culture of that nation. This difference reflects in the responses by each society to different circumstances. It is all the more prominent in the fields of music, books, food, movies and such other areas. The pace of social change in different societies also differs as China is moving ahead at a much faster pace than others in the region. While they stick to the tradition of filial piety, the Chinese society has become modern or liberal as far as sexual mores are concerned. This may not be acceptable by another nation but they too have accepted modernity in their own ways. New interpretations emerge for the same situation and event in different nations. Since there is no universal attitude or uniformity of responses, the liberalization of individuals and the societies has been termed as ‘multiple modernities’. References: Azaryahu, M. (1999). McDonalds or Golani Junction? A case of contested place in Israel, Professional Geographer, 51 (4) pp. 481-492 Bastian, I. (2006). Methodological Options in International Market Segmentation. [online] Available at: http://elib.suub.uni-bremen.de/diss/docs/00010584.pdf [accessed 14 September 2008] Chang, J. (2006). Familism and Modernity amongst Young Chinese: An Exploration into Multiple Modernities. [Online] Available at: http://coombs.anu.edu.au/SpecialProj/ASAA/biennial-conference/2006/Chang-Jui-shan-ASAA2006.pdf [accessed 14 September 2008] Eisenstadt, S. N. (2000). Multiple modernities. Daedalus; Winter 2000; 129, 1; Research Library Core pg. 1 [online] Available at: http://www.havenscenter.org/files/Eisenstadt2000_MultipleModernities.pdf [accessed 13 September 2008] Lau, J. K. W. (n.d.). Multiple Modernities. Chapter 1. [online] Available at: http://www.temple.edu/tempress/chapters_1400/1643_ch1.pdf [accessed 14 September 2008] Ommen, T. K. (n.d.). Recognizing Multiple Modernities: A Prelude to Understanding Globalization. [Online]. Available at: http://members.tripod.com/~csssjnu/oommen.html [accessed 14 September 2008] SD (2005). Levi’s adaptable standards. STRATEGIC DIRECTION. VOL. 21 NO. 6 2005, pp. 14-15 Smith, C. (2006). “ON MULTIPLE MODERNITIES: SHIFTING THE MODERNITY PARADIGM,”. University of Notre Dame. [Online] Available at: http://www.nd.edu/~csmith22/documents/MultipleModernities.pdf [accessed 13 September 2008] Vignali, C. (2001). McDonalds: "think global, act local" - the marketing mix. British Food Journal, Vol. 103 No. 2, 2001. pp. 97-111 Read More