American Cultural Analysis, Modern Imperialism and the Spread of American Capitalism - Essay Example

American Cultural Analysis It can be said that American culture has been globalized. Today, a Big Mac is as ubiquitous in Birmingham as it is in Beijing. Yes, you can supersize your fries in Montana, Montreal or even Moscow as the Cold War has melted and American cultural supremacy has made in-roads around the globe. In fact, one can reasonably argue that the phenomenon that we call globalization is in fact Americanization, the worldwide spread of American values, norms and systems of belief (economic, social and political). If it true that American culture has not been globalized, what explains the Americanization of the world? From a historical standpoint, what made this possible and is this a positive thing for the rest of the world? Just what is it that makes the American culture so wrong yet so appealing? Why for many people is American culture still a problem? Seeking to address these questions and many more with respect to American cultural hegemony and the world today, this essay will provide an in-depth exploration of American culture today. Addressing charges of cultural imperialism and the role of the United States in cultivating a mass market “world culture”, the following will begin with a concise overview of the history of American cultural imperialism looking at its roots in the social revolution of the 1960s. We then turn to an analysis of the commercialization and later globalization of the world through the spread of American economic culture. Finally, we turn to American military might and the unilateralist turn in US foreign relations. This is an important cultural component of the United States of America as its military is both emulated, envied and feared the world over. By looking at American cultural imperialism through a social, economic and political/military lens, this essay aims to provide a three-pronged approach to exploring an issue which remains incredibly timely and topical. A Brief History of American Cultural Imperialism The globalization of American values began in the post-World War II period following the near universal physical, economic and social devastation of the European continent. A social revolution paved the way for the export of American values and ideas across the world. For the United States, the social revolution of the 1960s was also a cultural revolution. In fact, the “rise of a specific, and extraordinarily powerful youth culture indicated a profound change in the relation between generations” (Hobsbawm 1994). Leading this Cultural Revolution were the young: teenagers started wearing jeans – prior to that only farmers wore them – and rock music became the voice of a generation. In fact, industries saw the potential of this young and increasingly powerful generation and catered to it through the “flourishing industries of cosmetics, hair-care and personal hygiene” (Hobsbawm 1994). Renowned cultural historian Eric Hobsbawm asserts that the social revolution of the 1960s was as much a capitalist venture as a social and cultural revolution. The result of this “concentrated mass of purchasing power” (Hobsbawm 1994) was the development of a sort of cultural hegemony, with blue jeans and rock music the identifiers of modern youth. Cultural symbols of identity thus perpetuated an Anglo-American global cultural hegemony. Additionally, "the cultural revolution of the latest twentieth century can thus best be understood as the triumph of the individual over society, or rather, the breaking of the threads which in the past had woven human beings into social textures" (Hobsbawm 1994). Accordingly, the American social revolution was as commodified. It is to this phenomenon that we now turn. Modern Imperialism and the Spread of American Capitalism For critics of the modern imperialist phenomenon, capitalism and the spread of neoliberal economic policies throughout the developing world best explains the underdeveloped status of much of the planet today. Globalization is an international phenomenon with far-reaching consequences in the social, political and economic realms. Economic globalization, namely the spread of neoliberalism and capitalist-inspired consumerism as the dominant engine of economic growth, has both supporters and detractors. The world is becoming more and more interdependent and whether you think globalization is a good or bad thing, it is here to stay (Apodaca and Stohl 1999; The Economist 2009). Seeking to explore the globalization phenomenon by looking back over the past twenty-odd years, the following will analyze the important antecedents to globalization and the spread of American-inspired neoliberalism today. This will be followed by an analysis of the effects of globalization and an exploration of the criticisms associated with globalization. We then conclude with a synopsis of the issues explored with relation to the internationalization of the American economic system today. Neoliberalism and the World Globalization, as it exists today, rests largely on the shoulders of neoliberal economics and the global entrenchment of capitalism as the dominant economic system in the world. This is an important and often neglected component of American cultural imperialism: the internationalization of the US economic system. Neoliberalism, the belief in laissez-faire economics, was best articulated by Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States in the 1980s. US President Ronald Regan famously remarked “government was not the solution but the problem” (Hobsbawm 1994). Neoliberals put all of their faith in the distributive capabilities of the invisible hand of the free market, and believe that business was inherently good and that government bad. The government was longer interested in the provision of welfare but existed to stimulate the capitalist economic market. The United States under Ronald Reagan was thus described as the “greatest of the neo-liberal regimes” (Hobsbawm 1994). Accordingly, The essence of neo-liberalism, its pure form, is a more or less thoroughgoing adherence, in rhetoric if not in practice, to the virtues of a market economy, and, by extension, a market-oriented society. While some neo-liberals appear to assume that one can construct any kind of ‘society’ on any kind of economy, the position taken here is that the economy, the state and civil society are, in fact, inextricably interrelated (Coburn 2000). How did neoliberalism, the dominant political and economic ideology of the West since the Reagan years make inroads around the world and into the formerly Communist countries of Eastern Europe? The Second World, consisting of the global Communist community during the Cold War, was severely undermined by economic and political crises which began in the late 1960s. The result was political and economic disorder. Economic crises undermined the political foundations of states like China and the USSR – particularly after the deaths of men such as Mao & Brezhnev – and the centrally planned economic systems of these countries remained under stress and increasingly precarious. The Soviet world was also not immune to global economic crises as evidenced by effects of the OPEC crisis of 1973. These aftershocks paved the way for perestroika and glasnost in the USSR, the implosion of Yugoslavia and popular Chinese dissent expressed in Tiananmen Square and captured live on camera. The political and economic fragilities of the Second World were exposed following 1968 and slowly led to political decay, leading to the eventual implosion of the Soviet Union. In addition to establishing a foothold in the formerly Communist countries of the East, neoliberalism has become entrenched throughout the world (Strayer 1998; Holmes et al. 2998). Criticisms of the Globalization Phenomenon What are the criticisms of globalization and how do proponents of globalization respond to these critiques? Critics of globalization argue that this phenomenon is thinly disguised neo-imperialism and actually represents an insidious attempt to spread Americanization and American concepts of capitalism, exploitation and greed across the globe. World systems theorists would argue that globalization does nothing more than entrench the dominant economic position of the developed countries of the West while perpetuating an unequal global distribution of wealth thus ensuring the continued subservient status of the developing countries of the world, within the current global economic system. Global economic institutions such the World Bank (WB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) often bear the brunt when it comes to criticizing the global economic system and the state of global affairs. These organizations are routinely criticized as being anti-democratic, exploitative in nature and often as agents of Western imperialism. Members of the anti-globalization movement represent a backlash against the dominant economic ideologies of our time including capitalism and neoliberalism as the economic order of the day. Proponents of globalization argue for that many criticisms of globalization are unfounded. Accordingly, they point to the fact that there is a wholesale lack of evidence for many of the claims put forth by anti-globalization activists and argues that capitalism and neoliberal economic principles have benefited people all around the world, including those in the so-called Third World. The embrace of capitalist ideals by nearly all of the countries of the former Soviet Block is seen as evidence of the appeal of neoliberalism and capitalist economic principles (Hobsbawm 1994). Economic globalization is based upon the principles of neoliberalism, free trade and unhindered markets. Accordingly, globalization has been propelled by capitalism and the internationalization of the American neoliberal economic system. The main effect of globalization is the world-wide spread of neoliberalism around the world and the entrenchment of capitalism as the dominant – some would say sole – viable economic system for the world economy. This section has traced the antecedents to the current wave of globalization with an emphasis on the Reagan and Thatcherite regimes in America and Britain. Accordingly, neoliberalism was given a huge boost following the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the fall of communism in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s. Entrenched as the dominant economic ideology across the globe, neoliberalism is the underlying force behind the current wave of globalization. Despite numerous detractors on all corners of the globe, globalization remains an important force in modern society and a key component of continued and sustained economic growth on a global scale (Harvey 2007). American Military Might American unilateralism has been both an explicit and implicit policy of the present Bush Administration since the aftermath of September 11th 2001. Although the United States has historically been committed to multilateralism, collective decision-making and international rules of law, in recent times the United States has rejected foreign policy precedent and has engaged in direct military action on a unilateral basis. Former US President Woodrow Wilson espoused multilateralism as a cure to the world’s ills and believed that concerted diplomacy, best channeled through international non-governmental organizations like the League of Nations (the precursor to today’s United Nations), was the best way to avoid international conflict and violence. Collective bargaining and international coordination in global affairs has a long and storied tradition in the United States. Arguing that the rules of the game had changed in the post-Cold War and post-9/11 world, George W. Bush’s famously remarked that “you are either with us or against us” and set the stage for American unilateralism on a global scale (Skidmore 2005; Morgenthau 1948). Described as part of the Bush Doctrine, this set of beliefs about the international order and world affairs paved the way for the application of unilateral military action as an important tenant of American foreign policy. A neoconservative worldview was espoused in the early years of the Bush Administration and the Bush Doctrine advocates unilateral action on the diplomatic front and justifies for preemptive war to safeguard US interests abroad. As the word implies, unilateralism allows the United States to act unilaterally in the sphere of foreign policy and diplomacy. Without a need for negotiation, consensus building or collective bargaining, the proponents of a unilateral agenda argue that the United States is less constrained in the exercise of foreign policy when it does not have to act in concert with partners. Unilateral military action has been justified in the wake of the attacks of September 11th and the most obvious case of this unilateralism was the decision by the United States to invade Iraq in 2003 after UN Security Council approval – a traditional international “seal of approval” for military action – was denied. In addition to this most obvious case scholars have traced a unilateral streak in American foreign policy since the early days of the Bush Administration when the United States butted heads with its traditional European allies on the issue of Anti-Ballistic Missile Defence and the decision to ignore the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. American unilateralism has most recently been expressed in the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 and represents US American global military domination. To be envied but most importantly to be feared, the American military is an integral component of the culture of the United States and this new unilateral shift in American foreign policy is something which is culturally abhorrent for most, yet appealing to others (Skidmore 2005; Weldes 1999; Keohane 1999; Kanstroom 2003). Concluding Remarks American cultural imperialism is evidenced in the social, political and economic realms and represents American glob, domination in a variety of spheres. Addressing charges of cultural imperialism and the role of the United States in cultivating global cultural hegemony, this analysis has taken a three pronged, critical approach to American culture on a global scale. What is it that makes the American culture so wrong yet so appealing? Rampant consumerism, the spread of a global economic system which serves to enrich the few and impoverish the many and a military system which engages in wanton disregard for basic principles of state sovereignty all represent American culture in the 21st century. As this essay has shown, globalization is actually the internationalization of American economic culture and for many people around the world this creates important problems and brings forth charges of cultural imperialism and American cultural hegemony (Jervis 2005). References Apodaca, C., Stohl, M. (1999). United States Human Rights Policy and Foreign Assistance. International Security, 43:1, 185-198. Coburn, D. (2000). “Income inequality, social cohesion and the health status of populations: the role of neo-liberalism”, Social Science & Medicine, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 135-146. Harvey, D. 2007. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. London: Oxford University Press. Hobsbawm, E. (1994). Age of Extremes: The Short History of the Twentieth Century: 1914-1991. London: Abacus. Holmes, K. R., Feulner, E.J, OGrady, M.A and Kim, A.B (2008). Index of Economic Freedom, 2008. Washington: The Heritage Foundation. Jervis, R. (2005). ‘Realism in the Study of World Politics’. International Organization, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 971-991. Kanstroom, D. (2003). Unlawful Combatants in the United States - Drawing the Fine Line between Law and War. Human Rights 30: 18-25. Keohane, R.O. (1989). International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations., Boulder: Westview. Paul, T.V. (2005). “Soft Balancing in the Age of U.S. Primacy”, International Security, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 5-41. Morgenthau, H. (1951). In Defense of the National Interest. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Morgenthau, H. (1948). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Strayer, R.W. (1998). Why Did the Soviet Union Collapse?: Understanding Historical Change. I. E. Sharpe: New York. Skidmore, D. (2005). “Understanding the Unilateralist Turn in U.S. Foreign Policy” Foreign Policy Analysis vol. 1, no. 2, 207-288. The Economist (2009). Pocket World in Figures, 2009 Edition. London: Profile Books. Weldes, J. (1999). Constructing National Interests: The United States and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Read More