To What Extent Is the USA Still the Child of Europe - Essay Example

The United s: still a “child” of Europe? 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? Since the United States is a product of the ideas, values and ideologies of the European peninsula, to what extent is the United States still the “child” of Europe? Seeking to address these questions and many more with respect to historical changes which have resulted in American cultural hegemony and a lessening of the bonds between the United States and Europe, this essay will emphatically argue that the United States is no longer a child of Europe but stands alone on the world stage. According to Kelly and Prokhovnik, “although the globalization of culture seems in some ways obvious in our daily lives, it is not an entirely straightforward matter. Culture is a complicated and pervasive phenomenon, taking many forms.” (48) 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 the charges leveled against the United States as an economic, cultural and military hegemon. 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 192). 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 193-4). 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 194) 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 204). Accordingly, the American social revolution was as commodified. It is to this phenomenon that we now turn. The American-inspired Spread of Neoliberalism Chapter three of A Globalizing World describes the phenomenon of globalization as “the process by which markets and production in different countries are becoming increasingly interdependent due to the dynamics of trade in goods and services and flows of capital and technology” (85). Accordingly globalization, as it exists today, rests largely on the shoulders of neoliberal economics and the global entrenchment of capitalism as the dominant economic system across the world. This is an important and often neglected component of American cultural imperialism: the internationalization of the US economic system. US President Ronald Regan famously remarked “government was not the solution but the problem” (Hobsbawm 94). 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 94). 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 136). According to globalists then, the worldwide spread of America’s dog-eat-dog economy is as important to understanding globalization as its cultural characteristics. While the principles of free-market economy and neoliberal economic affairs may have originated on the shores of Europe, as we shall see below, the United States has effectively cultivated its own form of cultural hegemony through the worldwide spread of American culture and consumerism. We now turn to an analysis of the criticism leveled at American-inspired globalization in the 21st century. Critiques of American-inspired Globalization 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 We now turn to an exploration of the divergence of opinions between the countries of Europe and the United States with respect to an aggressive foreign policy in the post-Cold War world (see Hobsbawm 1994). Diverging Opinions: American Foreign Policy 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 207-288). The decision by the United States to invade Iraq in 2003 was incredibly controversial throughout Europe. In fact, this was seen by many Europeans as an attempt to exert its global hegemony. Research shows that many European felt that the decision to dispose of a dictator was not for the benefit of the Iraqi people, nor due to the supposed cache of weapons of mass destruction, but to obtain access to the vast oil resources of Iraq. Accordingly, this invasion is arguably the most controversial aspect of American foreign policy within the past quarter century. The US invasion of Iraq was controversial for a variety of reasons, the not least of which was the fact that the invasion did not first receive United Nations Security Council approval: an important condition in international relations which effectively legitimizes decisive political action. Opinion polls, conducted in Europe prior to the invasion by both the British Broadcasting Corporation and global pollster Ipsos Reed, effectively demonstrated how different European perceptions of the War were in comparison to those of Americans (who were divided, albeit less opposed, to the invasion). According to a poll by German magazine Forsa, 57% of Germans felt that "the United States is a nation of warmongers" and only 6% felt that they thought that US President George W. Bush was concerned with “preserving peace”. Pollster Emnid found that 54% of young Berliners (under the age of 30) had a “mostly negative” association with the United States, as opposed to 36% who saw it as “mostly positive”. Russian support for US pre-emptive action stood at just 23% according a Gallup poll. In the United Kingdom, 51% of those polled by the Times Newspaper left that British Prime Minister Tony Blair was a “US poodle” and a more 25% thought that enough evidence of WMD had been uncovered to justify the war. These sentiments, across a diverse continent, adequately sum up European perceptions of US foreign policy in the region (British Broadcasting Corporation 2003). Perceptions of the unwavering US support for the state of Israel have also been a point of contention around the globe. A Jewish state in the Middle East remains a divisive and controversial subject both in Europe and abroad. 2008 was the sixty year anniversary of the establishment of the modern Israeli state and while Jews around the world celebrate its birth, others not only decry the policies of the Israeli government and its primary global sponsor, the United States, but also challenge the very existence of the state itself. Condemned by its neighbors as an unnatural colonial implant, Israel is frequently subject to international sanction and scrutiny. The status of the Palestinian people, seemingly on the cusp of statehood not long ago, remains increasingly complex and forever unresolved. The Palestinian community has also recently been fractured by the Fatah/Hamas split, adding a new and potentially explosive dynamic to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Despite decades of attempts at resolving this conflict, the protagonists are at an impasse and without a resolution in sight. The recent Israeli invasion of the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip has been decried around the world yet has been tacitly supported by the American government. This recent event triggered protests across Europe and a flurry of diplomatic activity in an attempt to put an end to the hostiles. According to Bloomberg News and CNN, 63% of Americans felt that the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip was “justified”, while in France the number who supported Israel stood at a mere 28%. A Pew poll conducted in Europe found that French sympathies were divided prior to the war between those sympathizing with the Palestinians and those who sympathized with the Israelis (38%/38%). Accordingly, German support for Israel stood at 37%, an increase of 13% since 2004. While support for Israel may be rising, these countries are in stark contrast to opinion polls in the United States which show American support for Israel as being above 60%. Interestingly, the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip was applauded by a majority of Americans, a country which many Europeans feel shares a military culture of pre-emptive war (Gienger 2008; Marquand 23-24). Concluding Remarks American cultural imperialism is evidenced in the social, political and economic realms and represents American global domination in a variety of spheres. Kelly and Prokhovnik persuasively argue that there is considerable evidence to support the notion that the globalization of culture is not the emergence and growth of a global culture, but a spreading in the English language of US or Western cultural goods and practices. Recognition of this has been translated into polices banning satellite dishes in Iran; and the imposition of tariffs or quotas on imported music, film or television, for example in France. (63) Addressing charges of cultural imperialism and the role of the United States in cultivating global cultural hegemony, this analysis has taken a critical approach to American culture on a global scale. Rampant consumerism, the spread of a global economic system which serves to enrich the few and impoverish the many are perceived in represented Americanization and the globalization phenomenon in the 21st century. Despite numerous detractors on all corners of the globe, globalization remains an important force in modern society and it is here to stay. Although it has its early roots on the European continent, the Unites States is no longer a child of Europe but stands alone on the world stage. In addition to a cultural and economic divide separating the United States and Europe, recent American foreign policy initiates have significantly increased the divisions across the Atlantic Ocean. A ramification of the attacks of September 11th was a foreign policy shift of the United States towards unilateralism and pre-emptive military engagement. This unilateralism was best expressed in the decision to invade Iraq in 2003, an event which was a watershed in world history and also severely criticized by America’s European allies. US support for the state of Israel also remains a bone of contention across the Atlantic as our polls above have show, diverging opinion is an important feature of the transatlantic world. While the United States and Europe share many cultural vales and beliefs, the United States is no longer a child of Europe and is effectively independent on the world stage. works cited Coburn, D. “Income inequality, social cohesion and the health status of populations: the role of neo-liberalism”, Social Science & Medicine, 51.1 (2000):135-146. Gienger, Viola. “Americans Sympathetic Toward Israel on Gaza in Poll” Bloomberg News. 2008. Last Accessed October 02 2009, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a2oCpwqqFTpw&refer=home Hobsbawm, E. Age of Extremes: The Short History of the Twentieth Century: 1914-1991. London: Abacus, 1994. Horsley, William. “Polls find Europeans oppose Iraq war”. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2003. Last Accessed October 02 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2747175.stm Kelly, B. and Prokhovnik, R. Economic Globalization? in Hed, D. (ed.) A Globalizing World? Culture, Economics, Politics. London: Routledge, 2004. Marquand, Robert. “Israel finds more sympathy in Europe”. The Christian Science Monitor , January 8, 2009, p. 23-24. Skidmore, David. “Understanding the Unilateralist Turn in U.S. Foreign Policy.” Foreign Policy Analysis 1.2(2005): 207-288. Read More