Globalization, Education, and Cultural Identity - Assignment Example

Globalization, Education, and Cultural Identity Introduction In recent decades, the push towards globalization had been unrelenting. Seen mainly as a means by which countries could improve its competitiveness in the global market for goods and services, nations of the world embarked on an all-out race to adopt the international (read: Western) manner of speaking, dressing, and acquiring a taste for music on the MTV, products sold on eBay, or movie stars on HBO. Globalization ceased to be confined in the economic front. It has now likewise invaded classrooms at the elementary level, and has been incorporated in many curricula for children of tender age. While textbooks extol the benefits of globalization, others warn against the gradual erosion of nations’ distinct cultural identities which is seen as an effect of globalization. In many developing countries, globalization is regarded with suspicion as a force that "colonizes" a nation by robbing it of its way of life. This discussion shall thus try to resolve the question: Does the globalization thrust in education erode a nations unique cultural identity and render it a mere relic of the nations past? Education is the most powerful tool for propagating (or suppressing) cultural identity, an ideology, or a system of beliefs. Children are especially vulnerable, because their minds are much like a blank book for anyone to write in, so unguarded are they in discerning right from wrong. It is therefore a valid concern for policy makers to determine whether educational stress on globalization benefits a country economically at the expense of its unique cultural heritage. Answering this would provide direction for institutionalized education on how to deal with unfolding developments in this area. Globalization Defined Jeyaraj (2006) defined globalization in three levels. First he saw it as a “process by which the economies of the world become increasingly integrated, leading to a global economy and, increasingly, global economic policymaking through international agencies such as the World Trade Organization” (p. 11). Aside from the economic stress, the term “globalization” is also taken to mean the emerging global culture wherein people progressively consumer more often and more similar goods and services across several countries and use a common language in the transaction of business (i.e., English). Thirdly, Jevaraj theorized that in its core, globalization pertains to the increased openness of economies to international trade, financial flows and direct foreign investment. While Jevaraj stressed the economic nature of globalization, Neyestani and McInturff (2006) see the universal aspect of globalization. They define globalization as a complex concept encompassing the political, economic and socio-cultural orders, and in the process of development has created new global technologies. It is characterized by a systematic integration of commercial, cultural and technological advances, particular information and communication digital transmission which has largely fuelled accelerated global integration. The Constructs of Culture Christoph Wulf, professor of general and comparative educational sciences in Freie University in Germany, outlined some crucial points in the transmission and learning of intangible heritage. Focusing, for example, on the cultural element of rituals and practices, Wulf is of the view that what makes rituals and other practices socially and culturally effective is the performative character of the body. Rituals are valuable social functions. They help to organize the transition from one social status to another, at socially and existentially central moments such as marriage, birth and death. Rituals include conventions (liturgies, ceremonies and festivals), are related to different times of the year, and create a sense of belonging together in a group. These elements of culture are essential for the constitution of culture and community. While Wulf’s perception of cultural transmission is largely anthropological, Portella (2000) takes a real-world view. Portella believes that in modern life, culture can only be developed in the context of basic, existential, and vital tension between the universal, the regional, the national, and the local. Cultures will still continue to be anchored in the context of their national attachments, but it will increasingly become more difficult to conceive of the construct of traditional concepts of identity, people, and nation as inviolable. What people should ask themselves, Portella says, is whether modern trends faulted for diluting national cultures are not actually wellsprings by which culture may indeed by enriched, in the sense of being favourable to the coexistence of diversity. In effect, Portella presents the paradigm shift where culture is viewed no longer in the context of cohesion and artificial uniformity, fixed and immutable, but rather growing and developing towards greater diversity and tolerance for such diversity. Held and McGrew go even further. For them globalization denotes the expanding scale, magnitude, and acceleration of the increasingly profound impact of interregional flows and patterns of social interaction. Globalization is seen as a phenomenon that transforms human social organization in linking distance communities and broadens the reach of power relations across the world’s regions and continents. This point of view appears to depart from previously cited definitions of globalization in that it stresses the unifying social dynamics among distance communities rather than the limits and boundaries of the national-versus-foreign construct. The Threat to Intangible Cultural Heritage In the UNESCO conference in 2004, the following threats posed by globalization to intangible cultural heritage were specifically identified and articulated: 1. Loss of language diversity or uniformization of languages due to colonization or economic globalization. 2. Loss of interest in and respect for local and traditional cultures due to the standardization of values among the young: caused by the influence of globalized media contents, standardized education, invasion of uncontrolled mass-tourism. 3. Decrease of transmission opportunities due to the dismantling of communities, which are the collective guardians of the intangible cultural heritage. This process is caused by the unprecedented mobility of populations and by urbanization. 4. Lack of technical and financial capability in most of developing countries to take protective measures and provide incentives to the successors of this heritage. This is caused by the widening economic and technical gap between the haves and the have-nots. 5. Rampant commercialization and commodification of intangible cultural heritage; for example, staging religious rituals for shows – so called “folklorization” – caused by the expansion of the market economy 6. Decrease of environment and materials necessary to practice intangible cultural heritage, in particular, traditional knowledge of indigenous people related to nature. This is caused by the displacement forced by multinational corporations which seek to exploit timber and underground natural resources or deterioration of the environment. 7. Decrease of resource materials necessary for producing traditional crafts. 8. Interruption of the continuity in the practice of cultural heritage due to the conflicts caused by extreme nationalism or ethnocentrism which has arisen as a counter reaction to globalization. The UNESCO report, speaker Noriko Aikawa also raised some responses, viewed by it as realistic and concrete, that may combat, or at least diminish, the perceived threats to cultural heritage, and in the course of its application, restore and promote the sense of respect for the endangered heritage, by: 1. Developing adequate contents for national media and education 2. Revisiting national strategies and policies regarding the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage 3. Promoting international solidarity to empower the communities of creators and custodians of intangible cultural heritage as well as the governments concerned 4. Undertaking field research and archiving, inventory making, training both researchers and practitioners 5. Establishing legal protection measures for both heritage and practitioners 6. Establishing administrative mechanisms responsible for intangible cultural heritage. The above agenda for the restoration of intangible cultural heritage has been circulated and include in the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. In addition, Neyestani and McInturff (2006) underscores the important role played by modern communication and information technologies in the globalization of cultures and religious identities. They aver that these technologies accelerate the social and political structures which influence the power relations that are at play in nations’ interactions with each other, thereby advancing the destruction of existing cultures and religious identities. Cultural globalization and education While theorists may speculate on the long-term effects of globalization to a nation’s culture, there are studies that examine how the incorporation of globalization in present day curricula have impacted on the youth. One such study is that of Schultz, Guevara, Ratnam, Wieranga, Wyn and Sowerby (2009). The study looked at global connections among the young as an instrument for developing active global citizenship. Due to rapidly changing technologies and globalization, young people are increasingly compelled to engage with the broader, virtual, world that extends beyond their local and national communities. There is thus a need to inquire in what ways young people are called to carry out the duties of active global citizenship, and the skills, tools and resources they should be equipped with to carry out this challenge. To answer the imperative of this direction, a youth-led global learning initiative called the Global Connections Program has been developed to identify these needs. The program aims to create opportunities for learning and interaction among students in Australia and Indonesia. Schultz et al. explored the challenges faced by the program and achievements it has attained in advancing the goals of global citizenship. In another study, Pandit (2009) explored the growing imperative faced by American universities to internationalize their academic programs. The push to internationalize intends to prepare students in the tertiary program to live and function in a globalized setting, enhance discovery and scholarship, and forge economic links between their respective communities and the world. Comprehensive strategies towards this end include integration of international content in their program of studies, heighten participation in study abroad and exchange student programs, actively recruiting international students to foster interaction between them and the local studentry, and ultimately building strong and effective partherships and networks with the international academic community. The traditions of regional study, fieldwork, and synthesis provide students an opportunity to establish themselves as institutional leaders in defining what internationalization signifies, to exploit its potentials. The study urges pursuit of this direction, to build on stronger curricular foundations for globalization and expand the breadth of international practices. Pandit believes that campus internationalization presents a unique perspective and opportunity for the students to be active catalysts in fostering global change. A microcosm of the broader cultural diversity situation is explored in the case of US Korean citizens in a high school setting in Sohyun (2009). In this study, insights and perspectives gathered through indepth interviews of 42 US Korean high school youths on American history is found to be influenced significantly by their sociocultural backgrounds, especially their migration status. The study delves into the cultural diversity within an ethnic group in the American milieu, and addresses the lack of research on Asian American students and their historical perspectives. It calls attention to global migration patterns as a key influence in students’ perception of history. While the above-mentioned studies were initiative pioneered in by students, there have also been inquiries into the directions taken or desired to be taken by school administrators and academicians. Mendoza, Basham, Campbell, O’Daniels, Malcolm, Felton, Lebesch and Douma (2009) presents an investigation into critical issues that are seen to confront community colleges from now until 2019. A focus group of 36 comprised of board of trustee members, community college presidents, senior administrators, administrators, and faculty members from various US community colleges, developed what they perceived to be the six most critical issues that confront the colleges, with regard to instructional planning and services, administrative planning, finance, and workforce development. The results of the focus group discussion were submitted to a peer group of more than 100 to vote on the issues they felt were most urgent. The findings indicated a shift away from the pragmatic issues of K-20, alignment, retention, and economic sustainability, towards broader initiatives such as life-long learning, globalization, innovation and partnerships. Finally, a study by Bradmore and Smyrnios (2009) examined the case of Australian public universities and their struggle to adapt and maintain parity with their international counterparts. In an environment that has increasingly become globally competitive, the study pointed to an apparent lack of initiative and impetus among Australian public universities to meet headlong the global challenge. A systematic content analysis of published strategic plans of Australian public universities for the years 2005-2007 scored a failure of these strategic plans to anticipate the threat of entry of foreign competitors into their markets. Deregulation and new communication technologies have spawned rivals in many forms. The study concluded that all Australian public universities need to re-examine their strategic planning processes to determine: (1) whether adequate attention is given to the rapid intensification of competition; (2) whether strategies already being implemented in response to the growing competition are appropriately directed; and (3) whether efforts could be improved towards developing more responsive models to guide competitive behaviour in a university sector with unique characteristics. Dialogue, Reassessment, and Responses to Challenges In view of the seemingly disparate, diametrically opposite yet equally passionate advocacies concerning globalization in education, there have been not a few conferences and dialogues held to thresh out the sentiments and ideas across the broad continuum of opinions. A speech delivered by Antonio Arantes, President of the National Institute for Historic and Artistic Heritage (IPHAN) in Brazil, presents a surprisingly open view for one who heads an institution for the preservation of a nation’s cultural heritage. Arantes takes the position of advancing global opportunities for enhancing intangible heritage, and that these imperatives present new challenges for local communities. Arantes observes that finance and business have developed as autonomous spheres of social activity, easily extending beyond political and social boundaries by the operation of the money market. As such, their social organization and structure dynamically and spontaneously reconstructs through relationships with distant partners. In such environments, the cultural elements of values and attitudes no long control “simply as present echoes of living traditions. They became highly reflective and now their legitimization demands solid arguments” that require validation and publicly support (Arante, 2004 in UNESCO, 2004). It is thus that global realities influence both our common daily lives as well as the complexities of a world far beyond national borders. By their very nature, they call for institution building and access to efficient communication technologies and networks. There is a need to holistically grasp these global realities as systemic objects before we may discern and speculate on their advantages and disadvantages. Constructs will have to be devised, such as the ability to accomplish a change of scale between general guidelines formulated by distant policy-making institutions, on the one hand, and the local circumstance of social life on the other. The intersection between the domestic and global environments pits the small, local settlements with the regional, provincial, national or global demands, and in this sense becomes vulnerable to them. On the other hand, the interface and subsequent interaction are inevitable, and what is left is to deal with the challenge and manage it. The central issue remains: what redounds to the welfare of people, their legal rights, and the knowledge and forms of expression they have collectively developed. The importance of dialogue and discourse appears to be a salient point raised in most literature that express willingness to explore viable common grounds between total cultural isolation and indiscriminate globalization. Glukhanyuk (2008) presents the model below in the interest of developing cultural mobility in the Russian education system. Model for Cultural Mobility (Glukhanyuk, 2008) Central to the model in the role of conversation and interaction (i.e., dialogue) among individuals of various cultures, and through such dialogue arrive at a renovation or common ground, while maintaining self-identification and at the same time achieving globalization. This model is significant in that it departs from the concept that local culture and globalization are mutually exclusive propositions, that the espousal of one necessarily means the annihilation or rejection of the other. In this model, the two are conceived as complementary and simultaneous. Synthesis The foregoing survey of academic literature on the impact of globalization in education has presented a broad continuum of perceptions, from viewing it as a phenomenon that threatens cultural annihilation, to a significant positive opportunity by which to foster cultural diversity, to the view that globalization is but the next step in the natural progression in cultural evolution. It appears that there is underway a gradual shift towards a new perception of what used to be commonly held significations of culture, globalization, local identity, and assimilation. Whereas globalization used to mean the adoption in toto of the dominant Western culture, today what it signifies is the co-existence and celebration, as against mere tolerance, of the diversities of culture that are brought to fore by the modern means of information and communication – the Internet, virtual communities, cable and satellite television, mobile communication. The move towards globalization has long ceased to be a coordinated institutional effort, and instead assumed an immersion, through sight, sound and voice, and interaction among individuals of different nations. Whether or not globalization is fostered in the academe formally is no longer a prerogative of policy, because the reality is that globalization occurs in increments everyday, in ways that are beyond the control of any state, institution or aggrupation. In this paper, it is the academic policy makers that push aggressively towards the incorporation of globalization in the formal curricula. Proactive wisdom supports this, because doing so will provide guidance and understanding for the onset of what, in any case, is an inevitability. We can choose to deal with globalization in a way that preserves the good and the best in our diverse cultures, or we could choose to ignore it and in the future lament the loss of intangible heritage that could have been avoided had we chosen to timely meet the challenge. References Bradmore, D. J. & Smyrnios, K. X. (2009) The writing on the wall: responses of Australian public universities to competition in global higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, Nov2009, Vol. 28 Issue 5, p495-508 Carnoy, M. (2005) Globalization, educational trends and the open society. OSI Education Conference 2005: “Education and Open Society: A Critical Look at New Perspectives and Demands.” Accessed 29 October 2009 from http://www.soros.org/initiatives/esp/articles_publications/articles/globalization_20060217/carnoy_english.pdf Chetoshnikova, E. & Zaripova, V. (2008) Globalized Education and Perspective of Russian Universities. Trends in Transatlantic Academic Exchange. Accessed 29 October 2009 from http://www.fulbright.fi/files/2081_RUSSIA_RIEA.pdf Cultural Challenges of the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People. 18-20 October 1999, UNESCO Headquarters. Accessed 28 October 2009 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001590/159030E.pdf Davis, R. A. (2005) Music Education and Cultural Identity. Educational Philosophy and Theory. Vol. 37, no.1, pp: 47-63 Drucker, P. (2009) Changing families and communities: an LGBT contribution to an alternative development path. Development in Practice, Nov2009, Vol. 19 Issue 7, p825-836 Feigenbaum, H. V. (2002) Globalization and Cultural diplomacy. Center for Arts and Culture. Accessed 28 October 2009 from http://www.culturalpolicy.org/pdf/globalization.pdf Glukhanyuk, A. (2008) Gobalization and Cultural Identity in Contemporary Russian Education. Trends in Transatlantic Academic Exchange. Accessed 29 October 2009 from http://www.fulbright.fi/files/2081_RUSSIA_RIEA.pdf Gobalization and cultural choice. Human Development Report 2002. Accessed 28 October 2009 from http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/hdr04_chapter_5.pdf Held, D. & McGrew, A. (eds.) (2000). The Global Transformations Reader. An Introduction to the Globalization Debate, Cambridge: Polity Press. Holford, J. (2009) Globalisation and Europeanisation in Education, edited by Roger Dale and Susan Robertson. International Journal of Lifelong Education, Nov/Dec2009, Vol. 28 Issue 6, p797-798 Jeyaraj, J. B. (2006) Globalization, Justice and Theological Education. CTC Bulletin, vol. XXII no. 3 Dec. Accessed 28 October 2009 from http://www.cca.org.hk/resources/ctc/ctc06-03/ctc06-03c.pdf Kinberg, M. (2009) Cultural globalization and language education. International Journal of Bilingual Education & Bilingualism, Vol. 12 Issue 6, p734-737 Koc, M. (2006) Cultural Identity Crisis in the Age of Globalization and Technology. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, January, vol. 5 issue 1 article 5 Mahmoud, D. (2002) Review: Globalization of the Other Underdevelopment, Third World Cultural Identities. Kuala Lumpur: A.S. Noordeen, Accessed 28 Oct 2009 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3821/is_200404/ai_n9399423/?tag=rbxcra.2.a.33 Mendoza, P.; Basham, M. J.; Campbell, D. F.; ODaniels, T. M.; Malcolm, Z.; Felton, S.; Lebesch, A.; & Douma, D. (2009) Missions, Values, and “Flying Monkeys”: Critical Issues for Community Colleges Today and in 2019. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, Nov2009, Vol. 33 Issue 11, p866-882 Neyestani, M. R. & McInturff, P. (2006) Communications of the HMA, vol. 6, issue 4, pp. 87-94. Accessed 28 October 2009 from http://www.iima.org/CIIMA/11%20CIIMA%202006-6-4%20Neyestani%2087-96.pdf Pandit, K. (2009) Leading Internationalization. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Oct2009, Vol. 99 Issue 4, p645-656 Portella, E. (2000) Cultural Cloning or Hybrid Cultures? Accessed 28 October 2009 from http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_04/uk/edito.htm#top Saha, S. C. (2004) "Globalization of the Other Underdevelopment: Third World Cultural Identities". Journal of Third World Studies. FindArticles.com. 31 Oct, 2009. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3821/is_200404/ai_n9399423/ Schultz, L.; Guevara, J. R.; Ratnam, S.; Wierenga, A.; Wyn, J.; & Sowerby, C. (2009) Global Connections: A Tool for Active Citizenship. Development in Practice, Nov2009, Vol. 19 Issue 8, p1023-1034 Sohyun A. (2009) Learning US history in an age of globalization and transnational migration. Journal of Curriculum Studies, Nov2009, Vol. 41 Issue 6, p763-787 Suleiman, Y. (2009) Dialogue can make globalization a force that proliferates cultural identity. Education and Cultural Identity in a Global Era. Supreme Education Council Annual Symposium 2009. Accessed 29 October 2009 from http://www.education.gov.qa/15March/2009/NewsletterE.pdf Summary on Globalization. (2008) The Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. Accessed 28 October 2009 from http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/2008/extra%20series%2012%20pass.pdf Tomlinson, J. (2003) Globalization and Cultural Identity. Accessed 28 October 2009 from http://www.polity.co.uk/global/pdf/GTReader2eTomlinson.pdf Ulaymaat, S. N. (n.d.) Reforming Secondary Education Under Globalization. Accessed 28 October 2009 from http://docs.ksu.edu.sa/PDF/Articles31/Article310527.pdf UNESCO (2004) International Conference on Globalization and Intangible Cultural Heritage. Aug., 2004. Accessed 28 October 2009 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001400/140090e.pdf Yu, N. (2007) Cultural Identity and Globalization: Multimodal Metaphors in a Chinese Educational Advertisement. China Media Research, vol 3 issue 2, pp. 25-32. Accessed 29 October 2009 from http://www.chinamediaresearch.net/vol3no2/04_Ning_Yu_formatted.pdf Read More