Globalization and Cultural Changes - Coursework Example

Globalization 2009 OUTLINE: A) Introduction B) Globalization and Cultural Changes C) Local Tastes, Values And Traditions vs Alien Impact D) Global Cultural Transformations E) Conclusion Globalization has become widely and vehemently discussed issue in recent decades. Much more discussion is raised by the question if globalization equals Americanization. Globalists view globalization as an inevitable result of world development, supporting the idea of world being an economically and socially shared space while opponents consider global changes as American and Western cultural hegemony. While globalists predict the emergence of single global economy with flows of global capitals and erosion of sovereignty of the states, sceptics argue global states participation in global market pointing at the flaws of economic activity internationalization. Globalization perceived as American influence has been claimed to ruin cultural heritage of many nations across the globe from Latin American to Asia. However, globalization can be viewed from totally different perspective as an enriching process of sharing ideas, experiences and values. It is true that nations all over the world are enjoying products or services of such giants as Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, P&G, Pizza Hut, Hollywood movies and MTV music, which are often viewed as harmful for the heritage of local cultures. However, what makes other cultures so susceptible to American influence? The reason is that American culture is very adaptable to other cultures, so it can be easily reconstructed to match the needs of different nations. That’s why globalization can be viewed as world-wide cultural, economic and political transformation and multilateral adaptation of different cultures where each separate state is an equal player. Globalization in its negative connotation as “Americanization” has three components - political, economic, and cultural impact of the USA on other nations. US economic model, democratic political model and pop culture become more and more desirable in the countries all over the world. It is true that American cultural messages are powerful due to economic and political strength of the USA. Globalization process can be viewed from different perspectives – as direct cultural influence through mass media channels (Hollywood movies, MTV music) to indirect business channels fueled by consumption. The factors of U.S. market size and wealth benefit to the unrestricted spread of US corporations, consumer and pop culture products on foreign markets. This way American experiences, practices and values are believed to enter local communities. Concerning economic impact researchers consider competition of foreign corporations with domestic companies as a threat to locally produced consumer goods and their producers. Cheaper foreign products on local markets are likely to displace farmers or local producers. International trade of cultural products such as movies, music, literature is claimed to be disastrous to local culture, values and society as a whole as their cultural identity is under threat. Even U.S. restaurant chains offering fast food products are believed to effect eating habits and thus cultural mores of the host country. The example is how Starbucks coffee philosophy changed the perception of coffee rituals in Italy or McDonalds in China has changed a practice of buying food when children turned to be active consumers making their own choices, which is uncommon for Chinese culture. However, is this effect so strong that is likely to destroy local traditions and mores? It is true that globalization promotes and accelerates cultural changes or, in other words, exchanges resulting in a kind of mix rather then a monoculture. Huntington claims “that far from being unified into one "Western" or "American" monoculture, the world is increasingly polarized around multiple regional cultural and religious centers -- a Confucian world in East Asia, an Islamic world in the Middle East and North Africa, a Latin American world in South America, et cetera” (Keniston). If McDonalds venue is preferred in China for celebrating children birthday parties and the same tradition of visiting fast food restaurant for a child birthday is observed in Ukraine, it does not mean that Chinese and Ukrainian culture merge in the same monoculture. It would rather mean that both Chinese and Ukrainian culture are enriched by elements of American culture where child’s birthday party is widely celebrated. It is also doubtful that American influence is so huge that it is able to destroy local cultural identity. In many cases American communicative and marketing strategies require adaptation to local tastes, values and traditions. To enter foreign markets with alien for local tastes offerings, the products has to be either of universal appeal or adjusted\transformed to local cultural model. In this case their power to destroy local cultures is under question. French oppose globalization/Americanization, which is deemed to assault traditional French culture and values. However, statistical information suggests that the impact of globalization is strongly exaggerated: there’s no radical impact from changing immigration as well as no influx of foreign goods and services (Felsing p.9) Negative aspects of globalization opposed and protested are related to the spread of American values or western capitalism to other countries. However, globalization is not a homogenous process and it has various manifestations. For example, French portraying themselves as victims of Americanization forget that McDonald’s uses the majority of its ingredients, which have been produced by French farmers, thus contributing to the national development of agricultural sphere. From the same positive perspective, globalization can be viewed as a trigger, which reinforces local cultures: people feel the need to reaffirm their cultural heritage when opposed to other cultural values. The dominance of the United States movie industry with its products and other pop cultural products is hardly disputable. Having the biggest home market, American culture had a unique opportunity to spread all over the world. Despite this priority American cultural products have been forced out by movies, music, books, and TV shows of local production when other countries gained force to offer their own products. Homegrown shows reflecting local tastes, cultural and historical background are better preferred by viewers. As of 2001, more than 70 percent of the most popular shows in 60 different countries were locally produced. According to Indian filmmaker Shekhar Kapur in 2001 local products outweighed American films by 16 percent and it is only a start of growing commercial importance of Asia where globalization gives an opportunity for the countries to assert themselves. It is the U.S. producers who borrow cultural ideas to stay competitive rather than local producers appeal to the US cultural values (Freund). For example, Japan audiences have been more thrilled with home made Spirited Away (2001) than with any other Hollywood production. It is also true for British TV shows, which turned to be a great competition for respective U.S. programs (Rice-Oxley p.34). Another important factor, which contributes to the ‘Americanization’ charges is a significant presence of the USA global corporations in such industry segments as food & beverage, leisure goods, media, personal care and retail, which makes it more noticeable and recognizable. The universal nature of American products is strengthened by the power of brands as representatives of both economic and cultural influence having a great communicative power. It is naturally that expanding internationally companies bring in some cultural and social attributes such as attitudes to working conditions or labor-management relations acquired in the home country. It is not only U.S. multinationals but other European corporations that expand globally introducing their products to other nations or outsourcing their operation to less developed countries with cheap labor force. The mobility of the modern world with increased immigration flows requires people in multicultural society to be tolerable and understandable to each other. The USA is an example of how diversity can be promoted and tolerance cropped. Thus cultural exchange is an indispensable part of living in a new "global village," where people can freely exchange ideas and experiences. Indeed, the U.S. is triggering global cultural transformations as its messages and themes of freedom, individuality, wealth, progress, tolerance, optimism as well as materialism and consumerism are found appealing to other nations. (Zonis) However, it does not mean these messages totally change the culture of the host country and their impact is necessarily ‘negative influence.’ Concerning the issue of ‘American values,’ it is wrong to assume that such values as “the dignity of human life, the right to a decent living, the right to choose ones rulers, to education, to literacy, to freedom of speech, the press and religion,” as exclusively American because these are human values, which are attractive to all nations. (Keniston) Globalizing processes, which make local cultures close to each other as never before, cannot be considered as destroying powers for its players. It is naturally that during mutual cooperation and interaction of different cultural models, individual players are ‘contaminated’ by practices and traditions of the foreign culture. However, there’s no weighty evidence to prove that this impact has a destroying effect on local cultures with their indigenous values. Of course, some traditions are changed and local communities are transformed. However, transformational process is not one way, as it effects both interacting parties. It is hardly possible to transform each separate culture, as its participants are never completely open to alien elements and they require adaptation rather than yielding to this influence. This is evident from the consumer and cultural preferences of different nations, which are claimed to be victims of globalizing powers. Thus the world becomes multilaterally enriched and transformed without a real threat to individual cultures. References Felsing, Evan. France’s Conflicted Relationship with Globalization. IPE, 1999, 6 (20) Freund, Charles P. American Culture Is Not Dominating the Globe – We Aren’t The World. March 2003, Reasononline www.reason.com/0303/cr.cf.we.shtml, retr.25 April 2009 Keniston, Kenneth. Cultural Diversity or Global Monoculture. The Impacts of the Information Age. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Paper Prepared for Conference on "The Global Village" Bangalore, Karnataka, India November 2, 1998 Rice-Oxley, Mark. In 2000 Years Will The World Remember Disney Or Plato Christian Science Monitor, 2004, January 15, p.21-35 Zonis, Marvin Americanization, Globalization, and the Disruption of Traditional Culture: Should Business Care? IPE, Read More