Westernisation or Integration of Different Cultures - Assignment Example

CULTURE AND SOCIETY Student’s name Course code + name Professor’s name University name City, State Date of submission Westernisation or Integration of Different Cultures? Globalisation and International Society Introduction In reference to the past world history, it is evident that today’s international order presents its unique attributes never witnessed before. Never before has the world ever witnessed an international order that has straddled such huge levels of diversity of civilisations and individuals. Both the geographical coverage of the contemporary system is unique in itself coupled with the fact that it displays the highest levels of institutionalisation ever witnessed in the world. The globalisation of the international society traces its origin from the emergence of sovereign states in Europe as early as during the 16th and 17th centuries (Hill 1950). Over years, sovereign states have also emerged in other parts of the world through the processes of fragmentation and imperial integration. However, the world witnessed the full globalisation of the international society after the decolonisation witnessed in 1945 with the process taking its great stride and prevalence after the 1970s. The review encompasses current debate on the major aspects of globalisation and the international society. What is Globalisation? Globalisation refers to the integration of the cultural, social and economic relations across the borders of nations (Goskel 2004). Apparently, globalisation suffices to be the new order of the 21st century. It is proper to argue that the advent of globalisation of the states has threatened the survival of the Westphalia system of governance that reclined on the principles of sovereignty and statehood. The statehood principle referred to the division of global states in territorial parcels governed by separate governments. Therefore, the Westphalia government exercised unqualified, supreme, exclusive and comprehensive control over its territorial domain. Sovereignty entailed both internal and external sovereignty dimensions. Under internal sovereignty, the sovereign government exercised complete control over its territory. Externally, no state had sovereign control beyond its borders or territories. As a result, determining policies and direction was a responsibility of the individual states rather than an external state that had interests in the affairs of the country in question. The origin of globalised states traces its roots to the decline of the individual states. During the decline phase, it was evident that all the countries in the world had become part of a single global system characterised by global flows and transformations. The period witnessed an almost mandatory rapid movement of goods, people, capital, communications, weapons, knowledge, beliefs, fashions, pollutants and crimes across the boundaries of the originally sovereign states (Goskel 2004). This resulted into a new interconnected world order. The end of the Cold War also marked the beginning of a decline in the dominance of the state-centric military and political rivalries. Consequently, the period witnessed a decline in the extent of dominance on international relations exhibited by the major rivalries. It was evident that the existing national borders were unable to prevent the flow of communications and technologies across their borders (Thussu 2010). Taking into consideration the series of events that led to the birth of the globalised society, it is proper to state that the global society witnessed transformations in the economic and social dynamics since trade and communication had extended beyond the boundaries of the sovereign states to the other states in the region and the world in general. It is evident that the transition from the industrial society to the information society also played a crucial role in the globalisation of the states. Apparently, the post-industrial society that suffices to be the contemporary society is an information society that witnesses communications across state borders (Buzan 2004). The current information era has resulted in substantial changes in the social, political and economic aspects of the once sovereign states under the Westphalia system. The information era has yielded technological advancements that have revolutionised the positioning of economic activities, the character of production processes and the nature of competition. A good example of such changes is the global telecommunications system that emerged from the advent and advances in computer technology. From the arguments, it is proper to observe that technological advancements in conjunction with the information era have been at the heart of globalisation in the recent decades. There are different dimensions of globalisation such as cultural, economic, political and even military globalisation (Appadurai 1996). Vesajoki (2002) defines cultural globalisation as the process of cultivating the intricate inner life values that bear meaning and significance on a global scale (Vesajoki 2002). Vesajoki equates inner life to the understanding of mankind as an inseparable and single species on earth. This entails the comprehension of man’s realities and surroundings. Cultural globalisation necessitates the implementation of a social action aimed at cultivating the values on a global scale. However, it is also important to understand that the communication and heightening of social action aimed at explaining the merits of considering all individuals on the face of the earth to be equal does not diminish the value of personal action. It is proper to understand that the prevalence of the perceived mankind’s reality is a continuous process whose realisation is detriment to the advent of a global culture. The greatest challenge associated with understanding the intricate inner life of individuals entails the understanding of the interconnected reality of mankind on a global scale. It is only after the understanding of mankind’s interconnected realities that there can be a collective-level viewing of humanity and the individual. As a result, it is apparent that there is a direct proportionality between the sharpness of the reality’s perception and the duration of the global culture phenomenon (Shorish 1998). Therefore, it is necessary that the perception should be sharp to avert incidences of considering global culture as an independent subculture that individuals ought to exhibit only on specific occasions such as when interacting with people from other nations. From the argument, it is evident that the success of a global culture that considers both humanity and an individual on a collective level requires the actual change of the perception of individuals (Tomlinson 1999). As a result, the perception should change, advance, fall or evolve. Therefore, the possibility of social variability and flexibility that are the prerequisites of a global culture reclines on the mastery and learning capabilities of the individuals (Robertson 1992). Therefore, the emerging generations should only copy the positive values of the preceding generations rather than cultivate values that impede the attainment of a global culture. It is evident that the other aspects of globalisation are evident and easy to achieve. For instance, economic globalisation is prevalent and successful as evidenced by the rise of international trade and the emergence of multinational corporations (Kobrin 2008). Moreover, military globalisation is on the rise as evidenced by the increase in global military endeavours that have common objectives. Political globalisation is also imminent as evidenced by the making of generalised political decisions. However, can the same thing happen easily under social globalisation? The last section of the paper will provide arguments on the possibilities and challenges associated with attaining social globalisation. It is evident that the world consisted of states characterised by high levels of political, economic and cultural diversity prior to the emergence of the international order (Beeson & Bellamy 2003). However, ever since the emergence of the new international order, internal states have emerged with central Europe forming the centre of the dominance of the international society. As a result, the perspective of the globalised international society entails a more complex and broader view that is responsible for the contemporary universal system characterised by sovereign states. The transformation entailed the transition of small states originally concentrated within a region to form extensive sovereign-imperial complexes and finally to a universal system comprising of sovereign states. It is worth noting that some of the globalisation processes that led to the birth of the international society trace their origin to the European order. The features of exhibited by the new order that led to the international society encompass the ideational revolutions in the formation of the European state, frequent war fights, the capitalism role, the West-based anti-colonial movements, the membership activities associated with the evolution of the society of states, and the extractive and civilizational impulses to empire. It is proper to argue that these indicators of the emergence of a globalised international society were endogenous to the European order (Buzan & Lawson 2013). As a result, they were insufficient to guarantee the success of the establishment of the international society. The processes lacked some of the exogenous processes such as the social revolutions by individuals in the other parts of the world that are responsible for transforming the norms held by the international society thereby smoothening and easing the expansion of the international society. The expansion of the international society also depended on institutional contours that were responsible for guaranteeing cooperation and coexistence in the contemporary international society (Little 2008). The institution-based contours also resulted in the evolution of several practices and institutions such as the multilateral and bilateral diplomacy, limited war, international law and the allocation of particular responsibilities to specific actors of the society such as the great powers. It is evident that the review of the expansion of the international society done by Bull and Watson reveals several blind spots in the expansion process. For instance, the account theorises the baseline concepts associated with the moral objective of the nation or country and legitimate statehood. The fact is that the nineteenth century, for instance, witnessed the replacement of the traditional divine rights ideas with new concepts that advocated for popular sovereignty. Ever since the early days of the expansion of the international society, the society has witnessed several incidences of contestation. The contesters comprise of diverse actors that stand against the norms and rules of the international institution. The different forms of contestation have been responsible for the social changes that have resulted in significant transitions in organisation, practices and membership of the evolving states. In an effort to cover the issue of contestation with regard to the international society, Bull and Watson referred to the challenge or rebellion against Western dominance presented by the diverse actors that were against the norms and practices of the Western great powers (Constantinou 2015). It is proper to state they treated the primary challenge that faced the expansion of the international society using a more civilizational and static approach. As a result, it is necessary to reconsider the contribution of contestation to the expansion of the international society. It is evident that any social order that distributes or contributes political power exhibits contestation. Since the international society also presents the distribution and contribution of political power, the manifestation of contestation within the society is apparent. Some of the challenges encompass breaches in the non-aggression norm exhibited by the Russians, American exceptionalism, anti-systemic movements that target to overturn the sovereign order and the emergence of new power centres in other areas other than the Western world. It is also proper to argue that globalisation also entails the hybridisation of cultures since the world is becoming more standardised and uniform. Hybridisation is emanating from the fact that the world is experiencing cultural, technological and commercial synchronisation emanating from the West. It is also evident that globalisation is in accordance with modernity (Pieters 2015). How did the Post-war International Order contribute to the creation of the current International Society? After World War II, the United States of America played a pivotal role in developing new constructs that formed the basis for the formation of the current international society. The conditions created by the USA resulted in the creation of a more integrated international society. After the end of the war, there emerged a global consensus about the global economy that advocated for the essence of international economic management (Holsti 2004). However, when America increased its dominance over intergovernmental institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation, criticism arose from other states that were not in accordance with the American dominance over the institutions. The other crucial characteristic of the period was the failure of the Bretton Woods system. According to the critics that were against the increasing US dominance over the institutions, the dominance created a neo-liberal agenda that portrayed favouritism in American interests. For instance, the aids that the USA grants to third world economies target to serve the interests of the donor economies only. As a result of such dominance over international organisations by the USA, the critics argue that the organisations do not address the needs of the international society effectively. Therefore, the European Union and the US have dominated the reform agenda that protects the wealthy world while having a concurrent effect of imposing new regulatory regimes and forcing open markets in Latin America, Asia and Africa. Critics also argue that there exists enduring and identifiable structures associated with the global political economy that disadvantage states that intent to better economic niches to address their depressed economic situations and grinding poverty. The critics further argue that there is a direct relationship between the presence of a global economic order that the US dominates and the continued deprivation of the economic resources of third world countries (Beeson & Bellamy 2003). The Place of Culture on Globalisation and the International Society Culture has had a significant impact on the complex global system. Culture has impacted on the international society by enhancing international trade, the spread of multinational corporations, international investment, and the convergence of technology (Herrmann 2013). It is proper to argue that the holding onto the individual cultural values by the diverse societies of the global market has a negative impact on international trade. Therefore, the sustenance of the international market depends on the ability of individuals to uphold the common identity of all mankind rather than splitting themselves in accordance with the different races and ethnic groups. In the analysis of culture and its influence on globalisation and the international society, it is proper to consider the following assumptions: To begin with, the consumer is the king under the globalisation of markets. As a result, the international market presents an increase in the variety and diversity of cultural products (Kraidy 2005). Therefore, globalisation is a heterogeneous cultural process. The second assumption is that globalisation also entails cultural homogenisation (Cojocaru 2011). This entails the emerging threats to the local culture originating from the American or other Western models (Krady 2002). The assumption is also known as the McDonald’s phenomenon. The third assumption states that globalisation entails the hybridisation of cultures. This refers to a mixture of different cultures in the international market (Murphy & Krady 2003). It is proper for one to argue that globalisation has provided an opportunity for both economic and cultural development. On the other hand, it has also capped and standardised the local and national cultural identities. The established of a multinational corporation in a foreign market compels the responsible manager to understand the cultural attributes of the consumers in the target market. The failure of the company to adjust its operations depending on the culture of the foreign country or nationals implies the failure of the company in the international market. Critics have asked questions as to whether globalisation is synonymous to westernisation or it encompasses multidirectional and intricate processes that reveal a positive correlation between the two processes. However, it is evident that globalisation ignites the fears of homogenisation that involve an increase in the dominance of one culture that is more powerful than the culture of the influenced society. In support of the argument, it is proper to consider that “Japanisation” also occurred in Korea. As a result, not all cases of influenced culture refer to the “Americanisation” of the domestic culture (Shim 2006). Globalisation and the continued expansion of the international society calls for the increase in critical studies of the global culture that entails the exploration of the diverse forms of cultural struggle, hybridisation and domination (Pieterse 1994). The rapid expansion of the international society and globalisation has necessitated cultural studies on the national and local cultures as well as the globalised cultural flows and the impact of globalisation on specific cultural identities and sites. Studying the homogeneity of the global community necessitates understanding that globalisation does not render the local or national identity invalid. As a matter of fact, several multinational corporations have endeavoured to retain their cultural identities as much as possible in the wake of globalisation. However, there is need for the slight adjustment of some of the company’s cultural identities to best suit their new market whenever companies establish subsidiary firms in a foreign market. In spite of the positive effects of a globalised international society such as the increased access to quality products and services from multinational corporations, it is also evident that globalisation has impacted negatively on the existence of local firms (Muscalu 2014). Apparently, local companies are unable to compete favourably against their multinational counterparts in the manufacture and distribution of products as well as gaining competitive advantage. As a result, most of the developing countries have witnessed a decline in the demand for the locally manufactured products emanating from the preference of domestic consumers to opt for products manufactured by international companies rather than local firms. Conclusion It is proper to argue that globalisation encompasses the processes that incorporate the individuals of the world into a single society known as the global society. With regard to economics, globalisation entails the expansion of capitalist market relations and economic internationalisation. The global finance in conjunction with globalised production defines the global economy. The development of global politics and the increasing density of interstate relations suffice to be the primary focus of international relations. With regard to sociology, globalisation entails the emergence of the ‘global society’ with the help of increased global social densities. Cultural studies that research on globalisation and international society focus on the worldwide standardisation of culture and global communications. Real life examples encompass the ‘McDonaldisation’ and ‘Coca-colonisation’. The studies also include postcolonial culture. With regard to history, globalisation refers to the ‘global history’. It is proper to consider globalisation along all the dimensions since globalisation is a multidimensional process. Reference List Appadurai, A., 1996. Modernity al large: cultural dimensions of globalization (Vol. 1). U of Minnesota Press. Beeson, M. and Bellamy, A.J., 2003. Globalisation, Security and International Order after September 11. Buzan, B. and Lawson, G., 2013. The global transformation: The nineteenth century and the making of modern international relations1. International Studies Quarterly, 57(3), pp.620-634. Buzan, B., 2004. From international to world society?: English school theory and the social structure of globalisation (Vol. 95). Cambridge University Press. Cojocaru, M., 2011. Cultural Globalization in the Context of International Business. Revista de Management Comparat International/International Comparative Management Review, 12, pp.992-996. Constantinou, C.M., 2015. Everyday Diplomacy: Mission, Spectacle and the Remaking of Diplomatic Culture. Diplomatic Cultures and International Politics: Translations, Spaces and Alternatives, p.23. Göksel, N.K., 2004. Globalisation and the State. Studies, 25(3), pp.345-354. Herrmann, A., 2013. Globalization and its Effect on International Business. Hill, C., 1950. International Relations I (p. 248). New York: Oxford University Press. Holsti, K.J., 2004. From states systems to a society of states: the evolution of international relations. International Relations, pp.75-98. Kobrin, S.J., 2008. Globalization, Transnational Corporations and the Future of Global Governance. Handbook of research on global corporate citizenship, p.249. Kraidy, M., 2005. Hybridity, or the cultural logic of globalization. Temple University Press. Kraidy, M.M., 2002. Hybridity in cultural globalization. Communication Theory, 12(3), pp.316-339. Little, R., 2008, March. The Expansion of the International Society in Heeren’s account of the European states-system. In International Studies Association 49th Annual Convention, San Francisco (pp. 26-29). Murphy, P.D. and Kraidy, M.M., 2003. International communication, ethnography, and the challenge of globalization. Communication theory, 13(3), pp.304-323. Muscalu, E., 2014. Organizational culture in the age of globalization. Scientific Bulletin-Nicolae Balcescu Land Forces Academy, 19(2), p.120. Pieterse, J.N., 1994. Globalisation as hybridisation. International Sociology, 9(2), pp.161-184. Pieterse, J.N., 2015. Globalization and culture: Global mélange. Rowman & Littlefield. Robertson, R., 1992. Globalization: Social theory and global culture (Vol. 16). Sage. Shim, D., 2006. Hybridity and the rise of Korean popular culture in Asia. Media, Culture & Society, 28(1), pp.25-44. Shorish, M.M., 1998. Globalization and culture. In annual conference of the Comparative and International Education Society (US), Buffalo, NY. Thussu, D.K. ed., 2010. International communication: A reader (pp. 221-38). 1–10. Abingdon: Routledge. Tomlinson, J., 1999. Globalization and culture. University of Chicago Press. Vesajoki, F., 2002. The effects of globalization on culture: a study of the experiences of globalization among Finnish travellers. Read More