In class we had a debate as to weather or not the argument of cultural imperialism is an adequate approach to studying the current state of our world, particularly with regards to the seeming American domination of global media and culture. It was a very productive and animated discussion which brought up many interesting and opposing points. However, after considering both sides of the debate, I have concluded that cultural imperialism is not an adequate approach to thinking about our world. Today's world culture is far too complex and integrated to simply use an overarching theory 'cultural imperialism' to attempt to explain all of the cultural and economic relationships. While aspects of cultural imperialism can be observed in some aspects of world culture, it by no means provides a definitive outlook on an ever changing and complicated world.
In our debate, it seemed as though people were interchanging the two separate ideas of cultural imperialism and globalization. McDonald's is a good corporation to study because although it began as an American company, it has now evolved into something much more global. It is too easy to say that because people eat at McDonald's in China, that they are being exposed to cultural imperialism from America. The fact is that McDonald's is now a global corporation which is taking advantage of advances in global communications in order to expand its business to as many parts of the world as possible. In fact, talking about the glocalization theory we discussed in class, these so-called American products are actually undergoing a transformation as they enter a new culture. Glocalization occurs when a product is altered to reflect the culture of a specific region. For example, McDonald's in China actually offer Chinese food and McDonald's in India offer Halal meat. Is a person sitting in a Miky D's in China eating local Chinese food and talking about Chinese issues being affected by American imperialism? It would be closer to imperialism if the American menu remained, however as it stands, each McDonald's restaurant is a franchise owned by a native local who can choose to offer local foods and decorations and is able to bring jobs and income into whichever area it resides in.
In our debating team, we discussed how other cultures often borrow American cultural frameworks, and simply input their own cultural attributes. For example, we discussed Bollywood and how they have made many so-called remakes of American movies. An advocate of cultural imperialism would argue that this provided a definite example of cultural imperialism at work. However, if a person were to study these remakes, they would not find anything familiar or American about it. They would find a film filmed in the Hindi language, with Hindu actors, in an Indian context (and supposedly much Indian singing and dancing). There might be some slight similarities in the way the plot is organized, however the overall impression is that of a distinctly Indian production promoting Indian values and culture.
The middle eastern 'Razann' dolls are another great example. While it may seem like these dolls are nothing but barbie imitations with traditional Muslim clothing and that this is another example of cultural imperialism, this is indeed not the case. People have been playing with dolls throughout human history and therefore does not necessarily represent America or American entertainment. Furthermore, even if the idea for these dolls came out of the desire to copy the commercially successful barbie, the fact remains that they are dressed as traditional middle eastern women and so represent a glocalization of the local culture.
It is important to remember that when dealing with cultural exchanges, there is a two way flow of information. For example, since Canadian's tend to love shopping for household goods at Ikea, does that mean that we are being subjected to Swedish cultural ideals which are degrading our Canadian culture? It is true that American media has tended to dominate the global culture, however that is because they have tradtioally had the most advanced networks of communication and distribution. Today, more and more countries are becoming technologically advanced and so are able to spread their cultural products just as the United States has been doing for decades. As the world continues to become more globalized, this two way flow of communication will only increase and we will see a more even distribution of world culture.
Cultural Imperialism makes sense on a macro level. One could say that American media and corporations are dominated global culture and that local cultures are being reduced. However, looking more closely at these situations and it becomes apparent that there is more at work than just a passive consumption of American products. Audiences are active, and they will engage with products and transform them in the process. It is naive to assume that they will sit back and be completly taken in by American culture.
In conclusion it can be said that while American culture has tended to dominate the global market, this is not in fact cultural imperialism, but simply globalization. Thus far, it has been American media and corporations that have had the means of creating extensive distribution networks and so have become prevalent throughout the world. However in most cases, the products have been transformed in the process and have incorporated many aspects of the local cultures in question. It is easy to say that the infusion of American products and culture into other cultures around the world is an example of American cultural imperialism, but in fact the argument is not so cut and dry. Foreign cultures have used American culture for their own purposes just as America has borrowed from other cultures. However, just because this exchange has traditionally been slightly one-sided, this does not imply cultural imperialism and it is not an adequate approach to studying a comlicated world.
No comments:
Post a Comment