Globalization or Cultural Imperialism Essay

The image of pagan imperialism is non a new-sprung(prenominal) unrivaled. The inclination of winning the hearts and minds of another orderliness via exporting values and hea becauseish tendencies dates back to at least the Roman Empire (Rothkop 1). The basic concept of pagan imperialism is that a stronger, usually larger and with more military might, has strained its enculturation on another nation, usually a smaller and slight politically channel officeful nation. ethnical imperialism squeeze come forth be either deliberate, as a conscious effort of the more berthful society, or as an unintended consequence of the larger societys actions.Generally, those who use the enclosure heathenish imperialism use it as insult against the larger nation. The claim is that heathenish imperialism, sometimes in like manner referred to ball-shapedisation, is foul to smaller burnishs around the universe, including the destruction of the natal enculturations, talking tos , foods and art forms. This paper go out examine the claim that this is a detrimental effect and de circumstanceine if globalisation is a negative force on the creative activity or an acceptable come a let out of an inter depicted objectly awargon human. cultural imperialism involves a good deal more than simple con scoreer goods it involves the dissemination of ostensibly American principles, much(prenominal) as freedom and democracy. Though this process might sound good-hearted on the surface, it masks a frightening truth umteen cultures around the humanness atomic number 18 gradually disappearing due to the overwhelming influence of corporal and cultural America. The motivations behind American cultural imperialism parallel the justifications for U. S.imperialism passim chronicle the desire for access to foreign markets and the belief in the superiority of American culture. (Galeota 1) The set mutilate discussion of cultural imperialism in the mainstream discussio n of political skill began in the 1970s in relation to Latin America (Tomlinson 36). The definitions of cultural imperialism appear to range along a continuum. On the one side, in that respect are quite narrow and polemic definitions of cultural imperialism as the command of other cultures by products of the U. S.culture industry. On the other hand, there are more formal and abstract definitions identical Shillers which states that cultural imperialism is the sum of the processes by which a culture is brought into the modern adult male system (Hamm 3). barely then what does it actually mean? The short version is that the unite States exports of everything from movies to McDonalds are destroying natural cultures around the mankind. The longer melody is that cultural imperialism is part of the growing process, a natural aspect of development.Determining which of these theories is the actual creation of the process is a sociological debate that has been raged for n primaev al forty years. The first promontory is whether the exportation of American culture is responsible for the destruction of subjective cultures around the world. To determine this, we must first catch at the bounce back record of history and use it as a measuring stick. When the term cultural imperialism began to take root in the 1970s it was universally employ to mean the impact, primarily by American media, on the remainder of the world. period it was initially applied primarily to Latin America and other regions where the get together States displayed a colonial type relationship with the emerging nations, it would later be applied to the American media domination worldwide and credited/blamed for everything from the nightfall of Soviet communism to the rise of English as the primary spoken communication of business worldwide. (Dunch 302). But this argument makes to be placed in a historical context. The Soviet Union fell in part because a compressedd society cannot comp ete in the discipline Age. These countries allow for fare no better.They need look no further than their deliver elites to k in a flash this. (Rothkop 4). maculation American media is popular worldwide, many of the countries which name select English as an authorized language in conjunction with their native culture are former British colonies, part of the great empire. It may be, then, that people who were once citizens, reluctant or otherwise, of the British Empire switch assimilated that portion of their history into their national identity and the loss of historical culture has more to do with the history of conquering nations than the worldwide media.(Dunch 304). And, as Rothkop slurs out, it is the development Age that is making the difference. Further complicating the interrogative mood is the discussion of what lost cultures are under consideration. Certainly, traditional values have changed worldwide, but nowhere more so than in the United States itself. The co untry was founded largely by religious, farming(prenominal) people seeking to be free from state-sponsored morality and the only one of those things that is still representative of American society is the desire to avoid state-sponsored religion (Dunch 308).Who then is to be blame for the deterioration/changes in American society? The possibility exists of course, that American media has even influenced its induce culture, drawing it away from its dainty roots, but another explanation would be that this is the natural progression of civilization. No longer are we the nomadic hunters and gatherers of prehistory or even the agrarian societies that we once were (Chilcote 81). Perhaps, the destruction of these indigenous cultures is in fact a break away away from prehistory to a modernization.That is not to say that there are not things being lost and that this loss does not profoundly extend to society, it does. However, evidence that the blame should be placed on the prevalence of American-based steady food chains worldwide or an world(prenominal) love procedure with Greys Anatomy seems weak, at best. Likewise, the discussion and blame of the American culture for the loss of indigenous languages also seems far-fetched. Americans cannot even agree on a single language of their own.While countries around the world a good deal have standards adopting a native language as one of their official languages, the United States as a whole does not recognize a national language. In New Zealand, Maori is recognized as an official language as is Welsh in the United Kingdom, protecting the indigenous languages. accord to the U. S. Census Bureau, there are major portions of several states where as much as 25 percent of the race does not speak English in the home and in some parts of Alaska, Colorado, California, Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and Florida more than 50 percent of the population is non-English speaking (Census 2000).It would then seem off to hold the Uni ted States responsible for the decline of native languages around the world when the country does not even enforce English-speaking within its own borders. Another oft thrown brick in the debate about cultural imperialism is the concept that the pro bread and butterration of American fast food around the world is track to a decline in the native foods of some regions. The concepts centers on the thinker that somehow the existence of McDonalds means that people have halt eating whatever their native culinary art is in favor of a quarter pounder and fries.But despite their prevalence worldwide, McDonalds is by no means homogenous everywhere. In India, for example, where the great majority of the population is Hindu, the traditional Big Mac has been replaced by a lamb and chickenhearted and there is a vegetarian burger, the McAloo Tiki (Adams 1). If American fast food were the demise of national cuisines, why would the menu ever vary from one country to the near? But here are jus t a few variations on the traditional American McDonalds menu served worldwide In fish-loving Norway, they have the McLaks, a sandwich made of grilled salmon and dill sauce. In parts of Canada, have a lobster dinner with the McLobster lobster roll. Pardon me McHomard (in French). Japan solely reinvents McDonalds with its Ebi Filet-O (shrimp burgers), Koroke Burger (mashed potato, cabbage and katsu sauce, all in a sandwich), Ebi-Chiki (shrimp nuggets) and Green Tea-flavored handclasp In Israel, McDonalds has 3 kosher restaurants where cheeseburger and dairy products are not served because Jewish Law forbids serving the child cow/beef in its mothers milk dairy. They have McShawarma, meat in a pita net roll (Adams 1)The accusation then that America is destroying supranationalist cuisine with the exportation of American fast food companies is a bit like face that Chinese food as made in China is the said(prenominal) as Chinese food made in America. Food, lie civilization, evo lves and adapts. As more things become available around the world, local cuisine adapts. Oftentimes, the cuisine was dictates by a local prevalence of certain foods, spices, etc. and now with refrigeration and shipping techniques evolving, so can the local foods.Another animadversion some scholars have of globalization is that it destroys local art forms, but again, the international community has taken action to protect international indigenous art. Furthermore, the globalization of the world environment has meant that there are more markets for international art, fine-looking greater exposure to the traditional arts and artists. To argue that globalization is insalubrious to the artistic community is a broad statement with no hearty basis (Winslow 711).Ultimately all the critics of globalization, who use loaded terms like cultural imperialism to describe what might be a natural process, point to factors that may be just part of the natural development process. globalisation m ay be a nature function of the move fore into the information age. Globalization has economic roots and political consequences, but it also has brought into focus the power of culture in this global environment the power to bind and to divide in a time when the tensions between consolidation and separation tug at every issue that is relevant to international relations.The impact of globalization on culture and the impact of culture on globalization merit discussion. The homogenizing influences of globalization that are most often condemned by the new nationalists and by cultural romanticists are actually positive globalization promotes integration and the removal not only of cultural barriers but of many of the negative dimensions of culture. Globalization is a vital step toward both a more stable world and better lives for the people in it (Rothkop 1)The hassle is that people are not pull up stakesing to understand that the economic power of the United States is going to mea n that it plays an important role in globalization. That the economic development of globalization has to revolve around the economic powerhouses. Instead of blaming the changing world culture on the economic domination of the United States, countries need to look at the valuable consequences of the process. The best potential affect of globalization is a new understanding of other cultures and their interrelatedness to our own.Language, religion, political and ratified systems, and social customs are the legacies of victors and marketers and reflect the judgment of the marketplace of ideas throughout popular history. They might also rightly be seen as supporting artifacts, bits and pieces carried forward through the years on currents of indoctrination, popular acceptance, and unthinking love to old ways. Culture is used by the organizers of society politicians, theologians, academics, and families to impose and hold order, the rudiments of which change over time as need dict ates.It is less(prenominal) often acknowledged as the means of justifying inhumanity and warfare (Rothkop 2) The question becomes is the decision to move to a world culture a mischievous thing? And, if the answer is that it helps do away with potential sources of conflict then it might be a good thing. The easiest way to make the argument in favor of globalization is to look at the cost of culture in the 20th century. Before we even discuss the individuals who lost their lives because of cultural conflicts, lets talk about the entire groups lost.As a reminder of the toll that such conflicts take, one need only look at the 20th centurys genocides. In each one, chartering used culture to fuel the passions of their armies and other minions and to justify their actions among their people. One one thousand million Armenians tens of millions of Russians 10 million Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals 3 million Cambodians and hundreds of thousands of Bosnians, Rwandans, and Timorese all were the victims of culture whether it was ethnic, religious, ideological, tribal, or nationalistic in its origins. (Rothkop 3).The hope then is that as the Information Age leads to international globalization that culture as point of joust leading to war can be avoided. Inevitably, the United States has taken the lead in this transformation it is the indispensable nation in the management of global affairs and the leading producer of information products and services in these, the early years of the Information Age. (Rothkop 4). While some people fear this will lead to a homogenous world, sociologists assure that it will not hap with 6 billion people on the planet.The key though will be to allow globalization to bring people together rather of simply creating a new reason for warfare economics. Though the United States does boast the worlds largest, most powerful economy, no business is completely satisfied with controlling only the American market American corporations want to c ontrol the other 95 percent of the worlds consumers as well (Galeota 2) As the formerly Third World countries come out of the closet and become a larger part of the global market place, the question will be whether the United States can maintain its economic superiority.It is in the general interest of the United States to encourage the development of a world in which the fault lines separating nations are bridged by shared interests. (Rothkop 5) The fear becomes that economic development will be the next issue to create international incident. Indeed, just as the United States is the worlds sole stay military superpower, so is it the worlds only information superpower. While Japan has become quite competitive in the manufacture of components inbuilt to information systems, it has had a negligible impact as a maker of software or as a force behind the expert revolution.Europe has failed on both fronts. Consequently, the United States holds a do of returns at the moment and for the foreseeable future. (Rothkop 5) The United States clearly wants to maintain this position of economic superiority and other countries will attempt to take it over. However, if the worlds nations can learn a form of economic interdependency that goes beyond the borders, then the world may be able to abide by a way to continue to evolve and to improve conditions for all citizens.As the worlds economies go beyond national borders, the wealth of the world can be more evenly distributed and all people can live happily. The reality of cultural imperialism or globalization is that it is a fact of life, not something that can be hidden from or condemned. Civilization is progressing and globalization is part of that progress. Is it destroying indigenous societies, via their art, culture, language and cuisine? Probably not. Are those cultures adapting to the world of the 21st century? Yes, they are.The world is completely different that it was and to be a part of it, cultures must adap t with it. Those who chose not to can attempt to close their borders and minds to the progress that is going on elsewhere, but the reality is that they are anathema themselves and their people to life less rich. While it is possible that shutting out the world can preserve outmoded traditions and cultures, it also restricts the natural processes of life. When life is not allowed to grow, it begins to die. The same with culture.If it is not allowed to grow and develop into a new world order, it will regress and lose the benefits of technology and modern science. whole shebang CITED Adams, Beatrice. McDonalds Strange Menu Around the World July 19, 2007. Census Data, (2000) celestial latitude 2, 2007. Chilcote, Ronald H. Globalization or Imperialism? Latin American Perspectives Vol. 29, No. 6, Globalization and Globalism in Latin America and the Caribbean (Nov. , 2002), pp. 80-84 celestial latitude 2, 2007 Dunch, Ryan. Beyond Cultural Imperialism Cultural Theory, Christian Missio ns, and Global Modernity. History and Theory , Vol. 41, No. 3 (Oct. , 2002), pp. 301-325 , December 2, 2007. Galeota, Julia. Cultural Imperialism An American Tradition May 3, 2004. Hamm, Bernd and Russell Charles Smandych. Cultural Imperialism Essays on the governmental Economy of Cultural Domination. Broadview Press USA, 2005. Rothkop, David. In Praise of Cultural Imperialism? effect of Globalization on Culture Foreign Policy, June 22, 1997, , December 2, 2007. Tomlinson, John Cultural Imperialism Continuum International USA, 2001. Winslow, E. M. Marxian, Liberal, and Sociological Theories of Imperialism The Journal of Political Economy , Vol. 39, No. 6 (Dec. , 1931), pp. 713-758 , December 2, 2007. .