In Arjun Appadurai's essay, “Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy,” he declares that "The central problem of today's global interactions is the tension between cultural homogenization and cultural heterogenization." I would agree, and add that, more often than not, "globalism" is a euphemism for the export of cultural commodities from the U.S. and other developed countries to other parts of the world. If there were a regularly pubished "cultural balance of trade," the U.S. would have a surplus of monumental proportions, and this isn't necessarily because our cultural commodities are better -- in large part, it's been fueled by the economic inequities of the world economy, in which an hour of labor, skilled or otherwise, is simply not worth the same around the world -- and neither is an hour of leisure.
From the point of view of the celebration of a "multicultural" future, the poses a problem: in the U.S., U.K., and other developed nations, the kind of world cultural imports available are scattered, watered-down, and homogenized -- think of the contrast between, say, "American Chinese Food," a Chinese restaurant that caters to Chinese diners, and the actual daily diet of a person in China. The first offers items which in fact are food hybrids, if in fact they are Chinese at all, such as enormous breaded wads of "sweet and sour chicken"; spices are toned down, and a spicy Szechuan dish that would set your head on fire at a "Chinese Chinese" restaurant is barely enough to warm your tongue at a "Chinese American" joint. But American food and cultural exports, and the local responses they evoke, are quite often the opposite: more flavorful away from home than at home. Cultural hybridity is alive and well outside the boundaries of the developed world, and there are numerous cultural forms -- from Ska and Reggae to Afro-Pop or Taarab -- which, born in these hybridities, have since exported themselves around the region and the world. There is nothing necessarily "multicultural" about a McDonald's restaurant in India, or an Apple Computer assembly plant in Singapore -- and yet their economic significance can't be excluded from any attempt to understand something we could call "globalization."
New Media have, of course, played an enormous role in globalization, by providing a common "playing field" -- although a very uneven and in some places highly censored one -- as well as by enabling communication across previously inaccessible pathways. And yet, even here, the unevenness take a strange toll, as with Chinese (and now, Romanian) World of Warcraft sweatshops, where young men play the game 16 or more hours a day to accumulate game currency for their employers, who then sell it back at enormous profit via eBay or other outlets back to U.S. customers. Today, you can place a free video "call" on Skype to people all over the planet, but workers in the U.S. who want to "wire" money back to their families in, say, Venezuela, pay enormous fees for this "service." So before we can celebrate -- if we should -- the rise of globalization, we have to see how, both within new media and without, its pathways are functioning, and closely examine their real costs.
Globalism is an extremely interesting topic, considering that it started long before anyone knew its implications and will continue to spread into the future indefinitely. Modes of transportation, media, schools, cultures, and the population at large throughout the world perpetuate globalism every day. As Indians leave their homes in Mumbai and travel to the United States for higher education or better jobs, they are continuing to spread their identities in other countries. Large chain manufacturers of food, such as McDonalds, Burger King, and others, not only introduce foreign identities into our culture, but also hybridize our identities, creating new fractured versions of old and new. Mass media outlets such as television, radio, internet, and now social media apps explore, expose, and exploit all world identities for different agendas. These agendas can vary from presidential campaigns, to social/cultural activist groups, to terrorism; all of which use media to propel their own agendas, without any thought to the effect it will have on the world population. An example of this is President Trump’s comment about “grabbing women by the pussy”, an extremely vulgar and sexist commentary coming from our current commander-in-chief. Although this comment flared social activists and feminists to protest against Trump here in the US, it also flared activism around the world, while fueling misogyny and other differing ideologies. The immediate delivery of world events into our email, text thread, or phone notifications have increased the effects of globalism in our modern world and in my opinion, will continue to expand indefinitely.
ReplyDeleteGlobalism cannot be stopped, unless each and every culture, group, or ideology becomes self-contained, ceasing communication between groups. As we all know, this is impossible in today’s modern world, thus globalism will continue. Although sharing ideas, cultures, interests, money, and even people is the way of our world, there are positives to consider as well. That same Indian student that came to the Unites States for a better education, now works in the US and sends money home to help his family survive. Although this again is a part of globalism, where money changes currency and travels around the world, one cannot deny the individual’s interests and best intentions.
Tony Ricci - Globalization
ReplyDeleteWhile traveling for my job with Bose Corp., I discovered a disturbing trend. The entire country is becoming the same strip mall. The stores on Route 2 in Warwick, RI look the same as the stores in Austin, Chicago, San Diego and most other major cities. The exact same chain restaurants and retail outlets, often right next to the exact same other stores appear everywhere. Mega-Parent Corporations put their researched brands in pre determined advantageous positions in every state and city. What is the point of travel when every place looks like every other place? Even worse, my coworkers often overruled my suggestion we find a local cab driver to recommend something unique to the area in favor of “The Macaroni Grill”, or some other standardized known quantity. This trend seems to be what also passes for “globalization” these days. Do I want to travel across the world to go to McDonalds or Starbucks? The allure of exotic lands is becoming a mythical concept. Places are homogenizing. We are so web and media connected that everyone seems to be converging into one global mega-city. Multi-cultural is in danger of becoming uni-cultural. This seems to be un-progress, or to me at least, unwelcome.
What has Globalism taken from the people of the United States? Globalism has brought about Outsourcing, which in turn has removed employment and income from citizens of the United States. Of course similar jobs, products, and services can be found in almost every country around the world. In many of these countries the cost of labor and resources can be found must cheaper than the same labor and resources in the USA. The higher cost in the USA is the ultimate reason for outsourcing, and in turn the decline in the economy in the United States. Large corporations are constantly looking to save money and increase profits, but this is being done at the expense of people. Outsourcing is taking away from individuals and families within the USA, creating hardships and financial instability in many households. It is understood that individuals in other countries are gaining from the employment, but could this be accomplished without placing others in a fragile state? Does globalism need to be so abrasive at times, and essentially greedy? How can we as a country continue to grow internationally and culturally, while maintaining human needs and well being? Where within globalism is the empathy...
ReplyDelete