Media Globalization Theorist Criticism toward Cultural Imperialism - Report Example

Media Globalization Theorist Criticism toward Cultural Imperialism Lecturer: Introduction Cultural imperialism was considered asimple concept that meant a country uses its power in order to spread its culture that was capable of ruining of ruining the native culture. However, cultural imperialism was not that simple because according to Tomlinson (1991), cultural imperialism is a complex concept involving the livelihood of people and the way they consider their daily practices. Moreover, the procedure of disseminating culture is complex; in addition, an economically powerful country does not require transposing any native culture with its culture. Cultural imperialism makes sense within a certain historical period where there was a distinct difference between the different continents like America Europe and Asia. Cultural imperialism is considered outdated because it poses problems because of its failure to explain the prevailing occurrences in the society and interpreting cultural meaning at a micro level. Hence, in the 1990s globalization took the place for imperialism and remains popular in academic studies and in representing the reality. According to Tomlinson (1991), globalization is multidimensional and can be understood through its simultaneous, complex processes within culture, politics economy technology among others. Therefore globalization theorists show that globalization is a complex connectivity that does not involve disorder since its interaction mechanism represents various constituents all of which surround the core culture. The onset of the 1980s witnessed international communication scholarship take cultural turn that valued culture compared to society or even national development as its point of analysis. One of the striking aspects of cultural imperialism thesis involves the notable lack of its main works failing to focus on culture. Instead, cultural imperialism inclined toward subsuming culture to its industries that are influenced by cultural industries offering an indication of the processes involved in bringing a society to the world modern system. This involve attracting and pressuring a society’s dominating echelon and even enticing it in order to shape social institutions to match and endorse values and organizations of the dominating system. The broad analysis of large-scale and systematic forces shaping the media industries seem to be valid; however, confusion arises from the definition of cultural imperialism, which uses terms like world-system and structure that reflect political economic approach that tends to assume culture than engaging in it. Scholars argue that cultural imperialism to be a monolithic concept that did not have clearly set out references resulting in a call for an elaborate notion regarding culture. Critical media studies scholars encourage painstaking and complex comprehension of culture among other things. Cultural imperialism indicates that media plays an essential role in shaping cultural processes and practices dominated by western ownership forcing cultural and media product in less developed nations to be subordinates both in international and local scenes. Media imperialism is shown as process where ownership, distribution, structure or content in media in any nation to be subject to substantial pressure coming from media interests of a different nation. Cultural imperialism theories consider globalization as a hegemonic scheme from compromising the integrity of local culture in the recipient nations (Semati, 2004). `Assumptions in cultural proximity theorists involve indicating that local programming is culturally proximate compared to imported programming coming from culturally different places making local people prefer their local culture. Therefore, media globalization theorists show that although western media has penetrated other national cultures that only happened in a conditional or negotiated sense. This shows that media companies compete and operate within a global as well as domestics market place for audience and marketing revenue to gain local access because many multinational corporations localize their products. This has its basis on the argument that locals prefer local programming compared to imported content, which supports local productions. Cultural proximity is elaborated when theorists consider pluralisation of culture that takes places through globalization when peripheral actors become exporters of cultural commodities (Banerjee, 2002). The onset of globalization expedited dispersal of individuals from various cultures and languages worldwide, which created remote pockets of consumers across the globe. Therefore, arguments associated with cultural heterogenization theorists indicate that the arrival of satellite eased access to the markets enabling the flow of cultural goods in all directions (Gordon, 2008). It is interesting that proponents of cultural imperialism consider media to be the single most essential component within cultural imperialism; however, this has is not the case within the media globalization debate. Many media scholars have pointed faults of media imperialism in various occasions since the 1980s and 1990s when cultural imperialism theories became subject to criticism. The criticisms were influenced by studies of audiences land cultural studies that gave attention to the autonomous role of culture. This is one aspect that cultural imperialism theorists seem to have missed and a main source of criticism has largely been approved. Various theorists in media globalization admit that the original cultural imperialism thesis was wrong in various aspects (Sreberny-Mohammadi, Winseck, McKenna and Boyd-Barrett, 1997). For instance, the thesis anticipated that nations are the basic building blocks in global media events with a humble link between media and certain nations (Rantanen, 2005). Critics of cultural imperialism thesis believe that internationalization of media does not necessarily imply that culture is internationalised. They argue that globalization does not have a single consequence with other theorists indicating that national audiences interpret media messages in a novel manner. Moreover, other theorists like Tomlinson indicate that media products are interpreted locally and transformed in the process of local reading; however, this does not deny cultural imperialism poses significant dangers to several cultures. This rather asserts that new global communication systems develop hybrid cultures as pointed out by Stuart Hall that media globalization can result in pluralizing impact on identities (Elliott, 2014). Most propositions resulting from cultural imperialism thesis tend to frame global media communication as a procedure of cause and effect showing media as a way of transmitting ideas and cultural meaning from one place to another. In this regard, critics use the same language by taking a lot of active participation in the way audience shape the meaning taken from mass media. It is argued that media has the ability of helping the process of cultural development, invention and creativity and not merely undermining the prevailing culture. Critics of cultural imperialism dismiss cultural imperialism as a monolithic theory because of the lack of subtlety as it was increasingly under scrutiny by empirical studies. Some scholars criticize cultural imperialism approach in failing to adapt to the changes in international media flow with others arguing that cultural imperialism is unsubstantiated through empirical data (Kraidy, 2005). Another unarticulated assumption that propelled most of the early cultural imperialism was considering culture as a holistic and organic entity often identified with the nation-state. Animating most of cultural imperialism thesis and the world information and communication was the understanding of culture as national culture presumed to be relatively to be homogenous. Therefore, based on this perception, which implicitly reject or at least neglect the existence of hybridity, foreign cultural influence is unnecessary interference (Semati, 2004). Critics of have over the years illustrated a number of problems with the works associated with cultural imperialism that is operated in an overly simplified dualism linking the West to “non-West” that assumes homogenisation of culture regardless of the evidence showing complex multiplication and hybridization. Cultural imperialism seems to show the flow of cultural products across international borders in ways that damage the culture in countries at the receiving end. However, media globalization acknowledges both the constructive and destructive impacts in global flows. Owing to cultural imperialism historical legacy as well as the negative connotations, often leave limited or no room for a nation to defend itself when faced with foreign intrusion. Moreover, if globalization damages the power and authority of a nation, the critics seems to show that cultural imperialism tends to overstate the role of nation-state with regard to the primacy of state media. Apart from resistance or even complete break, cultural imperialism implies a single process that seeks to conquer, dominate or even exploit the weak party. However, globalization acknowledges the possibility of local appropriation and adaptation or even hybridization associated with cultural products (Golan, Johnson & Wanta, 2010). Globalization is considered by cultural imperialism to be a tide that sweeps across the various cultures in the world destroying the established localities and conveying market-driven homogenization regarding cultural experience. Cultural imperialism theorists point out that the phenomenon resulted in obliteration of differences between locally defined cultures that constituted their identities. Even though globalization is judged as having a general process of ensuring the loss of cultural diversity, some did better while others were worse in this process. Cultural imperialism claims that cultural identity faces risk especially with negative effects associate with globalization, particularly in the developing world. This has been the narration that incriminates globalization in destroying cultural identity and particularly threatening a subset of cultural identity referred to as national identity (Featherstone, 1995). However, critics of cultural imperialism point out the story can be contrary and that globalization does not destroy cultural identity but rather a significant force in creating and proliferating cultural identity. The critics show that this entails a different understanding with regard to the notion of identity instead of the comprehension associated with individual or even combined possession. This complex formulation implies that cultural identity may not easily be a prey for globalization as cultural imperialism theorists point out. This arises from the understanding that identity is never a mere fragile and communal-psychic connection but rather a significant dimension within established modern social life. Moreover, the dominant form of national identity remains a product of deliberate cultural development and maintenance in both regulatory and socializing institutions of a nation especially education system and the media (Thompson, 2013). Media globalization theorists acknowledge that nation-states to a varying degree are compromised by globalization especially in their capacity to exclusively maintain identity attachment, the same way they are in independently regulating national economies in the global market (Nederveen Pieterse, 2009). Complexities and tensions arising from multiple ethnic societies from global population movements, which are a chronic feature in modern states, pose problems for the prolonged coherent identity positions in 21st century. Although the effect is dramatic in developing nations, none of the problems conforms to general scenario of destruction of identities because of globalization. Instead, media globalization theorists attest to the intensification of the importance of identity generally shaped by globalization. In this respect, globalization theorists criticize cultural imperialism for considering cultural identity to be in a way an autonomous cultural dynamic that fails to see the compelling inner logic between globalization and institutionalized construction of identities. To appreciate this, media globalization theorists take a complex view of globalization compared to what is adopted by discourses against globalization that consider globalization to be globalization of capitalism, achieved through cultural aspects via Western-dominated media (Tomlinson, 2003). While the various studies on cultural imperialism interrogated the way economic inequalities linked the West and the rest of the world and were reflected in international media, the same studies never engaged in inequities and cultural practices media used faced in daily lives. One main criticism of cultural imperialism’s shortcoming include the assumption of effects in everyday activities without carrying out a study on the way people actually made meaning of the media messages. Media globalization theorists have translated this as weak theorization of the issue of culture within cultural imperialism studies; moreover, it has been argued that cultural imperialism does not apply in nations like China and Brazil. Other critics of imperialism consider it to be on ideological level exposing its biased ideological processes (Murphy & Kraidy, 2003). The concept of cultural imperialism is inherently vague and signifies a negative assessment of behaviour as well as intentions in advanced nations toward other countries. Critics of cultural imperialism argue that imperialism is considered to be the imposition of power from economic powerful nations to the poor that implies a level of political control by powerful nations (Miller, 2003), which no longer exists. According to Tomlinson (2003), the notion of imperialism contains ideas of purposeful project that aims at spreading social system from one point of power to a worldwide scale. In his analysis, Tomlinson contrasts imperialism with the concept of globalization that results in a suggestion of interconnection and interdependence of all global areas in a manner that is far less purposeful. Media globalization as indicated by globalization theorists corresponds to a network that does not have clearly defined centre because globalization is an aggregation of cultural flows in less coherent and unitary process compared to cultural imperialism; in addition, the cultural influences move in many directions (Crane, Kawashima & Kawasaki, 2002). Cultural globalization theories focus on connections and interconnection linking domestic and foreign, the local and the global and the national and international. The development of ICT and electronic media across borders helps establish networks that allow many individuals in various locations to develop new relations, communities, connections and even experiences. Electronic media is considered the main enabler of economic, political and even cultural integration and interdependence of economies, nations and cultures. Technological and media scholars suggest electronic media rather than individuals and social power relationships linking them to be the influencing the changes in the world. Even though, globalization of ICT and electronic media is largely affected by large-scale economic and political organizations that possess them, they support novel forms of integration and interdependence (Mirrlees, 2013). Cultural hybridity theory helped by postmodern theoretical sensibility points out that globalization rather than overpowering indigenous cultures and promoting monoculture, results in cultural diversity. At the core of the debate regarding the debate on effects associated with globalization on culture concerns the issue of identity. Media globalization theorists argue that it is not credible to believe that mere exposure to global culture is enough to drive pout or even decrease innate realities of cultural differences. Cultural imperialism came under scrutiny because of it reductionism and exclusive focus on American power and the failure to recognize the multidirectional traffic flow between advanced and developing nations. However, regardless of the criticisms targeting theories cultural imperialism, they still have relevance with regard to the increasing social, cultural and economic inequalities within nations. Their validity stems from the concern in media inequalities in nations and the way such inequalities reflect broad problems with regard to dependency between more powerful and less powerful nations. Nevertheless, the rise of postmodernist theorist as well as the adoption of neoliberal policies since 1980s, cultural imperialism arguments ended up suffering a knockout. Hence, cultural imperialism was scrutinized from various fronts including the assumptions that media globalization had the objective of creating a homogenous culture across the globe dominated by powerful nations. Hybridity perspective encounters criticism because it reflects unwillingness to look at the economic influence and effects huge media companies have in propelling cultural preferences. The concept of hybridity takes the centre stage in postcolonial discourse and transformed from a term that was abused to being celebrated superior cultural intelligence capable of negotiating its differences (Vaidya, 2006). Conclusion While cultural imperialism theorists criticize western media exports as predators, globalization theorists support globalization of media as an expression of free market and consider the imbalance of regarding flow as a characteristic associated with the wide media market with benefits for all. They argue that global media poses little predatory influence because the audience is voluntary and assert global media content to be culturally neutral and ideologically innocent. Besides, the theorists of globalization of media often give more attention to criticisms regarding cultural imperialism compared to the actual charges made by cultural imperialism theorists like Schiller. Nevertheless, cultural imperialism is criticized for not taking into consideration the perception of the actual audience because the theory presupposes the audience to be passive vessels that use the content in the media as the producers intend. Media globalization theorists argue that media texts are interpreted and used differently by various groups; hence, cultural imperialism generalizing the impact of global media is in accurate. The validity of some of the criticisms aimed at cultural imperialism arises from empirical studies that some of the proponents of cultural imperialism failed to consider in their study. Moreover, proponents of media globalization argue that development of electronic media to be a way of expressing freedom while interacting with other cultures in a manner that does not foster one culture dominating over the other. References Banerjee, I. (2002) ‘The Local Strike Back? Media Globalization and Localization in the New Asian Television Landscape’, The International Communication Gazette, 64(6): 517-535. Crane, D., Kawashima, N., & Kawasaki, K. (2002). Global culture: media, arts, policy, and globalization. New York, Routledge. Elliott, A. (2014). Contemporary social theory: an introduction. Featherstone, M. (1995) Undoing Culture: Globalization, Postmodernism and Identity. Sage. Golan, G. J., Johnson, T., & Wanta, W. (2010). International media communication in a global age. New York, Routledge. Gordon, N. S. (2008). Media and the politics of culture: the case of television privatization and media globalization in Jamaica (1990-2007). Boca Raton, Universal Publishers. Kraidy, M. M. (2005). Hybridity, or the cultural logic of globalization. Philadelphia, Pa, Temple University Press. Miller, T. (2003). Television: critical concepts in media and cultural studies. London, Routledge. Mirrlees, T. (2013). Global entertainment media: between cultural imperialism and cultural globalization. New York, Routledge. Murphy, P. D., & Kraidy, M. (2003). Global Media Studies an Ethnographic Perspective. London, Routledge. Nederveen Pieterse, J. (2009). Globalization and culture: global mélange. Lanham, Md, Rowman & Littlefield. Rantanen, T. (2005). The media and globalization. London, SAGE. Semati, M. (2004). New frontiers in international communication theory. Lanham, Md, Rowman & Littlefield. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10812541. SEMATI, M. (2004). New frontiers in international communication theory. Lanham, Md, Rowman & Littlefield. Sreberny-Mohammadi, A., D. Winseck, J. McKenna and O. Boyd-Barrett (eds) (1997) Media in a Global Context. Arnold. Thompson, J. B. (2013). Media and modernity a social theory of the media. Hoboken, Wiley. Thompson, K. (1997). Media and cultural regulation. London, Sage. Tomlinson J. (2003). Globalization and Cultural identity. Available online < http://www.polity.co.uk/global/pdf/GTreader2eTomlinson.pdf> [14 March 2014]. Tomlinson, J. (1997) ‘Cultural Globalization and Cultural Imperialism’ pp. 170-90 in A. Mohammadi (ed.) International Communication and Globalization. Sage Vaidya, A. K. (2006). Globalization: encyclopedia of trade, labor and politics 1. 1. Santa Barbara, Calif. [u.a.], ABC-CLIO. Read More