Cultural Imperialism: A Questionable Model

This week’s lecture forced us to consider the following statement:

“Be it resolved that cultural imperialism is a viable theoretical model of analyzing the relationship between American cultural production and the rest of the world”

In considering this statement, I have concluded that Cultural Imperialism is not a viable model to explain cultural production in today’s society. Albeit, there may be many instances of cultural imperialism taking place on a small scale; individuals appropriating American culture and lifestyle. Being that this discussion is in the context of international communication, and not on whether small subcultures reflect American standards, it would be sufficient to suggest that cultural imperialism lacks adequate evidence on a macro level. This being said, cultural imperialism is not a viable explanation of cultural production between America and the rest of the world. The following arguments can attest to this statement.

The first is the notion of glocalization; adjusting commodities to reflect the culture of the local area. It is important to note that the idea of glocalization is market driven. It is not a desire to accommodate other cultures, but rather, it arises because it is necessary in order to make money. If McDonald’s did not adjust their menu to meet Indian requirements, they would not have been economically successful. As Thussu illustrates:
“partly as a reaction to perceived Westernization of their cultures and partly as a reaction to the alleged distortion in representations of non-Western cultures in the global media, many countries have experienced a cultural revival, often influenced by religious groups and encouraged by political establishments, acting as a barrier to the flow of Western media products” (183)
If the situation were one of cultural imperialism, there would be little done to cater to specific cultural desires. Instead though, it is necessary to match the wants and desires of each culture.

Secondly, when it comes down to specific commodities, it is the framework that other countries desire, rather than the content. This is clearly exemplified through the discussion of glocalization but furthermore, countries often regulate media content being disseminated throughout thier country. China and Singapore are perfect examples. These actions, and those similary, illustrate distaste towards the Western way of life and are clear among many other countries (183). This being said, there is still demand for the ‘product shells’, so to speak, but the content doesn’t hold true from culture to culture. One might argue that the initial demand of these commodities is enough to imply cultural imperialism. While this may seem like a rational proposal at first, could it not be argued that demand in this case is simply an act of questioning what other cultures are like. For example, everytime I want Thai food, or would rather eat another country’s cuisine, is this an act of cultural imperialism on the part of that country? What I am trying to suggest is that demand does not necessarily imply imperialism. The 'Razanne’ doll is a perfect example of this. The toy is not an act to appropriate American culture, but results out of a desire for a doll that reflects one’s own culture. As Thussu states, “…people prefer entertainment in their own language, catering to their own cultural priorities…” (184). Dolls, and the desire to play with toys existed long before Barbie did.

The argument in support of cultural imperialism seems to assume a key idea; that it is imposing upon a duped audience. Right away, one can argue that this is not the case, as glocalization, again, illustrates that there are active audiences. Thussu seems to support this notion as he notes that “audiences can critically negotiate with an imported programme – something more than many have given them credit for” (184). Today’s audiences can choose from a number of television channels from all over the world, representing a variety of different cultures. This “has undoubtedly made the global cultural landscape much more complex”(181), and demonstrates that, American views (channels) are not the only choice, nor the only one’s chosen. It was brought up in class that, children seem to be a telltale sign of whether or not cultural imperialism holds true, since many children are aware of cultural commodities before they truly understand what they are. Children though, cannot always be an affirmative example. They are at an extremely impressionable age, where cultural commodities are not the only thing that will be making an impact on them. They won't remain impressionable forever.

Lastly, if cultural imperialism were a viable explanation, there would only be a one way flow of communication present. Instead though, “international cultural flow will show that the traffic is not just one way – from North to South…” (185). There are numerous examples of culture flowing in the opposite direction. Al Jazeera is a “prominent example of contraflow in global media products” (190) through it’s development of English language programming as a result of demand for it. Furthermore, North America adopts a number of British television programs, drives foreign cars and eats the food of other cultures. Cultures seems to flow just as much one way as it does the other.

As a result, it is clear that cultural imperialism is not a 'black and white' argument. American culture is often widely available in many media forms, but this does not necessarily suggest cultural imperialism. Though many country's actions seem to pale in comparison to the prevalence of American culture, they are still present. It is clear through the above arguements that opposing countries have not yet come to accept American culture as the sole view. Until this is the case, one can argue that cultural imperialism is not a viable explanation for global cultural production.


Thussu, Daya Kishan. International Communication: Continuity and Change. London: Hodder Education, 2006.