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.

Cultural Imperialism: the Impending Avalanche?

I recently read David Rothkopf’s article “In Praise of Cultural Imperialism” which is an interesting account of how cultural imperialism should not be shied away from. More specifically though, American’s should not be afraid to proliferate the rest of the world with their message. In reading the article for this week’s class, “Cultural Contagion: On Disney’s Health and Education Films for Latin America” I can’t help but believe that Rothkopf and Cartwright and Goldfarb would strongly disagree with one another. One of the topics brought up in class was whether or not cultural imperialism was alright in instances of education. So the two video’s the article focused on would, with this viewpoint, be considered acceptable. Cartwright and Goldfarb don’t seem to directly address whether or not cultural imperialism is dangerous or not, but rather they discuss how this particular case has gone about it the wrong way. Perhaps there is nothing wrong with an educational video, but it is the way Disney went about it that seems improper. One of the most significant messages that spoke to me in watching the films was that of superiority. The booming voice and the large hand that would constantly intervene, all alluded to ideas of superiority. I think this is one instance (among many) where the film has pushed American superiority upon the people of Latin America. It is in these situations that I feel cultural imperialism has pushed its boundaries too far. Cartwright and Goldfarb state that “in short, an “inter-American” system would be US-centered; “hemispheric” control was a euphemism for US control” (173). It is interesting to note the direct opposition that is raised in Rothkopf’s article where he believes that “the United States [should] do whatever is in its power to shape the development of [the communication] infrastructure, the rules governing it, and the information traversing it”. This leads me to my next point; what would happen if the tables were turned? What would happen if another country and its culture were the imposing superpower? Rothkopf warns that “Americans should not fall under the spell of those like Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew and Malaysia's Mahathir bin-Mohamad, who argue that there is "an Asian way," one that non-Asians should not judge and that should be allowed to dictate the course of events for all those operating in that corner of the world.”. Rothkopf clearly exemplifies wholly imperialistic views and doesn't begin to entertain the idea of another country coming into power. So is this to say that other countries should not even attempt to promote their culture? Suggesting the idea that ‘if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em?’. I want to say that an individual country's culture should be maintained and spread across borders, but the U.S is so widespread and so large that I find it difficult to imagine happening. Would differing cultures only get gobbled up by U.S domination regardless of how hard they attempted to present an opposoing view? It feels as though, whether we agree with it or not, American cultural imperialism isn't going to let anything get in it's way.

David Rothkopf, "In Praise of Cultural Imperialism?" Foreign Policy, Number 107, Summer 1997, pp. 38-53.
(accessed through http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/protected/rothkopf.html)

Cartwright, Lisa and Goldfarb, Brian. "Cultural Contagion: On Disney's Health Education Films for Latin America". CMST 4D03: International Communication. McMaster Universty Custom Courseware 2008. 7-13.

Busunju's Struggle for Survival

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/08A00BB2-CDDE-49F0-8B42-4419C68B85E6.htm?FRAMELESS=true&NRNODEGUID=%7b08A00BB2-CDDE-49F0-8B42-4419C68B85E6%7d

The above link is referred to throughout the following post.

Chapters three, four and seven of Thussu this week have provided a solid understanding of some of the key agreements that have led to globalization on a whole. He demonstrated how these have affected some of the largest companies and many key media forms.

I recently came across an article with accompanying videos, online on Al Jazeera. The videos (part I&II) present the town of Busunju, Uganda and its struggles in survival.1 I feel that this specific case study is a perfect example of how the development of globalization, as Thussu outlines it, has severely encumbered many developing nations.

It is outlined in the video that a multitude of Chinese products are available to the Busunju market. While this is great for the people of Busunju on a micro level, it has far greater consequences to their economy. One of the local teachers notes that there is no market for their goods (which are primarily agricultural) in a wider market and that they are unable to sell anything. This is only more frustrating with the Chinese taking up a large portion of the market. Here free trade has seriously affected the country’s ability to sustain themselves.

Thussu outlines amongst the discussion over privatization and liberalization that “…there was tension between the free marketeers and those who argued for a more regulated system to protect domestic markets and interests”.2 People of Busunju believe, in attempts to generate a solution for their town that prices should be fixed in order to create a better chance for their products to be sold. In contrast, the interviewee argues that the government’s perspective lies with the ideas of the ‘free market’, in which each good will find its buyer at an appropriately decided price. Otherwise, the product is not a viable commodity. Thussu’s statement is exemplified in this situation.

These theories may not necessarily work for a country that must compete with the demands of fair trade. Now, instead of being protected by the limits of a domestic market, they must compete on a global scale. Of which, agricultural products are not in high demand. Uganda needs to invest in its own market, or be invested in by the agricultural industry – this is difficult to do though, when there is no money available within the country, and none is being made in outside markets. While I don’t condone the activity at all, it is clearer now why sweatshops often provide somewhat of a salvation for many poor, developing countries. While not ethical by any means, these companies do help inject money into a country which has difficulty generating revenue of its own. In Busunju’s case, it seems as though with the conditions of the global economy, they have little solution but to be rescued out of extreme poverty.

This case study brings us back to the original discussion over the theories of international communication. I am tempted to believe more so in the ideas of dependency theory. Solutions for Busunju seem to lead to nothing other than a reliance on an outside means to provide rescue. I am beginning to believe more so in the idea that there is naturally a hierarchy that emerges among countries. I think this leads into the idea of nature vs. nurture and furthermore, what will become of nation states in the future. Is it truly a dog-eat-dog world, in which Uganda will continue to sink while other countries prosper? This brings into the debate, the idea of the nation state. Will the U.S and other dominant countries take smaller, less developed nations under their wing until eventually we are left with only as many countries as we can count on our fingers? If this is so, what about the notions of carrying capacity? The earth cannot sustain all countries to the same standard of living as the U.S for very long.

Overall, it seems as though the answers for a location like Busunju, Uganda are pretty limited and one can’t help but see through Thussu’s chapters that it is as a result of advancements in free trade, and the overall effects of globalization.

Endnotes

1. Al Jazeera. “Programmes: People and Power – The Village: Busunju.” Al Jazeera.net. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/08A00BB2-CDDE-49F0-8B42-4419C68B85E6.htm?FRAMELESS=true&NRNODEGUID=%7b08A00BB2-CDDE-49F0-8B42-4419C68B85E6%7d (accessed January 30, 2008).

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