4D03 Journals

The Aboriginal Diaspora

2008-04-02T08:38:00.000-07:00

Between reading Jenny Burman’s article “Migrant Remittances” and our discussion in class this week, I have been thinking a lot about what constitutes a diaspora. We discussed in class the different types, in the sense of labour, cultural or trade, but for this entry, I want to look at a specific type of cultural group; Canadian Aboriginals. At first glance, perhaps this doesn’t fit the notion of diaspora. I would like to suggest that the current state of Aboriginal culture across Canada though, does in fact constitute such a definition.

By no means do I consider myself an expert on Aboriginal history, but I am aware that the Canadian government has made apologies for their treatment of Aboriginal people throughout history. The culture itself has faced numerous difficulties throughout the course of history. Forced assimilation, residential schools, numerous land issues, and simply an overall marginalization of Aboriginal people by the non-indigenous population, has created a rocky history between the rest of Canada and Native Americans. Still today there is a tension between non-natives and Aboriginals. Arguably, as a result of the Canadian government’s actions, Aboriginal peoples have faced a disappearing community and culture. They now sustain themselves in smaller population segments across Canada and in a sense, we may think of native people as constituting somewhat of a diaspora.

Perhaps this can be better argued by taking a look at a specific instance of communication that Aboriginals partake in. Aboriginal Voices Radio is a good example of how each mini aboriginal diaspora (spread across Canada in various locations) can maintain contact with one another and maintain their cultural identity. According to ASR, their “…mission is to provide a distinctly Aboriginal service in large urban centres where the majority of Aboriginal people now live. The Aboriginal Voices Radio network informs, enlightens, and entertains with culturally relevant Aboriginal programming for all people” (www.aboriginalvoices.com). AVR serves the same purpose as any other diasporic community across Canada. If we refer back to the reference made in class to OMNI television, and if we consider all of the foreign language programming on radio, this similarity is evident. AVR believes that “…this [the broadcasting of aboriginal voices to large Canadian cities] encourages better relationships and more understanding between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities.” (www.aboriginalvoices.com).

I brought up the Aboriginal community because I think they pose an interesting twist on the concept of diaspora that we have discussed this week. Essentially, this cultural group is a diaspora within its own native country. Though they may not constitute a typical definition of diaspora, they partake in many of the important behaviours that typical diaspora go through within their host countries. In this case, these individuals look to the land they once had, and their past heritage as their ‘homeland’. They seek to maintain their distinct history and set themselves apart from non-native Canadians in an effort to maintain their connection to the ‘homeland’. Aboriginal Voices Radio is one communicative element that helps to maintain this distinct culture. This is illustrated well in Burman’s reference to transnational social fields. These “are not metaphoric references to altered experiences of space; they comprise observable social relationships and transactions” (13). AVR fulfills this ‘social relationship’ concept that each Aboriginal diaspora seek to address. The radio’s goals demonstrate that there is a distinct cultural separation between natives and non-natives, almost suggesting a lost ownership of Aboriginal people and their homeland.

Works Cited

Burman, Jenny (2006). ‘Migrant Remittances as Diasporic Communication’. The Journal of International Communication, 12 (2): 7-18.

Aboriginal Voices Radio. Aboriginal Voices Radio Network. 2007. 1 April 2008 http://www.aboriginalvoices.com.

It's All a Matter of How You Word It...

2008-03-28T19:33:00.000-07:00

In reading Feld’s article on world music, I can’t help but agree with his underlying point; that ‘world music’ and the issues surrounding it are contingent on how one defines world music. He notes that originally the term ‘world music’ “…was a friendly phrase, a less cumbersome alternative to ethnomusicology, the more strikingly academic term” (146) In calling ‘world music’ by such a name, “the terminological dualism that distinguished world music from music helped reproduce a tense division in the academy, where musics understood as non-Western or ethnically other continued to be routinely partitioned from those of the West” (147). Simply in classifying it ‘world music’ we are marking it is a different and unlike any other genre of music to date. The term ‘world music’ lends itself to the notions of primitivism that Feld discusses throughout his article. (147) While world music may have a different sound than perhaps Westerners are familiar with, it nonetheless deserves to be recognized in the greater classification of music. From this, I believe we should attempt to call it what it is – that is, if we must classify it, it should be placed under the genre that it best falls under. This is in keeping with the assumption that we must classify it in general. The issue of cultural appropriation, or who was the first to create such a sound is more or less tied up in technicalities. Moreover, I am suggesting that society is too hung up on definitions. Our desire to define and categorize has led ‘world music’ to be seen as otherworldly – not fit for any definition of music.

Above I have included two clips (part one and two) of an interview with Youssou N'Dour, a famous singer out of Senegal. He touches on the issue of where his music fits globally. His interview provides an interesting account of how world music is situation on a global scale. According to N’Dour, his music is a combination of all different styles, which is how he has differentiated himself. He notes further along that it is not necessarily the language that one sings in that is important, but rather the music is actually more so the language, therefore, making it the focus. The two clips demonstrates an artist of ‘world music’ who tends to see his music as something that cannot necessarily be defined – as he gives a gives, what sounds like, a new definition to the style of music he creates with collaborators. He claims that the most pertinent thing he takes from Western music is the production, distribution, and promotional methods of putting music out to the public - which is interesting to note. He goes on to suggest that he doesn’t necessarily appropriate any particular aspects of Western music into his own. His interview seems to really emphasize that the issue may not necessarily be appropriation, but rather a collaboration effort in order to derive something new altogether.

It seems to me that the reason North Americans seek something primitive or exotic, is because we have limited ourselves in our definitions of what music is, therefore inhibiting the growth and development of different musical sounds. Youssou N’Dour is a great example of an artist that makes an effort to collaborate with different musical styles, to create a new sound altogether. I think the key lies in the perception of music itself; music is not stagnant, but rather is always changing, and therefore cannot necessarily be grounded by definition. In this way, ‘primitive’ sound, as it may be, is constantly being created.

Works Cited:

Feld, Stephen (2000). ‘A Sweet Lullaby for World Music’. Public Culture, 12 (1): 145-171.

Media Pirates: An Act of Defiance

2008-03-28T17:25:00.000-07:00

I really enjoyed this week’s readings and the ideas of Pang and Condry, as they are something that my generation is quite familiar with, and likely participates in as well. I would like to specifically touch upon a particular idea that I felt Pang was alluding to, somewhat, in the beginning of his article, Mediating the Ethics of Technology. The following statement gives suggestion to this idea:

“While piracy operates within this hierarchy, it also defies this system by stripping copyright owners of a certain amount of control in order to place it in the hands of pirates and consumers.” (Pang 90)

I will return to this statement shortly, but first I would like to consider Condry’s article, Culture’s of Music Piracy. Condry illustrates that the sharing of music is a natural occurrence between humans. He goes onto suggest that “we can tape music off radio or the TV, enjoy music in public spaces, and borrow music from friends easily enough”, which, begs the question, if we have all of these other means of accessing music, then why is it that we feel the need to download illegal media? A potential answer to this question, I believe, can be found within the initial quote I gave from Pang. It is this notion of turning control back into the hands of the consumer that is of particular interest. From this, I have come to believe that pirating music or movies can be considered a form of culture jamming.

To clarify, culture jamming is most often seen as a method of “[undermining] the marketing rhetoric of multinational corporations, specifically through such practices as media hoaxing, corporate sabotage, billboard “liberation,” and trademark infringement” (Harold 190). As such, I seek to extend the definition of culture jamming to include the concept of media pirating. This is to say that, what is occurring is far beyond what is natural between humans and is actually a subtle means to which those who participate can challenge dominant ideologies or dominant culture. In these specific cases, dominant culture being, American culture. It was discussed how many American films (Kill Bill being the featured example) appropriate a wide variety of cultures within the story lines themselves. In this way, pirates may feel that a movie doesn’t necessarily belong to those who produced it, therefore giving reason to such subversion. Furthermore, Pang suggests that “most American viewers watching Tarantino’s films know little about Asian cinemas in general” (Pang 142). So in reference to the abundance of pirating that takes place in Asian countries, the ignorant North American then pushes the Asian market to seek a distinct voice. This is of course brought to life through the millions of pirated DVDs that are created. As such, pirating music and DVDs is a form of protest against dominant culture.

With this being said, “a film is not only a commodity but also a complex system of cultural representation, in which cultural exchanges are so complex that today’s copyright discourse can never clearly differentiate between copyright infringement and cultural appropriations” (136). The pirating movement, if I may call it such, is then not necessarily a disobedient act, but is actually symbolically representative of the consumer’s desire to take control and to defy American dominance.

Annalise Moser highlights through her discussion of parades as a form of protest for women in Peru, the importance of these symbolic actions. As she terms it, democratic discourse is a method in which one seeks to have their voice heard symbolically through the public sphere (181). In this sense, pirating is a means of reaching out to the public sphere, in an effort to express a desire for greater control. In Moser’s discussion of the Peruvian women’s parade tactics, we can see how pirating “presents a reply to everyday life which is at the same time an inversion, an intensification and a manipulation of that life” (180).

To American’s we can see that “a pirated film and a pirated computer program produce the same political signification: an American product being violated by another country.” (Pang, 139) In this respect, the American crackdown on pirated music and DVDs is not necessarily an act of ethics, but rather, it is a realization that their ideologies are being challenged.

Works Cited:

Harold, Christine. “Pranking Rhetoric: “Culture Jamming” as Media Activism.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 21, 3 (2004): 189-211.

Moser, Annalise. “Acts of Resistance: The Performance of Women’s Grassroots Protest in Peru.” Social Movement Studies 2, 2 (2003): 177-190.

Pang, Laikwan (2004). ‘Mediating the Ethics of Technology: Hollywood and Movie Piracy.’ Culture, Theory and Critique, 45 (1): 19-32.

Pang, Laikwan (2005). ‘Copying Kill Bill’. Social Text, 23 (2): 133-153

Condry, Ian (2004). ‘Cultures of Music Piracy: An Ethnographic Comparison of the US and Japan’. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 7 (3): 343-363.

It's All the Same Story...

2008-03-26T18:57:00.000-07:00

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7257489.stm

Two of the most interesting topics from the second day of presentations were on SARS and the Rwandan Genocide. I think these two presentations pose two very distinct ways in which the media was utilized within North America.

I placed an article at the top of this posting regarding the conflict in Darfur. It is a very similar occurrence to the Rwandan Genocide issue, in terms of media coverage and the action taken by North American’s. The article notes, right at the beginning that, “the deep concern about Darfur felt internationally has not been matched by a similar determination to intervene.” According to this particular presentation, this seems to have been the case with Rwanda as well. The article also notes that "if there was genocide, then it happened in 2003/4. By the time the world got round to acting, it was too late." This also seems to be no more than a duplicate reaction by North America towards Darfur, as was the case with Rwanda.

I think the article highlights an extremely important point in it’s reasoning for the lack of outside support; “one of the problems for the outside world is that it has been dealing with a very determined government unwilling to concede much in what it sees as a major threat on its own territory.” I think this point is only further validated by the SARS issue. What began as a foreign issue only became significant with North American media, after it became a threat domestically. I definitely see the actions, or rather lack of action in both Darfur and Rwanda as a result of media gatekeepers regulating what gets placed on the media agenda, and as a result, the public agenda. Since the public rely on the media to provide information on all areas of the globe, the lack of attention given to these two areas seriously hindered North American involvement. At the same time, one may argue that the public does not have a great deal of interest in foreign affairs, hence why little attention is given to these issues. While it is difficult to determine which position is correct, it seems to me that the topic of SARS, Darfur and Rwanda are a few examples, out of hundreds of possible choices in the media, which exemplify this type of difference (attention given to topics that only affect North America). There are, I’m sure, many different contingencies that affected North American involvement in Darfur and Rwanda, but as far as media coverage goes, it doesn't seem as though the cycle of narcissistic coverage will end anytime soon.

Solipsism: A North American Problem

2008-03-08T15:23:00.000-08:00

It was really interesting to hear this week’s presentations, as they helped to give concrete examples to topics that are often not so tangible. The Fidel Castro presentation proposed some excellent ideas, which I feel are often underlying causes of many issues of international communication. By analyzing articles from three different newspapers, they were able to demonstrate that perspective is “(1) rooted in fundamental ideologies as characterized by social and political systems, and is (2) articulated using language that legitimizes those ideas”, and did so all within the context of Fidel Castro’s resignation. Meaning that, each country would have a separate perspective on Castro’s resignation and its implications, and would have such a perspective because of its language and ideologies. The way I understood this, was that it is often difficult for countries to consider the situation of another region because they are so deeply rooted within their own system of beliefs. Many countries have a difficult time placing themselves in another’s shoes because they are only able to see things through the lens of their own ideology and language.

I think this is only further enforced through the Security and Partnership Prosperity (SPP). Prior to this presentation, I was completely unaware of such an organization. The most alarming aspect though, was the list of committee members. The SPP exemplifies how difficult it is to have a wide range of views when organizations, such as this exist. The SPP only further enhances a single minded view. The Castro presentation demonstrated that there was a lack of understanding between countries as a result of deeply rooted ideologies and languages, and this is only made more difficult with narrow-minded organizations. As a result, countries find it difficult to see outside themselves.

Starbucks seems to be an issue with two faces. On the surface, Starbucks seems to contradict my previous statements. It understands that people come from different walks of life, and therefore, caters and respects their needs all while keeping corporate interest. This is demonstrated in the presentation through the company’s fair treatment of employees, good work atmosphere and fair treatment of coffee producing nations. The underlying truth though, seems to be that Starbucks doesn’t consider other points of view. The company sells it’s lifestyle to other countries, without considering its unique culture, as was exemplified in many of the presentation’s customer comments. Starbucks would like us to believe that we have the best of both worlds; a profit oriented approach, while maintaining the fair treatment of all third parties (environmental, human, cultural, etc).

The Fidel presentation made reference to two cultural studies courses, and have encouraged me to think of a particular Communication Studies course that was brought to my mind; Concepts of Culture (CMST 2M03). I believe that many countries (particularly North America) are suffering from solipsism. As I understand it, this is a stage in development in which one perceives their view to be the view. To legitimize my understanding slightly more, Merriam-Webster defines solipsism as, ”a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; also : extreme egocentrism. If this is not an acute definition of the behaviors of North America, then I don’t know what is.

Works Cited:

Merriam-Webster Online. “Solipsism.” 2008. . Accessed 7 March 2008.

2008-03-05T18:14:00.000-08:00

Article: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1712812,00.html

Appadurai and the Space Race

2008-03-05T18:05:00.000-08:00

Above I provide both a video and a link to an article that I have found to be of interest to this week’s discussion. They both deal with the same topic; discussion over the possibility of a new space race between the U.S and China. The article goes into some depth about how China received American information regarding space technology, and how comparable China’s missions are to the U.S’. The clip discusses the general implications of a space race but begins to note near the end some of Appadurai’s thoughts on deterritorialization.

The issue of the space race is neatly summed up in the following statement from Appadurai:

“It is in the fertile ground of deterritorialization, in which money, commodities, and persons are involved in ceaselessly chasing each other around the world…”(38)

This particular issue is a great example of the disjunctive flows Appadurai discusses in “Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy”. It is in this topic that, I believe, we can find almost every ‘scape’ discussed in this week’s article. I will briefly touch upon examples of each, to provide a firmer grasp of Appadurai’s connections to the space race.
One can see ethnoscapes in the Time article, discussing how DongFan Chung felt he had ties to his Chinese nation, but was working in the U.S. Furthermore, the transfer of information that took place between Chung and other individuals in China demonstrates a type of disjunctive flow. Technoscapes are clear in this case, where the race itself, on the surface, is one of technology. There is a great deal of money spent, in both the U.S and China, on the development of this technology. One might even go so far as to say, more so than most other advancements in technology. Perhaps arguably one of the most dominant flows arises out of the ideoscape; the development of power that is achieved through even just competing, much less winning the race. Closely tied to this idea, one might consider how the rest of the world perceives such a race and how it is portrayed in the media through the flows of the mediascape. Each of these imagined flows can be compared to one another to determine a variety of different disjunctures (scale, speed, etc.), as Appadurai suggests. For example, one might conclude that power is an extremely dominant flow in this race, flowing outwards, while large sums of money are constantly flowing inwards to create the various technologies. In addition, one might consider the flows that occur internally within each country, or consider comparing the flows of the U.S against those of China. In general, it is clear that within this issue alone, there are numerous disjunctures occurring, and can be considered from a variety of angles.
Appadurai goes on to mention the following: “What I would like to propose is that we begin to think of the configuration of cultural forms in today’s world as fundamentally fractal, that is, as possessing no Euclidean boundaries, structures, or regularities.”(46) This is clearly exemplified in the fact that this topic deals with the issue of space (literally). No longer are we confined to planet earth, but deterritorialization has taken us so far as to deal with the dynamics of space. These ideas are touched upon at the end of the video clip provided, suggesting that space is up for grabs.

In the above analysis of the different disjunctive flows, I found myself unsure as to what ‘scape the flow of information would fall under. I am specifically referring to the information that was passed along by Chung. While it could potentially fit under the mediascape category, it doesn’t seem to be altogether represented there. Mediascapes suggests travel along some form of media which is open to the public. In Chung’s case, media wasn’t really put to use. I can’t see the situation fitting into any other category well. This leads me to believe that it should have a category of its own. The problem this presents, is that often, these flows are generally unknown. It is clear though, through the space race that information alone, can prove to be a powerful flow.

Furthermore, the example of the space race brings up questions of dominance. What can be said for flows that are more predominant than others and how does this play a part in the ideas of heterogenization? I am speaking of largescale, widespread issues such as the space race, arms trade or drug trade. If issues are large enough, involve international bodies, and revolve around topics of great consequence (such as the question of power) does this not lead to questions of cultural imperialism and globalization? I would like to turn the tables slightly and note that Appadurai’s description of disjunctive flows and heterogenization tie in quite nicely with my previous blog entry on the inability of cultural imperialism to explain world communication. Appardurai states that “The crucial point, however, is that the United States is no longer the puppeteer of a world system of images but is only one node of a complex transnational construction of imaginary landscapes” (31). This being said, I am not disagreeing with my previous blog’s statements, but I am curious as to how dominant flows play a part in Appadurai’s suggestions.

Works Cited:

Appadurai, A. "Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy". Modernity at Large Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. University of Minnesota, 1996.

Cultural Imperialism: A Questionable Model

2008-02-17T12:30:00.000-08:00

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?

2008-02-09T07:16:00.000-08:00

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

2008-02-04T13:03:00.000-08:00

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.

Expanding the 'Imagined Community'

2008-01-28T10:28:00.000-08:00

In class we debated on Anderson’s suggestion of ‘imagined communities’ and what constitutes such a community today. The concept of electronic or internet groups became a favoured example for the present day. Specifically so, Facebook seemed to provide a prime example. Groups here can consist of people from all over the world who have a shared interest and who may join or leave at their own free will. It was argued in class that these communities provide a voluntary aspect to them that doesn’t necessarily fit with Anderson’s idea of an ‘imagined community’. With the immense advancements in information and communication technology I believe we need a more detailed definition between the ‘imagined communities’ of the past and those of the present in order to better conceptualize the idea in modern society.

Anderson’s community was as a result of an inescapable connection between people. For example, I envision myself as an individual with a unique Canadian identity. Being a Canadian citizen links me with individuals of the same heritage in that we make up the people of this nation. Albeit, I do not know each individual, but if I envision the citizens of Canada I imagine myself to be a part of a larger group with the same national background. On the contrary, online groups are voluntary in the sense that I may join, leave, or associate myself with at my own discretion. Here, a community is constituted by the place where groups form (chat room, Facebook group, etc). Furthermore, members all share a similar interest. I would usually only participate if I identified with the topic and the other members.

It seems as though the two different communities present an issue of identity vs. identify. Anderson’s ‘imagined community’ is as a result of one’s identity; unavoidable components of a person, whether they be events, or individual features. Internet communities arise out of identification with a subject or a group of individuals. This can be thought of on a ‘space vs. place’ account as well. Space is better represented through Anderson’s ‘imagined community’, which is fluid and cannot necessarily be signified physically. In turn, place represents the internet community, which has a ‘physical’ gathering spot.

This week’s lecture notes pose two questions, (a) what are the phenomena we should look at in order to understand how communication systems spread across borders and (b) how, in the process of crossing borders, are these phenomena changing the way nation states relate to the creation and maintenance of ‘imagined communities’? I think the first question can be addressed by Anderson’s idea of print capitalism, which can now be expanded to include all media forms. Capitalism is really what has led to the development of communication technology across borders – expanding internationally to exploit new markets.

As a result, perhaps we need to merge the two understandings I mentioned earlier into a more modern interpretation. It’s not that we can’t think of online communities as ‘imagined communities, but rather we can’t think of them in the same way Anderson once did. We need to expand our definitions to match continually expanding information and communication technologies. Therefore, this idea of print capitalism has moulded the way different nations and thier people relate to one another, with the expanding interpretation of 'imagined community' being a prime example.

Is There a Best Pick?

2008-01-20T17:38:00.000-08:00

In reviewing this past week’s lecture/readings I find myself swarmed by a multitude of different opinions on the theories of international communication – which perspective would benefit the country the most? Is there a best option? Etc.

Specifically, I see modernization theory as an aloof perspective that is neither in touch with its country of origin nor those it is trying to modernize. Thussu states that “in the 1970s, modernization theorists started to use the level of media development as an indicator of general societal development” (44). I hardly believe that a countries societal development can be gauged by their degree of media development. This statement presents media as a liberator or savior to a country. While I don’t discount the benefits of new advances in technology, I cannot necessarily see communication technology as a savior. I think there is both pros and cons to the issue. I think we run the risk of homogenizing Western culture with other distinct cultures of the world. Western culture possesses an extremely black or white opinion of modernization – as Thussu also states “one major shortcoming of the early modernization theorists was their assumption that the modern and the traditional lifestyles were mutually exclusive…” (45). All I am saying is, how can we be sure we’ve got it right? We can’t begin to impose upon another until we’ve walked in their shoes.

On the ideas of dependency thoery, I wish to take a different standpoint. I think it's inevitable that a certain degree of hierarchy emerges among countries - just as it does throughout the food chain. The more powerful countries are going to come forth as dominant in all sectors and are therefore able to delineate the 'rules of the game'. As is the case with a chain of command or hierarchy, it would make sense for Western culture to want to maintain thier position as powerful and keep third world countries dependent.

I feel as though we experience facets of both perspectives today. With the current amount of third world debt, it would seem as though many countries clearly owe a lot to the more developed nations. At the same time, there are many international situations in which I feel Western culture has butted it's way into when it should not have necessarily done so. This leads me to believe that we cannot narrow down international communication to a few different theories. If any theory is to take the place of the 'best pick' I feel it would be an amalgamation of all of them.