Striving for a Synthesis: Why both cultural imperialism theory and globalization theory are equally important and necessary

Introduction
In political discourse there are many points of view, some of which are popular and some more extreme. Regardless of popularity, none of these are generally accepted as the ‘correct’ point of view, nor should they be. This is equally relevant in cultural imperialism and globalization debates. The world has many different kinds of people living in different environments, and generalizations cannot be made about all human interaction by citing a few examples. The entire world is not modern or post-modern exclusively. Society is fundamentally weakened when one point of view is universally accepted as reality. Cultural imperialism theory [CI theory] contains fundamentally necessary insights into the study of cultural and societal issues, but is an incomplete and inaccurate way of viewing the world. Globalization theory is a more accurate way of viewing economical, political, and cultural interactions between peoples, but it is too often apologetic for serious problems humanity faces. One of these without the presence of the other is far from an ideal way to base our actions towards each other. Globalization theory and cultural imperialism theory are therefore not only equally relevant but dependant on each other as academia strives towards a synthesis between the two.
For the purposes of this text, all arguments between CI theorists and globalization theorists will be divided into three categories. These are economic arguments, communication and information arguments, and cultural arguments. This is not to say that any of these are independent or unrelated. In fact most texts have touched upon at least two of these categories, even when attempting to discuss only one. These are simply three ways in which it can be demonstrated that both CI theory and globalization theory are necessary in forming a complete picture of global social, cultural, economical, and political reality.

Economic Issues
CI theory views global economic growth as a largely negative occurrence. To put it rather bluntly, CI theory gives the image of large powers fighting for control over weaker powers in order to exploit their people and resources, obliterating their individual cultures in the process. In 1969 Herbert Schiller cited the rhetoric of the American government at the time:
“few things more hopeful for the future than the growing determination of American business to regard national boundaries as no longer fixing the horizons of their corporate activity…In practice this would mean an American recognition of the primacy of the European interest in Africa…economic assistance, education, health and defense…just as today the European nations recognize our particular responsibility in Latin America.” (Schiller 1969)

This called attention to the spreading influence of the United States, a powerful nation-state interfering with weaker ones. Today, the nation-state argument has given way to the powerful corporation and capitalist culture argument. CI theorists view economic de-regulation as “the process of clearing the way for the inexorable advance of a ‘one-dimensional’ capitalist culture across national borders” (Tomlinson 1997, 120).
The importance of the CI view here is not to create a fear of foreign influence in order to stifle economic progress. Its importance is to create an awareness of the rapid change occurring outside the western or former ‘first world’, so that we might discover problems that arise from this change. These could be problems such as mass poverty and environmental degradation. Many CI theorists like Herbert Schiller have spoken to this:
“It is the still growing disparities between the advantaged and the disadvantaged societies, that constitute the fault line of the still seemingly secure world market economy. To this may be added the ecological disaster in the making, which is the inevitable accompaniment of the market forces that are roaring triumphantly across the continents.” (Schiller 2002, 331)

Even globalization theorists have conceded that “all available indices of quality of life continue to show the highest levels in the ‘core’ countries…while the levels of poverty and immiseration in large areas of Africa, Latin America, and Asia scarcely need pointing out” (Tomlinson 1997, 141).
The importance of globalization theory is that it recognizes the positive outcomes of global economic expansion. Globalization theory, also put bluntly, is the idea that the diffusion of economic, political, and cultural influence is a natural and uncontrollable occurrence, which exposes non-western cultures to new ideas and new ways of living their lives. Economically speaking, there are significant positive implications of the growing global capitalist economy. Globalization theorist John Tomlinson pointed out that “[Asian] developments in global capitalism, viewed in the long term, leave the nation-states of the West without any guarantees as to their continuing position of dominance” (Tomlinson 1997, 141). This suggests that economic power can no longer be considered to derive from one centralized source. The economist Jagdish Bhagwati published a book in 2004 called In Defense of Globalization in which, using India as a prime example, he argues that economic prosperity, accompanied by democratic ideals, can empower and help the most poor rather than exploit them. He explains that “empowerment, as it its called today – a fancy word for what we development economists have long understood and written about – proceeds from both political democracy and economic prosperity, and it is a powerful tool for aiding the poor” (Bhagwati 2004, 59).
Without CI theory here, issues such as mass poverty and environmental degradation would not receive the attention they deserve, but without Globalization theory we would be overly pessimistic about our growing world, and lower our potential as a global economy.



Issues in Media, Communications, and Information
Issues in these areas can almost all fall into two categories. Some assume that the world is full of audiences that are active and can choose what to expose themselves to, interpret it in their own way, and make rational decisions about it. Others assume that the world is full of vulnerable audiences who are easily manipulated and controlled. The main argument for this section is that neither is correct, because all people are different.
Having said that, there are many relevant issues that have been exposed by CI theorists. CI theory views global trans-national communication as a one-way stream of information from the political and corporate power centres to the masses. According to Oliver Boyd-Barrett, “The absence of reciprocation of media influence by the affected country combines both the element of cultural invasion by another power and the element of imbalance of power resources between the countries concerned” (Boyd-Barrett 1977, 118). Although this is less supportable in this day in age, especially with the internet, Boyd-Barrett makes an important argument as to how the presence of American media in foreign cultures can deliver unnecessary influence:
“A particular sub-species of the cultural dependence argument…sees media imperialism as a process which serves to reinforce existing economic and political relations between nations. The media in other words perform an ideological role…American media contents and American advertising money generates public identification with consumption values, whereas economic development requires an emphasis on production values.” (Boyd-Barrett 1977, 134)

Mustapha Masmoudi presents similar concerns:
“By transmitting to the developing countries only news processed by them, that is, news which they have filtered, cut, and distorted, the transnational media impose their own way of seeing the world upon the developing countries…Moreover, [they often] present these communities…in the most unfavorable light…information is distorted by reference to moral, cultural, or political values peculiar to certain states.” (Masmoudi 1979, 2174)

In areas where there are people who are possibly less educated and less able to make their own opinions from information they receive via the media, these are problems that should be dealt with.
Beyond issues such as these, globalization theorists like Tomlinson demonstrate how the global media are generally having positive influences on their individual cultures. Tomlinson makes two interesting points. First, he points out that in most countries domestic programming gains the most attention when it matters most, despite the presence of American programming (Tomlinson 1997, pp 134-149). This shows how although there are outside influences, domestic media in non-western countries have developed to compete with western media. Tomlinson also explains:
“[Empirical studies] suggest that…audiences for domestic programmes are active and critical in their constructions of meanings negotiations of ideological messages, so audiences faced with imported ideologies, values, and lifestyle positions bring their own cultural dispositions to bear on these texts.” (Tomlinson 1997, 137)

Although it might not be completely accurate to make this point a global generalization, he does point out that many people are able to take ideas they receive from foreign sources and combine them with their own ideas to create new ones. Even Boyd-Barrett concedes that “we cannot hope to trace a precise causal link between mass media exposure and cultural change” (Boyd-Barrett 1977, 132). Through this idea of active audiences, Tomlinson suggests that “The idea of the emergence of a monolithic global culture reproducing one hegemonic national culture is rather implausible” (Tomlinson 1997, 138).
Though globalization theory gives a more accurate view of the world in this respect, it has less of an ability to notice the negative repercussions that powerful new ideas and images can have on a culture.
Cultural Issues
As explained in the general thesis of this text, CI theory is necessary due to its ability to notice the problems that our global progression is or could plausibly cause, and globalization theory is necessary due to its ability to formulate a more accurate general view of our world. This is most true when it comes to cultural issues. CI theory brings attention to the loss of unique cultures, and the marginalization of those outside the ‘first world’, due to the inability to compete with prevailing western cultures. CI theory more fundamentally reminds us of the riches of living in a world with numerous cultures, and that culture should not be regarded as a commodity. In its early days, Frankfurt school writers like Theodor Adorno and organizations like UNESCO first gave us the image of a future where only one culture exits. The view of cultural impoverishment is well summarized by Tomlinson:
“Globalization [to CI theorists] involves the installation worldwide of basic social-cultural reality: the West’s epistemological and ontological theories, its values, ethical systems, approaches to rationality, technical-scientific worldview, political culture, and so on…It implies, for the world generally, a culture in which there will be only one way of understanding how life may be lived and…the obliteration of a whole range of diverse, unique cultures” (Tomlinson 1997, 144-145).

Whether or not this future could believably happen, for the purposes of this text, is not relevant. The point of and importance of CI theory at its core is to remind us about this so that we take steps to maintain the many cultures of our globe. To achieve this goal, Masmoudi stated:
“From the political viewpoint, the hopes, concerns, and struggles of communities, groups, and nations must be treated on equal terms and with complete honesty and objectivity, while avoiding provocations, support the causes of liberty and justice, defending human rights in their full, universal dimension, and making every effort to eliminate the sequels of colonialism, radicalism, apartheid, and all other discriminatory practices and serving the cause of peace in the world.” (Masmoudi 1979)

There have been many arguments made as to how to best protect these cultures. Dick Stanley argued that “culture is not just about artistic creation and performance, or about museums and art galleries, it is also about what we believe are proper actions and choices. Culture is therefore a source of power”[1] (Stanley 2005). He also argued that cultural demise will occur if certain cultures do not have the strength to build and expand on their heritage. The main point here is that although CI theory is not a source for solutions, it has the ability to bring attention to issues that affect our world.
With regards to culture, globalization theory recognizes that global culture functions like a complex organism rather than a simple battle between unique parties and that cultural hybridization is proof that the influence of outside cultures doesn’t necessarily mean the destruction of domestic culture. It also points out that CI theory’s suggested solutions, such as cultural protectionism, are generally inadequate. Globalization theory recognizes that it is becoming increasingly difficult to tie cultural forces with specific nation-states. Tomlinson explains all of this, and makes reference to American media in Canada:
“The broad idea of deterritorialization is that we are no longer able to live our lives entirely ‘locally’: our cultural experiences are pervaded by distant influences…The attempt to defend national cultural identity against a supposed threat of cultural imperialism involves the representation of a spurious cultural unity in nation-states. The dominant cultural constituency…thus becomes that which ‘needs protecting’, and this has the effect of internally regulating cultural identity by suppressing the ethnic and cultural diversity – the ‘multiculturalism’ – which is in fact a feature of all modern nation-states…[American media] penetration [in Canada] is not unambiguously and comprehensively contrary to the overall cultural and economic interests of Canadians. Canadian viewers…have demonstrated a distinct lack of interest in home-produced television drama, manifestly preferring that produced in the USA…Canadian broadcasters and cable companies make more money from screening American drama” (Tomlinson 1997, 128-131)
Tomlinson also cites the “increasing numbers of westerners adopting non-western religions such as Islam or Buddhism, or the way in which western politicians and economists have recently begun to look at the political-economic culture of some Asian societies…in an attempt to learn from the rapid economic development of these societies” (Tomlinson 1997, 146). Overall, we get a better view of our world through globalization theory.
Music
In the global music scene, both theories also have their importance. CI theory pulls attention to the concentration of wealth and ownership in the global industry. The major four record labels own about 70% of the world recorded music market. Globalization theory points out, however that many hybrids are beginning to appear. In Europe, the introduction of rock ‘n roll “music was precisely seen as a form of cultural invasion by many ideologues and governments [in Europe]…while rock ’n roll was undoubtedly a moment in the expansion and technological development of the entertainment industry, it was also an instance of the use of foreign music by a generation [of European youth] to distance themselves from a parental ‘national’ culture” (Laing 1986, 338). Specifically, the influence of punk, according to Laing, created true hybrid forms of music. “In this case, a borrowing of the instrumental form was accompanied by the adaptation of punk’s national character…bands from Finland to Yugoslavia began to write iconoclastic rock songs in their own language and about their own conditions of life” (Laing 1986, 338). In this respect, both theories are relevant.




Conclusion
In conclusion, globalization draws attention away from the negative implications CI theory speaks about, just as CI theory draws attention from the positive implications globalization theory speaks of. Both theories are relevant and important, and picking one over the other seems counter-intuitive. The true goal, as was stated in the introduction, is to eventually find a final synthesis between the original CI thesis and the globalization antithesis.
[1] Although cited from Stanley 2005, an endnote in that text cites the following as the origin of the statement: Don Mitchell, Cultural Geography: A Critical Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000)

© Alex Leduc 2006

References:

Bhagwati, Jagdish, In Defense of Globalization (New York: Oxford, 2004)

Boyd-Barrett, Oliver, Media Imperialism: Towards an international framework for the analysis of media systems (1977)

Laing, Dave, “The music industry and the ‘cultural imperialism’ thesis”, Media, Culture, and Society (Sage: London, Beverly Hills, and New Delhi), Vol. 8, (1986), 331-341

Masmoudi, Mustapha, “Third World News and Views: New World Information Order”, Journal of Communication, Spring 1979, 29, 2, pp. 2172

Schiller, Herbert I, Mass Communications and American Empire (New York: AM Kelley, 1969)

Schiller, Herbert I, “Not Yet The Post-Imperialist Era”, Critical Studies In Mass Communication (1991), vol. 8, pp. 13-28.

Stanley, Dick, “The Three Faces of Culture: Why Culture Is a Strategic Good Requiring Government Policy Attention”, from Caroline Andrew ed. [et. al.] Accounting for Culture: thinking through cultural citizenship, Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 2005.

Tomlinson, John, “Internationalism, Globalization, and Cultural Imperialism”, from Kenneth Thompson, ed., Media and Cultural Reeducation, London: Sage, 1997

Wang, Georgette and Yeh, Emilie Yueh-yu, “Globalization and hybridization in cultural products: the cases of Mulan and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.” International Journal of Cultural Studies (Sage: London, Thousand Oaks, CA, and New Delhi), Vol. 8.2, (2005), 175-193