This essay is going to look at the phenomena of globalization and its effects on

cultures of the world. Posing question such as could culture imperialism smother
individual cultures throughout the world?
Can globalization carouse culture clashes?
Does globalization promote a smooth running of juxtaposition of cultures?

Globalization as an economic phenomenon has move from national liberalization

market economies to a global liberalization market economy, and carrying the
banner of Democracy and is making the world more interdependent, And has
created what is known as the “global village,” where by information vie the PC
and internet net works can carry information at vast speeds and a at low costs to
all corners of the world. The production of goods has been internationalized, and
money flows freely and instantly across borders. It is virtually trade without
borders. In this system multinational corporations wield vast power, while
anonymous investors can foster material prosperity or cause devastating
depression in any part of the world. Due to the surge of computer power
technology and of fiber optics and satellite dishes and the development of
information networks, such as the Internet the “World Wide Web”. This technology
has bypassed barriers and overcome the vast distance of travel. This modern
revolution of technology has given birth to economic phenomenon globalization. A
gateway has been crate by globalization that allows a quantitative and qualitative
expansion in transborder flows of activities and ideas from different culture.

Globalization has become a noticeable catchword in most societies throughout the

world. But anyone trying to determine or pin down a real meaning or the
interpretation of globalization will be met with so many different opinions from
people from all countries and nation from across the world. But whatever your
opinion might be whether optimistic or pessimistic or just let it be. Globalization,
is here to stay and will go on spreading. Technology has fired globalization at such
a velocity in such a short time across the breadth of the world that it has become
to be seen as something “Good or to be feared as a Threatening”.

We can see from the very first chapter of (DD100 A globalizing World) the
difference opinions from the four reads p11 2.2 Interpreting globalization, here we
read four views on globalization.
Source Hutton W “The State to Come “(1997, p.55)
In the first read Hutton paints a pessimistic view of globalization as a form of
homogenization of cultures. Where cultures are coming under threaten and are in
danger of being choked by the highbred Americanization and it’s for thirst for
global power. Culturalism imperial manipulated cultures of the world. Dominating
culture that is to kick other cultures throughout the world onto the touch lines and
substitute for their own used. The danger of being cultured by Popeye the sailor
man with a can of Monsanto genetic modified spinach is becoming a real threat.
Hutton makes reference to the blue jeans that most of world wares and has
become acceptable dress for work and leisure. In most societies throughout world
wear blue jeans that is an Icon of clothing associated with Americanization
culturalism imperial. It could be argued that culture imperialism could smoother
individual cultures throughout the world.

But finding a definition for culture poses another problematic of diversity of an

interpretation in its strengths and weakness from nation and societies from all
corners from the world. Culture is link to Identity and could be described as the
roots or of the teeth of a nation. Cultures are closely interwoven just like a length
of rope that is set of binds of complexities of ways and meanings. Any outside
influence could under mind cultures from the more undeveloped countries.
UNESCO on p61 raises its concerns about inequality of flows by cultural
imperialist.
(p61 DD100 chapter 2 THE GLOBALIZATION OF CULTURE) Sciller H (1991) Points
out that Western culture imperialism is in a one-way traffic lane and is as far from
being equal and is the opposite diversity of cultures.

But whatever your opinion might be. Optimistic view of globalization as a

stretches out a hand of sharing a bring togetherness of intercourse of cultures
from all nation around the world. The misunderstandings of other nation culture
will wash away along any preconceived ideas and prejudices. This relatively low
cost technology has brought about this “Global Village”. The remotest nations and
communities on earth will be connected to a new world of new knowledge. Where
by new cultures can be taken on or adapted. Optimist will draw our attention to
p.28 figure 1.4 that shows woman cashiers wearing their traditional clothing that
shows no compromising their culture or religion compared to the normal worn
garb such as the baseball cap. Optimist say people are rational and are aware
their own autonomy and will make their own agencies and the only way that
outside cultures can take hold within nation if people allow to happen. The English
can choose to eat at McDonalds, the Mexicans can choose to shop at Walmark,
and the Ethiopia’s can choose to drink Coke Cola. And course they do in millions.
The point is that no one form a western cultural imperil state will force them buy
what they do want. If people want American products or any other countries, they
will buy them. And if they decide not buy, the American corporations will not profit
and will pull out.

But inter-nationalists will dispute that globalization is anything but a new

phenomena although they do not deny something new global is happing as far as
surged in technology is concerned. Nationalist here on (p.66. in Table 2.6) bring
the idea of globalization in to more perspective view by showing television
coverage’s in the UK.
They show the percentages of audience viewing from MTV the Disney Channel as
about attracting only
2.0-3.0 % whereas the BBC attracts 44% of the viewing figures. The inter-
nationals then argue that any probability of inculcation form culture imperialism
from a Disney television channel would nothing more than a short live fantasy.
National say most of what is happing is regional and far from being global
Table 2.6 Estimated audience share for national and global television channels in the UK, 1997

A. For year ending 31 December 1996 (ITC, 1997)

B. For year ending 29 June 1997 (Phillips, 1997, p30) Source Sparks, 1998 Table 6.1, p.116

The Inter-nationals also cautions about culture imperialist swamping and

suppressing individual state cultures.
The inter-nationals say this all talk of connections and culture flows is nothing new
and can be trace back down through centuries and the of examples the silk Roads
across Central Asia that connected china and Europe during the Middle Agers and
likes of Marco Polo and his travels, the Romans in the UK.
The Transformationlists come out of their corner arguing that culture is a two way
flow and not one way.
Transformationlists deny the tag of thinking on culture imperialism by the US
television coverage.
(Sinclair et
Percentage in all Percentages in satellite and cable
Channel household (A) homes (B) al 1996,
Total BBC 44 31.1 p5) Points
Total Terrestrial 45.5 32.1
commercial out that
Total non-terrestrial 10.5 36.7 western TV
Total BSkyB 4.9 16.8 are not the
MTV 0.2 0.8
Nickelodeon 0.5 1.8 center of
Country Music Television 0.1 0.1 domination
The Discovery Channel 0.2 1.2
(Europe)
of the Third
The Disney Channel 0.3 0.8 World
The Paramount Channel 0.1 0.3 culture.
Fox kids - 0.3
But the
continent of Africa that has more undeveloped countries have many regional
complexes cultures that has had contiguous out flows of culture from regions to
region over the centuries. The Transformationlists say that any attempt by US TV
programmers for audiences with so many internal regional dialects and readable
purity would as nothing more culture imperialism. Transformationlists also make a
point that westernization imports of TV viewing would only meet the needs for out
of time viewing schedules.
What we need to understand is that culture is not an instinct it is something learnt
and as Homo sapiens we came out of Africa. We had to learnt new ways in order
survived take on new cultures yes we adapted them to our own used and this how
has always been.
As example you live a cite all mode cons then one day you find yourself in the
middle of jungle how long would you last not long unless of courses you to adapt
to the natives way of life.
And this is the way it is today you learn new culture the old ones become
redundant and the only lose are the ones that do not adapt to the modern jungle.

Word count estimated 1290 refinance estimated 142