Culture and Globalization
Heavily Adapted from the Globalization101.org Issue Brief
Introduction
Globalization101.org has defined the phenomenon of globalization as the "acceleration and intensification of economic interaction among the people, companies, and governments of different nations." Most studies of globalization tend to focus on changes occurring in the economic and political spheres. The details of those issues, such as tariff rates and international agreements, have fallen within the traditional province of government bureaucrats and political leaders.
However, the dramatic changes wrought by globalization have forced policymakers to respond to public pressures in many new areas. Observers of globalization are increasingly recognizing that globalization is having a significant impact on matters such as local cultures, matters which are less tangible and hard to quantify, but often fraught with intense emotion and controversy.
Jeremy Rifkin, a prominent critic of globalization, writes that:
"The powers that be have long believed that the world is divided into two spheres of influence: commerce and government. Now organizations representing the cultural sphere—the environment, species preservation, rural life, health, food and cuisine, religion, human rights, the family, women's issues, ethnic heritage, the arts and other quality-of-life issues—are pounding on the doors at world economic and political forums and demanding a place at the table. They represent the birth of a new "civil-society politics" and an antidote to the forces pushing for globalization."
Generally speaking, issues surrounding culture and globalization have received less attention than the debates which have arisen over globalization and the environment or labor standards. In part this is because cultural issues are more subtle and sensitive, and often more confusing.
The globalization of the production and distribution of goods and services is a welcome development for many people in that it offers them access to products that they would not otherwise have. However, some are concerned that the changes brought about by globalization threaten the viability of locally made products and the people who produce them. For example, the new availability of foreign foods in a market—often at cheaper prices—can displace local farmers who have traditionally earned a living by working their small plots of family-owned land and selling their goods locally.
Globalization, of course, does more than simply increase the availability of foreign-made consumer products and disrupt traditional producers. It is also increasing international trade in cultural products and services, such as movies, music, and publications. The expansion of trade in cultural products is increasing the exposure of all societies to foreign cultures. And the exposure to foreign cultural goods frequently brings about changes in local cultures, values, and traditions. Although there is no consensus on the consequences of globalization on national cultures, many people believe that a people's exposure to foreign culture can undermine their own cultural identity.
1. Global Professions
The Dominance of the American Market
Why is the American market so dominant within the force of globalization? The United States can be seen to play such a prominent role in cultural globalization for a number of reasons:
Consider that 97 percent of the U.S. population is considered fluent in the English language, and that the U.S. Census Bureau classifies 71 percent of the population within one major ethnic group (Caucasian, non-Hispanic). This contrasts dramatically with countries such as Nigeria or India, where no language is spoken as a mother tongue by any segment that accounts for more than 30 percent of the population.
The ability to speak English grants one access to almost the entire U.S. population, as well as hundreds of millions of other people around the world. The U.S. Market Versus the World GDP per capita vs. population: In 2002, the United States had the world's second largest GDP per capita, at $36,3000, superseded only by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. Of the ten countries in the world with the highest median income levels, only one—the United States—had a population greater than 11 million people. Population vs. GDP per capita: The United States was the world's third-largest country by population in 1999. Of the world's 10 most populous nations, only one other country, Japan, had a GDP per capita above $7,500. Language: Linguists estimate that more than 1 billion people around the world speak English as a primary or secondary language. Only Mandarin Chinese has nearly as many primary and secondary speakers.
Consequently, producers of goods and services that can reach the entire U.S. market tend to find themselves in dominant positions. Think, for instance, about the movie industry. A Hollywood producer from a major film studio can relatively easily invest $100 million into the production of a film, ensuring that it has the biggest stars, the best special effects, and the widest marketing and distribution. Because the U.S. market is so large and so affluent, a movie producer can be relatively confident that its investment will be recouped (depending on the quality of the movie, of course). Having produced a movie for the U.S. market, a successful film can then be "exported," or vi ewed worldwide, for very little extra cost.
Few other nations are in a position to invest so much money in a movie production. Movies produced in French or Hindi, whatever merits they have as films, will rarely reach the same mass global audience as an English language film. The producers are not likely to collect anywhere near the global box office receipts of an English language film, so producers rarely invest the same amounts of money in production or distribution. These combined factors of market size and wealth have therefore given U.S. producers of films, television programs, and magazines an enormous advantage over foreign competitors. Consequently, American movies dominate movie theater screens around the world, and many American- made movies now collect more than half their box office receipts from foreign audiences.
The Davos Culture
Many observers of globalization have come to recognize a new class of people who are generally well-educated, trained professionals in the business field, who have developed a kind of global common culture.
Harvard University Professor Samuel Huntington has characterized this group of global professionals as the "Davos culture," named after the Swiss luxury resort locale of an annual, informal meeting of very select and elite businessmen, financiers, and heads of states. (Although the participants at the meeting do not represent governments in any official capacity, make policy decisions, or negotiate any agreements, they do share ideas and put forth proposals pertaining to global economic concerns.) Huntington sees these individuals as drivers of global economic processes and as a force for pursuing the business agenda of further globalization.
The members of this group around the world are largely proficient in English, and from their offices in their native countries they are immersed in a shared world of computers, cell phones, and flight schedules. Huntington is disdainful of this group for presuming that their predominantly Western ways of doing business and living will supersede traditional cultural values. He identifies this group of elites as being largely responsible for driving the global agenda on foreign affairs and trade talks.
Robert Reich, who served as Secretary of Labor under President Clinton and whose political views are very different from Huntington's, has also noted the existence of this group. However, Reich draws a broader definition of its membership, including a wide segment of professionals within the United States. Although much of Huntington's thesis focuses on the differences between various civilizations, Reich points out that this cultural globalization is also creating a division within American society (Reich, 1991).
For Reich, this new class of globalized professionals accounts for perhaps 15 to 25 percent of the U.S. population. He observes that the members of this group:
Members of this group therefore may be more likely to think of themselves as "citizens of the world." They can feel as at home in Tokyo, Rome, or Hong Kong as they would in New York or Los Angeles. Reich says they have been the biggest winners in the globalization game, and comprise most of the membership of those who are shaping the globalization agenda. However, as his essay also notes, this does not mean that members of this group are in agreement with each other on many, or any, of the decisions being made about globalization, or that they share an understanding of its implications.
In contrast, the rest of society - being more national or regional in its outlook—is not only more sensitive to the intrusions of global culture on their local norms, but is also more likely to bear the economic costs of the disruptions of globalization and serve in the military. The frustrations of these groups may explain the periodic resurgences across the world of anti- global nationalist figures like Pat Buchanan in the United States, Jean-Marie Le Pen in France, or Vladimir Zhirinovsky in Russia.
Of course, there are positive arguments to be made on behalf of this globalizing professional class. Although many observers note the imprint of American culture on this group, it is also possible to look upon this culture as one that pays more homage to the market than any xenophobic national identity; it is internally meritocratic, and it could in fact be seen as the very vanguard of global multiculturalism.
Friedman notes that, due to the increased volumes of immigration and mobility of people brought about by globalization, almost every country in the world has to learn to come to terms with multiculturalism. In spite of its problems in dealing with the problems of race and ethnicity, many people around the world look to the United States as an example of how to promote diversity and tolerance of other cultures within one society.
2. Global Popular Culture
Among the three effects of globalization on culture, the growth of global "pop culture" tends to get the most attention, and to strike people on a visceral level. Many complain that this form of globalization is actually Americanization, because the United States is by far the biggest producer of popular culture goods. Pop culture is manifested around the world through movies, music, television shows, newspapers, satellite broadcasts, fast food and clothing, among other entertainment and consumer goods.
Former Canadian Prime Minister Kim Campbell observed that "images of America are so pervasive in this global village that it is almost as if instead of the world immigrating to America, America has emigrated to the world, allowing people to aspire to be Americans even in distant countries." (Barthin, 1998)
For the United States, the entertainment industry is one of the most important spheres of economic activity. In fact, the U.S. entertainment industry generates more revenue from overseas sales than any other industry other than the commercial aerospace industry. Many would say that this new juggernaut of American industry has propelled the American pop culture around the world at a frenetic pace. Viewed from the perspective of other countries, the dominance of the United States film industry in Europe has been a rapidly and recently growing concern. In 1987, U.S. films already held an imposing 56 percent of the European film market. Less than a decade later, that share had risen to over 90 percent.
American movies and television shows, which are commonly referred to in trade parlance as audio-visual services, are therefore an important commodity among U.S. exports. As is often the case with exports and imports, exporting nations rarely acknowledge problems when one of their industries is able to capture a large or steadily increasing share of export revenues. However, when any sector of a nation's industry is threatened by foreign imports, voluminous concerns are raised.
This is perhaps doubly the case with regard to inherently cultural products. Not only do foreign nations worry about their own domestic entertainment industries from an economic standpoint, but they also worry about the effects on their culture. For many citizens of other countries, American films and televisions shows are not just another commodity. Canada's former Prime Minister Kim Campbell noted that
For Americans, cultural industries are industries like any others. For Canadians, cultural industries are industries that, aside from their economic impact, create products that are fundamental to the survival of Canada as a society. The globalization of the world economy and communications has been a vehicle for the Americanization of the globe. For Canada and other countries, globalization has been a phenomenon within which their distinct, non-American cultures must struggle to survive. "
"Washington's crusade for free trade is often seen abroad as a Trojan horse for companies, such as Walt Disney Co. and Cable News Network that would dominate foreign lifestyles and values. Most Americans react to these fears with a shrug. That's a big mistake." - Jeffrey Garten, former U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade (Business Week , November 30, 1998)
The Spread of American Popular Culture
Globalization enables foreign companies to distribute American cultural products, including music and books. The spread of American restaurant chains and consumer products worldwide is accompanied by the spread of American popular culture. In recent years, American movies, music, and TV shows have consistently gained more and more audiences worldwide.
The products of popular musicians are also likely to be distributed by non-U.S. companies such as Japan's Sony, Germany's Bertelsmann AG, France's Vivendi, or the United Kingdom's EMI Group. Similarly, American authors are increasingly published by foreign media conglomerates, such as Bertelsmann, which owns Random House and Ballantine, or Australia's News Corporation, which owns HarperCollins Publishing and the Hearst Book Group. It is interesting to note that foreign media groups contribute to the spread of American popular culture as well. Foreign corporations earn profits by selling U.S. products, and U.S. products become more accessible worldwide.
Canada is one of the best examples of a country where U.S. cultural products dominate despite the Canadian government's efforts to preserve local culture. Canadian films account for just 2.1 percent of Canadian film ticket sales, and the vast majority of the remaining 98 percent are American. Moreover, three quarters of the television watched, four out of five magazines sold on newsstands, and 70 percent of the content on radio, are of foreign origin. The vast majority of foreign products in all of these categories are American.
In most other countries, however, American cultural products are not as widespread as they are in Canada, and they face more domestic competition. In most cases, two general trends can be observed. First, many American cultural products tend to be popular with people of very different societies. Second, despite the popularity of American cultural products, other countries still produce a substantial number of films, music, books, and TV shows.
The Integration of Cultures
Although the United States may play a dominant role within the phenomenon of cultural globalization, it is important to keep in mind that this is not an entirely one- way street. Many other countries also contribute to global culture, including American culture itself. Just as American popular culture influences foreign countries, other national cultures are influential within the United States and also increase their presence worldwide.
Hollywood is a good example of an industry that integrates elements from more than one culture. Most people would think of Hollywood as something entirely American. However, while Hollywood dominates world cinema, American movies are subject to foreign influence. According to The Economist, "one reason for Hollywood's success is that from the earliest days it was open to foreign talent and foreign money." Many American movies are remakes of foreign films. The Hollywood movies Three Men and a Baby and Just Visiting are both remakes of older French films.
Many film-making companies, producers, and actors in Hollywood are not even American. Columbia Tristar and Fox are owned by Japan's Sony and Australia's News Corporation, respectively, two foreign media conglomerates. James Cameron, producer of the movie Titanic, is Canadian. Moreover, many of Hollywood's most famous actors are not Americans. Arnold Schwarzenegger is from Austria, and Nicole Kidman grew up in Australia. From this perspective, one may argue that Hollywood is a typically global institution.
However, one may also note that actors such as Nicole Kidman and Mel Gibson, upon arriving in Hollywood, were given language lessons to help them lose their foreign accents. Hollywood producers had them do this largely over sensitivities that American audiences might perceive them negatively if they appeared to be foreign. So while Hollywood may incorporate many foreign elements into its craft—especially behind the scenes—its public face is distinctly American.
Television
Another area in which American cultural products are influential is television shows. CNN exemplifies the global news network. After starting as a cable news network for U.S. viewers only, CNN now reaches over 200 million households in over 212 countries and territories. However, television remains a more local cultural form than movies, music, or publications. For example, in 1998, no U.S. TV series broke into Europe's top 10.
However, there was a time when television had a significant impact on Eastern European politics. Television series such as “Dallas” and “Dynasty” were viewed by individuals living behind the Iron Curtain and offered an unrealistic, but appealing alternative to the communist lifestyle. The hyper-consumerism and extreme wealth portrayed on these shows stood in stark contrast to the poorer, more constrained lifestyle in the East. Almost by definition, pop culture has attained an immense global following precisely because it is popular. For many citizens of other countries though, the near take-over of their own cultural industries, especially for younger audiences, is of great concern.
3. Global National Culture
Critics of globalization charge that the phenomenon, especially through pop culture, is perpetrating a kind of cultural genocide on the world—that the largest, most dominant cultures are becoming larger and more dominant at the expense of many others. In this view, globalization is in fact another word for Americanization.
However, others argue that globalization offers the potential to enrich the world culturally. To these people, the notion that the opportunities for cultural exchange brought about by globalization can help promote tolerance and diversity is very attractive. Their vision is the multi-cultural "global village," where ideas and practices can be freely exchanged and appreciated.
The potential enlightenment of the global village can be contrasted with the way people tended to view other nations and cultures ages ago. In the 18th century, Adam Smith, the father of economic theory, noted the detachment of emotion caused by distance:
Let us suppose that the great empire of China, with all its myriads of inhabitants, was suddenly swallowed up by an earthquake, and let us consider how a man of humanity in Europe, who had no sort of connexion [sic] with that part of the world, would be affected upon receiving intelligence of this dreadful calamity.... If he was to lose his little finger tomorrow, he would not sleep to-night; but, provided he never saw [the Chinese people killed by an earthquake], he will snore with the most profound security over the ruin of a hundred millions of his brethren, and the destruction of that immense multitude seems plainly an object less interesting to him, than this paltry misfortune of his own (The Theory of Moral Sentiments, 1759).
Smith's point was that no matter how sympathetic this 18th-century European might be to the plight of others, a tragic event so far away could not affect a person on an emotional level unless they had a more real connection to the event.
Globalization has changed this dynamic, in sometimes quite powerful ways. In today's world, foreign policy decisions are sometimes driven by television images beamed around the world by satellites showing famine or fighting in other nations. In this context, globalization enables a newscaster to humanize an event overseas. As Adam Smith might have observed, seeing images of starving children and other human suffering on television creates a much more powerful emotional reaction in an observer than reading in a newspaper that 100,000 people have died as a result of a natural disaster overseas.
The CNN Effect
This indifference about people in foreign countries noted by Adam Smith can be very different today, due in part to globalization (though this is clearly not always the case). Foreign policy decision-makers have discovered that press coverage on wars, famines, and other events overseas can have powerful impacts on popular opinion at home. Public outrage over atrocities or sympathy at suffering can generate significant public pressure to governments to respond.
In 1984, a British television documentary about the famine in Ethiopia led a group of pop artists in Britain to organize a charity event on behalf of the victims. Led by Bob Geldof, the singers and musicians recorded a song, "Do They Know It's Christmas?," and held a concert that raised nearly $15 million for relief efforts.
The U.S. government in 1992 was induced to intervene militarily in Somalia to help avert a famine. Administration officials at the time cited one of the reasons they felt that action necessary was due to immense public pressure that had been generated based on news coverage of the crisis. Similarly, the Clinton Administration, trying to resolve a very complex and bloody conflict in the Balkans, often noted that images on the news of killings there had a significant impact on their decisions.
Reaffirmation of Local Culture
Some people would argue that globalization can also reinforce local cultures. In India, for example, satellite TV permits an increase in the number of regional channels, many of which can and do telecast Indian content. This gives an Indian individual new opportunity to identify with his regional ties. Similarly global companies have to take into account the culture of all the countries where they conduct operations or sell products. This can also enhance cultural awareness.
Many observers have speculated that the homogenizing effect of globalization on national cultures in fact tends to produce a reaction among people which leads them to want to reaffirm their own local traditions. Author Benjamin Barber in particularly has made the case that the sometimes violent reactions against the West by elements within Islamic society may be seen in this light. Barber argues that these movements may be seen as negative manifestations of a broader desire to reaffirm their traditional cultural values, against the disruptive onslaught of Western beliefs.
For example, capitalism favors a more fast-paced environment and a consumer culture, which differ from the lifestyle that people in some countries are used to. This is particularly hard to accept for people who are afraid of change and want to preserve their traditions.
The Influence of U.S. Corporations on National Cultures
One of the principal concerns about the new globalization of culture that is supposedly taking place is that it not only leads to a homogenization of world culture, but also that it largely represents the "Americanization" of world cultures. The spread of American corporations abroad has various consequences on local cultures, some very visible, and others less obvious. For example, the influence of American companies on other countries' cultural identity can be seen with regard to food, which matters on two levels. First, food itself is in many countries an integral aspect of the culture. Second, food restaurants can influence the mores and habits in societies where they operate. The French are proud of having a unique cuisine that reflects their culture, such as crepes and pastries. Because of their pride in their cuisine, some French people are concerned that U.S. restaurant chains crowd out their own products with fast food. Some French people would argue that fast food does not belong in French society and is of lower quality than their own.
Moreover, restaurant chains not only affect eating habits, but they also influence the traditions and mores in countries where they are located. Starbucks causes cultural concerns in Italy because of the association that Italians make between coffee and leisurely sidewalk cafes. Coffee in Italy is more than a drink; it is part of the way of life and Italian mores. While in the United States it is common for people to buy takeaway coffee for drinking in the street or office, in Italy people usually prefer to relax and chat with peers while drinking coffee. Coffee shops offer a personal, friendly atmosphere that many Italians believe a large chain could not provide. Similarly, many people would prefer to frequent coffee shops that are each unique, while Starbucks offers a standard formula.
Another example can be seen with the introduction of the McDonald's restaurant in China. In the past, it was not considered proper for Chinese children to buy food with their own money, as they were expected to eat what was put in front of them. Because of McDonald's marketing to children, however, kids developed an interest in choosing their own food when going to McDonald's. After some time, it became more of a common practice for children to buy their food with their own money.
McDonald's also popularized birthday parties in China. In the past, festivities marking a child's birth date were not celebrated in China. McDonald's established a new tradition by successfully promoting American-style birthday parties as part of its marketing strategy. This example may appear trivial, but it shows that the spread of American companies in foreign countries can have unexpected consequences.
These concerns are also present with regard to films and the entertainment industry more broadly. This is the case with French films in France, for example. As will be discussed later in the brief, governments from countries like France have attempted to intervene in the functioning of the market to try to protect their local cultural industries, by taking measures such as restricting the number of foreign films that can be shown. But if a government imposes domestic films, TV shows, or books onto its people, it limits their choice to consume what they prefer. In other words, the government is effectively saying that it does not trust its people to make the choices that are right for them.
Throughout history, cultures have changed and evolved. Globalization may accelerate cultural change. However, because change is driven by the choice of consumers, the elements of a particular culture will inevitably reflect consumer choice.
Protecting Languages
Many governments around the world have attempted to protect their native cultures by imposing bans on what they declare to be foreign cultural intrusions. France has attracted the most notoriety for attempting to protect its language from the immigration of foreign words. The French Academy routinely scours the land for invasive words from other languages, most notably English ones. Words such as "walkman," "talk show," and "prime time" have been declared unwelcome foreigners, and the government has attempted—with rather limited success—to replace them with French substitutes.
Similarly, in Canada's French speaking province of Quebec, provincial regulations stipulate that any sign containing English posted by a business must also post the same text in French in letters at least twice the size of the English text. Even more drastic measures to promote the French language have been considered, such as obliging immigrants to receive their college educations in French, and requirements that large-sized businesses conduct all their transactions in French. The Chinese government has also attempted to protect the purity of its language by removing the use of foreign words. Authorities in China recently scrutinized the brands and names of over 20,000 western companies, forcing them to change 2,000 to more Chinese-sounding names.
Of course, non-English speaking countries are not alone in trying to establish efforts to protect their local languages. Within the United States over the past several decades a significant political movement has sprung up, very similar to those seen in France or Quebec, aimed at preserving the use of English. The group U.S.-English, for example, was founded "to ensure that English continues to serve as an integrating force among our nation's many ethnic groups." Many Americans have grown concerned over the proliferation of other languages, due largely to the rapidly influx of immigrants into the United States. This movement demonstrates the extreme sensitivity of cultural issues, and the visceral reaction that many people have to what they perceive to be threats to their traditional ways of life.
Such efforts to protect the English language within the United States are a form of cultural protection. Any who doubt the depth of concern by people around the world about the effects that globalization is having on their local cultures, might keep in mind these kinds of reactions even within the United States. In the midst of the country that is often accused of "culturally colonizing" the rest of the world, the introduction of foreign cultural elements can generate significant political pressure to protect local traditions and values.
4. Global Value Systems
Other observers have suggested that globalization leads to effects beyond simply raising awareness and sympathy for people and events in other nations. There is also a diffusion of values on issues such as human rights, democracy, and even on very specific concerns such as health matters.
Sociology Professor Peter Berger has noted that a global network of foundations, academic networks, non-governmental organizations and some governmental, and multinational agencies (such as the UN system and development agencies), have become transmission agents for what they perceive to be positive cultural values (Berger, 1997).
This group spreads its ideas through mass communication, think tanks, educational systems, development projects, the legal system, and other mechanisms of international organizations.
For example, three non-governmental organizations, Amnesty International, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), and the French organization Medicines Sans Frontiers (Doctors Without Borders), all won the Nobel Peace Prize at different times for their efforts to extend values about human well-being onto a global level.
In particular, many policymakers noted that the decision to award the Nobel Prize to the ICBL in 1997 was partly in recognition of what at that time was a new way of organizing politically on a global level. The Executive Director of the ICBL, a young activist named Jody Williams, relied heavily upon the relatively new medium of the Internet to help spread an idea about the benefits of banning landmines around the world.
With a skeletal staff and modest resources but very creative use of technology, Williams managed to build a global network of over 1,100 groups for human rights, de-mining, humanitarian, children's, veterans', medical, development, arms control, religious, environmental, and women's causes in over 60 countries, who work locally, nationally, regionally, and internationally to ban antipersonnel landmines. Her organizing led to the creation of a significant international movement that produced a significant shift in government attitudes towards these very common weapons. The ICBL's campaign was one of the new products of globalization, which many people and governments are only beginning to fully understand.
Efforts to "globalize" reform efforts are as limitless as the domestic agendas of any individual nation. Peter Berger points out that one of the most successful public health movements in developed nations over the past 20 years has been an effort to discourage smoking. Berger notes that this movement, "clearly a product of Western intellectuals, was disseminated worldwide by an alliance of governmental and non-governmental organizations." He points out one particularly odd moment in this campaign—a kind of cultural clash of well-intentioned globalization—when a major international conference was sponsored by the Scandinavian countries in Stockholm.
The goal of the conference was to support an international campaign to reduce cigarette smoking. The detrimental health effects of smoking are well-documented, and the numbers of people in developing countries who smoke have been increasing at a rapid rate. Many individual countries have undertaken efforts to educate their citizens about the dangers of smoking, and the conference organizers wanted to take this effort to a global audience.
Having paid the travel expenses of health ministry officials from developing countries around the world, the assembled ministers all made sympathetic remarks about the lofty goals of the campaign. Nonetheless, Berger notes, many of the developing country officials—whose nations are being ravaged by incurable diseases such as HIV/AIDS and very curable or preventable ones such as cholera, tuberculosis, or malaria—have felt that anti-smoking efforts must rank very low on their list of priorities.
A Clash of Civilizations?
Harvard University Professor Samuel Huntington has produced one of the seminal writings on the notion that culture will be the principal factor that divides the world in the future. In an article titled "The Clash of Civilizations," which was later expanded into a full book, Huntington says:
"...The fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics." (Foreign Affairs, 1993)
Huntington defines a civilization as "the highest cultural grouping of people and the broadest level of cultural identity people have.... It is defined by both common objective elements, such as language, history, religion, customs, institutions, and by the subjective self-identification of people." In doing so, he divides the world into major cultural groups including Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American, and African civilization.
At the core of his thesis is the notion that, with the end of global competition over economic ideology, the fault lines of world conflict now almost all lie along rifts between these great cultures of the world. Huntington sees these notions of cultural identity as so primal that he believes they ultimately will take precedence over the secular, unifying forces of economic globalization.
Author Benjamin Barber has written another of the most significant recent works on the way cultures clash, titled “Jihad vs. McWorld.” However, unlike Huntington, who sees the world splitting along cultural lines, Barber defines the battle as one between traditional values, which is the source of what he terms Jihad, on the one hand (although the term originates in Islam, Barber applies it to any tradition-centered, anti-globalizing movement); and the forces of globalization, or McWorld, on the other.
According to Barber, McWorld is characterized by the "anti-politics of globalism." That is, it is "bureaucratic, technocratic, and meritocratic, focused on the administration of things—with people, however, among the chief things to be administered." But there are positive aspects to this rather sterile market approach. Markets do reinforce the "quest for international peace and stability.... Markets are enemies of parochialism, isolation, fractiousness, war." In this world of supreme economic choice, however, traditions and cultural values are diminished as "shopping has little tolerance for blue laws, whether dictated by pub-closing British paternalism, Sabbath-observing Jewish Orthodox fundamentalism, or no-Sunday-liquor-sales Massachusetts Puritanism."
Jihad is Barber's antithesis of McWorld, emphasizing local identity, sense of community, and solidarity among neighbors and countrymen. The downside of Jihad is that it is intensely nationalist, parochial, and exclusionary. Barber is deeply skeptical of reform efforts that merely tinker at the margins of globalization. Many governments and academics are inclined to try to ameliorate problems on a case-by-case basis. As an alternative, Barber speculates, "The most attractive democratic ideal in the face of the brutal realities of Jihad and the dull realities of McWorld will be a confederal union of semi-autonomous communities smaller than nation-states, tied together into regional economic associations and markets larger than nation-states.... The Green movement adage “Think globally, act locally” would actually come to describe the conduct of politics."
Thomas Friedman in his book The Lexus and the Olive Tree makes similar observations about the "anti-politics of globalism." He notes that globalization has the effect of a "golden straitjacket" on government, in which economic questions take precedence over all others. In this world, when a country puts on the golden straitjacket, "its economy expands and its politics shrinks."
Protecting Family Farms
In many countries, especially those wealthy nations that have embraced globalization and most fully lowered trade barriers to agricultural products, small farmers have found it increasing difficult to compete with food imports. Farmers in both Europe and the United States have lobbied hard to maintain restrictions on imports of agricultural products. Agricultural products remain among the most protected and highly subsidized goods that are traded. Every day, nearly $1 billion is spent (almost entirely by the world's wealthy countries) on agricultural export subsidies and domestic price supports. The most immediate effect of these barriers is a decrease in global economic efficiency.
However, farmers in countries that have imposed these measures have argued that what is at stake is not simply a matter of economic efficiency, but the preservation of an entire way of life. Within the debate on agricultural subsidies, proponents have made the case that family farms are "multifunctional." That is, they are not only producers of agricultural goods, but are also essential to the maintaining cultural traditions of their regions.
The term "multifunctional" suggests farms have value beyond the food and fiber they produce that cannot be measured in economic terms alone. The Land Stewardship Project describes this value as follows: "contribution to the vitality of rural communities (through maintenance of family farming, rural employment and cultural heritage), biological diversity, recreation and tourism, soil and water health, bioenergy, landscape, food quality and safety, and animal welfare."
For certain agricultural communities within the U.S. these also are not esoteric debates. Some rural counties in the northern plains states have lost nearly half their populations due to the closing of family farms and the loss of other jobs relating to agriculture (such as a tractor parts supplier). A significant part of the reason for these losses has been the availability of cheaper imported food.
Of course, farmers in developing countries, who stand to gain the most by reduced subsidies and tariffs, counter that these supposed cultural protections come at the expense of their own economic development. Developing country farmers are eager to break into the rich country markets, and this is often one of their most strenuous demands at trade talks. Generally it is the wealthier countries that spend the most on these agriculture trade-restricting measures.
Wildlife Protection and Cultural Rights
In the early 1990s, the United States attempted to impose sanctions against Mexico for inadequately protecting dolphins in Mexican waters from Mexico's tuna fishing industry. The impetus for the sanctions was not due to the fact that the dolphins were an endangered or even threatened species (which they were not). The prohibition was simply because of American cultural mores, namely an antipathy to the needless killing of these animals.
The ban on dolphin-unfriendly tuna catching was the outcome of a political movement that brought the U.S. government into a heated trade confrontation with the government of Mexico. Whether one agrees with the motives of the ban or not, this type of cross-border activism can also be considered a product of cultural globalization. In this case, one nation sought to impose its values about wildlife upon another nation.
Standing in contrast to the dolphin protection measure has been the attempt by the nations of Norway and Japan to seek an exemption on cultural grounds from an international whaling ban. In the spring of 2000, the governments of these two countries sought to claim at a UN conference on trade in endangered species that whaling constituted an integral part of their cultural heritage. The whales that the two countries sought to hunt were not considered endangered, so in their views, the prohibition on hunting them was not based on environmental reasons.
For hundreds of years, local fishermen have hunted whales, and the food source was considered part of their tradition and culture. The Norwegians claimed that their northern coastal villages depended on hunting and fishing for their livelihoods. Although whaling is not a big part of the Norwegian national budget, it is considered a crucial source of income for those fishermen who need it.
They argued that the global effort to prohibit the hunting of whales amounted to an imposition of other countries' cultural values against their own. Many international agreements, and especially trade agreements, contain exceptions for cultural activities, and the Norwegians believed that this activity should also qualify for an exemption.
In the same way that family farms and a whole way of life in the U.S. and other developed countries have been threatened by imports of agricultural products (see previous section), the Norwegians—who have been noted for their exemplary record on environmental preservation—and the Japanese argued that their centuries -old fishing villages were being needlessly threatened by the ban. To these fishermen, the global whaling ban would devastate their village economies, simply adding them to the list of communities harmed by globalization.
Sanctions
The globalization of values is most explicitly expressed as a policy matter through political efforts to impose economic sanctions. Since 1993, the United States has enacted laws that establish the basis for imposing new unilateral economic sanctions on 60 different occasions against 35 countries that represent more than 40 percent of the world's population. However, no sanctions have been imposed in many of these cases.
These laws were often enacted as expressions of U.S. revulsion against nations for their internal practices, such as human rights abuses or poor labor or environmental standards. The United States has imposed sanctions upon countries for failing to hold democratic elections, such as those applied against South Africa in the 1980s. Sanctions have been imposed for nuclear proliferation and for trading with a country against which we have an embargo, such as Iraq or Cuba.
Other nations targeted by sanctions measure have included Burma, which has one of the worst human rights records on earth, but also against traditional allies such as Mexico, for not sufficiently protecting dolphins from tuna fishing. The nations at which these sanctions are directed frequently accuse the United States of wielding its power with arrogance or self-righteousness, and of meddling unnecessarily in their internal affairs when they are imposed.
Globalization vs. Asian Values
Some government officials in East Asian nations have boldly proclaimed an alternative to the Western cultural model by declaring an adherence to traditional "Asian values."
Asian values are typically described as embodying the Confucian ideals of respect for authority, hard work, thrift, and the belief that the community is more important than the individual. This is said to be coupled with a preference for economic, social, and cultural rights rather than political rights. The most frequent criticism of these values is that they run contrary to the universality of human rights and tend to condone undemocratic undercurrents in some countries, including the suppression of dissidents, and the excessive use of national security laws.
Some commentators have credited Asian values as contributing to the stunning economic rise of several countries in East Asia. It is also suggested that Asians have been able to protect and nurture their traditions in the face of utilitarian modernity, lax morals, and globalization (Asiaweek ).
Neighboring Singapore's former leader Lee Kwan Yew has used the term to justify the extremely well-ordered society Singapore maintains, and its laissez-faire economic approach. His theories are often referred to as the "Lee Thesis," which claims that political freedoms and rights can actually hamper economic growth and development. According to this notion, order and personal and social discipline, rather than political liberty and freedom, are most appropriate for Asian societies. Adherents to this view claim that political freedoms, liberties, and democracy are Western concepts, foreign to their traditions.
But critics argue that the concept of Asian values is merely an excuse for autocratic governance and sometimes corruption. Martin Lee, the democratically elected leader of the opposition in Hong Kong, has been severely critical of the concept, calling it a "pernicious myth." Lee proclaimed that the Asian financial crisis of 1997-1998 and ensuing economic collapse should mark the death knell of the Asian values argument, and the "related notion that economic progress can or should be made independent of the establishment of democratic political institutions and principles.”
Other critics have leveled more strident criticisms against the use of the Asian values argument. They argue that these supposed values have stymied independent thinking and creativity and fostered authoritarian regimes. According to this view, Asian values were partly responsible for the corruption that affected so many nations in the region, making the press and people reluctant to criticize their governments.
“Those who wish to deny us certain political rights try to convince us that these are not Asian values. In our struggle for democracy and human rights, we would like greater support from our fellow Asians'” -Aung San Sui Kyi, Burmese democracy advocate and winner of the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize
Western Values and Islam
The controversy over westernization has had major historical implications in the Middle East over the past several decades. Globalization is accelerating some people’s concerns about the infusions of Western values in Islamic countries.
In the 1960s and 70s, the Shah of Iran sought rapid modernization regardless of conservative Muslim opinion. His plan called for land reform designed to aid the poor, extending voting rights to women, allowing the formation of political parties. His plan, along with other social and economic changes, led to an increasing resentment and hostility toward the Shah. Rightly or wrongly, reform efforts became symbolic of what is wrong with Iranian society. Fundamentalist clerics began to rail against Iran’s “westoxification,” and brought about a radical revolutionary movement that sought to expel all western influence from their ancient civilization.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has likewise adopted an approach with the motto “modernization without westernization.” Seeking in part to avoid the kind of outcome seen in Iran, the Saudi regime has strived carefully to limit the encroachment of many values that westerners consider fundamental. Consequently, Saudi Arabia guarantees no voting rights, and censorship of all things Western, including movies, alcohol, and Internet access, is deep and thorough.