THE GLOBAL CULTURE: A THEMATIC

The end of the Cold War marked a turning point in the history of twentieth

century international relations. The disintegration of Soviet empire provided an excellent

opportunity for capitalism to flourish all over the world. It has accelerated the velocity of

globalization, effects of which can be seen in practically all spheres of human life. It is

not surprising, therefore, that the epistemic community of the world is struggling to

understand the all pervasive phenomenon of globalization and its implications for social

life in general and cultural life in particular. Divergent opinions exist on the cultural

implications of the contemporary phase of globalization. David Held and Anthony

Mcgrew identify three schools of thought: skeptics, transformatiQnalists and hyper

globalists. An examination of these schools of thought is necessary in order to arrive at

any plausible conclusion pertaining to the emergence of global culture.

John Beyon and David Dunkerley define global culture as follows.

" ... global culture is held to be mainly a recent media driven construct. Local and national cultures have strong emotional connotations for large number of peopie but global culture is bereft of such ethnic based appeal. While global culture can certainly draw upon folk and national cuitures, it is not (yet) based on shared global stories and memories. In this sense it is "memory less", syncretistic and dependent upon the profit -seeking production of mass mediated signs and symbols. Whereas local culture is closely tied to place and time, global culture is free of these constraints: as such it is "disconnected", "dis-embedded", and "de-territorialized", existing outside the usual reference to geographical territory"(Beyon and Dunkerley, 2000: 13).

Anthony D.Smith, an eminent scholar of nationalism, has provided another apt

definition of global culture. According to him,

"presumably a global culture would be ... hybrid in character, wi'th a number of ambivalent, even contradictory, components: a patische of traditional locaL folk and national motifs and styles; a modern scientific, quantitative and technical discourse; a culture of mass consumerism consisting of standardized mass commodities, images, practices and slogans; and an interdependence of all these elements across the globe, based upon the unifying pressures of global telecommunications and computerized information systems. In practice, of course, a hybrid

7

cosmopolitan culture would possess both 'modern' and 'post-modern' features. We would expect it to display both the rationalist, technical and scientific discourse of modernity, but also the ambivalent and nostalgic, if cynical and artificial, manipulation of plural hybridized past, with its folk traditions and its national languages and cultures, which distinguishes the 'post-modern' reaction to modernity. And all of this would rest on the uniform quantitative and technological base of increasingly sophisticated computerized information and electronic mass-communications systems"(Smith, 1995: 20).

It is clear from this definition that global culture is different from national

culture. Culture has been traditionally defined in terms of shared beliefs, norms, values,

languages, traditions, religion, myths, symbols, life styles and common memories and

histories to which a group of people adhere and has stakes and interests in the

maintenance of that distinct identity which separates "them" from "others". Since there

are no shared cultural attributes on the global plane, the nature of global culture acquires

a fundamentally different character. It is this different character of the global culture that

creates the room for scholarly disagreement about its nature and effects and consequently

making it essentially a contested concept.

Traditional or Skeptical School of Thought: Traditionalists such as (Anthony D.

Smith, Paul Hirst, G. Thompson, Benedict Anderson and Samuel P. Huntington) view

globalization with suspicious eyes. They believe that globalists have exaggerated the

case of globalization and its cultural ramifications. Since there has been no significant

restructuring in social organization of human life, they warn us about the constancy of

existing national identities and cultures and the absence of universally shared beliefs,

norms, language, religion, tradition and myths due to which, according to them, global

culture is a distant dream. By citing the evidence from the discipline of historical

sociology they draw the attention of the world to the similarities and the continuities

between the past and the present.

Emergence ofthe modern sovereign state inl648 changed the traditional mode of

identity formation. Maintenance of the state as an institution necessitated the

simultaneous commencement of the nation as well because ruling elite of the state

needed a power base to consolidate its political rule. The military and administrative

8

requirements as well as the democratic system of government increased the dependence

of the rulers on the ruled. The growiog politicization of social life ofthe people enhanced

the sense of their being a distinct political community with a common future. Initially the

sense of nationhood was vague and na"ive which became ossified in course of time

through most particularly expansionist international politics of the time.

Sixteenth, Seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were also the period when

mankind was witnessing a paradigm shift in human knowledge as could be seen in the

transformation of science by Newton, reconceptualization of philosophy by Descartes,

invention of steam engine, and so on. The progress in human knowledge opened new

vistas for mankind to make unparalleled scientific achievements. The series of

technological breakthroughs in the means of communication and transportation,

industrial mode of production, printing press, and the new education system hastened

the diffusion of the sense of common national histories, memories, symbols, values and

religion which consequently intensified the nationalist feelings in the European states.

It is noteworthy that nations did not come into being through the sole efforts of

the ru! ing elites of the society. Though the rulers of the new states vehemently pursued

the policy of the formation of new national identity, they never created it. These

identities were based on the "ethno-history" of the community which was manoeuvered

and manipulated by the elites to consolidate the nationalist feelings among the masses

that resided in their territory. Increasing inter-cultural interaction fostered by new and

better means of transportation and communication also made people aware of their

distinctiveness vis-a-vis others. It must be acknowledged, however, that the formation of

nation and state has not been unproblematic in the history of Europe. In fact most of the

developed countries of the West have undergone the painful process of t:.e nation and

state building. Since nations and states are two different entities-former being embedded

in ethnic, cultural, linguistic and historical similarities of the community and later being

the dense network of institutions, laws, government, political processes and so on­

fabrication of both into a cohesive unit has been the source of heavy bloodbath and

violent conflicts in many parts of the world.

9

Despite being deferent in their nature and political manifestation, nationalism

created a new political reference in the modern world,. Having originated in Europe the

process did not confine to Europe only. It soon spread to Asia, Africa and Middle East

through European empires giving rise to nationalist movements which along with

decolonization led to the emergence of bulk of newly independent states after the Second

World War.

Wide appeal, deep bonds of national cultures as well as strong memones of

nationalist movements render the formation of global culture problematic. By

emphasizing the enduring qualities of national cultures and its influence on the power of

the state, skeptics reject the case of their erosion in the face of mass mediated global

culture. Contrary to the predictions of globalists they consider new information

technology as the vehicle of the consolidation of traditional style ·of national life. As

pointed out by Anthony D. Smith, "these same communication networks make possible a

dense, more intense interaction between members of communities who share common

cultural characteristics notably language; and this fact enables us to understand why in

recent years we have been witnessing the emergence of submerged ethnic communities

and their nationalism" (Smith, 1990: 175).

Skeptics point out the double role that has been played by the new

communication technologies. On the one hand, new means of communication and

transpmtation are shrinking the world, and on the other hand, they intensify the sense of

distinctiveness in people of the same culture. Increasing intercultural interaction does not

guarantee inter-subjective consensus on how human life should be organized across the

globe. As suggested by Huntington, "the world is becoming a smaller place. The

interactions between peoples of different civilizations are increasing; these increasing

interactions intensify civilization consciousness and awareness of differences between I

civilizations and commonalities within civilizations. The interactions among peoples of

different civilizations enhance the civilizations-consciousness of people that, in turn,

invigorates differences and animosities stretching or thought to stretch back deep into

history" (Huntington, 1996: 4).

10

Huntington's Critique of Global Culture: An influential contemporary Harvard based

political scientist and International Relations scholar Samuel P. Huntington has presented

a powerful critique of theories that portend the emergence of global culture. According to

him, universal civilization (read global culture) "implies in general the cultural coming

together of humanity and the increasing acceptance of common values, beliefs,

orientations, practices and institutions by peoples throughout the world" (Huntington,

1996: 56). He identifies four thematic and three sources of global culture and demon'strates

how such reality is a distant dream.

Firstly, universal civilization implies sharing of certain rules, norms, values and

sense of right and wrong without which human life in any organized form remains

inconceivable. These traits are found in every society on the basis of which social )ife is

organized. Huntington concedes the validity of this argument to some extent and remarks

that "if this is what is meant by universal civilization, it is both profound and profoundly

important. .. " (Ibid: 56). These commonalities, he insists, shared by all humans, however,

do not provide sound basis for the emergence of universal civilization because

differences among the peoples of the world are equally profound and basic. This

argument does not take into account the profound divisions around which humanity is

grouped. He argues rather forcefully that "humanity is divided into subgroups-tribes,

nations, and broader cultural entities normally called civilizations. If the term civilization

is elevated and restricted to what is common to humanity as a whole, either one has to

invent a new term to refer to the largest cultural grouping of people short of humanity as

a whole or one has to assume that these large but not-humanity-wide groupings

evaporate ... Only semantic confusion, however, is gained by restricting "civilization" to

the global level and designating as "cultures" or "sub civilizations," those largest cultural

entities which have historically always been called civilizations" (Ibid: 56-57).

Secondly, the term universal civilization connotes what is commonly held by all

civilized societies such as cities, literacy, science and technology that differentiate them

from primitive and barbaric societies. He is in agreement with this kind of thinking and

admits that universal civilization is emerging in this sense. In his words, "this is, of

course, the eighteenth century singular meaning of the term, and, in this sense, a

11

universal civilization is emerging, much to the horror of various anthropologists and

others who view with dismay the disappearance of primitive peoples. Civilization in this

sense has been gradually expanding throughout human history, and the spread of

civilization in the singular has been quite compatible with the existence of many

civilizations in plural" (Ibid: 57).

Thirdly, universal civilization means Davos Culture which is adhered to by many

in the West and by some in qther parts of the world. Davos Culture is the culture of

global business elite (businessmen, bankers, government officials, intellectuals and

journalists) who meet in Davos, Switzerland every year in World Economic Forum.

These people are generally highly qualified; English speaking; quite affluent,

professionally trained in working with either words_ or . numbers, employed by

governments, corporations, academic institutions and frequently travet across their native

country. More importantly, these people like their Western counterparts believe 111

individualism, market economy and political democracy. They have a great say 111

international economic institutions and control much of the military and economic power

of the world and even many state governments. Having painted the perfect picture of

Davos culture Huntington raises a significant question: "Worldwide, however, how

many people share this culture?" (Ibid: 57). He replies by saying that "outside the West, it

is shared by less than 50 million people or !percent of the world's population and

perhaps by as few as one tenth of 1 percent of the world's population. It is far from a

universal culture, and the leaders who share in the Davos Culture do not necessarily have

a secure grip on power in their own societies" (Ibid: 57-58).

Fourth and more direct is Huntington's critique of the argument that Western

consumption patterns and popular culture are creating a global culture. He dismisses this

argument by saying that "this argument is neither profound nor relevant" (Ibid: 58). He

draws attention towards the fact that culture has always been transmitted from one part

of the world to another throughout human history. Some cultural patterns and

innovations have been readily and regularly accepted by the people of other cultures and

civilizations. It has never resulted in the emergence of universal civilization in the past

nor can any plausible case be made pertaining to the commencement of global culture in

12

the future on the basis of intercultural borrowing. He dismisses the whole argument by

commenting that "these are, however, either techniques lacking in significant cultural

consequences or fads that come and go without altering the underlying culture of

recipient civilization. These imports "take" in the recipient civilization either because

they are exotic or because they are imposed (Ibid: 58). He does not view pop music and

consumption as the triumph of the Western culture. He insightfully and passionately

emphasizes that such an argument neither presents the nuanced account of the picU1re nor

puts the Western culture in the proper perspective. In his words, "that the spread of

popular culture and consumer goods around the world represent the triumph of Western

civilization trivializes Western culture. The essence of Western civilization is the

MagnaCarta not the Magna Mac. The fact that non-Western may bite into the latter has

no implications for their accepting the former" (Ibid: 58).

He extends the critique of universal civilization further by demonstrating the

fallacy of the thesis that Hollywood movies and Western media are responsible for the

emergence of global culture. This argument, according to him, highlights the fact that

American companies control the world movie market and few American and European

news agencies dominate the dissemination of news throughout the world. This,

Huntington insists, does not necessarily lead to the emergence of global culture. It

denotes at best that humans are interested in sex, love, heroism, violence and wealth and

there are some American and European companies that exploit these universal interests

for their own benefit. It does not bring critical shift in attitudes, beliefs and orientations

of the recipient people which is imperative required for the emergence of global culture.

Entertainment, according to him, is not cultural conversion. Same thing applies to the

domination of news agencies as well. It is true that communication technologies have

shrunk the world to an unprecedented level. It is equally true that the worldwide

dissemination of the same news and images generates different and opposite perceptions.

He illustrates this by stating that "Western living rooms applaud when Cruise missiles

strike Baghdad. Most living outside see that the West will deliver swift retribution to

non-white Iraqis or Somalis but not to white Serbians ... "(Ibid: 59).

13

Finally, he takes up the argument put forward by globalists and shows its

weakness. Globalist school of thought in International Relations has advanced the.

interesting thesis that the development of sophisticated communication and

transportation technologies will lead to the emergence of global culture. His take on this

argument is that global communication and transportation are the significant

manifestation of Western power for the people living out of the Western world. He is

fully aware that the Western hegemony over the rest of the world does not j:emain

unchallenged. Cultural imperialism of the West has caused lot of resentment and

discontent in Asia and Africa. It provides a good opportunity to political leaders in

developing countries to mobilize their masses to preserve their indigenous culture and

language against the perceived cultural domination of the West. He also reveals the fact

that the process of economic development results in the emergence qf local and regional

media corporations that directly compete with Western media moguls by fostering

distinct local tastes (lbid:59).

Sources of Universal Civilization: According to Huntington, the argument that the post

Cold War world would witness the emergence of global culture rests on three fallacious

assumptions. They are following.

First assumption is obviously related to the collapse of the Soviet communism

and the spread of Western liberal democracy throughout the world. This idea has been

put forward by Francis Fukuyama in his well known and oft-quoted The End Of Hist01y

article. Fukuyama considers the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War

as the "unabashed victory of economic and political liberalism" (Fukuyama, 1989:3).

According to Fukuyama, "what we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold

War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history; but the end of history as

such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of

Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government" (Ibid: 4). In cultural

terms, the end of the Cold War leads to "the ineluctable spread of consumerist Western

culture in such diverse contexts as the peasants' market and color television sets now

omnipresent throughout China, the cooperative restaurants and clothing stores opened in

14

the past year in Moscow, the Beethoven piped into Japanese department stores, and the

rock music enjoyed alike in Prague, Rangoon, and Tehran" (lbid:3). "This argument",

according to Huntington, "suffers from the single alternative fallacy" (Huntington, 1996:

66). He argues that this thesis has its roots in the ideological rivalry of the Cold War

between communism and liberal democracy and the collapse of former will inevitably

universalize the latter. He argues that the triumph of the West does not necessarily lead

to the universalization of Western values because the end of communism has not

exhausted other options such as authoritarianism, nationalism, corporatism, and market

communism that are flourishing outside the West. Moreover, there are all sorts of

religious options that are out of the secular domains of life. In his words, "in the modern

world, religion is a central, perhaps the central force that motivates and mobilizes people.

It is sheer hubris to think that because Soviet communism has collapsed, the West has

won the world for all time and that Muslims, Chinese, Indians and other are going to

rush to embrace Western liberalism as the only alternative. The Cold War division of

humanity is over. The more fundamental divisions of humanity in terms of ethnicity,

religious and religions and civilizations remain and spawn new cont1icts" (Ibid: 66-67).

Second assumption is that increasing interaction among the people of the world

through trade, investment, tourism, media, electronic communication (read globalization)

leads to the emergence of global culture. Huntington concedes the former and casts

doubts on the latter. Theassumption that international trade reduces the likelihood of war

is not tenable in his opinion. He, instead, points to the contrary and argues that

international trade touched its peak in 1913 and states still fought First World War.

Moreover; recent scholarship on international commerce and war casts further doubts on

this assumption. He emphasizes the point that increasing trade in international system by

itself is unlikely to ease international tensions or promote greater international stability.

Increasing levels of trade, in his opinion, may be highly divisive force in international

politics. In his words, "economic interdependence fosters peace only when states expect

that high trade levels will continue into the foreseeable future. If states do not expect

high level of interdependence to continue, war is likely to result" (lbid:67).

15

Thirdly, the argument for the emergence of global culture rests on the assumption

that modernization fosters homogeneity all over the world and thereby completely

undermines cultural differences between different societies. "Modernization involves

industrialization, urbanization, increasing level of literacy, education, wealth, and social

mobilization, and more complex and diversified occupational structures. It is a product

of the tremendous expansion of scientific and engineering knowledge beginning in the

eighteenth century that made it possible for humans to control and shape their

environment in totally unprecedented ways" (Ibid: 68). Huntington concedes that

elements of resemblance might be found in modern societies for two reasons. Firstly,

modernization increases interaction among the people living in different cultures and

facilitate, the transmission of techniques, invention and practices from one culture to

another with a pace that was inconceivable in the traditional world. Secondly, distinction

needs to be maintained between traditional and modern societies on the basis of their

dependence on natural environment and mode of production. Traditional societies

heavily depend on natural environment by virtue of being agricultural economies,

modern societies, on the contrary, shape and control nature and their mode of production

is industrial. The conquest of nature and industrial mode of production propel similar

traits between modern societies. So modern societies do share same characteristics

around the world (Ibid: 68).

This argument, however, cannot be stretched to the extent that modernization

fosters cultural homogenization; that all societies must resemble single and usually the

Western model; and "that modern civilization is Western civilization and that Western

civilization is modern civilization" (Ibid: 68). It, according to Huntington, is definitely

untrue. This is because differences do not disappear with the modernization in industrial

societies. They are rather derived from· culture and social structure despite their

superficial homogeneity. Moreover, Westerness predates modernization in the Western

societies. West emerged as an entity in eighth and ninth centuries and acquired its

distinguishable character in centuries that followed afterwards. But it became modern

only in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In his words, "the West was the West

long before it was modern ''(Ibid: 68). Modernization has not removed Westerness in the

cultures ofthe West and there is no reason, by implication, to assume that it would erode

16

distinct traits prevailing within the Eastern and other civilizations. It is ~bsurd to think

"that modernization ... would lead to the end of the plurality of historic cultures

· embodied for centuries in the world's great civilizations" (Ibid: 78). Global culture,

therefore, is a myth in the Huntington's scheme ofthings.

This discussion can be safely concluded by saying that new communication

technologies may create the language of their own but they are increasingly challenged

by the local languages and discourses through which people make sense of thei~ lives

and times. The cultural corporations of the West may flood the world market with their

products, the appeal of national cultures, according to skeptics, remain intact.

Transformationalist School of Thought: Transformationalists (James Roseau, Robert

Keohane, David Held, Anthony Mcgrew, Francis Fukuyama, Michael Mann, Anthony

Giddens, Saskia Sassen) portray more moderate and balanced picture of contemporary

phase of globalization than their skeptic and globalist counterparts. As the very name of

the school suggests their main claim is that present phase of globalization is different

from its previous epochs, which is responsible for many profound social, political

military and economic changes that the present world is undergoing. Contrary to the

skeptical assertions, contemporary globalization, transformationalists suggest, has left its

powerful imprint on the social organization of human life in practically all parts of the

world. Its consequences may be unpredictable and uneven but they demand serious

disciplinary inquiry. They do not rule out the possibility of uncertainty and reversibility

that are inherent in globalization. Instead they concede that the present phase of

globalization is full of contradictions. They avoid the prediction of future trajectory the

present phase of globalization might take. They also refrain from forecasting the nature

of future world order that might spawn from the powerful social forces that have swept

the global spectrum. They consider globalization as an engine of the creation of novel

global hierarchies in which some states are increasingly embedded while others are fated

to remain sidelined. The reconfiguration of global power changes the old pattern of

North-South division and leads to a new division of labour in the international economy.

Conventional categories like First, Second and Third World that made the

17

comprehension of the Cold War world possible are no longer relevant as they do not take

into account the emerging pattern of social inclusion and exclusion based on new social

stratification that pervades the whole world. They also highlight that how conventional

pyramidical configuration of global power has been replaced with three tier (elite,

contended and the excluded) composition of the contemporary global society.

The emerging global stratification IS inextricably linked with the

deterritorialization of the economic life of man. Since production, finance and market

increasingly operate on global plane, traditional references of economic activity have

become obsolete. Moreover, globalization of economic activity has led to a situation in

which territorial borders of the state and national economy do not coincide with each

other. It is this deterritorialization of economic life that has made the world more

interdependent in which economic policies of one state are influenced by decisions and

activities that take place in other parts of the world.

Economic globalization has considerably altered the political dynamics of the

state. It is the main contention of the transformationalist thesis that powerful social

forces unleashed by late modern technologies are responsible for the erosion of state

sovereignty. Since governments of state have little or no control over the transnational

flow of capital, goods, commodities, peoples and images, they are left with no choice but

to adjust their policies according to the dynamics of the world market. Tremendous

growth of international institutions and non state actors also restrain the capacity of the

state to enjoy its sovereignty. Even if legal claim of the state over sovereignty remains

intact, transformationalists assert, the sheer quantity and velocity-leave aside the quality

of incoming global flows-pose a serious question mark over the state's ability to exercise

sovereignty within its domestic jurisdiction. It is not that transformationalists are not

aware of the lasting significance of territorial borders of the state. What they want to

emphasize is the new sovereignty regime that has been created by the contemporary

phase of globalization. As pointed out by David held and Anthony McGrew,

"globalization is associated not only with a new "sovereignty regime" but also with the

emergence of powerful new non-territorial forms of economic and political organization

in the global domain, such as multinational corporations, transnational social

18

movements, international regulatory agencies etc. In this sense, world order can no

longer be conceived as purely state centric or even primarily state governed, as authority

has become increasingly diffused among public and private agencies at the local,

national, regional and global levels" (Held et al., 1999:9).

Globalist School of Thought: Hyperglobalists (Richard Falk, Joseph Ca1~1illeri,

Marshall McLuhan, Susan Strange, Manuel Castells, Robert Cox, Ronald Robettson, Jan

Nederveen Pieterse, John Tomlinson, Mike Featherstone and David Harvey) celebrate

the contemporary phase of globalization as the harbinger of the real human progress.

Echoing the tone oftransformationalists, globalists believe that economic globalization is

leading to the denationalization of national economies as the economic activities such as

trade, finance and production are becoming increasingly transnational. This phenomenon

is responsible for the relegation of governments of states to merely transmission belts. As

pointed out by Susan Strange, "the impersonal forces of world's markets ... are now more

powerful than the states to whom ultimate political authority over society and economy

is supposed to belong ... the declining authority of states is reflected in a growing

diffusion of authority to other institutions and associations, and to local and regional

bodies" (Strange, 1996: 4). It leads to many hyperglobaliststo assert that globalization of

economic activity would restructure the social organization of human life across the

planet that, in turn, would supersede the nation state as the primary unit of international

society.

Globalists emphatically refute the skeptical thesis that considers globalization as

an ideological construction or as a synonym of Western imperialism. They admit that the

present phase of globalization may be in the best interest of the West, they stress the real

changes in. the social life around the world have been driven by the forces unleashed by

the globalization. Its manifestation can be seen in the growth of transnational

corporations, emergence of world market, commencement of global culture and the

global impact of environmental degradation. Richard Falk, an indefatigable advocate of

globalism, remarks somewhat passionately:

19

"Even if a few states can still defend their territory against an invading army, not even the most powerful can protect its people and cities against a devastating surprise attack by guided missiles, and none can control the tlow of images and ideas that shape human tastes and values. The globalized "presence" of Madonna, McDonald's and Mickey Mouse make a mockery of sovereignty as exclusive territorial control. A few governments do their best to insulate their populations from such influences, but their efforts are growing less effective and run counter to democratizing demands that are growing more difficult to resist ... Interdependence and the interpenetration of domestic and international· politics, the mobility and globalization of capital and information, and the rising influence of transnational social movements and organizations are among the factors that make it anachronistic to analyze politics as if territorial supremacy continues to be a generalized condition or a useful fiction. In particular, sovereignty, with its stress on the inside/outside distinction as between domestic and international society, seems more misleading than illuminating under current conditions" (F~lk quoted 111

Kegley and Witcopff,I993: 853).

Distancing themselves from transformationalists they tend to present more

wholistic account of globalization in which not only the influence of its economics but

also the effects of its politics, ecoiogy, sociology and technology are demonstrated. To

reduce the whole question of globalization to sheer economics, according to them, is to

fall in the trap of unicausal interpretation of the phenomenon that is inevitably the result

of multiple forces working at the global scale. Eschewing the sweeping generalization of

the globalization, globalists are well aware of variations and differences through which

the dynamics of globalization operates in military, political, economic, cultural and

environmental spheres of human life.

Globalists are optimist about the emergence of global culture. They look at the

question of culture from poststructuralist viewpoint and highlight the historic speciticity

of culture. They agree with skeptics that formation of national culture has been the result

of the emergence of the nation state. But they eloquently argue that since many social

forces of the world have challenged the latter, the existence of the former can also be

seriously questioned. Given the prolonged process of identity formation, globalists

concede that it would not disappear soon. But they cast serious doubts on the ability of

identity politics to control the forces that are functional at the global plane. They are

familiar with the different and sometimes diametrically opposed directions the politics of

20

l

F

national identity and global forces take, but they firmly believe that former would have

to adapt itself according to the pressures and demands posed by the latter. They,

therefore, despise the mental and ideological block that has been created by the politics

of nationalism and emphasize the imperative need for the global and cosmopolitan

outlook. They are not only optimistic about the emergence of such vision but also cite

the historical precedent for it.

History of the post -Westphalian world shows that the establishment of colonial

empires of the West has led to the profusion of many ideas and behavioural patterns in

other parts of the world. Buttressed by the progress in the means of transportation and

communication these ideas not only took deep roots in these countries but also

reorganized their social and political life. Asia and Africa are the notable areas where

colonial powers of Europe not only established their empires but also left many of their

ideational legacies like democracy, rule of law, urbanism, science and technology and

industrialism and so on that transformed practically all aspects of human life in these ~ countries. Since technology has become more advanced·, sophisticated and easily (-2-f/ i.~:-<

I a.~~ : • accessible, globalists hope that this process is likely to accelerate in the future which \Z ·, ,

,.~·~.\. .. , .... ;

would iead to the creation of more fluid and dynamic identities than their previous \):.;, ., .. __ /~ '~I:{:~'/!.'(., ~~--==;::

counterparts that existed in national and territorial settings. The salient features of global

culture would be discussed after a brief description of the main agents of cultural

globalization of the world.

Contemporary Technological Infrastructures of the World: The unprecedented

growth of communication flows has radically transfo.rmed human life in the post war

world. These flows are the result of a series of developments in the communication

technology. These technologies were built upon the technical infrastructure of the late

nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Since then every new development in the field

of communication technology has added to the capacity, efficiency, velocity as well as

the complexity of communication system. Introduction of the digital system, computers,

electronic circuits, telex, telegraphy, fax, internet, satellite system, mobile phone are

THESIS 306 08519 lm

2 1 Ill II II IIIII/ II 11111111 IIIII Ill TH13028

some of the instruments that have radically transformed the communication

infrastructure of the world.

These communication technologies are accompanied by the medium of language

in which communication takes place. Though there are roughly five thousand languages

in the present world but most of the communication across the planet takes place in ten

to twelve languages that are spoken by more than half of the world population. This is

how the communication technologies and the medium of language constitute the

communication infrastructure of the world due to which people around the globe are far

closer to each other than ever before in the history.

James Rosenau, a leading scholar of globalization, has provided useful data

pertaining to contemporary information revolution that pervades all walks of life. It is at

this point that one lengthy para has been borrowed from him just. to demonstrate the

clear pictur·e of the information order on which much of globalization rests. According to

him:

"Stunning are the data depicting the ways in which a variety of communication technologies from the fax machine to the fiber-optic cable, fi·om the cellular phone tci the orbiting satellite, from Television to the Internet - continue to shrink the world and reduce the relevance of geographic boundaries. Today there are more than one billion telephones in active use throughout the world. In 1964 there was one T.V. set for every twenty persons, whereas now there is one for every four. Currently more than two hundred functioning satellites orbit the Earth, each capable of carrying tens of thousands of calls and numerous T.V. signals at once. The number of Internet hosts, or networked computers, grew more than six fold between 1995 and 1999. More than 1.4 billion e-mail messages are estimated to cross national boundaries every day. It is presumed that the Internet is growing by one million Web pages a day. At the end of 2001 the number of persons on line throughol•t the world was 505 million, of which roughly 43 percent used English, 32 percent used a European language and 25 percent used an Asian language ... Quite possibly, moreover, these dynamics are poised for another step level leap forward with the advent of new computer technologies; which include the prospect of the aforementioned chip ten billion (repeat again, ten billion) times faster than those available today ... It is not difficult to extrapolate from these data the conclusion that increasingly people have close encounters with foreign cultures through global networks that offer the potential for both multiplicity of identities and a continuing proliferation of distant proximities" (Rosenau, 2003: 54).

22

In the similar vein Lechner and Bali have also collected more elaborat data on the

contemporary technological infrastructure ofthe world that are worth mentioning.

(I) Passenger Cars: Half a million in I9IO; IOO million by 1953; 500 million by 1995

(2) Telephone Subscribers: About one million in 1900; 13 million 111

1935; I I6 million in 1965; over 1.7 billion in 2000

(3) International Telephone calls: 22 million in 1960; 2.2 billion 111

1980; more than I 00 billion in 2000

(4) Radios: Several million by 1935; over 600 million in 1965; billion by the I 990s

(5) Televisions: 77 million in I 950; 250 million in 1970; 1.7 billion in 2000

(6) Air Passengers: 74 million international passengers in 1970; 311 million domestic passengers in 1970 and 375 million by 1995; 1.3 billion international passengers in 1995

(7) Air Travel: I 59 billion total kilometers travelled in 1970; 1.25 trillion kilometers by 1995

(8) Personal Computers: About 150,000 in 1980; 103 million in 1990; nearly 500 million in 2000

(9) Internet Servers (hosts) and Users: About 200 hosts in I 980, 313,000 in 1990; and 162 million in 2002; serving a few thousand users in I 980, a few million by 1990 and an estimated 500 million to 600 million by 2000" (Lechn~r and Boli,2005: 114-115).

Global Music Industry: Global music industry has made a significant contribution in

the formation of global culture. This industry is being mostly represented by popular

(pop) music. Though pop music does not depend on written or spoken language, it does

serve the human need for rhythm and melody. Free of constraints of the language for its

effect, pop music easily escapes the specificities and distinctiveness of the language that,

in turn, reduce the difficulties of translation. Its manifestation can be seen in the

worldwide popularity of Madona, Michael Jackson and the Spice Girls. Being a product

of Western capita.ism pop music has taken the form of a full fledged industry and it.is

not surprising that the industry is dominated by American and British pop. Given its

popularity and international appeal, there is always a need for novelty in terms of sound

23

system, rhythm, wording and "stars". Since black and local music has limited audience,

pop music dominates the music market around the world (Held et al., 1999: 351-352).

The growth of music industry has been accompanied by important socio­

economic and demographic changes in the Western societies. Financially, contemporary

pop and popular music constitutes the core of music industry that has given a big blow to

the production of classical and religious music. Rock "n" roll, Break Dance and

American pop have defined the terms and conditions of the global music market. It is the

cause as well as the effect of the novel youth cultures and subcultures (sometimes

derogatorily referred to as Hippy culture) that came into being by the social and

economic changes in the Western societies in the post Second World War period.

Increasing prosperity, significant alteration in the educational system, commencement of

the new market and disintegration of the traditional community life were some of the

notable changes underwent by the Western societies immediately after the Second World

War, which prepared the fe1tile ground for the popularity of American and British music

(lbid:352).

The globalization of music industry has been the multidimensional process.

Firstly, it has led to the creation of several multinational corporations that are exclusively

involved in the production and export of music around the world. Secondly,

globalization of the music industry is indispensably linked with the import and export of

music !ike other commodities. It has resulted in the penetration of national music market

by the foreign music records, tunes and artists. Lastly, globalization of the music

industry transmits styles and images that are deeply rooted in the youth cultures of the

us (Ibid: 352-353).

One estimate suggests that the sale of global music in the early 2000s was worth

$ 40 billion and three regions that recorded major chunk of this sale were US, Europe

and Japan. English has so far been the dominant language of the global music industry

with one exception of Ricky Martin who played a major role in Spanish music (Mcphail,

2006: 129).

Five major groups dominate the global music industry in recent times. They are

Vivendi Universal Music Group (France), Sony Music (Japan), EMI Group (United

24

Kingdom), Warner (US), and Bertelsmann (Germany). \Yith the merger of Sony Music

into Bertelsmann in 2003 there are, however, four major companies left, out of which

only one is American. These music companies are involved in several corporate

activities all over the world. These four music producers also control as much of the

production process as possible from finding new talent to web based purchases. Their

corporate roots can easily be traced to advanced areas of the world like the US, Japan

and Europe. These companies deploy strategies of merger (between two or more

companies) and acquisitions to retain their leadership in the international music market

(Ibid: 129-130).

MTV is the most influential actor in international music market. Recording of

pop music has recently become a major source of entertainment in itself. The appeal of

pop grows wider when music is combined with the excitement of video. Young

generation, most notably teenagers, are very much tuned to MTV channels telecasting

twenty-four hours a day all over the world. As pointed out by Thomas L. Mcphail,

"MTV reaches over 340 million viewers in 140 countries, patticularly in Europe and

Asia and currently is the world's largest television network, broadcast in one third of the

world's TV- viewing_households. Viewed primarily by preteens, teens and young adults,

MTV is an impressive global youth television phenomenon. Comprised of hundred

affiliated international networks including MTV Latino, MTV Brazil, MTV Europe,

MTV Mandarin, MTV Asia, MTV India, MTV Australia, MTV New Zealand, and MTV

Africa, the MTV network already has the ability to reach a large propottion of the

world's youth each day" (Ibid:l34). MTV, moreover, is expanding its market and

considering the broadcast of new MTV channels. It has signed an agreement with Russia

anticipating that the young generation of the country demands 24 hours music network

system. If opened MTV Russia will have the ability to reach more than I 0 million

households in the same country. These people will be able to view Madonna, U2 Prince,

Nirvana and the Spice Girls as well as local Russian bands. It is interesting to note that

approximately 80 percent of MTV audience, contrary to predictions, resides outside the

United States (Ibid: 134).

25

MTV was the first T.V. channel that started 24 hours and seven days a week

telecasting. People between the age of 12 to 34 years are its primary audience. Mcphail

notes that "MTV's international satellite - delivered music programming reaches

millions daily around the globe. Owned by Viacom, MTV operates several cable

television programming services-Music Television, MT.V. 2, VHI, Nickelodeon /Nick at

Nite, Country Music Television (CMT), TNN, and TV Land... MTV is also

experimenting with the internet and its own website in order to examine the possibilities

of providing music in online ventures" (Ibid: 134).

MTV has turned its attention to internet to encash global youth culture. MTV has

started its own internet service with the name of MTVi Group. This group acknowledges

the fact that number the of teenagers having enough money is increasing. These

teenagers and other rich people are the prime target of MTV interne"! network. Most of

these people own credit cards and they are in a position to download music of their

choice for fee transferred through electronic money transter system. According to one

estimate, there are 80,000 websites specifically used for music all over the world. Every

new artist dreams to record on these websites. MTV. com is the leading and the most

popular website in the world. Other companies, too, have started using internet for

commercial purposes. VHT.com. Sonic net.com, chatrooms and, news streaming audios

are the result of the combination of music and internet (Ibid:i35).

MTV, in fact, is the tirst music company to realize that placing itself in the

expanding global economy is the key to success. It exploited and is still doing so by

becoming the part of the global economy at a time when other companies were trapped

in the older music system of the 60s and 70s. MTV, by now, has become so powerful

that even "Hollywood film studios and the global record conglomerates now not only use

MTV as a major advertising vehicle to reach the teenage audience, but they are also

coordinating on a global scale the release of new films or new videos on a preferential

basis through MTV's global network" (Ibid: 137). Such is the power of MTV that not

only indigenous artists but also local and conventional music systems in India, Africa

and Australia had to face total marginalization from the newly emerged mainstream

music market. Mcphail affirms this point and comments that "if you are a musician who

26

is a part of it, you reach a global audience and become rich and world famous over night;

but if you are not part of MTV, your chances of succeeding as a music video artist in any

significant way are reduced substantially" (lbid:J37).

The role of MTV in the formation of global culture cannot be underestimated.

"Clearly MTV and music video are influencing the emerging global economy as well as

the contours of a global popular culture. What remains uncertain is the role played by

MTV in molding a global consensus about the shape of this economy and culture"

(Ibid:J37). The culture promoted by MTV is Western in a fundamental way. Its North

American Broadcasting schedule reduces the chances for other companies to come on the

stage. MTV's language too promotes Western culture. Mcphail notes that "the

Westernization of global culture is further enhanced by the basic fact that much of MTV

programming and most music videos. are produced in English.· Even MTV Asia's

interactive chat line, which requires internet access, functions in English." (Ibid: 135). It

leaves many people concerned about the all pervasive commercialism and cultural

imperialism of international music industry in general and MTV in particular. After

critically examining the impact ofMTV on Asia, Mcphail concluded that

"while MT.V. Asia has made appropriate, culturally aware marketing decisions that has allowed it to establish a firm base in Asia, the programming is still largely a manifestation of American culture. The differences in comparison to MTV in the United States are surface structural changes at best. There are several programs that are Asia specific, however, many of them are not, but are simply exp01ted from the United States in the same way that Dallas and Baywatch are. More than 50% of MTV Asia's programs are imported directly from MTV in the United States. Addition_ally, American popular culture is ubiquitous throughout programs; even those,that attempt to include Asian cultures. The programs that incorporate Asian cultures reflect American culture, through the way the V Js speak, the music that is aired, and the image that is portrayed. Even the use of Asian VJs fails to avoid the hegemonic nature of MTV Asia, since they also speak English, and attempt to represent American cultures and ideology through fashion and music selection. In fact, the American essence of MTV Asia is probably what attracts such a large Asian viewership. Additionally, MTV Asia also has the effect of Americanizing Asian music, as seen by Asian musicians whose key influences are American bands. Furthermore, to be able to watch MTV Asia, one must have access to a nightlife dish, excluding

27

most of Southeast Asia, except those that have enough money, usually the elites" (Ibid: 135-136).

Television: Television was introduced in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Now it has

become an instrument of global reach and impact. Most pa1ticularly in the last few

decades series oftechnological changes have enormously facilitated the globalization of

T.V. industry. Firstly, number of states with T.V. broadcasting system has inc1:eased

significantly during the last twenty-five years. Growing affluence of societies have

increased the number of television sets available to people around the world. Secondly,

broader consumption base ofT. V. necessitated the rise of terrestrial channels. Since the

governments of the states have enlarged the funding of T.V. companies, it is not

surprising that the industry has witnessed a tremendous growth in the last two decades.

Thirdly, the latest technological discoveries like satellite and cable system have also

provided a new impetus to the growth of T.V. industry. These technologies not only

increase the number of T.V. channels presently operating in the world but also enable

T.V. companies to escape the jurisdiction of the state. It is the case because cable and

satellite technologies operate through the space and can easily skip the regulatory

capacity of the state. International network of cable operators has also contributed to the

globalization of T.V. industry. These technological changes have been accompanied by

the new economic policies pursued by the states. Since governments are unable to

control the transmission of electromagnetic waves necessary for the functioning ofT. V.

channels, they are resorting to the privatization and commercialization of these channels.

The confluence of technological changes and privatization ofT. V. channels has fostered

the emergence of international T.V. market which has resulted in the transnational

ownership of T.V. stations that disseminate global channels like MTV, CNN, BBC and

so on. Consequences of these developments can be seen in the ever increasing multiple

and culturally diverse sources of entertainment.

The impact of T.V. on the social life of mankind has been tremendous. As

pointed out by Manuel Castells, "the diffusion of television in the three decades

following World War IL.created a new galaxy of communication ... not that other media

disappeared, but they were restructured and reorganized in a system whose heart was

28

made of vacuum tubes and whose appealing face was a television screen" (Caste lis, 2000:

358). Popularity of T.V. had a direct bearing on the radio, which lost its centrality, though

it recovered by adapting itself to the daily requirements of the people. Films, too, could

not escape from the influence of TV. They, too, had to bow themselves according toT. V.

audiences. Printing media also hired the services of T.V. and had to come to terms with it

particularly for the purposes of providing strategically important information. Although

books remained the same, many authors have the unconscious desire to transfoni1 their

book into T.V. script and telecast it on T.V. (Ibid:358).

The T.V. transformed old communication system ofthe past into mass media. It

provided an opportunity to people to entertain themselves after the strenuous work of

daily routine particularly in the absence of other social and cultural involvement. The

T.V. had the capacity to send the same message to millions of viewers. This influenced

the process of message sending as well. Messages were tailored in their content and

format to the lowest common denominator. State controlled T.V. broadcasting system,

too, had to take the ability of their audience into account. "The real power of television

... is that it sets the stage for all processes that intend to be communicated to society at

large, from politics to business, including sports and art. Television frames the language

of societal communication" (Ibid: 364). Politics, too, has not remained untouched by the

influence of T.V. Politicians and political parties increasingly use T.V. to sell their

agendas and programmes to the masses to obtain public support. It has become almost

essential for politicians to come on T.V. if they want to be heard and keep their name

floating in the political arena. Since people's mind is shaped and informed by the media,

unscreenized messages always depend on interpersonal networks and thus face the

danger of disappearing from the collective mind of the people. Th~ price of being on

T.V. is much higher than usually estimated and it definitely goes beyond money and

power. "It is to accept being mixed in a multi-semantic text whose syntax is extremely

lax. Thus, information and entertainment, education and propaganda, relaxation and

hypnosis are all blurred in the language of television" (lbid:365).

Like most of the scientific discoveries, T.V. has had both positive and negative

eftects on social life of people. Positively, T.V. became a powerful instrument for

29

fostering democratization and social progress in the 1960s. In the less developed

countries T.V. even today is the big medium that fosters modernization and democracy

and gives the message to the masses to come out of their narrow, parochial concerns

fueled by traditional or conventional outlook of life. Rural people in Lebanon, tor

instance, witnessed a major power shift from village patriarchs to common people after

the introduction of television in their lives. In India, too, at least government controlled

T.V. channels persuade people to vote at the time of election and tell them not to· fall in

trap of power hungry politicians who either allure the masses through money, liquor and

power, or threaten them to vote for a particular party or otherwise face dire

consequences. Health awareness is also enhanced by the T.V. programmes on family •

planning, control of AIDS, fight against polio and so forth. Much of the awareness, it is

not an exaggeration to comment, that pervades all walks of life in developing. countries

has been the result of the T.V., because it, enables one to compare with others and

thereby compels one to think. Take the issue of women, for instance, in developing

countries. It is because of T.V. that women in these countries are able to think of

themselves beyond their home confined role. They are "able to see Western women in

roles other than that of filial daughters, modest sisters and devoted mothers. The number

wearing a veil dropped and there were other signs of women expressing more personal

freedom in their lifestyles" (Cohen and K.ennedy,2000: 258).

Negatively, T.V. programmes attract people particularly youngsters, thereby

compromising their time to study. Violence, sex and other effects of T.V. leave powerful

imprint on the tender mind of teenagers. More people see violence on their T.V. sets,

more they become insensitive and immune to it. It depicts, at the very minimum, the

notion that there is hostile a world outside their home that can be conquered by violence.

In this context "it is ... reasonable that many parents, particularly those with young

children, are disturbed at the thought of their children arbitrarily drawing images, ideas

and behaviour patterns from the screen" (Ibid: 258).

There are other negative effects of television as well. T.V. blurs the distinction

between fantasy and reality. With so many images instantaneously coming, people

particularly youngsters start living in a world of hallucination. It increasingly moulds

30

their consciousness to what is shown on T.V. and unsurprisingly they expect reality to

become what has been inserted in their minds rather than the other way around. When

they face harsh realities of life their entire phantasmagoria collapses. They wake up at

the time when it is too late.

The T.V. is also a powerful medium of dumping down the culture. Most of the

T.V. programmes, particularly those that are telecast on private channels, represent

highly Westernized culture. It is a major criticism of T.V. that it promotes certain values

and lifestyles usually at the expense of others. Scholars associated with Frankfurt School

also argued "that the products of ... the cultural industries were characterized both by

cultural homogeneity and predictability, encouraging conformity among audiences and

discouraging criticism of contemporary social relations under capitalism" (Ibid: 259).

Herbert Marcuse noted that "the irreversible output of the entertainment and information

industry carrying with them prescribed attitudes and habits, certain intellectual and

emotional reactions and, through the latter, to the whole. The product indoctrinates and

manipulate; they promote a false consciousness which is immune against its falsehood" (

Marcuse quoted in Cohen and Kennedy, 2000: 259).

The T.V. has played an instrumental role in the spread of English as the

international language. Other influential languages like Sanskrit, Hindi, Tamil, Chinese,

French, Spanish and Latin had to bow to the hegemony of English. Although a major

chunk of world population still converses in Chinese and Hindi; they are concentrated in

China and India and their respective diasporas all over the world. The T.V. has

popularized English as the global medium of conversation and it applies to international

law, business, travel, diplomacy and tourism as well. The use of English definitely gives

a big blow to other languages. As pointed out by Kegly and Wittkopf, "the rich tapestry

of myth, story-telling and literature in other languages may gradually be lost except to

scholars working in arcane fields. Cultures depend on contexts for their vitality and

growth. If children can see little point in learning the language of their parents and

grandparents increasingly the complexity and richness of the world will be enfeebled"

(Ibid: 259).

31

Another important issue is the depiction of women on TV. That the T.V.

misrepresents women is a major complaint made against T.V. by feminist scholars. The

T.V. generally portrays women in following ways:

(a) Women are depicted as devoted wives, ideal mothers and the loyal

housekeepers. This is how T.V. reinforces the conventionally ascribed role of

women living within the confines of home.

(b) Women are represented as sexual referents able to attract people on the basis of

their sexual appeal. This is the role women play in adver1isement and movies

on T.V. Messages are conveyed through the glamour and physical assets of

women.

(c) Women are portrayed as sex objects to be used by men. The depiction of

women in this role is masochistic and pornographic.

Neither role accurately represents the actual life of women. Van Zoonen remarks

on this dimension of T.V. that "many more women work than the media suggest, and

women's desires extend tar beyond the hearth and home of traditional women's

magazines" (Van Zoonen quoted in Ibid: 260). T.V. shows no mercy to men also. They

too are depicted in a distorted fashion. T.V. tells that men or the real men are strong as

the single hero can beat many culprits; that they are touchy about their manhood; and

they are at the helm of affairs in the sense that whatever happens in the world is the

product of male wisdom. Manhood reflects force, strength, power and violence in this

depiction. That men are uncompromising and women are submissive is the message of

the TV. Reality is some what different. It is not intended to argue that reality is obverse

of usual depiction. The essential point to be made in this regard is that depiction is far

away from the reality.

Cinema: Cinema industry is another prominent engine of global culture. More

accessible than T.V. and cheaper in cost cinema is the biggest factor responsible for the

emergence of global culture. As a result of developments in the field of cinematography,

film making capacity of countries has increased around the world. According to

statistical surveys undertaken by UNESCO, "a significant number of nation both inside

32

and outside the West have the capacity to produce feature films. However, it is also clear

that only few nations actually produce large number of films. In the 1980s, for example,

only the USA, Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong and India, were producing more than

fifty films a year and only another twenty or so nations, mainly Western, were producing

more than fifty films a year ... The majority of nation, although they had the capacity to

produce films, were actually releasing fewer than twenty films a year" (Held et al., 1999:

354). Given its wider audience cinema has blurred the distinction between "higli" and

"low" culture. With recent technical innovations in cinematography cinema has become

a huge multinational industry dominated by Hollywood because of its access to greater

financial resources and technology.

Following statistics deserve consideration.

"World trade in cultural goods cinema, photography, radio and television, printed matter, literature, music and visual arts - quadrupled, from $95 billion in 1980 to more than $380 billion in 1998. About four­fifths of these flows originate in 13 countries. H<;>llywood reaches 2.6 billion people around the world, and Bollywood 3.6 billion. In the film industry US productions regularly account for about 85% of film audiences worldwide. In the audiovisual trade with just the European Union, the United States had an $8.1 billion surplus in 2000, divided equally between films and television rights. Of 98 countries around the world with comparable data, only 8 produced more films than they imported annually in the 1990s. China, India and Philippines are among the largest producers in the number of films per year. But the evidence changes when revenue is considered. Of global production of more than 3,000 films a year Hollywood accounted for more than 35% of total industry revenues. Furthermore, in 1994-98, in 66 of 73 countries \Vith data, the United States was the first or second major country of origin of imported films. The European film industry, by contrast, has been in decline over the past three decades. Production is down in Italy, which produced 92 films in 1998, and Spain, which produced 85, while remaining unchanged in the United Kingdom and Germany. France is the exception. Production there increased to 183 films in 1998. The share of domestic films viewed between 1984 and 200 I declined dramatically in much of Europe, with the exception of France and Germany, where policies support the domestic film industry. For the same period, the share of US film increased across most of the continent (HDR 2004:86-87).

The dominance of US film industry is almost complete in international mov1e

market. Between 1993-2003 first I 0 most revenue producing movies were US made.

33

Rank Film Year Country of Total Gross

origin Revenue

(millions of

US$)

I Titanic 1997 us 1235

2 Lord of the Rings: The 2003 us 696

Return of the King

3 ~ Harry Potter and the 2001 us 651

Sorcerer's Stone

14 Harry Potter and the 2002 us 604

j Chamber of Secrets

p- I Lord of the Rings: The 2002 r 581

~ TwoTowers --t--

6 Jurrassic Park 1993 us 563

G- Lord of the Rings: The 2001 us 547 I

h Fellowship ofthe Ring

! Finding Nemo 2003 us 513 r-- I Independence Day 9 1996 us 505

10 Star Wars: Episode 1: The 1999 us 491

Phantom Menace

Source: (HDR 2004:97)

Cultural penetration of communication technologies has been widely felt and

feared. ft is generally believed that worldwide cultural diversity is under serious threat

from massively produced Western goods. Under the heavy influence of the principal

agents of global culture, national cultures and identities are being eroded. Since these

agents have global reach and impact and carry huge amount of capital with them, it is

34

I

widely held that the cultural differences ofthe world would wither away and would be

replaced by cultural homogeneity around the world. It has been interpreted as the re­

colonization of the non Western world by Western industries that carry with them the

symbols and connotations of Western achievements and prosperity. Illustrations of this

can be seen in the depiction of Western media as cultural invaders that not only

subordinate local cultures but also promote a highly commodified Western culture.

It is not that the nations of the world are silent recipient of incoming cultural

influences. Some of them have taken the impact of cultural imperialism quite seriously.

France, for example, has imposed tariffs on American imports particularly movies and

films. Canada has also made several efforts to control the U.S. shareholding in Canadian

media and telecommunication. China, North Korea, Iran and Iraq are some other

countries that are in favour of regulating incoming Western images and goods.

International Tourist Industry: Leisure has become an inevitable part of human life in

the late modern times. Growing affluence ofthe people has resulted in the expansion of

leisurely activities. Tourism is one such activity that has played a crucial role in the

commencement of global culture. With the enormous development in transportation

technologies more people move around the world than ever before in history for the

purposes of entertainment. The World Tourist Organization estimates that the figure of

tourists will reach to a billion per annum very soon. Robin Cohen and Paul Kennedy

highlight the following features of international tourism .

. Firstly, tourism has acquired the shape of big business. It was considered as the

third largest industry of the world after oil and vehicle till the 1980s. But in the 1990s it

was increasin.gly seen as the world's biggest business enterprise (Cohen and Kennedy,

2000: 214).

Secondly, international tourism has led to the marketization of the free goods. It

has brought down the culture to the level of commodity to be sold and purchased by

tourists. Ancient monuments, religious ceremonies, traditionai customs and folk culture

have acquired the shape of commodities to be exchanged in the tourist market (Ibid: 214).

35

Thirdly, being a worldwide phenomenon, the influence of international tourism

has been widely felt. Since international tourism takes practically every corner of the

world within its reach, it has made the boundaries of the state increasingly permeable

(lbid:214).

Lastly, the growth of international tourism has occurred in close connection with

the unprecedented mobility of the people around the world that enables the travelers to

experience the cultural life of other countries at first hand. These people in their

interaction with others transfer certain ideas and leave the imprint of their culture which

can and does transform local culture into global one (Ibid: 214).

Global Elite Class: Cultural globalization of the world has led to the formation of

international communities that are loosely knit but still share common interests. As

Jonathan Friedman remarks, "there is an interesting and, I think, still to be researched,

connection between the larger transformation of the global system and the emergence of

the new cosmopolitan elites" (Friedman, 1998:297). This elite class is different from

transnational capitalist class in the sense that its members do not own the means of

production though they may work on it or they may have share in capitalist enterprises.

Formation of this class is the direct result of the skill revolution that has swept the

spectrum around the globe. Members of this class come from different nationalities but

still share common bonds (although functional and professional they might be).

Members of this class "live in a world of abstract concepts and symbols ranging from

stock market quotations to the images produced by Hollywood and Madison A venue"

(Ibid: 297). They have more in common with their counterparts sitting in different parts

of the world rather than those residing in their neighbourhood but who are not the part of

their group. Despite having little connections with their native homeland and culture

what is interesting is that a relatively coherent identity seems to have emerged in these

people. It is a combination of somewhat self-assured and superior cosmopolitanism

along with cultural hybridity, border crossing and multiculturalism. The ideology that

members of globalized elite adhere to is neither modernistic nor bereft of any cultural

identification at all. On the contrary globalized elite share a postmodernist cosmopolitan

36

culture of its own type. They distance themselves from the people with national feelings

as unsophisticated and consider themselves loyal to humanity at large, or even if they are

loyal to their nationality, they prefer to associate themselves with immigrants who

fi·equently cross national borders. Peter Berger has painted a perfect picture of this elite

class.

"Participants in this culture know how to deal with computers, cellular phones, airline schedules, currency exchange, and the like. But they also dress alike, exhibit the same amicable informality, relieve tensions by similar attempts at humor, and of course most of them interact in English. Since most of these cultural traits are of Western (and mostly American) provenance, individuals coming from different background must go through a process of socialization that will allow them to engage in this behavior with seemingly effortless spontaneity ... But it would be a mistake to think that the "Davos culture" operates only in the offices, boardrooms, and hotel suites in which international business is transacted. It carries over into the lifestyles and presumably also the values of those who participate in it. Thus, for example, the frenetic pace of contemporary business is carried over into the leisure activities and the family life of business people. There is a yuppie style in the corporation, but also in the body-building studio and in the bedroom. And notion of costs, benefits, and maximization spill over from work into private life. The "Davos culture" is ·a culture of elite and ... of those aspiring to join the elite. Its principal social locations is in the business world, but since elites intermingle, it also affects at least the political elites. There is, as it were, a yuppie internationale" (Berger, 1997:24).

A significant portion of this class can be found out in what Peter Berger has

called "Faculty Club International." It is

"the internationalization of the Western intelligentsia, its values and ideologies. To put it graphically, if the "Davos culture" tries to sell computer systems in India, the "faculty club culture" tries to promote feminism or environmentalism there-a rather different agenda. While this culture has also penetrated the business world (and in turn has been penetrated by it), its principal carrier is not business. Rather, it is carried by foundations, academic networks, non-governmental organizations, and some governmental and multinational agencies (such as development agencies with social and cultural missions). It too is primarily an elite culture, though here again there are those who aspire to it from the lower echelons of cultural enterprises (say, schoolteachers or social workers who read the books and periodicals that reflect the view emanating from the great cultural centers). More importantly, the "faculty club culture" spreads its beliefs and values through the educational system, legal

37

system, various therapeutic institutions, think tanks, and at least some of the media of mass communication (Ibid: 25).-

This culture, by now, has become the prominent engine of globalization in many

parts ofthe world.

Consumerism: Ideology of consumerism has captured human attention throughout the

ages. Although globalization has not created consumerism but latter has definitely been

fostered by the tormer. How does globalization foster consumerism? Two explanations

come to mind.

Firstly, there began to occur a qualitative shift in the very nature of capitalism in

the 1960s. Invention of new electronic technologies changed the entire character of the

capitalist mode of production. Leslie Sklair confirms this point by saying that "as the

electronic revolution got underway the productivity of capitalist factories, systems of

extraction and processing of raw material; product design, marketing and distribution of

goods and services began to be transformed in one sector after another. This golden age

of capitalism began in the USA, but spread a little later to Japan and Western Europe and

other parts ofthe First World, to the NICs, and to some c.ities and enclaves in the Third

World" (Skiair, 2002:108).

With the emergence of new electronic technologies and the refinement of older

modes of production, capitalism in the second half of the twentieth century was in a

position "to provide a basic package of material possessions and services to almost

everyone in the First World and to privileged groups elsewhere" (Ibid: 108). Capitalism

became stronger by the mid 1980s and promised that prosperity is not the monopoly of

the chosen few if the person is willing to behave according to the dictates of global

capitalist market. Intrinsic logic of the market and the incentives associated with it

captured human imagination everywhere in the world because it was promising what

mill ions could only dream.

Secondly, mass media played a crucial role in disseminating the ideology of

consumerism all over the world. There is a lot that contemporary global capitalism owes

to mass media because the latter definitely lubricates wheels of the former. Mass media,

38

for instance, accelerates the spread of material goods through advertising thereby

reducing the time gap between production and consumption. Mass media conditions

people's mind from the early age into the lifestyle of consumerism through advertising

and propaganda. Human conditioning is structured in such a manner that people adhere

to same culture, tend to make same decisions and usually vote for the same lifestyle.

Mass media systematically blurs the line between information and entertainment and

promotes the sale of produced goods. Leslie Sklair remarks on the supportive role· of the

mass media for global capitalism that "a rapidly globalizing system of mass media was

also geared up to tell everyone what was available and, crucially, to persuade people that

this culture-ideology of consumerism was what a happy and satisfactory life was all

about" (Ibid: 108). This is how cultural demand for the survival of global capitalism is

created.

Shopping malls are inevitable part of consumer culture both symbolically and

substantively. It is through shopping malls that the consuming environment is created

and controlled. They preach the seductive nature of consuming experience. The gigantic

success of consumerism is candidly depicted by these malls where people from different

sections of society go for shopping and derive pleasure and status by becoming the part

of global capitalism. In the words of Leslie Sklair, "the integration of the medium of the

mall and the message of culture-ideology of consumerism had a formative influence on

the trajectory of global capitalism. The medium looks like the message because the

message, the culture-ideology of consumerism has engulfed the medium. The problem,

therefore, is ... understanding capitalist globalization, the system that produces and

reproduces both the message and the media that incessantly transmit it" (Ibid: 109).

At the more concrete level consumerism has become the popular culture in many

parts of the world. It is the culture ofMcworld and according to Peter Berger,

"it is this culture that is most credibly subsumed under the category of Westernisation, since virtually all of it is of western, and more specifically American, provenance. Young people throughout the world dance to American music wiggling their behinds in American jeans and wearing T­shirts with messages (often misspelled) about American universities and other consumer items. Older people w·atch American sitcoms on television and go to American movies .. Everyone, young and old, grows

39

taller and fatter on American fast foods. Here indeed is a case of cultural hegemony ... critics of "cultural imperialism" also understand that the diffusion of popular culture is not just a matter of outward behavior. It carries a significant freight of beliefs and values" (Berger, 1997:26).

Moreover, Peter Berger is not alone who has depicted the picture of Mcworld

culture and acknowledged the concerns of cultural imperialism of the West over the rest.

Robin Cohen and Paul Kennedy, for instance, have expressed similar anxieties and

commented in a similar vein that

"the specter of world cultural domination through the spread of Western consumerism and the rise of increasingly similar materialistic societies worries many observers ... the fear of Americanization is often even more acute. Sometimes this is described as Me DONALDIZAT~ON; the delivery of standardized products and their related systems of business control. .. The Me Donald's burger franchising chain is emulated by many other concerns. Certainly, Me Donald's own worldwide appeal has been enormous ... what is at stake here is the destruction of once vibrant and unique religious, ethnic and national identities and not just local dietary customs and small industries" (Cohen and Kennedy, 2000:239).

Internet:·· [nternet has emerged as a powerful engine of global culture in recent years.

"The internet is to the information age what the automobile was to the industrial age"

(Mcphail, 2006:290). It has added a completely new dimension to global communication

with the potential of reaching to the masses instantaneously. It was designed primarily

for the Cold War purposes. Its main objective was to secure American ability to

electronically send the military and strategic information across the continents with

accuracy and likelihood to reach to its planned destination. A team of eminent scientists

was organized to explore the possibility for the intercontinental electronic transmission

of information. Internet was the result of their tremendous efforts. As pointed out by

Thomas L. Mcphail, "internet represents the next new wave of global mass

communication. The internet relies extensively on the interconnection of widely

dispersed, global and interconnected personal computer systems" (Ibid: 291). According

to Internet Industry Almanac following countries are at the top of 2004 internet users list.

40

I) United States 202.5 million users

2) China 87.0 million users

3) Japan 66.5 million users

4) Germany 47.2 million users

5) United Kingdom 34.9 million users

6) South Korea 30.7 million users

7) Italy 28.6 million users

8) France 23.2 million users

9) Canada 20.5 million users

1 0) 0 Brazil 19.3 million users

Source: (Mcphail, 2006:305)

It is clear from these data that the US is far ahead of other countries and

dominates with 50 percent of overall internet use. Europe is the next in the list with 25

percent of global usage. According to Mcphail, "it is obvious that core nations were the

early inventors and adopters of the internet and now continue to expand and dominate

global usage. The core nations have all three requirements for internet access: technical

expertise. the financial resources to buy the· required computers and hookups, and

communication infrastructure to deliver interactive internet services. In many cases,

peripheral nations lack at least one of three requirements, and in some cases they lack all

three" (Ibid: 305-306).

The United States, unsurprisingly, is the internet superpower. It is the centre of

the internet traffic and the most central state in the international infrastructure necessary

for the use of internet. Semi peripheral and peripheral states generally do not have the

ability to communicate directly because much of internet traffic runs through the United

States. As pointed out by Mcphail, "the nature of internet today can be partially

explained ... with language, technological and cultural advantages that help the US

41

remain the most powerful and influential nation ... the US has the structural capacity to

act as an information broker or gatekeeper for the international internet" (fbid: 306).

One estimate suggests that almost a billion people all over the world will have

access to internet by 20 I 0. It will enhance the ability of principal broadcasters and

advertisers to sell their services through internet to their clients. Semi peripheral states of

central and eastern Europe too will witness the unprecedented gains in new internet

users. E-commerce, more significantly, has become the source of huge revenues' in all

core states. It will increase additional demand for access to internet because commercial

competition is increasing globally at a very rapid pace in terms of market share for

electronic purchases of goods and services (Ibid: 306).

Impact of internet on human life has been too great and well known to be spelled

out here in detaiL It is sufficient to point out that not even the single.area; be it political,

economic or cultural, remains untouched by the ever increasing growth of internet. That

internet is the main driver of time- space compression is not the hyperbolic statement. It

has broken many traditional monopolies and is creating new ones. It has changed, for

instance, the availability of government documents. The internet has not only altered the

access issue but also enabled governments to disseminate information in an unfiltered

manner. Political analysts, economic pundits and management gurus do not have to

apply their brain for interpreting the information. With the ever increasing access to

internet anyone can download the information and interpret it in his or her own way. It is

"because of internet, individuals can apply their own thoughts, ideas, and background to

the interpretation of new information" (lbid:299).

The internet was originally designed for military purposes. Its access was limited

in the beginning. This situation dramatically changed after the end of the Cold War.

Internet expanded rapidly in the 1990s. Its rapid growth was fueled by wider commercial

purposes. It has now become a 24 hours a day mass medium through which anyone can

send any information to anyone sitting anywhere in the world almost at the fraction of a

second. No one, with very few exceptions, is in a position to restrict the dissemination of

information. People no longer need to wait till the next morning for newspaper at their

doorstep to obtain the information. Internet has given a big blow to old style information

42

dissemination system. Loss of privacy, instantaneity of communication and the break up

of monopolies are some of the features that characterize internet based global

communication. In the words of Mcphail, "the important communication point to be

made ... is that no longer were news editor, pundits, politicians, the US president, or others

able to act as gatekeepers to restrict, alter, spin, or limit the information ... Rather,

millions of average people around the world now have access to the full, unedited

government reports at the same time they are presented to legislatures ... As a result of

the internet, the global public is better informed. They can act as a more informed public

jury concerning major political events, such as, the invasion of Iraq. But the changes are

not by any means limited to politics. The internet is changing the nature and perception

of human environment. Users are creating a third culture ... growth of a global culture"

(Ibid: 301).

Transnational Corporations: "The expansion and spread oftransnational corporations

has an importance that goes beyond industry or economics; it is part of a reshaping of the

world's social and political structures" (Horsman and Marshall, 1995:201). Huge growth

of TNCs and their ever increasing influence in contemporary societies are the direct

result of the tremendous expansion of international political economy in the last few

decades. It is not surprising, therefore, that TNCs have invoked considerable discussion

among scholars. "As advocates of liberal free trade and as active contributors to the

globalization ofworld politics, MNCs generate both credit for the positive aspects of free

tnide and globalization and blame for their costs" (Kegley and Wittkopf, 1999:192).

Definition and Characteristics of TNCs: Paul Kennedy and Robin Cohen have

provided five fold succinct characterization of Transnational Corporations. According to

them, TNCs.

I. "control economic activities in two or more countries

2. maximize the comparative advantage between countries, profiting from the differences in factor endowments, wage rates, market conditions and the political and fiscal regimes

43

3. have geographical flexibility, that is an ability to shift resources and operations between different locations on a global scale

4. operate with a level of financial component and operational tlows between different segments of the TNCs greater than the tlows within a particular country

5. have significant economic and social effects at a global level" (Cohen and Kennedy, 2000: 121 ).

The post Cold War world has witnessed tremendous expansion of TNCs. As

pointed out by Kegly and Wittkof,

"by the mid-l990s more than 38,500 MNCs world wide with more than 250,000 foreign affiliates generated $ 5.2 trillion in global sales, out pacing world wide exports of goods and services and accounting for one­fifth of the globe's $ 25 trillion economy ... MNCs also employed more than 73 million people, roughly 10 percent of all paid employees outside of agriculture and nearly twenty percent of the employees in the global north . . . Each MNCs job also typically generates additional jobs ... Conservatively, then, MNCs can be expected to generate one additional job for each job in the corporation bringing the number of jobs associated with fviNCs to at least 150 million" (Kegley and Wittkopf, 1999: 192-193).

One of the distinguishing features ofTNCs, as noted earlier, is that they maintain

dense overseas network of affiliates for coordinating their marketing and manufacturing

at the global level. As pointed out by Robert Gilpin,"the primary drive behind the

overseas expansion of today giant corporation is maximization of corporate growth and

the suppression of foreign as well as domestic competition" (Ibid: 196). Global dimension

of TNCs' business is further fueled by profit motives that are inevitably associated with

their globally functioning networks. Horsman and Marshall comment on this point that

"the expansion of TNCs has meant that increasingly all firms have a global aspect to

their business. This is partly because the cost base of so many sectors is established by

markets that operate beyond national borders. But it is also because TNCs have shown

how global strategies can be profitable. Multi-country sourcing can be less expensive

than local procurement, production can be spread among several facilities and final

assembly done some ·where else again. "Think global act local" is a slogan for almost

every company" (Horsman and Marshall, 1995:204).

That the TNCs have become the principal agents of globalization of production is

beyond any doubt. One estimate suggests that TNCs account for 37 percent of the first

44

I 00 world economic entities. Data pertaining to TNCs reveal the invalidity of the claim

that globalization is an equalizing process. TNCs account only for 9 percent among the

first 50 countries and in the second 50 countries they account for 28 percent. Economic

power of TNCs exceeds the financial clout of many countries. "Sales of the ten largest

corporations exceed the combined GNP of the l 00 smallest countries" (Kegley and

Wittkopf, 1999: 196). It is on this increasing economic role of TNCs that Barnet and

Cavanagh remark

"the emerging global order is spearheaded by a few hundred corporate giants many of them bigger than most sovereign nations. Ford's economy is larger than Saudi Arabia's and Norway's. Philip Marries's annual sales exceed New Zealand's gross domestic product. The multinational corporation of 20 years ago carried on separate operations in many different countries and tailored its operations to local conditions. In the 1990s large business enterprises, even some smaller ones, have the technological means and strategic vision to burst old limits-of time, space, national boundaries, language, custom and ideology. By acquiring earth spanning technologies, by developing products that can be produced anywhere and sold everywhere, by spreading credit around the world, and by connecting global channels of communication that can penetrate any village or neighborhood, these institutions we normally think of as economic rather than political, private rather than public, are becoming the world empires of the twenty-first century. The architects and managers of these space - age business enterprises understand that the balance of power in world politics has shifted in recent years from territorially bound governments to companies that can roam the world. As the hopes and pretensions of government shrink almost everywhere, these imperial corporations are occupying public space and exerting a more profound influence over the lives of ever larger number of people" (Barnet and Cavanagh quoted in Ibid: 202).

Import of TNCs, as usually predicted and thematized, does not confine to

economies, fiscal policies a!1d political systems of states. It goes much deeper. Sheer

ability ofTNCs to penetrate the societies and cultures in which they function is sufficient

to subvert local social formations. The economic capacity of TNCs and the Western

lifestyle associated with them are increasingly attracting local people and consequently

giving a big blow to traditional jobs and cultures associated with them. The presence of

TNCs in modern states constitutes an odd amalgamation of local and global, where, what

45

exactly is national is increasingly becoming difficult to identify. Horsman and Marshall

agree with this point and write that

"the concept of a "national interest" becomes harder to sustain ... By dissolving national boundaries, economic globalization allows in new sources of information; new views of the world, but makes room for new conflict too. Fundamentally, the spread of a global economy can help to undermine the idea of a national identity. Different degree of interaction with the global economy produce different attitudes, local commerce may_ be disrupted, as competition with the, global market destabilizes local labour relations and local culture. The use of incentives for foreign investment may distort this further. These conflicts have a strong internal dynamic, given that some sectors of society are more influenced than others. They will frequently bring the less educated, less international sectors of society into conflict with elites. The more peripheral areas of society have less in common with the global market than those at the top of the pile, and are more open to revivals of nationalist sentiment. Equally, the association with economic success can be important for reviving assertions of national or· local independence" (Horsman and Marshall, 1995 :205-206).

Global Standardization: Perhaps the most important aspect of global culture is global

standardization process about which very little is known. "Remarkably, the global

standardization sector and its consequences are invisible to almost everyone affected by

them. They are studied by specialists in the manufacturing and scientific areas they

regulate, and by analysts of business and organizational development ... but even their

very existence is largely unknown outside rather narrow circles. Social scientists have

not considered this sector as a sociological or political problem worthy of much study"

(Loya and Boli, 1999:169-170).

Much of what is being understood by globality and universality implies certain

standards that are either operating or ought to operate at the global level irrespective of

their context. The project of global standardization sets the standards of behaviour,

consumption and production which every state and individual is supposed to follow. "In

all, the International Organization for Standardization has published over 9,000 sets of

standards and over 500,000 standard-related documents. Its companion body, the

46

International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) has published more than 3,000 sets of

standards comprising I 00,000 pages of text (Ibid: 169).

This project inevitably implies the notion of universality that needs to be

accepted by everyone in the world. Though it seems like an abstraction in reality, it is

highly rational and institutionalized process. Loya and Boli comment that "the global

standardization project constitutes highly institutionalized sphere of world-level

collective action; the global standard bodies that direct this project operate at a level

beyond that of firms, states or countries. Their rules of non partisanship make all of

"humanity", not portions of humanity identified by nationality, race, religion, or any

other invidious distinction ... Their members include individuals, firms,. industry and

professional groups, and government agencies from all parts of the world, and these

members see themselves as participants in a unitary, coherent, necessary and practically

inevitable process" (Ibid: 191).

The project of global standardization is extremely rationalized. It sets the

standards about the desirable human purposes in life and how they can best be achieved.

"The unique characteristics of standardization shed light on such issues as the

constitution of world authority, world cultural conceptions of human purposes, and the

limits of coercive power in a decentralized global polity. In short, these organizations are

a constitutive part of world society" (Ibid: 170). This project functions on the basis of

production and adoption of cultural, technical, scientific and even political standprds.

Commodification and, of course, dissemination of standards throughout the world are

one of the primary functions of this project. It places rationality at the highest priority on

its agenda to be sold to the rest ofthe world. "This emphasis on rationality is, indeed, a

central tenet of the project; in an unrationalized wodd, it would never have emerged in

the first place. In short ... standardization organizations are built on world-cultural

conception of universalism, rational progress, and egalitarianism ... They conceive

science and technique as impersonal and ubiquitously applicable. They conce1ve

organizations as crucial to - and to a large extent, even coextensive with-human

progress. They conceive their work as promoting the realization of deliberately chosen

goals. They further conceive all humans everywhere as having the same basic needs (for

47

comfort, convenience, safety, and so on) and assume that these needs can best be met by

uniform, standardized technologies" (Ibid: 192).

It follows that global standardization project is to be located in the wider world

society perspective. Like national societies, world society (though not fully mature) also

creates its norms, rules and standards according to which its members are supposed to

conform. It denotes that humanity has made progress enough to transcend the standards

set by states. Secondly, it implies that the spread of liberal education fosters similar

mental make up all over the world. As noted by Loya and Boli, "this analysis implies

that the standardization sector is part of "world society' ... the transcendent level of

social reality that encompasses regional, national, and subnational levels of social

construction. World -cultural principles are directly embodied and given expression by

standard organizations; indeed standards bodies are an important, albeit rather small,

segment of the organizational structure that institutionalizes world culture. They also, of

course, help to define and shape world culture through their action at the global level"

(Ibid: 192).

The process of global standardization has two important characteristics. Firstly,

global standardization presumes extreme degree of universalism, rationality, and

homogeneity around the world. It proceeds from the assumption that standards are set on

the basis of technical considerations. All other factors such as cultural differences are

irrelevant. Implied in this process is the universal, technical, instrumental rationality that

manifests itself in every area of the world irrespective of prevailing local conditions. "It

adopts a single, uniform set of standards in each technical area rather than a set of

options among which firms and professionals might choose. It homogenizes the technical

infrastructure of the world" (Ibid: 192).

Secondly, authority of standard setting organizations and bodies is completely

voluntary. They lack all sorts of conventional sources of authority; be it charismatic,

patriarchal or legal-rational domination as suggested by Weber. Nor these organizations

can impose their standards by military power and formal legal processes. "Instead, their

authority derives from the truth presumably embodied in science and technique, from the

righteousness presumably embodied in the principles of governance by which the

48

standard bodies operate (equality, fairness, non partisanship), and from the presumed self

-interest of the lower-level actors that comprise them"(Ibid: 193).

State set standards stand at odds with global standardization programme. States

are usually not permitted as members in standard setting agencies. Nor their role in the

enunciation of standards has been significant in any noticeable way. Neither International

Organization for Standardization nor International Electrotechnical Commission is a

treaty based organization. "States are largely passive and secondary members of standard

bodies, acceding to authority associated with technical expertise and the universalistic

knowledge systems grounding that expertise" (Ibid: 193).

The structure of legitimacy in global standardization is extremely complex. It is

fused with public and private authority. "Individuals, firms, and associations legitimate

national bodies through the theory of rational voluntarism, national bodies legitimate the

global bodies by making the latter transcendentally inclusive and by bringing the

authority of their respective states into the structure. The global bodies in turn legitimate

national bodies by subjecting them to evaluation in accordance with universalistic,

technically based criteria for admission and retention of membership and they legitimate

the technical experts who do the bulk of their work by the very act of selecting them for·

TC membership" (Ibid: 193-194). In fact, the structure of global standardization

programme reflects the equilibrium between public and private authority. It is

noteworthy that reasonable number of member bodies functioning in ISO work in close

connection with states but most of these bodies are of private provenance. In the case of

national standard bodies too one can find many private entities working like firms and

individuals, several quasi public and public entities, professional groups and industrial

associations and so forth. Though public authc;·ity can be found at every level of global

standardization progamme, its fundamental character is private and it is driven by private

as well as public concerns (Ibid: 194).

Global standardization programme has far.reaching consequences for states and

state system. It presents itself as an organization of global reach and significance and it is

not hard to discern from its operation that some form of authority at the international

place can be established in the future. At the risk of slight exaggeration, this programme

49

can be conceived as a prototype of world state in some ways. In the words of Loya and

Boli, "the fact that the standardization sector so thoroughly fuses public and private

authority in a structure of global reach and consequence implies that more than just a

world 'society' or 'culture' is in operation here. What we infer is the outlines of world

polity -an all-embracing, complex, social unit with a well-defined central authority

structure that coordinates action at all level of social organization" (Ibid: 194). With the

commencement of this sector at the global level it is possible to visualize what has been

thought so far at the national level. This programme, in fundamental ways, is responsible

for spawning homogeneity at the world level. It does not follow from the working of this

sector that everything will look alike all over the world but it definitely creates the

conditions under which everything (at least those that fall under its domain) will work in

a like manner. As pointed out by Loya and Boli, "the uniformity engendered by

standardization is deep and far reaching, but it is also subtle. It reduces fundamental

differences ... The process is much like the homogenizing capacity of national cultures,

which reduces the culture base of ethnic differences while provoking the mobilization of

remnants of those differences as superficial symbols of a disappearing past ... The

phenomenon is not new ... and it may well be paving the way for the creation of a world

state" (Ibid: 197). Main characteristics of global culture are following.

CulturaiHybridization: Intercultural penetration fostered by globalization is not a one

way street. It is not the case that only weak states are vulnerable to the strong influences

of global culture. What the present world has witnessed is "the cross cultural borrowings

and intercultural fusion, and blending to create hybridized or mixed cultural form"

(Holton, 1998:179). A hybrid identity bears the stamp of several sources so that no single

source can make or have exclusive claim over that identity. It has enabled individual to

live many selves at a time which poses a serious challenge to the traditional style of

community formation. It is the case because several and usually competing selves of

individual make the formation of durable and deep social bonds exceedingly difficult.

Cultural hybridization is not a new phenomenon. Collectivities of humans rarely

relied on single notion of identity in history. What the present world has witnessed

50

during the contemporary phase of globalization is that it has increased the sense of fluid

and multiple self. It is truer for those who have greater access to supraterritorial spaces

where multiple identities get diluted with each other.

According to John Tomlinson, "perhaps the most basic component of the idea of

hybridity is that of simply mixing - intermingling, combining, fusion, melange. On the

face of it this is straight forward and unexceptionable- hybridity is mingling of cultures

from different territorial locations brought about by the increasing traffic amongst

cultures ... particularly the processes of migration - that global modernity produces. At

this empirical level hybridity is a way of describing and thinking through cultural

phenomena of the 'hotchpotch, a bit of this a bit of that' variety that seems to be

proliferating" (Tomlinson, 1999:142).

An.other conceptualization of cultural hybridity provided by Renate Rosado

reflects the tension between biological and cultural hybridity. According to him,

"on the one hand, hybridity can imply a space betwixt and between two zones of purity in a manner that follows biological usage that distinguishes two discrete species and the hybrid pseudo-species that results from their combination . . . On the other hand, hybridity can be understood as the ongoing condition of all human cultures, which contains no zones of. purity because they undergo continuous processes of transculturation (two way borrowing and lending between cultures). Instead of hybridity versus purity, this view suggests, that it is hybridity all the way down" (Ibid: 143).

At the more functional level "hybridization is defined as the ways in which forms

become separated from existing practices and recombine with new forms in new

practices" (Pieterse, 2004:64).

Implicit in these definitions of hybridity is the idea of cultural p•Jrity that has

existed or has been thought to exist deep down in history. The notion of hybridity has

been mired in the false notion of purity of race or as Anthony D. Smith puts it ethnie. It

is postulated by theorists as well as the opponents of cultural hybridity that it threatens

"the old apparent certainties about the cultural unity of the nation" (Smith, 2001:1 28). That

hybridity undermines ethnic origins of nations concerns many people particularly those

who want to retain distinct national character of their respective states and societies

51

intact. Conservative people that are found in every society generally express these fears.

On the other hand, particularly immigrants celebrate cultural hybridity and liberals who

believe in the free flow of cultural goods all over the world. They are against linking

cultural purity with cultural strength. As pointed out by John Tomlinson, "now, of

course, these terms are today almost always deployed in a celebratory mode deliberately

intended to undermine arguments that link cultural strength and destiny with racial

purity. Indeed there is even the implicit reversal ofthis idea- the hybrid being see1i as the

stronger, more vigorous strain" (Tomlinson, 1999:143-144).

Truth lies somewhere in between. Both extremes (purity and hybridity) are

fallacious in some fundamental ways. Any student of history is aware of the fact that

multiethnicity has been the norm in history. Arjun Appadurai (1997) argued that natives,

local people and social groups without contact with the outside world never existed in

world history. Renowned world historian William H. Mcneill agrees and remarks "that

civilized societies owed their success to their ability to attract a large supply of varied

labour skills. Hence, polyethnicity has been the historical norm, not national unity" (

Mchneill cited in Smith, 2001: 128). The culturally hybrid character of ancient empires

was reinforced by the tribal and barbaric incursion, international trade and supply of

labour. It transformed aricient societies into cosmopolitan hierarchies of skill (Ibid: 128).

In more recent times, cultural hybridization has been propelled by what James

Rosenau calls the "mobility upheaval" which according to him denotes "any movement

for any length of time and for any purpose - from business to professional travel, from

tourism to terrorism, from political asylums to the search for jobs, from legal to illegal

migration -the boundary spanning activities of people in recent decades have been so

astounding as to justify regarding them as a veritable upheaval". (Rosenau, 2003:63).

These flows of people from one place to another are caused by several factors. First is, of

course, tourism that has already been dealt with. Secondly, people frequently travel for

business and commercial purposes. This kind oftravel is constantly increasing. Thirdly,

people migrate hunting for education and jobs. This flow involves enormous migration

from developing countries to the industrially advanced states of the West. Finally, there

are refugees and asylum seekers who are forced to migrate from their native land and

52

start residing in another country. All these flows are facilitated by the transportation

technologies that has made mass movement possible and quite cheap. Some statistics

related to the global flow of people are following.

"The movement of people has been so extensive that around 5 percent of the individuals alive today are estimated to be living in a country other than the one where they were born. Everyday half a million airline passengers cross national boundaries. In 1997 a total of 220.7 million people ... went abroad by air plane ... Even more stunning, it is estimated · that by 2020 ever year 1.56 billion tourists will be moving around the world, a figure more than double the roughly 668 million foreign tourists· in 2000. It would be an error, however, to assume that the pattern of extensive travel is confined to Western countries. On the contrary, eight of the ten most traveled air routes are in Asia ... In 1965, on a worldwide basis 75 million people were migrants from another country, whereas the figure for 1999 was 125 million. Then there are the rising number of

. refugees and internally displaced people of concern to the United Nation's High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) from 17 million in 1991 to 27 million at the beginning of 1995" (Rosenau, 2003:64-65).

It clearly follows from these data that more people are in contactand mingling

with each other than ever before in history. It is difficult for people to retain identity of

their ethnic origin when they live outside their native land for long period of time.

Mingling has become a norm rather than deviance. At the levei of consciousness too,

people are increasingly aware of their mixed and fluid identity. James Rosenau also

remarks that "one of the consequences of fragmegrative dynamics, however, is that the

coherence and boundaries of cultures, like those of states, have become porous and often

frayed as other norms and practices intrude through the circulation of ideas and pictures

from abroad, the mobility upheaval, the organizational explosion, the diverse products of

global economy" (Ibid: 188). Gone are the days when it was almost natural to ask where

do you come from? Or where do you belong to? In today's world, more and more people

find it increasingly difficult to answer this question for not because they do not want to

reveal their origins but because their roots are multiple and fluid. Recent scholarship on

identity also demonstrates that the search for roots, purity, authenticity and singularity is

a futile exercise. The very dynamic nature of the world and the social and cultural

mobility caused by it renders many traditional constructs like state and the identity

associated with it extremely permeable. As pointed out by Patricia M. Gotf and Kevin

53

C. Dunn, "many past studies of identity, especially ethnically based national identity,

presumed that identity is fixed, homogenous, natural, bounded, and easily defined. Such

a conceptualization led to essentialized and stereotypical renderings of various actors. In

response to this, many have argued that identities are, at the very least, fragmented,

hybrid and contested" (Goff and Dunn, 2004:5).

A few words on the issue of multiplicity of identities are in order. It has been

long argued that identities are singular for the simple reason that the state is the central

actor in international politics and what it ascribes to its citizens is their identity. Since

state acts with a single voice on international plane, identity of an individual is singular.

Will it apply to 'global nomads'? As the above mentioned data reveal that more and

more people cross their national boundaries everyday and there is no dearth of cases

when a person has travelled more than 65 countries at the age of I 0 to 12, the validity of

realist claim on identity is impossible to sustain. Just listen to this version of a graduate

student.:

"I was born in Argentina, my entire family is Argentinean and culturally I have been raised Argentinean. Yet, at age four, I moved out of Argentina and only retumed on vacations. I grew up in Panama until I was thirteen and then moved to California. So where does that leave me? I speak perfect English and Spanish. Physically, I can pass as Californian, Panamanian or Argentinean. I know many people that are in my same situation. In a sense, we identify with each other. We have created our own territory, imagined, but a territory nonetheless" (Rosenau,2003: 184).

Take a look at the story of a more elderly person who happens to be a senior

lecturer:

"I see myself as a citizen of the world, and someone who is unmistakably, American and Chinese. My parents are Chinese but I grew up in a small town in the Midwest. I have no attachment to place, but I wish I had one. I am a scientist but I like philosophy I am a social psychologist but I read a Jot of anthropology, sociology, mythology, and political science. I am a shifting person of multicolored hues. I can disguise myself very well, and make it very difficult for other to know exactly where I come from. There are probably more people like me now than at any other time in human history" (Ibid: 184).

These epigraphs eloquently demonstrate the multiplicity of identities. Limits of

identities fostered by nationalism are clearly highlighted in these versions. To dismiss

54

this whole phenomenon at the altar of authenticity will be an act of epistemological

violence that can ever be perpetrated on people like them who are considered as 'global

nomads'. It impels one to think beyond nationalist schemata. In the words of .J .N.

Pieterse, "the so called superficial mingling then may have deep overtones. Even so we

have been so trained and indoctrinated to think of culture in territorial packages of

assotted 'imagined communities' that to seriously address the windows opened and

questions raised by hybridization in effect requires a decolonization of imagination"

(Pieterse, 2004:55).

However, the thesis of cultural hybridization has not remained unchallenged in

scholarly discourse on the subject. One of the most serious criticisms that has been

labeled against hybridity is that it operates at the very superficial level of contemporary

dynamics of globalization. It has been enthusiastically argued by the opponents of

hybridity that "what are actually being mixed are cultural languages rather than

grammars. The distinction runs between surface and deep-seated elements of culture. It

is, then, the folkloric superficial elements of culture-foods, costumes, fashions,

consumption habits, arts and crafts, entertainments, healing methods-that travel, while

deeper attitudes and values, the way elements hang together, the structural ensemble of

culture, remains contextually bound" (Ibid: 54). This anti-hybridity backlash is pregnant

with serious implications for globalization. This critique of hybridity renders the whole

process of globalization a surface phenomenon. It follows that the winds of

globalization, however fast they might be, may make the cultural gamut dusty but deep.

roots of cultures in their respective societies remain intact. J.N. Pieterse remarks that this

critique "would imply that contemporary 'planetarization' is a surface phenomenon only

because 'deep down' humanity remains divided in cultural clusters. Does this also imply

that the new social technologies of telecommunication -from jet aircraft to electronic

media-are surface phenomena that don't affect deep seated attitudes? If so, the

implications would be profoundly conservative" (Ibid: 54). The middle ground in this

debate will be that technological revolution is strong and profound in the sense that one

has to use them to remain connected. 'Medium is the message' is the old dictum of

McLuhan. James Rosenau too has written that "yes, it is certainly the case that recent

technological innovations have had enormous consequences ... , that they have collapsed

55

time and space and thus added substantially to the complexities that mark our era.

Perhaps most notably, they are the prime source of distant proximities. The electronic

mechanisms render close-at-hand what once was remote and, in so doing, transform the

linear into the nonlinear and the sequential into the simultaneous" (Rosenau, 2003:257). At

the same time these very technologies

"are inherently neutral because they do not in themselves ti It in the direction of any particular values-neither toward good or bad, nor toward· left or right, nor toward open or closed systems. They are neutral in the sense that their tilt is provided by people-by those in local and global worlds who affirm or resist globalization and, in so doing, employ information technologies to advance their perspectives. It is people and their collectivities that employ the technologies to infuse values into information. For better or worse it is individuals and organizations that introduce information into political arenas and thereby render it good or bad. The technologies enable authoritarians as well as democrats to skew their information and speed up its spread in whatever way they see fit. The neutrality premise thus compels us to focus on human agency and how it does or does not make use of information technologies" (Ibid: 257).

Another issue implied in hybridity versus anti-hybridity debate is one of time

horizon. The issue to be dealt with here is one of duration: for how long do cultures

iniermingle with each other to have meaningful effect. Short term intermingling of

different cultures does not provide enough time for penetrating each other's cultural

grammar. Whereas chances of long term intercultural interaction being transformed into

cultural assimilation are high if people are not touchy about their culture beyond the

point. Multicultural society of the United States is a case in point. Profoundly mixed and

travelling character of American society enlarges its appeal to the rest of the world. In

the words of J.N. Pieterse, "in this culture, the grammar of multiple cultures mingle, and

this intercultural density may be part of the subliminal attraction of American popular

media, music, film, television ... The intermingling of cultural grammars than makes up

the deeply human appeal of American narratives and its worldly character, repackaging

elements that came from other shores"(Pieterse, 2004:54).

Deterritorialization: Emergence of global culture has a direct bearing on the

phenomenon of deterritorialization. As technological breakthroughs intensify

56

communication and transportation across the globe, social, economic and political

activities increasingly become deterritorialized in the sense that they are no longer

embedded in or confined to existing national boundaries. As pointed out by Arjun

Appadurai, "Deterritorialization, in general, is one of the central forces of the modern

world, since it brings laboring population into the lower class sector and spaces of

relatively wealthy societies while sometimes creating exaggerated and intensified sense

of criticism or attachment of politics in the home state" (Appadurai, 1997:37-38).

Culture has traditionally been linked with territory. It has been presumed that

there is an inherent and natural link between the distinctiveness of societies and cultures

and geographical spaces in which they are embedded. In the words of Akhil Gupta and

James Ferguson, "the distinctiveness of societies, nations and cultures is predicated on a

seemingly unproblematic division of space, on the fact that they ·occupy 'naturally'

discontinuous spaces. The premise of discontinuity forms the starting point from which

to theorize, contact, conflict, and contradiction between cultures and societies . . . the

representation of the world as a collection of 'countries' as on most world maps, sees it

as an inherently fragmented space, divided by different colors into diverse national

societies, each rooted in its proper place ... it is so taken for granted that each country

embodies its own distinctive culture and society that the terms 'society' and 'culture' are

routinely simply appended to the names of nation states" (Gupta and Ferguson, 2002:65-

66). Another aspect of conventional view of the culture is that the bonds and links

between the members of different communities will be more intense inside than outside

their space. Members treat their communities as the principal medium in terms of w)1ich

they adjust their actions.

Conventional wisdom m anthropology and sociology renders culture "as the

order of life in which human beings construct meaning through practices of symbolic

representation" (Tomlinson, 1999: 18). As noted by Jonathan Xavier lnda and Renata

Rosaldo, culture in this rendition is "the sphere of existence in which people make their

lives, individually and collectively, meaningful: and it encompasses both the practices

through which meaning is generated and the material forms- popular culture, film, art,

literature, and so forth-in which it is embodied" (Inda and Rosaldo, 2002: 10). This

57

classical anthropological understanding of culture as "a self containing whole" views

culture inevitably tied up with space. Formation of national cultures and modern state

has gone hand in hand in modern world history. The process is by and large over in the

West and it has set the model to be emulated by other parts of the world struggling for

the development of the state. There too, culture has to be national. State-being a

territorial entity - needs a power base that is unified, if not uniform by certain shared

symbolisms. Culture usually plays this role in national settings which is responsible for

the close connection between culture and space. As pointed out by Jonathan Xavier Inda

and Renato Rosaldo, "culture has been seen something rooted in 'soil. It has been

thought of as bounded entity that occupies a specific physical territory. The idea of

culture has thus rested on the assumptions of rupture, on the assumption of an intrinsic

discontinuity between places as the loci of particular formations· of meaning. It has

traditionally pointed to a world of human differences conceptualized as a mosaic of

cultures with each culture, as a universe of shared meanings, radically set apart from

every other" (Inda and Rosaldo, 2002:11).

Cultural globalization of the world rendered all this obsolete. Due to time-space

compression, time-space distanciation, intercultural flows and ever increasing mobility

of people the present world is witnessing "the refusal of cultural products and practices

to 'stay put', to give a profound sense of a loss of territorial roots, of an erosion of the

cultural distinctiveness of places" (Gupta and Ferguson, 2002:68). Deterritorialization of

culture implies "the loss of the 'natural' relations of culture to geographical and social

territories and, at the same time, certain relative partial territorial relocalization of old

and new symbolic productions" (Canclini, 2001 :498-499). An almost natural connection

between community's culture and geographical territory, so neatly embodied in the

nation-state, is breaking down due to the forces unleashed by the cultural globalization of

the world. Deterritorialized culture is not "a self -contained whole made up of coherent

patterns" (Rosaldo, 1989:20). It is conceived "as a more porous array of intersection~

where distinct processes crisscross from within and beyond its borders (lbid:20). in such

deterritorialized cultural settings one is compelled to ask "what does it mean, at the end

of the ... century, to speak of a native land? What processes rather than essences are

involved in present exercises of cultural identity?" (Gupta and Ferguson, 2002:68). Many

58

conventional notions associated with national cultures "collapse in the face of these

'crossed' economies, meaning systems that intersect, and fragmented personalities. One

of these is that of 'community', employed both for isolated peasant populations and for

expressing the abstract cohesion of a compact national state, in both cases definable by

relation to a specific territory" (Canclini, 2000:501 ).

Ever increasing number of migrants, diaspora communities, refugees and global

nomads bear a testimony to the fact that more and more people are residing far away

from their place of birth. As pointed out by Akhil Gupta and James Ferguson "refugees,

migrants, displaced and stateless people-these are perhaps the first to live out these

realities in their most complete form, but the problem is more general" (Gupta and

Ferguson, 2002:68). In a world characterized by intense intercultural flows "collective

identity do seem to take on a special character today, whenmore atid more of us live in

... 'a generalized condition ofhomelessness', a world where identities are increasingly

coming to be, if not wholly deterritorialized, at least differently territorialized" (Ibid: 68).

Possibilities are beginning to take roots, to put it mildly, for the formation of post

national self in which the relation between culture and territory will be radically different

from the one easily located in national settings. Globalization of culture breaks the

relation between culture and place. As noted by Jonathan Xavier lnda and Renato

Rosaldo, "globalization has radically pulled culture apart from place. It has visibly

dislodged it from particular locales. The signs of this disembedding are everywhere"

(lnda and Rosaldo, 2002:11).

With the growing affluence more and more people have access to supraterritorial

spaces that has given a big blow to conventional mode of identity formation.

Intercultural interactions fostered by ever accelerating mobility of people enable one to

I ive multiple selves that pushes singular identity of an individual to back seat. In a world

that is marked by "diaspora, transnational cultural flows, and mass movements of

populations old-fashioned attempts to map the globe as a set of culture regions or

homeland are bewildered by a dazzling array of postcolonial simulacra doublings and

redoublings ... In this culture-play of diaspora, familiar lines between 'here and there',

center and periphery, colony and metro pole become blurred" (Gupta and Ferguson,

59

2002:68). The present globalized world is fundamentally different in many ways fl·om the

one that existed during the Cold War. It requires entirely new "concepts and categories"

to comprehend a world which is making a transition from modernity to postmodernity. It

collapses "center and periphery .... abstract expression of an idealized imperial system in

which the gradations of power and wealth would be distributed concentrically: most in

the centre and a progressive decrease as we move toward surrounding zones. The world

functions less and less in this way ... we need an alternative cartography of social" space

... the notions of circuit and border" (Canclini, 2001 :501).

Deterritorialization has become a source of several fundamentalist movements

around the world. It is the case because deterritorialised communities start taking more

and more interest in the politics of their home states and try to influence the policies of

government on religious lines in order to fill the void that has been c·reated by their own

alienation from the home land. The Khalistan movement is the classic example.

Moreover, deterritorialization has also led to the creation of the market for tilm

companies, travel agencies and art impresarios, so that deterritorializcd population can

remain in contact with its home state. This, in result, creates problems for the economic

policies of the weak states.

This is not to suggest that the quest for roots is over and people have started

living in a completely syncretistic manner. Humans are the species that justify and

legitimize their actions in the name of some motives, meanings and purposes.

Globalization or more specifically cultural globalization, however strong it might be, still

lacks the capacity to e1,1d the infinite human search for meaning. What the present world

is witnessing is the emergence of this quest in the form of"reinsertion of culture in new

time-space contexts ... In other words, cultural flows do not just float ethereally across

the globe but are always reinscribed (however partially or fleetingly) in specific cultural

environments. The signs of this reinscription, like the marks of dcterritorialization, are

everywhere evident" (Inda and Rosaldo, 2002:11-12). The strength of giobalization lies in

altering or constructing a new social space (quite different from old ones) in which

cultures of different communities will be reinscribed. Much of what is understood by

transnational or supraterritorial space has been the direct result of globalization and the

60

process is likely to accelerate in the times to come. Arjun Appadurai notes that "as

populations become deterritorialized and incompletely nationalized, as nations splinter

and recombine, as states face intractable difficulties in the task of producing 'the people',

transnations are the most important social sites in which the crises of patriotism are

played out" (Appadurai, 1996:176).

It will be grave error to remain blind to the reterritorialization of culture.

Deterritorialization does not mean "culture as free-floating, without anchors. Indeed not

... the uprooting of culture is only half of the story of globalization" (Jnda and Rosaldo,

2002:11 ). Reterritorialization of culture refers to the "process of reinscribjng culture in

new time-space contexts, of relocalizing it in specific cultural environments. It suggests

that while the connection between culture and specific places may be weakening, it does

not mean that culture has altogether lost its place. Itjust signifies that culture has been

placed otherwise, such that it no longer necessarily belongs in or to particular place. In

short, it means that culture continues to have a deterritorialized existence, albeit a rather

unstable one" (Inda and Rosaldo, 2002:12).

Humanity is yet to achieve the stage when people can completely identify

themselves with some sort of truly global civilization even if it is physically possible and

morally desirable. Cultural conditioning of mankind in territorial terms has gone so deep

down in human psychology that it will take some time to undo it (presuming that

complete undoing of national self is possible). Postnational self is yet to strip itself off

territoriality. As pointed out by Akhil Gupta and James Ferguson, "the irony of these

times is that as actual places and localities become ever more blurred and indeterminate,

ideas of culturally and ethnically distinct places become perhaps more salient. It is here

that it becomes most visible hciw imagined communities come to be attached to imagined

places, as displaced people cluster around remembered or imagined homelands, places,

or communities in a world that seems increasingly to deny such firm territorialized

anchors in the actualitY" (Gupta and Ferguson, 2002:69).

The tussle between globalization and fragmentation is far more complicated than

usually depicted. It is not that only those who are globalized feel the effects of

globalization. People remote from globalization too could escape the changing

61

relationship between culture and territory. For them modernization rather than the

globalization (which is supposed to be the product of high, late or postmodernity) causes

the disjuncture between culture and place. Here the notion of time-space distanciation as

developed by Anthony Giddens is more readily applicable than time-space compression.

In the scheme of time-space distanciation modernity unleashes the forces that tears

premodern social relations apart by disembedding them from their place. In the words of

Anthony Giddens, "by disembedding I mean the 'lifting out' of social relaions froni local

contexts of interaction and their restructuring across indefinite spans of time -space"

(Giddens, 1990:21). With the commencement of industrial civilization more and more

people travel not only from one state to another but from village to cities and cities to

metropolitan areas. This mobility does not owe much to globalization. Rather, it is the

result of modernization defined in terms of "urbanization; industrialization,

secularization, democratization, education, media participation" (Huntington, 1968:32).

And "demographically, modernization means changes in the patterns of life, a marked

increase in health and life expectancy, increased occupational, veitical and geographical

mobility, and in particular, the rapid growth of urban population as contrasted with rural"

(Ibid: 33). This social mobility is defined in terms of the process through which "major

clusters of old social, economic, and psychological commitments are eroded or broken

and people become available for new patterns of socialization and behaviour" (Ibid: 33).

This social mobility brings critical shift "in the attitudes, values, and expectations of

people from those associated with the traditional world to this common to the modern

\VOrld (Ibid: 33). It is this attitudinal change coupled with mobility caused by

modernization that is responsible for the alienation of people from their native land and

anomie to which entire tradition of existentialism in Western philosophical thinking, to a

significant degree, is a response. As pointed out by Gupta and Ferguson, "it is not only

the displaced who experience displacement ... for even people remaining in familiar and

ancestral places find the nature of their relation to place ineluctably changed and the

illusion of a natural and essential connection between the place and culture broken"

(Gupta and Ferguson, 2002:69).

Deterritorialization of culture, to put it simply, does not imply the complete

breakup between culture and space. Culture always maintains some relation with the

62

territory that has either been left or newly occupied. Remembered places, for instance,

play a crucial role in the formation of community of displaced people. It is especially

true for immigrants whose sense of community heavily depends on the memory of the

left place. "Homeland" in this way remains one of the most powerful unifying symbols

for mobile and displaced peoples, though the relation to homeland may be very

differently constructed in different settings (Gupta and Ferguson, 2002:69). Erosion of

national territorial cultural space caused by globalization should not be conflatea with

the deterioration of social space as such. Rather, it has to be located (even if it is in a

highly mobile condition) in a globalized capitalist economy. Slogans like "end of

geography" have to be used with caution in this regard. It is true that national culture

once stripped off its territory takes the form of culture-in-motion but it retains its anchor

and territoriality in its globalized form is always there to replace it. Globalization lifts

cultural subjects and objects from fixed spatial locations and localizes it or put it in a

different or entirely novel cultural milieu. In other words, if deterritorialization is

pushing culture from its fixed space, reterritorialization is there to pull it back in one way

or another. "Territoriality is thus reinscribed at just the point it threatens to be erased"

(Ibid: 70).

This discussion regarding the deterritorialization of global culture can be safely

concluded by saying that "in the present postcolonial world, the notion of an authentic

culture as an autonomous internally coherent universe no longer seems tenable; except

perhaps as 'useful fiction' or a revealing distortion. In retrospect, it appears that only a

concerted· disciplinary effort would maintain the tenuous fiction of a self-contained

cultural whole. Rapidly increasing global interdependence has made it more and more

clear that neither 'we' nor 'they' are as neatly bounded and homogenous as once seemed

to be the case .... All of us inhabit an interdependent. ... world marked by borrowing and

lending across porous national and cultural boundaries that are saturated with inequality,

power and domination" (Rosaldo, 1989:217).

Global Multiculturalism: The issue of globalization and multiculturalism involves

following themes:

63

(a) Tradition and Human Development

(b) Respect for cultural differences and diversity

(c) Expanding Identities of people. It requires elaboration.

Tradition and Human Development: Concerns have been raised that human

development leads to the erosion of long cherished traditions of communities. It is

generally believed that there is a direct trade-off between development and traditional

values of the group and one can be achieved only at the expense of other. "Some

indigenous people fear that their ancient cultural practices are endangered by the inflow

of foreign investment in extractive industries or that sharing traditional knowledge

necessarily leads to its misuse" (HDR 2004:89). This kind of thinkif!g inevitably breads

cultural conservatism and there is no dearth of evidence in which groups are seen

shutting themselves from the influences of the outside world. "Cultural conservatism can

discourage - or prevent people from adopting a different lifestyle, indeed even from

joining the lifestyle that others, from a different cultural background, standardly follow

in the societies in question" (Ibid: 88-89). Deep attachment with tradition can obstruct

human development because latter inevitably requires modern, scientific outlook that

goes or may go contrary to the traditional wisdom. Moreover, cultural conservatism

creates insurmountable hurdles on the way of the cultural liberty of the people.

According to Human Development Report 2004, "cultural liberty is about expanding

individual choices, not about preserving values and practices as an end in itself with

blind allegiance to tradition ... cultural liberty is the capability of people to live and be

what they choose with adequate opportunity to consider other options" (Jbid: 4).

Multiculturalism is used as a tool for protecting traditions, however reactionary and full

of discrimination they might be. It is increasingly and more readily asserted that every

individual and group has a right to live according to its tradition and its sustenance can

be assured by the politics of multiculturalism. However, it is clearly not the case for the

simple reason that culture, tradition and authenticity are not the same things. Ignoring the

thin line of distinction between them can seriously undermine fundamental rights of

individual without which an individual cann0t achieve his or her best. It is useful, in this

64

context, to remember the dynamic and dialogical nature of culture. "Cuiture is not a

frozen set of values and practices. It is constantly recreated as people question, adopt and

redefine their values and practices to changing realities and exchanges of ideas" (Ibid: 4).

The policy of multiculturalism is not targeted towards the preservation of tradition; it is

to increase and expand cultural choice of the people. There is, of course, much in

tradition that is commensurate with global ethical standards and needs to be cherished.

But there are certain elements in tradition that need to be discarded in order to achieve

human development (Ibid: 89).

Another disturbing but noteworthy tendency in the recent scholarship on culture

is to link it with economic development. "Increasingly social scientists turned to cultural

factors to explain modernization, political democratization, military strategy, the

behavior of ethnic groups, and the alignments and antagonisms among countries"

(Huntignton, 2004:xiv). This scholarship asserts that some cultures are more prone to

economic development and political democracy. "The central conservative truth is that it

is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society" (Ibid: xiv). In the

introduction of the book "Culture Matters" Huntington writes:

"In the early 1990s, 1 happened to come across economic data on Ghana and South Korea in the early 1960s, and I was astonished to see how similar their economies were then ... Thirty years later, South Korea became an industrial giant with the fourteenth largest economy in the world, multinational corporations, major exports of automobiles, electronic equipment, and other sophisticated manufacture, and per capita income approximately that of Greece. Moreover, it was on its way to the consolidation of democratic institutions. No such changes occurred in Ghana, whose per capita income was now about one-fifteenth that of South Korea's. How could this extraordinary difference in development be explained? Undoubtedly, many factors played a role, but it seemed to me that culture had to be a large part of the explanation. South Koreans valued thrift, investment, hardwork, education, organization and discipline. Ghanians had different values. In short, cultures count" (Ibid: xiii).

Max Weber is the main intellectual inspiration behind these theories. Weber's

Protestant Ethic and the Sprit of Capitalism is usually invoked in this regard according

to which Protestant ethic (in particular, Calvinism) played a decisive role in the

development of the capitalist industrial economy. Development of capitalism 111 non

65

Protestant societies seriously undermined the validity of this central Weberian claim. It is

this tendency of linking culture with development on which HDR 2004 targets its main

cannons. According to the Report, this tendency leads to cultural determinism and

thereby completely undermines human agency and choice. To reduce the whole issue of

development to culture is to fall in the trap of unicausal interpretation of a phenomenon

which is inevitably the outcome of several variables interplaying with each other. The

Report reads on this aspect that "there may be much to learn from these theories, and the

empirical connections they expose may be insightful, and yet it is also remarkable how

often specific aspects of cultural explanations, based on observing the past, have been

undermined by later experiences. Indeed, theories of cultural determinism have often

been one step behind the real world" (HDR 2004: 19).

Expanding Individual Identities: According to this principle, cultural globalization of

the world is responsible for the.expansion of individual identity. It is now possible to live

multiple selves at the same time which has already been discussed. In a way, cultural

globaiization has given a big blow to the conventional thinking according to which there

is an indispensable trade off between national identity and the new ones either created or

fostered by globalization. Globalization has definitely increased the number of cultural

options available to people. It provides opportunity to people to weigh different options

and choose what they like. It increases cultural liberty of individuals who will be

deprived of the benefits of globalization if they are too attached with their local and

conventional culture. The Report also affirms this point by saying that "globalization can

expand cultural freedoms only if all people develop multiple and complementary

identities as citizens of the world as well as citizens of a state and members of a cultural

group . .lust as a culturally diverse state can build unity on multiple and complementary

identities, a culturally diverse world needs to do the same. As globalization proceeds,

this means not only recognizing local and national identities but also strengthening

commitments to being citizens of the world" (Ibid: 89).

Much of the debate on cultural globalization has focused on the loss of national

sovereignty, national cultures and identities, preservation of indigenous traditions and

66

cultural heritage, and economic consequences of globalization. There is no denial of the

fact that these are serious issues and require concerted disciplinary inquiry. However, it

needs to be mentioned that there is a reified and fixed notion of society and culture

implicit in the arguments of antiglobalizers. What has been completely ignored in this

debate is the fact that cultural identities are constantly evolving, changing and

heterogenous. "They are dynamic processes in which internal inconsistencies and

conflicts derive change" (Ibid: 88). Globalization fosters global outlook that ~is not

necessarily anti-national. Bonds created by globalization require certain kind of

atmosphere to flourish. It needs commitment to shared values and respect for diversity.

The real meaning of global culture has to be carefully understood in this regard. "Global

culture is not about the English language ot brand name sneakers- it is about universal

ethics based on universal human rights and respect for the freedom, equality and dignity

of all individuals" (Ibid: 90).

Respect for Cultural Diversity: Respect for cultural diversity throughout the globe is

the essence of multiculturalism at the international plane. At the heart of it is an idea that

culture of every individual and group must receive decent treatment by foreigners, aliens

and those who do not belong to it in any significant manner. No culture, even if

primitive, should be unduly subordinated by those who are members of more affluent

communities. Implied in this is the moral principle that every individual and group is

endowed with certain inalienable cultural rights and obligations that have to be respected

and protected from any threat to them. It is important, however, to keep in mind that

"diversity is not an end in itself but, ... it promotes cultural liberty and enriches people's

I ives. It is an outcome of the freedoms peop!e have and the choices they make. It also

implies an opportunity to assess different options in making these choices. If local

cultures disappear and countries become homogenous, the scope for choice is reduced"

(Ibid: 89).

In the context of globalization there has emerged a consensus on cettain rights

and duties every individual or group is supposed to be endowed with. Some of them are

following. Every individual has the right:

67

(I) "To migrate from one society to another and to stay at least temporarily with comparable rights as the indigenous population; to be able to return not as stateless and with no significant loss of rights .

(2) To be able to carry one's culture with one and to encounter elsewhere a hybrid culture containing at least some elements of one's own culture.

(3) Of all social groups to society (to possess communication)

full cultural participation within the world information, representation, knowledge,

( 4) To be able to buy across the globe the products, services and icons of diverse other cultures and then to be able to locate them within one's own culture which incrementally changes

(5) To be able to form social movements with citizens of other societies to oppose particular states (France's nuclear testing), set of states (the North), corporations (News Corporation), general bads and so on; such movements often involve branding, adver:tising and commercialization and are not necessarily progressive even if oppositional

(6) To migrate for leisure purposes throughout most of the countries on the globe and hence to 'consume' all those other places and environments (including those enroute). With the elimination of many formal barriers to leisure travel contemporary citizens expect to consume places anywhere and everywhere (especially those deemed of global significance such as UNESCO -designed World Heritage Sites)

(7) To be able to inhabit environments which are relatively free of risks to health and safety produced by both local and distant causes: to sense the quality of each environment directly rather than to have to rely on expert systems which are often untrustworthy; and to be provided with the means by which to know about those environments through multi­media sources of information, understanding and reflection" (Urry, 2000: I 74).

Every individual is obliged:

(I) "To find out the state of the globe, both through national sources of information and image and especially through sources which are internationalized (... on the borderless world where states are increasingly unable to control flows of information)

(2) To demonstrate a stance. of cosmopolitanism towards other environments, other cultures and other peoples. Such cosmopolitanism may involve either consuming such environments because of a concern for its wider impact ...

68

(3) To engage in forms of behaviour with regard to culture, the environment and other places which are consistent with the various conception of how to live sustainable life; to be an ethical visitor

(4) To respond to images, icons and narratives which address people as highly differentiated citizen of the globe rather than as citizens of a particular nation, ethnic, gender, class, generation

(5) To seek to convince others that they should also seek to act on part of the globe as a whole which is suffering collectively, rather than in terms of shared identity interests. Such persuasion will involve both informational and image-based media

(6) To act in terms of the global public interest rather than in terms of local or national interests (Ibid: 175).

The fear of the loss of identity is inevitable in the face of many people interacting

with each other. More and more people are concerned about the loss of what they have

inherited from their predecessors and cherished with love. "Much of the fear of a loss of

national identity and culture comes from the beliefthatcultural diversity inevitably leads

to conflict or to failed development" (HDR 2004:89). Huntington eloquently captures

this view in 'clash of civilization' thesis. In his opinion "culture and cultural identities,

which at the broadest level are civilization identities, are shaping the patterns of

cohesion, disintegration, and con1lict in the post-Cold War world" (Huntington, 1996:20).

Many of Huntington's findings have been seriously challenged by scholars of politics,

sociology and anthropology, detailed examination of which is unwarranted here. It is

sufficient to point out that cultural diversity clothed in civilizational terms per se is not

the cause of conflict. Roots of inter-ethnic violence lie somewhere else. They are to be

located in the realm of economic inequalities, poor governance, marginalization of some

cultures and cultural domination. As brought to notice by the Report, "it is not diversity

that inevitably leads to conflict but the suppression of cultural identity and social,

political and economic exclusion on the basis of culture that can spark violence and

tensions. People may be fearful of diversity and its consequences, but· it is opposition to

diversity- as in the position of anti-immigrants groups- that can polarize societies and

that fuels social tensions" (HDR 2004:89).

Some concluding observations on global culture are in order. They are following:

69

Global Culture is the Culture: As mentioned immediately after the definition, global

culture is fundamentally different from national cultures. It does not, however, deprive

global culture of its cultural character. Cultural content, in fact, of globalization is no less

significant in the sense that it encompasses socially constructed and shared symbolism.

Global culture like national cultures is a way of life that permeates individual

consciousness, even if it is confined to certain strata of different societies (usually upper­

middle and upper) and not universal in the strict sense of the term. Like other ctiltures

global culture is also produced, reproduced and disseminated and once formed it has

dynamics of its own. Its critical components and characteristics are shared and lived by

individuals coming from variety of groups, societies and states. They believe that ideas

spread by global culture are relevant, valid and worth striving for. And global culture, of

course, has institutional backing (however not fully developed) that not only creates, and

disseminatt:s it but also sustains it by controlling its members, rewarding their loyalty

and adherence and punishing their deviance.

Global Culture is Distinct in Character: The basic character of global culture is

fundamentally different from other cultures like tribal, civic and national ones. Nor is it a

sum total of all prevailing cultures in the world. Global culture has content, coherence

and personality of its own which is not reducible to any other formation like international

society, tJ:lough emergence of global culture heavily depends on it. While discussing the

distinct character of global culture, it must be mentioned that its emergence neither

necessarily implies monolithic culture of the world nor it inevitably involves the clash of ....,

civilizations. Global culture in fact grows "alongside of, and in complex interaction with

more particularistic cultures of the world" (Lechner and Boli, 2005:25-26). Local and '

particular cultures also change while interacting with or relating themselves to global

culture. As pointed out by Frank Lechner and John Boli, "actual cultural practices in

particular places, as well as the thinking of particular individuals are likely to exhibit

mixtures of 'world' and more local symbolism" (Ibid: 26).

70

Global Culture is an Entity in Itself: At the risk (though minimizable) of reitication by

now a claim can be made with fair amount of confidence that global culture has become

an entity in itself. It is equally valid to assert that global culture, like international

society, international politics and world economy has its own sphere of action quite

distinguishable from other such aforementioned transnational collectivities. This point

should not be mistaken. When a claim is made about global culture acting as an entity on

international plane it is not avowed that it is closure and fixity and cannot be developed

fut1her, changed or transformed. Global culture lends easy credence to these processes.

Similarly, when it is postulated that global culture has its own sphere of action, the close

connection among global culture, world economy and international society has not been

intended to deny. What is required to be stressed is that cultural sphere is increasingly

asserting its autonomy on global plane which is contrary to the conventional realist

understanding of world politics that culture does not have the capacity to become

independent variable at the international level unless it is backed by political, military

and economic power.

Global Culture is Dynamic and Evolving: It seems contradicting, at least logically, the

previous point. How can global culture be an entity and simultaneously evolving and

dynamic? Something becomes an entity when its gestation period is over and reaches the

level of reasonable maturity. It is the conventional understanding of social organizations

with reasonably defined boundaries. It is in this sense this point sounds contradicting the

last one. It is not. The very nature of global culture is such that it defies most of

conventional understanding of sociology. Global culture, being the product of

globalization, is not an old phenomenon althcugh the historians of globalization have

traced its origins back to earlier times. Much of what has been referred to (in this

research at least) as global culture started emerging after the Second World War and

gained momentum after the end of the Cold War. Gestation period of global culture,

therefore, is not over and predictably it may not be over in decades to come. As such

global culture, temporally speaking, is hence an entity-in-making. It is by no means a

"finished structure and done deal" (Ibid: 27). As pointed out by Lechner and Boli, "world

71

cultural patterns display continuity over many decades ... world culture is open to new

ideas, vulnerable to new conflicts and subject to continual reinterpretation" (Ibid: 27-28).

Global culture is not "fully formed endpoint of humanity's ideological evolution, or ...

the irreversible progress of reason that has achieved a system immune to future

contradictions" (Ibid: 28).

Global Culture is Global: Critics of global culture tend to conflate it with Western

culture. They argue that global culture is not something that has emerged out of shared

experience and universal needs of humanity. Nor is it derived equally from diverse

cultural traditions of the world. "It is neither inclusive, balanced, nor in the best sense

synthesizing" (Tomlinson, 1999:23). Time-space compression and deterritorialization are

rhetoric in the sense that the genealogy of global culture can be easily traced within

specific time and space. It is derived from certain specifiable historical experience that

has been the privilege of the few. In short, it is Western culture writ large. It is indeed a

major criticism that global culture is Western in terms of its production, orientation and

contain predominantly Western cultural elements in it that are presented as universal.

.J.N. Pieterse summarizes this dimension by saying "that globalization begins in and

emanates from Europe and the West. In effect, it is a theory of Westernization by another

name, which replicates all problems associated with Eurocentrism: a narrow window on

the world, historically and culturally" (Pieterse, 2004:61 ). This view is neither

theoretically viable nor empirically tenable. It is based on the fallacious understanding

that globalization is a unidirectional flow from the center to the periphery or from the

West to the rest. But what about those flows that are stemmed from the rest of world to

the West and those that flow within the postcolonial world? Globalization means all

these kinds of flows in the true sense of the term. To reduce the global flows to the

classical legacy of imperialism: from West to the rest, is to ignore the significant portion

of the reality that needs to be taken into account in order to comprehend truly global

character of the global culture.

Besides the directionality of intercultural flows, important issue at stake in the

account of skeptical assertions is the Western element of global culture. It raises another

72

fundamental question; what is Westernization? In fact, Westernization means many

things or different things to different people or both. In the context of globalization,

Westernization means "the consumer culture of Western capitalism with its now all-too­

familiar icons (Me Donald's, Coca-Cola, Levi Jeans), the spread of European languages

(particularly English), style of dress, eating habits, architecture and music, the adoption

of an urban lifestyle based around industrial production, a patten1 of cultural experience

dominated by the miJ.SS media, a range of cultural values and attitudes- about personal

liberty, gender and sexuality, human rights, the political process, religion, scientific and

technological rationality and so on" (Tomlinson,I999:23). Globalization no doubt

accelerates the transfer of these values. These values, by now, can be found almost

everywhere in the world except in tribal societies that reside in the remote corners of

their states. It will be, however, a fatal error to explicate cultural· homogenization in

terms of globalization and vice-versa for variety of reasons. Firstly, things or messages

are polluted during the journey from their origin to destination. Secondly and more

importantly, people do not take things as they come. Receivers adopt and interpret those

messages in their own way. Thirdly, certain messages are rejected also. It is, therefore,

imperative to discriminate between different dimensions of Westernization and its

encounter with the Eastern cultures. Only then it can be appreciated the East/West

encounter is much more complex than usually depicted and understood. Certain traits of

Western culture enjoy more appeal and some values and attitudes are more easily

adopted than others. Some are either resisted nail or tooth or completely found odd and

irrelevant. Their mingling with other cultures depends on local circumstances and it

varies from one place to another, society to society and between different groups and

social divisions such as class, age, gender, urban and rural sections of societies.

Westernization in some way is too broad a generalization w·hich is rhetorically used at

the price of ignoring several complexities that no serious student of globalization tn

general and global culture in particular can afford to overlook.

Global Culture is Ambiguous: Prima facie, this assettion is in direct contradiction with

whatever has been written about global culture so far. It is seemingly negating whatever

73

has been defined, delineated, described and to some extent even measured about the

global culture and yet asserting its ambiguity. It is not. It is the case not because

whatever has been written in this research so far or in other authentic works by the

distinguished and renowned scholars of the subject does not capture the essence of global

culture fully but the full essence of anything related to culture cannot be completely

grasped due to the inherent ambiguity so deeply complicit in the very notion of culture

itself. The very ambiguity of culture and its subtle operation in the intrinsic logic of

global culture renders it problematic and contested not only at the level of scholarship

(skeptics, transformationalists and globalists) but also at the level of phenomenon as well

that is to be absorbed, succumbed, resisted, rejected, modified, transformed and so forth.

By its very nature, global culture is not reified though scholars try to reify it, it is not

fixity though it is caricatured as such; it is not completely measurable yet it has been

quantified very much. This ambiguity not only shapes the nature and character of global

culture but also provides beauty to it. In other words, global culture embodies aesthetics

of ambiguity.

Global Culture is an Idea: lt is directiy flowing from the previous point. Sheer

ambiguity of global culture renders it as an idea to be understood, lived and reckoned

with. 1t is not cultural imperialism of Western countries over the world that is always to

be confronted with certain mindset. In reality, it is an open ended phenomenon both

enabling and constraining. It is by nature full of enormous potentials and opportunities

that can be exploited by weak states for their own benefit.

74