De-westernization
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
In the last decade, the call for de-westernization has become a matter of immediacy due to the rise of non-western states such as China, India, Latin America and Africa. The eruption of international and trans-local media and cultural spaces among other
deep-rooted issues of academic knowledge production has become a driving force for de-westernization.
Ironically western researchers have been vocal about the call to eradicate the Euro-American experiences in the Asian media and knowledge production than Asian researchers. This has much to do with the lack of sufficient models and methods for explaining media activities and effects in the non-western countries. Therefore this elicits the need to decolonize the academic knowledge production of media studies. Furthermore, de-westernization suffices due to the continuous criticism from the dominant elitist. Ideally, the highly advocated call seeks to uphold the universal and philosophical traditions of the non-western setting that aligns to the needs of the locals and shapes the pathway for international recognition. The process of de-westernization requires questioning, restructuring and deconstructing dominant Eurocentric bias that impedes the operationalization of the non-western research projects. The process involves both Asian and western elites who have dominated this sphere. Today, there are varying opinions on the extent and nature western theories have on the academic knowledge production in Asia. However, the majority of the westerners have concurred with the phenomenon as an ongoing global discourse in uprising non-western countries that would have seemed less significant in the last two decades (Sabry, 2009).
Even though the majority of the existing theories and methodological approaches have been scrutinized thoroughly to make alterations, the call for de-westernization is still a highly advocated topic (Park and Curran, 2000). The call for de-westernization is centred on varying perspectives between the Euro American and non-Euro American scholars while reading and interpreting local and international cultural and media studies. Scholars argue that western elites read cultural studies works in another context, while Euro Americans working in or within non-western countries view media studies in the western paradigm. Western scholars argue that there is a need to break down the pillars that subject the emerging non- Euro America theories to the deep-rooted western theories. It explicitly shows the interdependence on, and bias imposed on the non-western countries as the Euro-America theories are yoked in the academic knowledge production in many countries across the world (Chakrabarty, 2000). Therefore there is a contention that the majority of non- western media do not go beyond the cultural imperialism embodied in the Euro-American media and cultural studies. As a result, de-westernization is the rallying call to decolonize the hierarchy of academic knowledge production amidst the ongoing rise of “China, India, Latin America and Africa. The sudden rise of non-western states has further on reiterated the de-westernization call. However, decolonization is controversial subjects as many cases of rising and fall have been largely isolated. De-westernization is a hot-button subject that follows a never-ending circle due to the many isolated cases such as the rise of Japan, Korea and Hong Kong in the last 20 or 30 years (Iwabuchi, 2014). Despite this, the call for de-westernization will transform the cultural and media spaces built on solid, matters, issues which have a direct impact on citizens, topics that determine people’s daily lives. The call for de-westernization will initiate an investigation into the deeply rooted power imbalances, colonial imperialism, power dependencies and change the power dynamics. In respect to this, states will regain their autonomy in relation to intellectual contribution to the academic knowledge production, dissemination of information and recognition of their voice in the world.
By the mid -2000s the creative industries had diversified and became a fully-fledged industry in the US And UK. As the global discourse diversified Asian countries borrowed in the concepts and contextualized it to fit their cultural and media disparities. South Korea was the first beneficiary as the creative industries as the creative economy is attributed to the success of the Korean wave. Korea invested heavily in infrastructure and software programming to boost the cinema and music industries which led to the success of the industry. Consequently, the ongoing massive rise of the Japanese film industry is due to the creative industries that were implemented with little Government support.
The implementation of creative industry policies has caused unprecedented changes in Asian countries. These changes include the development of creative cities, opening up of the LGBT-owned and run businesses at the heart of Singapore, where sodomy is prohibited (Yue 2007). The creative industry also offered a platform for the middle working citizens to venture into jobs that were only reserved for upper-class society. These jobs included advertising, architecture, and design.
Concurrently the creative industries theories have negatively influenced the Asian cultures and its relationship to the global economy. The western theories of creative cities altered different Asian culture and challenged the creativity and development of various cities. It challenges the potential of the indigenous communities to solve the local problems as the creative industries did not have a solid foundation on the complexities and depth of the Asian communities. The implementation of the British style ” creative industries policies” exacerbated the prevailing post-colonialism ideals that had for soo long inflicted on the people. For instance, in Korea, the Government was not in coherence with the creative industry agenda and was solely the mandate of the elites and economist in society. Therefore the Government did not provide any aide, and they were many battles between the Government and the creative industry, which caused a major setback.
Although many people attribute the success of the Korean wave and the Japanese film production to the creative industries, it was not the best process to develop creative cities. Firstly the policies governing the creative process were developed and made for mature democracies and diversified market. The policies were engineered by politicians, engineers and economists who shared in the same vision of forming an economy free of geopolitical agendas. At the time of implementation of the creative theories, the Asian communities were still struggling with a power imbalance, power relations in relation to the global economy. Consequently, most of the industries in the creative category did not contribute to the Gross domestic product, and therefore the government did not recognize them. Similarly, at the beginning of the implementation phase, the Asian countries did not consult with the whole team of elites who developed the creative policies but only took the advice of economists such as Richard Florida and John Howkins (Kong et al., 2006).
Although instilling the policies and insights adopted to form the British style has been a formidable task, the creative industry plays a critical role in the globalization discourse. The continuous growth of the creative industries will transform global economies.
Kong, L., Gibson, C., Khoo, L. M., & Semple, A. L. (2006). Knowledge of the creative economy: Towards a relational geography of diffusion and adaptation in Asia. Asia pacific viewpoint, 47(2), 173-194.
Park, M. J., & Curran, J. (Eds.). (, 2000). De-Westernizing media studies. Psychology Press.
Chakrabarty, D. (2000). Provincializing Europe: postcolonial thought and historical difference Princeton University Press. Princeton NJ.
Sabry, T. (2009). ‘Media and Cultural Studies in the Arab World (pp. 196-213). Oxon, MD: Routledge.
Iwabuchi, K. (2014). De-westernisation, inter-Asian referencing and beyond. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 17(1), 44-57.