Cultural Imperialism and its Impact on International Communication
Students Name:
Institution Affiliation:
Cultural Imperialism and its Impact on International Communication
Introduction
The method and custom of fostering one culture over the other are Cultural Imperialism. It also happens during colonialism, whereby one nation dominates another, usually financially unstable and diplomatically weaker. Cultural imperialism is often inextricably linked to international communication that can be described as cross-border communication activity, political, social, and cultural divisions (Thussu, 2010). Global connectivity needs have risen due to the growth of globalization that will be addressed in this essay. This paper attempts to contextualize and critically analyze the theory of Cultural Hegemony and discuss the multiple effects it has had on international communication.
Impact on Global Communication Today
Presently, Cultural Imperialism expresses itself through international communication primarily via media, particularly MSM and mass media. Media is among the most recognizable and influential ways of international communication. However, previously, the principle of Cultural Imperialism often concentrated on political and economic structures. Currently, it is more concentrated on multiculturalism, such as literary works, movies, tv and radio, the world wide web, and art. Many of the worldwide media companies are run by similarly developed core nations that control universal media output (Onishi, 2015). One may suggest that both Cultural Colonialism and international communication are directly related to globalization – the worldwide trend towards a more integrated society in which businesses function on a global scale. Globalization promotes international communication and the dissemination of cultural experiences through digital media and advances in technology, and thus some claim that globalization is an instrument of Cultural Imperialism (Petras, 2011).
One of the contemporary 21st period prominent manifestations of marginal Cultural Imperialism is that of the United States of America. It is deemed a core nation and spreads its supremacy via media movements throughout. Thussu believes that publicity flows are directly linked to economic and political power; the more capitalism is to control international markets (2010), the more efficient corporate power corporations become. As a result, American entertainment and media companies, like Disney and Hollywood, are capable of entering the world market and exporting U.S. cultural goods and principles. Production companies such as Disney and Warner Brothers utilize domestic production hubs in Asia, Latin America, and Europe to produce nation-specific content while preserving Western culture (Thussu, 2010). For instance, one could see this effect in Mexican television shows, where a fascinating US-American culture is depicted, however, with a Mexican face and touch, recreating American soaps ‘performance in supporting product sales (Schiller, 2010).
Since the 1920s, Hollywood movies have dominated several worldwide media sectors, and research indicates that about 55 percent -90 percent of all films seen in European theaters come from America (Seib, 2011)British movies, by comparison, compensate just 3 percent of the films screened in America. The very same research found that the proportion of Hollywood movies in nations like Indonesia, Venezuela, Colombia, Malaysia, is above 80 % (EAO, 2010). Most Hollywood movies depict traditional U.S. culture and values, particularly the White Anglo-Saxon Lutheran community, which can be seen in the depiction of the U.S. in historical war movies and films. Such videos appear to portray US-Americans as champions or icons and maybe colonialists, possibly impacting audiences ‘views of their nations. Movies can be employed to define roles – what people, organizations, and governments are the protagonists, antagonists, and perpetrators – and they can influence public expectations (Schiller, 2010). Hollywood frequently disparages North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran, while lionizing America overstating its historical position (Petras, 2014). One illustration of a movie in which the area of the U.S. is overstated is Argo (2012), an award-winning film that portrays to be a real story. This is on the 1979 Iran Cuban missile crisis at Iran’s Americas Embassy, but it does include some factual errors. Many people in Canada, including the former aide to Iran, remain cynical about the film’s depiction of Ontario as a minor evasion character, claiming that Argo depicts U.S. Secret agent Tony Mendez as the only superhero (Coyle, 2012). Many Hollywood movies, such as Captain America and Man of steel, describe the United States as having a nuclear footprint in nations where it still does not. It presents America as a nation with the legitimacy to behave anywhere around the globe, neglecting every other sovereignty.
Not only does Hollywood lionize America, but it also promotes other Western cultural ideals. One different principle is that of individualism that, according to Hofstede, is widely recognized in the United States. An instance is the Disney film Mulan, modified from a Chinese children’s story (Rahman, 2011). Mulan maintains the integrity of her community, which is linked to the Chinese ideals of fidelity. Still, she seeks to affirm her personality-worth in the movie and pursue equality between men and women that is not in line with the actual Chinese norm (Rahman, 2011). She is also aiming for personal happiness and balance, which may represent American individualism instead of conservative values of China. Philosophers of Cultural Imperialism claim that this plays an essential role in detaching individuals from their cultures and traditions and driving people away from conventional societies (Petras, 2014). Since it is costlier for companies to produce European feature films instead of creating their own, developing nations view media brimming with Western beliefs and values, resulting in them to like the same activities and to ‘obliterate’ their heritage (Schiller, 2010).
Although there are several critics of this, particularly those who claim that Cultural Imperialism undervalues the target demographics’ freedom expression, decision, and intervention. This does not consider the capacity of an individual to interact with the world. Therefore, it also means that culture is fixed and static, while potentially multifaceted and highly internalized cultural heritage. This also lacks the notion of cultural revolt, where learning could be used to counter authoritarian institutions and power-holders (for instance the, American culture). CNN, and other American media channels, made the news discourse in the early 20th century but only represented American perspectives on world affairs (Seib, 2011). As a result, media outlets across the globe were established, like Al Jazeera that provided a differing view from the American one, and gave credence to formerly voiceless communities (Seib, 2011). It is named the Al Jazeera Effect, and one may claim that this shows the power and cultural resilience of those traditionally vulnerable to Cultural Imperialism.
One case where the context is understated is the advancement of gay rights abroad through U.S. international relations. Since 2012, the U.S. administration has invested more than $350 million on promoting gay equality in sub-Saharan Kenya but was less than productive (NYT, 2015). One may claim that this is Cultural Imperialism because the United States government seeks to transfer its traditional ideals to nations with unique beliefs and values. Obama defied counsel in July 2015 not to pursue a ‘homosexual agenda,’ enraging Kenyan politicians who told him LGBT rights in Kenya are a ‘quasi-issue’ (NYT, 2015). Many also interpret Nigeria’s enactment of stringent anti-gay legislation in 2014 as a response to to-American pressures on Nigeria to accept gay equality (NYT, 2015). This shows that Cultural Imperialism may have harmful effects on international communication and ties among nations, including that in countries where Cultural Imperialism is being pursued, there really is democratic benevolence cultural rebellion. The Nigerian citizens and administration were not persuaded by United States ideals and instead actively acted against them.
Seib also questions the extent to which American media and filmmakers effectively succeed in transmitting cultural ideals to third world countries (2011). Cultural hegemony implies that cultural brand penetration is equivalent to global domination, but there are several instances where mainstream television channels have dominated local industries and audiences (Seib, 2011). Locally made movies are more common in nations Egypt, Japan, India, China, than American film. Besides, Cultural Imperialism overlooks the fact that non-core-country societies can also propagate and influence core cultures. Currently, partly because of globalization, the prospect exists of two-way international cooperation, instead of an intrusion. Exporting Bollywood movies is one illustration of this, amongst other stuff. Bollywood movies are famous across the globe, and this prominence keeps expanding partly due to the amounts of the majority of ethnic Indians around the world (Onishi, 2015). Diaspora Indian videos like Monsoon Wedding feature English titles, but don’t follow the standard of Hollywood movies. Rather they have their form of portrayal – much Indian than U.S. Such films can be claimed as a cultural blend of the Indo-Saxon and the Indian, implying that Hindu traditions and principles are not compromised to attract a broad demographic. This indicates that the concept of Cultural Imperialism is imperfect because it only takes into account a one-way movement of cultural norms. At the same time, one might claim that globalization allows for reciprocal, however unequal, penetration, and cultural diversity. It also ignores the possibility to export such cultural items between periphery and quasi-peripheral states, bypassing the core nations (Seib, 2011). Bollywood likewise illustrates this. Researches have already shown that Hollywood movies aren’t as appealing as Bollywood movies to the Bengali viewer, while Tamil and Urdu are two unique cultures and languages. The Indian society is far from homogeneous, but research has found Bollywood movies appealing to all forms of Indian viewers, transcending linguistic and cultural barriers (Rahman, 2011). One may claim that one of the explanations behind the success of Hindi movies in Bangladesh is that both nations are emerging, or semi-peripheral and peripheral, and thus share similar characteristics and values. In contrast, the U.S. or core values vary more.
Conclusion
Cultural hegemony can impact international communication, both positively and negatively. Primarily, it will encourage progressive goals, such as legitimate rights, and enhance the quality of life for other individuals if they succeed. Though, when a majority population takes over, it may also prove harmful to ‘inferior’ societies and cultural practices. It has the potential to create one homogeneous society around the universe, and misrepresent western culture. Besides, it can be suggested that Cultural Hegemony is common in today’s media environment, in which the central states own most world media and sell their values and beliefs. Nevertheless, the principle of Cultural Hegemony has faced criticism for not recognizing the target demographics’ autonomy and democracies, and for dismissing the concept of cultural opposition, which can be seen in several explanations used in this research paper. This also shows that trying Cultural Hegemony might have very detrimental impacts on international communication as it undermines ties among numerous world leaders – as in the case of Barack and the leaders of Nigeria and Kenya. Currently, one may claim that one must focus on globalization rather than concentrating on using the principle of Cultural Imperialism. Cultural imperialism means that it is essentially a one-sided cultural hegemony in which certain inferior societies are forced on the majority population, identified as the American culture. Though, as illustrated in this article, one can understand that it is not often the scenario, and other cultural experiences and ideas can also be transmitted and propagate due to neoliberalism and technological innovations. It is worth noting that American culture is still influential in this. However, it takes into account the idea of globalization that society is neither stagnant nor homogeneous. Globalization encourages the notion that the viewer is not indifferent and therefore does not deny them of what Patriarchal Hegemony does from their organization. Philosophers concentrated on country-states at the inception of Global Colonialism ideology, but nowadays, the country-state is no more the main force. Transnational interactions are taking place at the national government, regional, and intergovernmental scales, and globalization could capture these complexities easier than Cultural Imperialism.
References
Coyle, J. (2012). ‘Argo’: Former ambassador Ken Taylor sets the record straight. Toronto Star. Accessed on 10 April 2020. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012/10/07/argo_former_ambassador_ken_taylor_sets_the_record_straight.html
Croteau, D., Hoynes, W. & Milan, S. (2011). Media/Society: Industries, Images, and Audiences. SAGE Publications
Idema, W.L. & Kwa, S. (2010) Mulan: Five Versions of a Classic Chinese Legend with Related Texts. Hackett Publishing
McPhail, T. (2014). Global Communication: Theories, Stakeholders, and Trends, 4th Ed. Wiley-Blackwell
Onishi, N. (2015). U.S. Support for Gay Rights in Africa May Have Done More Harm Than Good. New York Times Accessed on 10 April 2020. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/21/world/africa/us-support-of-gay-rights-in-africa-may-have-done-more-harm-than-good.html
Petras, J. (2014). Imperialismo Cultural de Finales del Siglo XX. Línea Alterna. Accessed on 10 April 2020. http://lineaalterna.com/2014/09/15/imperialismo-cultural-de-finales-del-siglo-xx-por-james-petras-o-como-entender-tu-esclavitud-cultural
Rahman, H. (2011) ‘Cultural Imperialism’ and its Possible Effects on Global Communication. Online Journal on Journalism, Media, and Communication Studies. Centre for Practical Multimedia Studies. Accessed on 10 April 2020. http://academia.edu
Seib, P. (2011). The Al Jazeera Effect: How the New Global Media Are Reshaping World Politics. Potomac Books, Inc.
Schiller, H. (2010). “Not Yet The Post-Imperialist Era” In Thussu, D.K.: International Communication: A Reader (p. 247-260). Accessed on 10 April 2020. http://usir.salford.ac.uk/12433/1/Archetti_2010._Review_of_Thussu_International_Communication_Reader_2010._Journal_of_Int_and_Global_Studies.pdf
Thussu, D.K., 2010: International Communication: A Reader. Routledge. Accessed on 10 April 2020. http://usir.salford.ac.uk/12433/1/Archetti_2010._Review_of_Thussu_International_Communication_Reader_2010._Journal_of_Int_and_Global_Studies.pdf