Ref. Jr. of History & Culture. Jul-Oct '09.

Can Globalization Lead to Cultural Hegemony?

-- Nitin Gupta,
Faculty Member, IBS, Hyderabad, India.
E-mail: nitgup_2000@yahoo.com

The advent of globalization has ushered a frequent interaction among world cultures. As a result of this phenomenon, we are witnessing the development of a `global culture'. The problem is that this so called global culture is nothing more than an `American culture'. This paper discusses viewpoints of various authors on the questionCan a single culture lead to the hegemonization of all other cultures? Can globalization enforce such a hegemonistic occurrence? The discussion encompasses views and counter views of many intellectuals who have debated on the positive as well as the negative aspects of globalization.

Introduction

The most common definition of globalization is the one that refers to breaking down of national barriers to facilitate trade and commerce. Cultural hegemony is the imposition of a homogeneous global culture through marketing, advertising, laws and other top-down forms of influence.

Interaction between cultures has been happening since time immemorial; but with the development of various communication and transportation facilities, opening up of isolated markets and integration of diverse economies, the world has become a global village. The inevitability of this phenomenon has increased the frequency of interaction among world cultures. This interaction has lead to the amalgamation of various cultures and the development of a `global culture'. However, many people believe that global culture is `western culture' or `American culture', and we are witnessing `cultural imperialism' in the third world countries.

Contrary to the above view, a second school of thought believes that what we are witnessing, as a result of globalization, is `cultural hybridity' or `acculturation' and not cultural imperialism.

Beginning with a brief discussion about culture and the influence of globalization on it, this paper introduces two varied schools of thought dealing with global influences on culture and brings forth the views and counter views of intellectuals who have been debating this issue since the past few decades.

Understanding Culture

The word `culture' originated from the Latin word `colere', means to build on, to cultivate and to foster. Culture is the result of social interaction and assimilation of new ideas. It gives rise to a distinct social group and class that differs from each other. As a result of this phenomenon, we see that in a given macro-cultural environment, many sub-cultures are thriving. This paper, however, lays emphasis on what many authors have called as `national culture'. According to Clark (1990); and Dawar and Parker (1994), in various studies dealing with culture, the authors use nationality as a surrogate for culture. Their rationale for choosing this approach is that members of a given national group not only share a similar historical, political and educational environment, but also share some unique national characteristics. These members may not always speak the same native tongue, but they identify with the same symbols and signs and communicate with each other directly or indirectly in a manner that transcends linguistic boundaries (Douglas and Craig, 1997).

Many authors like Hofstede (1980) have defined culture under the realm of national culture. He defines culture as the collective mental programming of people in an environment. He states that culture is difficult to change and if it changes at all, the change is very slow. Another researcher, Stephen Dahl (2000), describes culture as an onion that is `ordered into' three layers. Here, one peel has to be taken off to see the next layer. The three layers of culture, given by Stephen Dahl (2000) are:

The outer layer: It consists of artifacts and products of culture and is the most explicit of all layers. It includes language, food, architecture, style, art, music, fashion, etc.

The second inner layer: It consists of norms and values pertinent to a particular culture. Norms are "the mutual sense of what is right and what is wrong", while values represent the "definition of what is good and what is bad".

The innermost layer: It consists of the basic assumption and belief of culture, e.g., What is life? Belief in reincarnation, etc.

Various other researchers have defined and explained culture in different ways. Kroeber and Kluckhon (1952) identified over 160 definitions of culture. Though defined and explained differently, the essence of various definitions of culture remains the same. From the body of literature in the area of national culture which is the focus of this paper, various definitions of culture can be synthesized to explain culture as a learned, non-random systematic behavior and knowledge that can be transmitted from generation to generation. Since culture is a learned phenomenon, factors that affect this phenomenon have also been given due importance in the literature. In this paper, globalization is considered as an external factor that influences culture. The following section discusses the viewpoints of various authors who have discussed the impact of globalization on culture.

Impact of Globalization on Culture

The intensification of globalization has increased the interactions among diverse cultural groups. Though a country's home culture has been modified from external influences since time immemorial, it is the frequency and intensity of these influences that has increased in the era of globalization. There is no doubt that the increased frequency with which the two different cultures are meeting has had an impact on them. Featherstone (1996) suggests that there exists a global culture that goes beyond the boundaries of any specific nation-state. McLuhan (1964) also states that the world has become a `global village' where a brand new culture is growing.

According to Jain (2001), millions of people in the host country work for foreign affiliates of MNCs. Though these people lead their personal lives according to their own culture, their professional lives are spent in a foreign environment. The foreign affiliates of MNCs have a high level of integration with their parent corporation and they reflect cultures and values of these parent corporations. Hence, the host country's employees who work in these affiliates may initiate, learn and internalize new values and become channels to diffuse these values further in the culture of the host country at large (Jain, 2001).

The impact of globalization on the national culture and the impact of culture(s) on globalization merit an in-depth discussion and analysis. The question that the intellectuals are trying to answer isWill the impact of globalization on different cultures be positive, negative or neutral? There are writers like Tyler Cowen, whose book Creative Destruction shows the benefits of the globalized world11. Then, there are writers like Benjamin Barber, whose book Jihad vs. Mc World (New York Times Books, 1995) is about anti-globalization. He argues that the world conflict will increasingly center on tensions between local values and globalizing forces. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order, by Samuel Huntington (Simon and Schuster, 1996), discusses the topic of culture and its impact on international relations. It supports the thesis that culture is a great divider among people, but he acknowledges that cultural consolidations have brought the world into a few big blocks.

According to some authors, a positive impact of globalization will lead to diverse cultures maintaining their diversity and co-existing with each other in this globalized arena. Certain amount of amalgamation of cultures will occur but it will not threaten the existence of any specific culture. Globalization will only aid in bringing cultures together. It will be possible to be rooted in one's culture and yet to collaborate with, to understand, to participate in other cultures as well. This will lead to a convergence of world cultures. In other words, we will move to an era of `cultural hybridity' and `creolization'.

The negative impact that is speculated by various authors and researchers is that globalization will lead to the domination of one culture over others. The `global culture' will actually be `western culture' or `American culture'. For many people, the term `globalization' has the same meaning as `westernization', or even `Americanization' (McQuail, 2000, p. 221). It is speculated that the ongoing `cultural imperialism' and `cultural hegemony' will lead to obsolescence of weak cultures. Skeptics feel that the world is moving towards a system where people will be monocultural and monolingual. They warn that future generations will experience global integration at the expense of local disintegration.

Different Perspectives of the Positive or Neutral Impact of Globalization on Culture

Culture impacts every sphere of human existence. In the discussion that follows, predominant concentration is on management, marketing and economic aspects of this phenomenon. Other aspects are also equally important, but each aspect is so varied and multidimensional that an in-depth critical analysis of each of these aspects would lead to a paper of unreasonable length and complexity. Hence, in the interest of depth, the breadth of the paper has been curtailed to a certain extant.

Kogut and Singh (1988) stating the importance of national culture observe that national cultures influence the choice of the entry mode for an MNC. Terry (1990) too has observed that national differences exist and that observed differences have significant bearing on the behavior of both consumers and marketing decision makers.

Newman and Nollen (1996) say that the crux of their research points to the fact that MNCs need to adopt their management practices to national cultures in which they operate in order to achieve high business performance. The authors argue that when management practices are inconsistent with national culture (e.g., in-depth values), the employees are likely to feel dissatisfied, distracted, uncomfortable and uncommitted. This has an adverse effect on their performance. Lenartowicz and Roth (1999) state that understanding the nature and influences of culture is central to international business.

All the above mentioned studies suggest that due to the strength of culture or national culture, it is imperative for global firms or MNCs to change their way of working according to the host country's culture. Thus, if this is the case, then globalization is not a threat to the local or national cultures, as these cultures will not undergo a forced mutation due to the MNCs. It will be the job of the MNCs that are functioning in the host nations to tailor their activities according to the host culture.

Ditcher (1962) found out that there was little empirical evidence regarding the concept of worldwide homogenization of tastes and the preferences of a world consumer even for standardized, low priced quality goods. Though some authors suggest that globalization will influence local culture, this influence will not be detrimental. Even Haig (2003), in his book Brand Failures has given many cases that suggest that it is wrong on a company's part to confuse the era of globalization with the era of homogenization.

Nylund (2001) states that globalization will lead to multi-culturalization of the city, where previously hegemonic unitary cultures are replaced by ethnically mixed cultures. New population groups influence and leave their stamp on the city and urban life, resulting in the emergence of alternative cultures. This process of acculturation or creation of a culturally hybrid society cannot be interpreted as a threat to the existing culture. Indeed, here both the foreign as well as domestic cultures mutate to form a hybrid culture and no culture dominates or subjugates the other culture.

Interestingly, where many researchers consider development and immense reach of media to be one of the facilitators of increasing subjugation of local culture by western cultures, Anthony Reid, Director of the Asia Research Institute noted that although media is one of the potent forces of globalization today, it has been beneficial in helping non-national language communities in Indonesia, East Malaysia, the Philippines, Burma and India. In these countries, cassettes and radio invigorated and helped to standardize the verbal expression of various local languages that were spoken by a minority of people. E.g., Avadhi in India.

Anne Pakir, associate professor, National University of Singapore, states that globalization will lead to amalgamation of cultures without threatening the existence of any culture. She notes that English is "going `glocal', i.e., going global while maintaining local roots". She sees `glocal English' as a language that has international status, but also expresses local identities. Already, more Asians speak English and the kinds of Asian English multiply every year.

The World Bank Report of 1999 states that although local cultural identities remain robust, certain tastes, consumption preferences and elements of lifestyle have acquired a universal currency. However, there is a little evidence that such homogenizing tendencies are on the rise given the strong reassertion of local identities.

A vociferous supporter of globalization, Rothkopf (1997) has stated that globalization promotes integration and leads to the removal of not only cultural barriers but also of many negative dimensions of culture. He further asserts that globalization is a vital step toward botha more stable world and better lives for the people in it. According to him, the current trends that fall under the broad definition of `globalization' are accelerating a process that has taken place throughout the history as discrete groups have become familiar with one another, allied, and commingled-ultimately becoming more alike.

From the above discussion, it is clear that globalization is not a threat to the local cultures. The speculation that globalization will lead to homogenization of cultures is baseless. The maximum that globalization can do is to lead to a slight modification in the existing culture. This modification will be beneficial to local people and will not strip them of their cultural identity.

Different Perspectives of the Negative Impact of Globalization on Culture

Contradicting the view that globalization is not a threat to the existing local culture are many other researchers and authors whose observations and views propagate the fact that the ultimate subjugation of the local cultures by the global culture is inevitable.

Seabrook (2004) considers globalization as a declaration of war upon other cultures. Goswami (2003) opines that globalization is seen as a `Tyrannosaurus Rex' that voraciously gobbles up cultures and traditions. He also state that globalization has brought about `McDonaldization' of societies, most notably through the entry of cultural products like Hollywood movies, US made toys, fast food and pop music.

For many intellectuals, `American culture' sometimes seems to be an invasive alien or even subversive force that weakens, undermines or overrides traditional cultures. This influence of American culture is increasing due to globalization. The Japanese scholar, Toru Nishigaki argues that despite the appearance of multiculturalism, today's global culture is no more than an American monoculture. This monoculture has been founded on the enormous appeal and dominance of the American entertainment industry and on the technological, economical and military power of the US. For Nishigaki, the American plague threatens to infect or relegate all other cultures. Many other intellectuals also show similar fear.

Hong (2000) has stated that as a result of globalization, young people have lost touch with traditional harmonies and tunes. Song and dance, which are specific to regions or villages in Third World countries, are no longer heard. Transnational sound has destroyed cultural diversity. The author has further stated that TV in today's time offers not only entertainment, but also embodies the sheer power and influence of the global corporate culture. It has become the most powerful and insidious tool of mass education in the third world. Western TV programs have led to an increasing westernization of the third world people.

Many authors believe that globalization will lead to cultural imperialism. The theory of cultural imperialism was developed in the 1970s to explain the media situation as it existed at that time. The nature of media (i.e., print, radio and television) at that time, promoted a one-way, top-down transmission system from dominant country to dominated country that theoretically gave rise to a passive audience and a powerful media (Sengupta and Frith, 1997).

Schiller (1976) proposed the use of the term `cultural imperialism' to describe and explain the way large MNCs, including the media of developed countries dominated developing countries. According to White (2001), constructs such as `culture', `dependency', `domination', `media imperialism', `structural imperialism', `cultural synchronization', `electronic colonialism', `communication imperialism', `ideological imperialism' and `economic imperialism' are all present in the literature of cultural imperialism. After reviewing all the differing interpretations of cultural imperialism, it becomes apparent that the essence of cultural imperialism is domination by one nation over another. This is stated by Beltran (1978); who says cultural imperialism is "a verifiable process of social influence by which a nation imposes on other countries its set of beliefs, values, knowledge and behavioral norms as well as its overall style of life" (p. 184).

Another assumption of cultural imperialism is that the media plays a central role in creating culture. White (2001) observes that writers who talk about `cultural imperialism' as `media imperialism', treating the two terms as synonyms, bring into question the centrality of the media in claims of cultural imperialism.

Interestingly, a careful perusal of most of the literature reveals that there is not much empirical support for cultural imperialism as the majority of research does not support this phenomenon. White (2001) brings forth a number of weaknesses that have been identified by various critics of the cultural imperialism theory. He summarizes the views of Ogan (1988),to whom the cultural imperialism theory lacks explanatory power and needs to be advanced beyond the level of pure description. He further quotes Ogan's (1988) views that the economic component of media imperialism may be expressed in statistics, but the cultural component is much more difficult to measure.

To reinforce his argument, White (2001) quotes Lee (1980) who says that the cultural imperialism theory lacks conceptual precision. He also refers to Liebes and Katz (1990), to whom the cultural imperialism theory does not acknowledge an audience's ability to process information and interpret messages differently based on their individual background. Finally, White (2001) concurs with the observation of Sinclair et al. (1996) that the cultural imperialism theory does not hold true in all situations of the phenomenon that it attempts to explain.

Rothkopf (1997), a vociferous supporter of globalization, is also a great supporter of `Americanization' and `cultural imperialism'. He states that:

Americans should not deny the fact that of all nations in the history of the world, theirs is the most just, the most tolerant, the most willing to constantly reassess and improve itself and the best model for the future.

Here he has gone overboard. He thinks that the American culture is the culture of the future and the world should follow it. This is a myopic view of American culture. Perhaps, Rothkopf is completely influenced by ethnocentricity.

Another highly vocal proponent of "globalization leading to homogenization" is Levitt (1983). He argues that despite the deep-rooted cultural differences, the consumers across the world are becoming more alike or `homogenized'. He contends that multinational firms that follow standardization models are bound to do better than the firms who tailor their products to the needs of local markets. Levitt's work is influenced by the work of Buzzel (1968), who pointed out that the world is becoming more and more standardized.

Levitt (1983) claims that if the prices are low, then people across the world will take highly standardized world products even if their custom decrees it as incorrect. He says that different cultural preferences and national tastes are the vestiges of past. Selling a line of product which is individually tailored to each nation is thoughtless, as customers want to enjoy the benefits of global standardization.

Levitt's (1983) argument of homogenization of people's wants and requirements can be further read into and his indication towards a development of a homogeneous culture can be deciphered. If this is the case, then his contentions are really alarming for the proponents of preservation of local cultures world over. But, before getting alarmed, it is interesting to note that many authors have criticized Levitt's theory. One of the prominent critics of this theory, Wind (1985), has been quite critical of Levitt's stand. According to Wind, strategy of developing standardized world brands with common global product features, names and advertising, is at best a special case which is inappropriate for many situations. Wind (1986) has gone a step further and given the phrase "the myth of globalization" to the concept developed by Levitt.

Yip (1989) too has criticized Levitt's argument that companies should learn to operate as though the world were one large market, ignoring superficial regional and national differences. According to Yip (1989), if Levitt's theory is followed, then the potential drawbacks can be dauntingpremature commitments to national markets, inadequate attention to national preferences and overexposure to exchange rate risk. Ultimately, most researchers agree that the best strategy for global markets today is to "think globally, but act locally."

Conclusion

Every new phenomenon has to undergo its own share of doomsday predictions. Today, we are witnessing the doomsday predictions for the indigenous cultures that some feel are on the verge of being usurped by the aggressive wave of globalization. A plethora of viewpoints that have been discussed in the paper support such a pessimistic scenario.

There is also another school of thought that dismisses this scenario and observes that no matter how globalized and integrated the world becomes, the homogenization of the wants, requirements and most importantly, the diverse cultures of the people will remain. The intellectuals holding this viewpoint severely criticize the proponents of `cultural imperialism' and `homogenization'. According to them, predicting a doomsday scenario for the indigenous cultures is like "making a mountain of a mole hill".

The debate between the proponents of the two diverse scenarios is intense. `Cultural hybridity' or `cultural imperialism', `westernization' or `creolization'what does the future have in store for us? Currently, the debate points more towards the scenario that has been predicted by the less radical proponents of cultural change and this is the scenario that talks about cultural hybridity or co-existence of a multitude of cultures. Here, the phenomenon of cultural hegemonization by a single culture is completely negated.

Acknowledgment: The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewer whose feedback and inputs enabled the author to give a better shape to the paper.