Runaway World

1,502 words

‘National Cultures are still very important’ Evaluate this view of the globalization of culture’

I will begin this essay by defining ‘national culture’ and the ‘globalisation of culture’ to develop an understanding of this contemporary debate. Then give these concepts over to three theories: Inter Nationalist, Globalist and Transformationalist to help explore this discourse further, using explanations and evidence. During this process, I’ll evaluate each theory and use it to summarise on whether or not ‘national culture is still very important‘.

"Culture" can be defined as "shared meanings, values and practices" of a society (Woodward, 2004, p.22) or more specifically "beliefs, behaviour, language, and entire way of life of a particular group of people at a particular time" (Encarta Encyclopaedia, 2002 ). It as an awkward concept to apply to a nation, since it depends on the perception of the individual and geography. Someone that lives in the centre or the periphery of a multi-cultural city, such as London, will consider the culture of his or her nation as very different to someone that lives in a more rural and traditionalist area, such as South West England.

The concept "Globalisation (of culture)" is also fairly subjective. Is it a process of stretched social relations? Whereby the interaction between people has become borderless and because of that, culture has become
globalised?. Bollywood on British television and the popularity of Asian cuisine in the West is an example of this? Or is it an intensification of flows? Where the transactions of cultural exchanges between communities has stepped up a gear in recent years? The amount of TV receivers has almost doubled from 1985 to 1997 (from 748 per million to 1,396), is this a microcosm of cultural globalisation? (Mackay, H. 2004a, pg50)

If any of this is actually happening, whether it is good or bad, new or old and to what extent is all open to debate, as the following conflicting theories highlight.

These two concepts "National culture" and "Globalisation" are what many commentators are suggesting as confrontational. Is the National Culture in control of itself and the onslaught of global structures? Or is it an inevitability that Global culture will reign over the traditional and homogenous national identities? Or maybe the debate is a lot more complex to put into simple terminologies.

A school of thought that believes national culture does in fact have the autonomy and sustainability to maintain itself comes from Inter nationalists. They believe ‘National cultures are still very important’ and that globalisation is an exaggeration and at worst, a myth. Their explanation is that any global cultural flow is dependant on the nation-state and national culture is as prominent now as it ever was.

Evidence used to support this theory can be in the shape of the BBC (a public service broadcasting network and a traditional national institute), who is statistically proven to be more popular than the archetypal global trans- national company, BSkyB, owned by Rupert Murdoch. 44% of British citizens opted to watch the BBC in the mid 1990‘s, compared to only 4.9% who watched Sky. (Mackay, H. 2004b, pg. 66-69). Does this prove national culture is still more prevalent and important?

Also, the fact the 1990 Broadcasting Act in the UK has the power to penalise satellite services (Mackay, H. 2004c, pg. 69), that India rejected MTV Europe for more "domestically produced material" (Mackay, H., 2004d, pg. 67) and that the Iranian state even banned satellite dishes within its borders (Mackay, H. 2004e, pg. 63) will be widely celebrated by Inter nationalists, interpreting these examples as the nation controlling the global.

However, some could say the Inter nationalists are ignoring the affects globalisation has had on national culture, despite it’s continued existence. Many may argue that the example of BBC being more popular than their global competitors lacks comprehensiveness. For example, it doesn’t take into account any recent changes in the way the BBC broadcasts (becoming more global, i.e. the coverage of the Iraq war) or that the BBC may have become a global institute in itself, what with the World Service and its satellite services. Are these all facets of how globalisation has hijacked national culture and cultural products?

A Second theory that antithesis’s the claim ‘National culture is still very important’ comes from what is known as Globalist. An ideology based around the belief that a phenomena is happening which is recent and highly significant and that the agency of the nation has been dramatically altered by global structures that
encompasses culture. Also, economic globalisation has had an impact on national cultures, with free trade agreements providing easier access for cultural products to cross borders. This general assumption of globalisation is split into two and termed Positive and Pessimistic.

A Positive Globalist, by definition, will interpret cultural globalisation as a way in which individuals have the opportunities to experience a diversification of cultures rather than a homogenous monoculture. In the example of Television, they’ll celebrate such initiatives as the Peacock Report which allows agents to choose what we view on Television rather than "decisions being made about what we can watch by the cultural elitists who control the BBC". (Mackay, H. 2004f pg56).

Pessimistic Globalists, although in agreement that globalisation is at play, argue that the affect is far from benevolent. The Frankfurt School of Sociology coined the phrase ‘Cultural Imperialism’ (Mackay, H. 2004g, pg 65), a term designed to highlight the homogenisation of global cultural differences and the one-way cultural flows of globalisation, usually the "west over the rest". When "five major Western news agencies are responsible for 80% of the worlds news" (pg61), it will be the pessimistic globalists who will be quick to point out an imbalance and that globalisation is polarizing the world into winners and losers.

Despite the persuasive argument put forward by the Globalists, the evidence used, such as the liberalisation of UK media by the Peacock Report for more choice and global interpenetration, does lack empirical adequacy. Just because globalisation may have more access to national media doesn’t mean it is experiencing increased popularity, otherwise why do people still prefer the BBC over Sky?. Also, the western news agencies owning the majority of news outlets still overlooks the fact the nation-state has the power to outlaw various cultural products and national citizens can reject foreign cultures through consumer choice.

A Third and final theory comes from Transformationalists, who take a more cautious approach than the objectivity of the Internationalists (National over Global) and the Globalists (Global over National). They believe in two-way cultural flows involving both the national and the global in a form of negotiation
that can ultimately transform national culture.

Also, the whole general notion of globalisation over national culture is too complex, they would be the group that will question: Do we assume that what is under threat is "an outdated homogeneity of national culture, in an era in which nations are characterized instead, by cultural hybridity" (Mackay, H. 2004h, p75)? In other words, as well as asking if globalisation exists, should we also be asking if national culture is what we presume it to be?

More profoundly, they believe that any affect globalisation has on the importance of national culture involves anthropological study. For example, it is one thing for globalisation to impose itself on national borders, but it is another thing for national citizens to retrieve it in order to give it its significance.

As Matterlart and Schiller theorized, "…viewing Western capitalist television entails the inculcation of Western values" (Mackay, H. 2004i, p75)). This, put simply, means that individual agents have to ‘decode’ the messages that global cultures offer in order for it to be a phenomena. The impact of globalisation isn’t so much in its dominance, but in the strength of negotiation between the individual agent and the structure of globalization. This suggests that the importance of national culture is measurable to the peoples desire to remain nationalist.

It is very hard to find any incomprehensiveness or incoherence towards the Transformationalist theory since they make very few claims. However, it can be said by some to suffer from empirical inadequacy. For example, the link between an individual watching western television programs and the endangerment of national culture isn’t backed with any evidence. However, their core belief in that "the actual significance [of cultural globalisation] is difficult to measure" (Kelly, B. 2004, pg31) should enjoy popularity among social scientists, since it creates scope for further study and acknowledges the complexity of what national culture is as well as globalisation as a concept.

In Evaluation, in contrasting the three theories of globalisation and the explanations they use, it is clear that whether "National culture is still very important" or not is ambiguous in the contemporary context of ‘globalisation’.

The Internationalist approach, suggesting national culture is more prevalent over global culture does seem to explain the popularity of the BBC well, despite its recent changes. And their claim that the contemporary world is experiencing a continuity of national sovereignty and national cultures rather than a complete revolution by globalisation, as globalists would argue, does hold more weight. Although overall, I tend to agree with Transformationalists in their claim that the national culture is still important, but to what extent is difficult to conceive.

Saudi Arabia is at a crossroads with disastrous repercussions whatever path it decides to go down. A Catch 22. Should the political landscape of Saudi Arabia remain Conservative or should it give over to modernisation? More to the point, what has brought the sudden urgency for this debate in a country that is steeped with strict homogenous Sharia law (despite tribalism)? There are many possible answers to why change is happening: historical, economical, social, religious or cultural, but whatever it is, it is certainly complex and uncertain.

The Reformists argue that in order to reach security and stability in a country, you first need to have democracy that gives individuals a social responsibility as well as a form of participation that in turn gives an incentive to conform to the norms of society. This is the brunt of their argument, but aren't neglecting many other concepts of which they're calling for in the name of modernization. Universal Education, woman’s rights, redistribution of wealth based on social justice, municipal elections (that have been promised in October 2004) as well as General Elections and changes in the judiciary. Their explanation, or their reasoning, for this transformation is that it will create economic growth (full employment) social harmony (eradicate revolutionary tendencies), religious tolerance (the freedom to worship) and cultural diversity (the liberalisation of Sharia Law for more individual agency). All resulting in a much stronger and powerful Saudi Arabia that can compete more in global markets instead of depending on oil. Radical Reformists see the Conservatives (especially those in power) as elitist, secretive and fascist and find the ill-treatment of dissidents as repugnant. Whilst the Royal Family hold the high majority of national income while the rest of the country live in dire poverty, they feel reform is necessary. They also see contradictions in the “religious” authority of the Royals, considering they've been heavily westernised and only kept in power with US oil money.

The Conservatives however, see things differently. they have a tendency to see things more in a historical context whilst Reformists are fairly contemporary. Wahhabism, a strict puritanical and ironically, reformist Islamic movement from the 18th century, still manages to influence the ideologies and polity of Saudi Arabia. Which proposes that Sharia Law remain resolute in the order of state-hood. This can include female subordination and Jihad upon infidels. So, while reformists view policies from a social point of view, Conservatives by nature, view it from a religious paradigm. The Current Royal Family, headed by Crown Prince Abdullah boasts of it's 4,000 princes and having a 70 year dynasty within Saudi Arabia, the authority they exercise is meant to embody the true Islam, so any notion of reformation or change is an alteration on Islam itself. Common criticisms against Reformists by Conservatives and a percentage of the populace alike are:

"Saudi Arabia is a very tribal society, democracy would make a bigger mess"

"we are not ready to vote ...we don't even have basic human rights yet"

"Saudi Arabia has the two holiest sites in the world, it has an obligation to Sharia Law"

"We want evolution [towards reform], not revolution"

(This World, BBC, 2004)

To put these two political ideologies of Saudi Arabia into practise, it would be wise to put them in the context of Global Terrorism. How does a Saudi Reformist view the current action of Terrorists within Saudi Arabia and how do they propose to prevent it? How does this approach differ from the Conservative approach?

A Reformist would tend to blame the Wahhabist influences within Saudi Arabian society. The strict religious teaching has, in their eyes, the same affect on Saudi citizens as the indoctrination Palestinian children experience who ultimately end up as suicide bombers. Unemployment as well, is a major factor. Much like the recruitment tactics used by Al Qaida in Pakistan, where they tempt the impoverished, the homeless and jobless with an income, food and shelter in return for terrorist activity. Or in Northern Ireland, where the IRA signed up the jobless Catholic youths (systematically unemployed by the British government). Terrorists are predominantly unemployed young men, sought after for their vulnerability and naivety. Reformists would propose Democratisation as a form of solution to combatant Terrorism. This approach would marginalize the fundamentalists. Coupled with social initiatives towards full employment and a welfare state that is sustainable will eradicate the accessibility of young men by Terrorist leaders.

Conservatives will tend to blame western impositions. The "cultural imperialism" of America in Riyadh and the other major cities, with McDonalds, Starbucks, Disney and Hollywood Cinema is considered a rape of indigenous heritage and religious piety. The presence of American Army bases on Saudi soil (as a result of "Desert Shield", a program that was meant to last until the end of the Gulf War, but still continues) is seen by Islamic clerics as the infidel on holy land. Not to mention the large inclusion of foreign workers within Saudi Arabia, helping to construct and maintain city and industrial businesses. Conservatives will say that religious fundamentalists are reacting to this invasion and any western involvement inside Saudi borders is fuel to this retribution. The solution, is to be more totalitarian than they already are, to provide a disincentive to be dissident or reign terror. This is happening with the imprisonment of Imams on suspicion of inciting religious hatred. However, these radical conservatives shouldn't be mistaken for the Saudi government or the Royal Family themselves. In part, it's the executives of Saudi Arabia that have asked for Western involvement.

This discourse between Conservatives and Reformists is a fairly recent phenomenon in Saudi Arabia. Why now? Is it because of recent events that are happening inside the nation-state itself or events from outside? By using the example of Terrorism, it not only helps exemplify how something can be seen very differently from two different view points. But also that this "something" isn't exclusive to Saudi Arabia, but actually global. The world-network of terrorism is affecting national politics and modifying its policies. Just one instance of how Globalization is affecting Saudi Arabia.

Some more examples can include the Economy. Since Iraq and it's oil fields have now been colonized by America, does that mean the dependency on Saudi oil by the US that the Royal Family once enjoyed, has been greatly reduced (or diminished entirely)? If so, reform has to be implemented to cope with this sudden downfall in revenue.

Cultural Globalization, some may say, has created an urgency for reform. With the Westernization of cultural products and it's associations with liberty and freedoms, has this implanted the seed of hope in the women wearing burkahs? Because of the availability of Global media and Satellite communication networks, making it possible for Saudi citizens to understand the concepts of the West, does that make them envious of Western freedoms?

Political Globalization, or more specifically, relations with the West, must also have played its part in the sudden calling for change. When Saudi Arabia was betrayed by Saddam Hussein in 1990, King Fadh turned to America for military security against Iraq in exchange for a "substantial financial payback". Ever since, US troops have remained in Saudi Arabia. The Mujahadeen in Afghanistan to, a primarily Saudi movement in the 1980s with Bin Laden as protagonist was heavily funded by America to fight off the Soviet advances. Again, militarily, dependency was on America. Although this was by no means a good will gesture by the CIA, but a strategic plan to carve enclaves within the Middle East to manipulate oil production and oil prices. Has this history of American “friendship” brought about a need to change the way Saudi Arabia views itself?

The relationship between America and Saudi Arabia as a trans-national partnership (security in exchange for oil and money) will have affected national sovereignty in that the Saudi Government can't be seen to criticize the US state or any US government in office at the time, less they want to lose American security. In exchange, the US can't be heard to criticize the human rights issues within Saudi Arabia unless it felt it could survive without Saudi oil surpluses.

All of these global movements and events involving Saudi Arabia have happened very recently. They have thrust the nation-state into a global network and thus, forcing the country to modify itself to cope with the changes (in oil price mechanisms, cultural diversification, western penetration, political alliances). As a result, calls for reform escalate in tune with the intensification of globalization.

However, this path which leads us to the current debate: Should Saudi Arabia modernize its institutions and infrastructures? was made urgent by the global epoch of September 11th. 15 of the 19 Terrorists involved were of Saudi descent. The leader was Osama Bin Laden, a Saudi born Islamic fundamentalist and notorious to CIA. Although the attacks on America weren't unprecedented (WTC bombing in 1993, 2 US embassy attacks in Africa in 1998, Al Qaida bombing of the USS Cole in 2000), the extent was much more dramatic and global. Involving a multitude of international victims, the four pilots were of four different nationalities, the target was the "World" Trade Centre and the country was the epicentre of Globalization itself: America. Not forgetting the retribution, which was a global coalition. This global coverage and seemingly international importance made anyone who was involved with the Terrorist attacks, instant targets. When 79% of the Terrorists involved come from Saudi Arabia, this has put added onus on the immediacy for change, because if the Royal Family continue with it's conservative political values, it will seem to the international community, that Terrorism will continue and that Saudi Arabia is its nucleus.

In summary, it seems that the question that began the essay, Should the political landscape of Saudi Arabia change? it denotes an ethical answer, of which this is not an ethical assignment. But in order for Saudi Arabia to survive economically, culturally, and politically, then Yes, it must change urgently. It should reform to meet the new demands of globalization or else, lose it's importance as a competing nation-state as well as its religious significance. To juxtapose this with the cultural imperialism from the West, this will have an inevitable and adverse affect which will destroy any hope for growth and improvement, since the historical evidence of this hybridization of West meets Middle East has been catastrophic.

So the change that should be brought about isn't black or white, but, as I said in the introduction, "complex and uncertain". Whether Reformists would dissolve religious involvement from state control and if that would be a good thing or not, is open to debate. Whether or not Conservatives will keep it's stranglehold over its populace will mean stability and security, is also up for discourse.

Again, to answer this question, evaluation of two conflicting claims is probably wise. Firstly, the explanation by those that are commonly named as "Positive Globalists", these would say Globalization is a phenomena that offers us new opportunities (freedom of movement, diversification of media, easier access to information, world unity, the availability of McDonalds and Asian cuisines in the same town or city, new technologies etc). The opposite of this claim ultimately comes from the "Pessimistic Globalists", that in some respects involve Feminists, Social Democrats and Nationalists alike. Their argument is that Globalization has negative repercussions (gives the super-states new possibilities to dominate world markets, the Northern Hemisphere have permission from the global authorities to rape natural exhaustible resources from the southern hemisphere, national sovereignty is lost to new global elitists, neo-liberalism and privatisation becomes more frequent resulting in the sale of water, electricity, energy, agriculture etc to profiteering corporatists, McDonalds/Disney/CNN/Hollywood is force-fed to the poor, poverty increases). These are a few explanations of how globalization works within two very differing points of view.

Positive Globalists, by definition, will probably turn to the achievements of the West to show their critiques that Globalization does in fact work. If you live in America, Canada, Britain, Western Europe or Oceania, you will have a higher chance of experiencing a better standard of living than if you lived anywhere else. Food, according to them, is both more nutritious and varied in Western Supermarkets; communication is faster and more accessible; media is more informed, impartial and global; trade is more intensified and widespread. On top of this, there are those that suggest this fairly recent phenomenon has the capability to prevent the disparity between the rich and poor, to feed the impoverished with either Free Trade or Genetically modified foods. Some Radicals will even go as far to say that war and tribalism will become a thing of the past since Globalization makes people interdependent on others - giving people, regions and countries the incentive to be passive. Evidence to support the Positive Globalists usually comes in the form of the Northern Hemisphere, they suggest the poverty of the Southern Hemisphere (Australia and New Zealand excluded) is the result of globalization not being as involved as it should.



Pessimistic Globalists, whether you associate the term with protestors that congregate outside world summits wielding placards and upside down flags, or the intellectuals that are making a self-made trade in film-documentaries and literature, will argue avidly against the Positive Globalists. Their main argument is that the proposed theory of Globalization eradicating the widening gap between the rich and poor is not only falsified, but going in the opposite direction. Free Trade, according to Pessimistic Globalists, is an arrangement whereby developing countries are forced to open up their manufacturing industries, public services and domestic markets to the new global managers (America and the EU), with the World Trade Organization being the broker. With the introduction of privatisation and deregulation in these Lesser Developed Countries (LDC's), their basic supplies (water, electricity, energy and food) has increased in price, unskilled workers have lost their jobs or have been hired by companies to work in illegal working conditions and at very low pay. Human rights has since become an "inconvenience" in the context of competitive open markets of which the LDC's now inhabit. Simplified, Pessimistic Globalists will call Globalization "Westernisation" or "Western Imperialism". It enables the West to protect their own industries with subsidies, but can suck dry the exhaustible resources elsewhere of which the third world depends upon for its own sustainability and for trade. Evidence to support the Pessimistic Globalists comes in the form of the landless peasants in Brazil, the Chiapas Zapatista's in Mexico, the AIDS epidemic, starvation and malnutrition of Africans, the attempted overthrow of Chavez in Venezuela to name but a few.

Of course, this is a very general glance over a complex and huge subject. Not even covering the Cultural arguments (a network media for the worlds people or an imposing Hollywood and US dominance?), Social (easier and quicker access to travel or forced migration of human beings to seek work and shelter?) and Political (the eradication of dictatorships by global authorities or a breakdown of nation-state sovereignty and welfare state provision?). Again, the question "Is Globalization a positive or negative force?" depends on the individual who is asking or the person that is answering. When Anthony Giddens, one of the modern protagonists on the subject of Globalization, was commenting on this very conundrum, he quoted "...rather than global village, this is more like global pillage" [Giddens, 1999]. Suggesting that Globalization isn’t working for the benefit of all, but favouring a select few.




References:

Giddens, A (1999) Runaway World, The BBC Reith Lectures, London, BBC Radio 4, BBC Education

"In 1914 there were eight great powers, now there is the G8. The difference between then and now is that now the Russians turn up as poor guests and Austro-Hungary has been replaced by Canada" (Held, 2002). This paradox illustrates the continuation and the progression of order. Has anything really changed from a century or even for that matter, a decade ago? Didn’t the British Empire import cotton from Raj India? diamonds from Sierra Leone? Didn’t the European empires of the 19th century do to Africa what the EU is doing to them now? Wasn’t there global communication in 1865 with the Telegraph (Morse code)? Wasn’t there supra-national NGO‘s (Non-Governmental Organizations) in 1864 with the “First International” under Karl Marx? Not so dissimilar to the Oxfam, Amnesty International models we see today: a global cause against a global problem.

But compare that to the elephantine shift in trade relations we are experiencing in this millennia: how we communicate; what we watch on TV, the variety of goods in super/hyper markets imported from every continent of the globe and the fact you’re able to read this passage off a global satellite network, beaming down information to computer monitors for everyone to read, partial to none. Doesn’t this prove “something” has in fact changed? When the WTO regulates (or deregulates as is often the case!) trade relations, when the UN oversees and instigates foreign diplomacy, does this show that the old nation-state has lost its powers to govern? Again, is this a sign of ultimate change and not gradual progression?



How you synthesize and conclude from this argument is a personal adventure. There are a multitude of opinions and anecdotes, stories and narratives that you will inevitably come across that will sway your assumed convictions.

The purpose of this website however, is to give information which isn’t unbiased. Through my studies as a Social Science undergraduate and by reading bits and pieces from the likes of Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, Tony Benn et al, going to lectures given by “fallen politicians” and experiencing mass protests, I have instinctively been caught up in the “movement” where solidarity is important. This is a profound statement because it denotes everyone is human and equal and that the “chain of being” (the Christian belief that white European men are superior and closer to god than anyone else) has dissolved.



References:

http://www.geocities.com/zed_chaotics/english/dialogue.htm