 |
American
Cultural Imperialism: Gift
or Threat?
r
Cultural imperialism
is a very old phenomenon. For
centuries, countries imposed
their cultural values on other
nations. Today, as a global
economic and political power,
the United States is inevitably
intruding into the cultures
of other countries of the world.
Some believe that the American's
spread of culture is beneficial
to the entire planet, while
others consider this cultural
imperialism a threat.
Social context
During the past five hundred
years, European countries colonized
southern countries in the name
of "spreading" Christian
civilization to the "primitive"
people in other parts of the
world, as well as securing resources
and workers for economic production.
As cultural imperialism occurs,
it is said to be for the own
good of the other, conquered
civilization, to spread universal
values, rights and standards
of development. The United States
are currently not the only cultural
imperialists, but the spread
of American values in the entire
world is at the leading edge
of a wave of spread of Western
goods and consumerist culture.
Today, the phenomenon might
take a different form, as it
is a lot more subtle and less
brutal than the European colonization:
it is being done in the name
of freedom of the market and
freedom of expression.
The propagation
of the American culture seen
as unavoidable and beneficial
to the world
Through the media, the United
States is spreading some universal
values and human rights. To
some authoritarian countries,
it spreads ideas of freedom
of expression, democracy, equality,
and rights - concepts that should
be, in some people's opinion,
universal. Universality of some
values may be possible - human
nature is not that different
from one culture to another,
and many values are shared across
cultures. However, the majority
of the world's cultures undervalue
women and children in practice
if not in ethos. Finally, the
majority of the world's people,
regardless of the names given
to governmental regimes by those
with authority, continue to
live without real participatory
democracy. American ideals of
equality, freedom, and democracy
now available in the world may
give more freedom to women,
children, and to minorities
in all cultures, and will promote
anti-racist, anti-sexist or
anti-authoritarian messages
and regimes.
Irving Kristol, in "The
emerging American Imperialism,"
presents imperialism as an unintended
consequence of market expansion
rather than a conscious goal:
"one of these days, the
American people are going to
awaken to the fact that we have
become an imperial nation."
But he later argues that it
is not something unintentional,
but that in fact many nations
have facilitated and welcomed
American cultural values along
with American products and ways
of life: "it happened because
the world wanted it to happen."
To him, the American missionaries
live in Hollywood, which is
different from the Old European
imperialism, which was based
on bureaucratic colonial governments
and resource extraction.
Christopher Dunkley, in "American
Cultural Imperialism: No Bad
Thing" says that "America
provides some of the best available
anywhere in the world."
One of the reasons that American
series are so successful in
the world is that "thanks
to its immigration policies,
the US has a population with
a mixture of Anglo Saxons, Scandinavians,
Asians and so on that provides
American broadcasters with a
domestic audience which is,
to all intents and purposes,
international. Please the American
audience and you can guarantee
you will please the world."
Some theories of globalization
see, instead of cultural imperialism,
the movement of products and
ideas from across national and
cultural borders in ways that
produce real changes in cultures
like that of the United States.
In 1994, MacQuail wrote in his
book Mass Communication Theory
that not only was United States
influencing other cultures,
but other cultures were also
influencing the US: "While
one-way flow may be evident
in terms of information flows
on an information theory quantitative
estimate, the reality is that
as media technology and economies
become more intertwined, this
seemingly one-way flow reverses
itself into a two-way flow in
which what sells abroad influences
what Americans see at home."
In that perspective, we can
talk about an interpenetration
of cultures instead of the invasion
of American culture in the world.
The American
cultural imperialism as a threat
to other cultures
We should not forget that the
differences in cultures make
the world a rich and diverse
place. Every individual of each
country should have the right
to express his or her own culture.
A cultural uniformity would
lead to the extinction of cultures
and it would definitely represent
a great loss.
However, the American culture
is intruding on most cultures
in the world, in many cases
threatening their existence.
Superman, Spider-man, and Batman
replace local heroes; Pepsi
and Coke replace local fruit
drinks; and "trick or treat"
begin to replace Dia de los
Muertos. Perhaps more insidious,
to compete with American cultural
imports, local varieties and
products begin to mimic American
products. All the exportation
of goods and information from
the United States to the entire
planet contributes to the exportation
of the American culture.
Today, the spread of American
culture goes through every communication
medium: 90% of the information
available on the Internet is
in English, CNN is seen in 120
countries, Stephen King is the
number one best seller in the
world. Obviously, there is already
a process of cultural uniformity
going on, and this can be seen
as a great loss.
The rise of English as an international
language of trade and politics
has been one of the strongest
vehicles for the transmission
of American culture. The place
of English in the world has
crystallized in the past decades
- you can read signs in English
in every capital, and fluency
in English has become a taken-for-granted
prerequisite for upper-level
positions in international trade
and politics. While the forces
leading to the rise of an international
language differ greatly from
cultural imperialism, it would
be difficult to separate the
two. As English becomes a global
language, it becomes clear that
language and culture cannot
be separated. The AP National
Writer journalist Anthony Ted
says "every one from the
French to the Indonesians worry
that where English goes, America
will follow." Scholars
Nye and Owen admitted that it
is the goal of the United States
to have English as the international
language: "It is in the
economic and political interests
of the United States to ensure
that, if the world is moving
to a common language, it be
English; that if the world is
becoming linked by television,
radio and music, the programming
be American; and that, if common
values are being developed,
they be values with which Americans
are comfortable." According
to them, not only it is intentional,
but also it is a "developing
reality." If this spread
of values, language, and information
is purely because of economic
and political interest for the
United States, the well-being
of other cultures and their
freedom of expression are not
taken into consideration except
instrumentally - can they be
bought and sold for a profit,
or can they be used to political
advantage - to the profit and
advantage of the US.
We know that the United States
is the leader in exporting its
information. One problem is
that the United States sells
its information and media products
so cheaply that it is impossible
for the whole world to compete.
The American producers budget
to cover their costs within
the US market and can consequently
sell at unbeatable prices internationally.
A consequence is that it is
much cheaper to buy, for example,
a blockbuster Hollywood movie
made in the United States than
to make a less expensive local
production in another country.
The
UNESCO's attempts of regulation
The attempt by UNESCO to regulate
a more equal flow of communication
between the North and the South,
to protect cultural diversity
and to protect countries from
cultural imperialism unfortunately
resulted in the withdrawal of
the United States because it
did not correspond to its financial
interests. Since 1984, which
is the date of the American
withdrawal, UNESCO keeps trying
to influence and give recommendations
to governments, but it has no
power over the main country
that owns most of the communication
flow in the world: the United
States of America.
|
