The myths of cultural globalization

Authors Avatar
The myths of cultural globalization

Two powerful scenarios dominate the public discourse about the cultural consequences of globalization. The one very common scenario represents globalization as cultural homogenization (for example Benjamin Barbers McWorld vs. Jihad). In this scenario the culturally distinct societies of the world are being overrun by globally available goods, media, ideas and institutions. In a world where people from Vienna to Sidney eat BigMacs, wear Benetton clothes, watch MTV or CNN, talk about human rights and work on their IBM computers cultural characteristics are endangered. As these commodities and ideas are mostly of western origin, globalization is perceived as westernization in disguise. The other scenario is that of cultural fragmentation and intercultural conflict (encapsulated in Huntington's Clash of civilizations and most recently "confirmed" by the ethnocides in Yugoslavia).

But can we really reduce the processes of cultural globalization (i.e. the process of world-wide interconnections) to these two stereotypes? What about the meaning that local people attach to globally distributed goods and ideas? Why do people drink Coca-Cola and what sense do they make of the soap operas they watch? Do they really trade in their century-old lifeworlds for the kinds of Madonna and Bill Gates? And how does the homogenization scenario fit with its rival, the imminent cultural fragmentation?

In order to gain a clearer picture of contemporary global cultural changes, we have to study cultural practices worldwide. Objectively measurable figures concerning death rates, intercultural marriages and market-shares have to be understood in their wider social context. They have to be related to specific worldviews, gender relations and the local meaning of death and wealth.

An ethnographic approach to globalization

But how does one study these intersubjective aspects of life? Many of the writings on the cultural aspects of globalization generalize from experiences gained in the West to other parts of the world. What we need instead are decentralized perspectives, ethnographic "deep descriptions" (Geertz) from local communities all over the world and combine them with the predominantly quantitative data obtained through the perspectives of economists, political scientists and others. What people say and what they actually do or mean is often a very different matter.

Good ethnography combines detailed empirical research with larger political and philosophical questions. The anthropologist, who goes into the field for an extended period of time (on average 12-18 months), attempts to take the perspective of the people he/she studies and represent his/her findings to a wider audience. The resulting ethnography is a translation, shifting between the perspective of the cultural insider and the cultural outsider (the latter will most often coincide with the scientist and his/her audience). Anthropology tries to take a holistic approach to the society in question, i.e. to overcome the artificial separation of analytical categories (such as politics, culture and economy) common to other disciplines. Single phenomena are studied in their social context and the interpenetration of different aspects of human life, of, let's say, legal propositions, worldviews, rituals and social structure are of central concern.

To gain a better understanding of the cultural aspects of globalization, some findings of the anthropological record will be introduced in the following four hypotheses.

Four hypotheses

. Different peoples interpret globalized goods, ideas and institutions in highly diverse ways and integrate them in various ways into their own lives.

Societies don't passively give in to foreign and global influences. Instead, anthropological research has stressed the ability of societies to incorporate what might be expected to threaten them. Various strategies of dealing with foreign influences have been identified. The most prominent of these are resistance and appropriation.

Regarding resistance: The state often tries to prohibit foreign influences to enter its territory. The Iranian state doesn't allow its citizens to own satellite-dishes, France tries to protect the French language from being Anglicized and invents new French words for fast food and the internet (formule rapide and entre-reseau). But imported goods, institutions and ideas also meet resistance from social movements or certain sections of society (ranging from protest against the Miss World beauty contest in Bangalore to the "net-war" of the Zapatistas in Chaipas).
Join now!


But more often than offering resistance, people incorporate and appropriate foreign influences into their lives. Anthropologist Marshall Sahlins has written that people often use foreign goods and ideas to become more like themselves. We see in the current anthropological literature a great variety of case studies, which demonstrate this process of appropriation.

Let's take McDonald's. McDonald's certainly is a very globalized institution, popular in over 100 countries, serving 30 million customers a day. Sociologist George Ritzer has even named a homogenization-theory after this fast-food giant: The "McDonaldization" of the world. But when you look at ethnographic studies ...

This is a preview of the whole essay