What is the relation between culture and globalization? - TRAN THUY NGA (짠 튀 응아)

1. Summary of the Reading and Lecture

John Tomlinson’s essay on Cultural Globalization begins by defining globalization as a multidimensional process of global connectivity. It is not only about economics or politics, but also about technology, environment, society, and crucially, culture. He warns against economic reductionism: the assumption that economics drives everything else. Economic practices are themselves cultural, and culture cannot be treated as a passive recipient of economic forces. Instead, culture and globalization co-create each other culture shapes globalization while also being transformed by it. Tomlinson critiques the common expression “the impact of globalization on culture,” which suggests culture is merely acted upon. Culture, he argues, is an active process of meaning-making. Human beings act based on shared meanings, and even seemingly economic choices like buying a pair of branded jeans are cultural decisions about identity and self-representation. These micro actions, multiplied across the world, create global networks of consequence, including economic and ecological effects. Thus culture is both a context for understanding globalization and a force that generates it. The text also examines the speculation of a single global culture. Some fear “cultural imperialism” or “Americanization,” symbolized by global brands like Disney or McDonald’s. Yet Tomlinson points out that consuming Western goods does not equal adopting Western values. Moreover, strong cultural resistance especially in the Muslim world after 9/11 shows that Western liberal-capitalist culture is far from universally accepted. Instead of a “global monoculture,” globalization brings closer contact among diverse cultures, creating dialogue, conflict, and mutual influence. To illustrate long-standing tendencies toward universalism, Tomlinson turns to historical examples: the medieval Ebstorf Mappa Mundi, which placed Christianity at the center of the world, and Karl Marx’s vision of a classless global society. Both reveal how particular cultures project their own worldview as universal a pattern that persists in modernity and even in Enlightenment rationality. He warns that even progressive global visions can be ethnocentric. Tomlinson introduces the key concept of deterritorialization: the loosening of the traditional link between culture and geographic place. Global flows of people, media, and technology allow local life to be deeply penetrated by distant influences. Eating international cuisines, watching global news, or using Google are everyday examples. This does not erase local cultures; rather, it changes the way local and global interact. Paradoxically, globalization can intensify ethnic identities even as it blurs territorial boundaries. Finally, he discusses cosmopolitanism and cultural identity. Modernity institutionalizes identities national, ethnic, gendered while globalization proliferates them. Far from destroying identity, globalization often multiplies and strengthens it. The challenge is balancing universal human rights with respect for cultural difference. Tomlinson suggests thinking of universal human rights as one identity position among many, allowing individuals to hold multiple identities local, national, and cosmopolitan simultaneously. This pluralism could support a cosmopolitan order that values both human universality and cultural diversity.

2. New, Interesting, or Unusual Insights  

      One striking insight is Tomlinson’s reversal of the common fear about globalization and cultural identity. Instead of erasing or flattening differences into a bland, standardized “global soup,” globalization often creates and intensifies identities. Local cultures do not simply disappear; they respond dynamically, sometimes reasserting themselves with even greater force. Ethnic, regional, and national identities can grow stronger as communities define themselves in contrast to global flows. This perspective challenges the popular belief that the spread of global media and consumer brands inevitably leads to cultural homogenization. It suggests that globalization is not a one-way imposition of sameness but a process that sparks dialogue, adaptation, and even revival of traditions. Another particularly revealing concept is deterritorialization. Tomlinson uses this idea to show that our everyday cultural experiences what we eat, watch, wear, or discuss are no longer tied tightly to physical location. Italian coffee in a Korean café, Japanese sushi in Paris, or live-streaming a U.S. presidential debate from a dorm in Vietnam: these are everyday practices that dissolve the old link between culture and territory. Yet this is not “placelessness.” Cities like London, Tokyo, or New York each maintain distinctive “feels,” even as they are deeply connected to global flows. Deterritorialization transforms the meaning of locality: the local no longer stands apart from the global but is shaped by and responsive to it, creating a layered cultural landscape where multiple influences coexist. Equally noteworthy is Tomlinson’s historical comparison between medieval Christian maps and Karl Marx’s communist vision of a world culture. The medieval Ebstorf Mappa Mundi placed Christianity at the center of the world, imagining Christ literally embracing the globe. Centuries later, Marx envisioned a universal communist society with a world literature and shared cosmopolitan tastes. Though vastly different in content, both examples reveal a recurring human impulse: to project one’s own culture as a universal model. This pattern from religion to Enlightenment rationalism to modern ideologies reminds us that the tension between universalism and cultural difference is ancient and persistent. Recognizing this tendency helps us avoid repeating the mistake of equating “our” worldview with “the” world’s, a caution that remains urgent in today’s debates over global governance and human rights. Tomlinson also highlights the power of media speed and the “immediacy” of global culture. He invites us to question the cultural value of instantaneous communication: we now prize the speed of messages almost as much as clarity or truth. From the telegraph to the iPod and mobile texting, each leap in technology has accelerated the rhythm of social life. This relentless immediacy has profound implications for how we experience time, relationships, and politics. Political leaders face pressure to respond instantly to crises; financial markets react within seconds to a single remark; ordinary people expect immediate answers from friends or strangers across continents. Tomlinson raises an important ethical question: what does this obsession with speed do to our patience, our emotional depth, and our ability to deliberate thoughtfully as democratic citizens? Perhaps most provocative is his suggestion that globalization can foster a cosmopolitan sensibility—a form of “world citizenship” that embraces both universal human rights and respect for local difference. This is not an easy harmony; it demands holding multiple identities at once being, for example, a Vietnamese student, a member of a religious community, and a global human rights advocate without seeing these identities as mutually exclusive. It reframes universalism not as a single dominating culture but as an identity position that coexists with many others. In this light, globalization’s true cultural impact may be to expand our moral imagination: to help us see ourselves as rooted in local histories yet connected to a larger human story. Together, these insights reveal that the relationship between culture and globalization is far more dynamic and reciprocal than simple narratives of cultural loss or imperialism suggest. Culture does not passively receive the effects of globalization; it actively shapes globalization’s meaning and direction sometimes resisting, sometimes transforming, and often enriching the global tapestry.

3. Questions and Concerns  

Tomlinson’s analysis raises a fundamental ethical dilemma: how can we balance universal human rights with respect for cultural difference without slipping into either cultural relativism or a new kind of imperialism? He proposes treating human rights as an “identity position” alongside others, which allows people to embrace a cosmopolitan sense of belonging without erasing their local cultures. Yet in practice, politics often demands clear, sometimes painful choices. For example, when certain traditions or social norms are seen to violate what many consider basic human rights such as practices that deny gender equality or restrict freedom of expression—how should a cosmopolitan framework respond? If we insist on universal standards, we risk repeating the old patterns of cultural domination; if we avoid taking a stand, we may allow injustice to persist in the name of “respect for difference.” This tension remains one of the most urgent unresolved questions in global cultural politics. A second concern is whether deterritorialization might deepen existing global inequalities. Tomlinson celebrates the way global connections allow cultures to exchange ideas and broaden horizons. Yet the reality is that access to these global flows is highly uneven. Affluent societies enjoy the benefits of instant communication, global cuisine, and rapid travel, while poorer regions often experience globalization only as a source of exploitative economic forces or remain largely excluded from the networks of global media and commerce. The very process that promises a cosmopolitan sensibility - an awareness of shared humanity may in fact reinforce a divide between those who participate fully in global culture and those who are left on its margins. How, then, can the cosmopolitan vision of mutual recognition and shared responsibility emerge in a world where material and digital resources are distributed so unequally? Without addressing these structural disparities, cosmopolitan ideals risk becoming a privilege of the few rather than a shared global ethic. Finally, Tomlinson’s discussion of media speed and the “immediacy” of global culture raises pressing questions about democracy and collective decision-making. If political leaders are pressured to react instantly to a 24-hour news cycle and volatile financial markets, can societies still engage in careful, long-term deliberation? The expectation of immediate responses fueled by social media and real-time news may weaken our ability to practice patience, compromise, and thoughtful debate. Quick reactions often favor sensationalism over substance and can undermine the slow, reflective processes that democratic governance requires. As communication technologies continue to accelerate, we must ask whether the value we place on speed is reshaping not only our culture but the very foundations of political life. Can we develop cultural norms or institutional safeguards that preserve the space for reflection in an age of relentless immediacy? These concerns remind us that while Tomlinson paints a nuanced and often hopeful picture of culture and globalization, the relationship remains fraught with contradictions. Universal ideals must coexist with diverse traditions; the promise of global connection must confront the reality of unequal access; and the technological rush toward instant communication must be balanced against the need for democratic deliberation. Addressing these tensions is essential if globalization is to foster not only cultural exchange but also a more just and reflective global society.

Conclusion: The relationship between culture and globalization is a dynamic, two-way interaction that cannot be separated. Globalization does not simply “impact” culture from the outside; rather, culture is both the foundation and the driving force of globalization. Cross-border flows of economy, technology, media, and migration expand channels of exchange, bringing diverse cultures into closer contact and creating a process of deterritorialization, in which cultural experience is no longer tied to a single geographic place. Yet this does not lead to cultural uniformity or the loss of identity. On the contrary, globalization often stimulates the creation and strengthening of new identities national, regional, and individual. While cultures absorb global influences, they also actively redefine themselves, resisting or adapting in ways that highlight their distinctiveness. Thus, culture and globalization shape and sustain each other: globalization provides the networks and mediums through which cultural values, symbols, and meanings circulate; culture, in turn, supplies the meanings, motivations, and human depth that give globalization its character and direction. Recognizing this reciprocal relationship allows us not only to see the challenges such as inequality and conflicts of values but also to grasp the potential for cultivating a cosmopolitan sensibility, where universal human rights can coexist with and even enrich the world’s cultural diversity.

=> “What is the relation between culture and globalization?”

Culture and globalization are bound together in a mutually shaping relationship. Globalization is more than a network of economic or political exchanges; it is a process of intensifying global connectivity in which culture is both a participant and a driving force. As John Tomlinson argues, economic practices themselves carry cultural meaning, and the very choices we make what we consume, how we communicate are cultural acts that collectively create the global flows we call globalization. At the same time, this expanding connectivity does not dissolve local identities into a single global monoculture. Instead, globalization often stimulates the creation and even the revival of cultural identities. Through the process of deterritorialization, cultural experience is no longer tied strictly to a geographic place: people drink Italian coffee in Seoul, stream American news from a dorm in Vietnam, and interact with distant communities online. Yet London, Tokyo, or New York each retains a unique cultural “feel,” showing that global flows reshape local life without erasing it. In this sense, culture and globalization are co-constitutive. Globalization provides the channels economic, technological, and media networks through which cultural meanings circulate; culture provides the values, symbols, and identities that give globalization its human depth and direction. Understanding this two-way dynamic helps explain both the opportunities and the tensions of our era: the chance to cultivate a cosmopolitan sensibility that honors universal human rights while respecting cultural difference, and the challenge of addressing inequalities in access to these global networks. Ultimately, the relation between culture and globalization is best seen not as one shaping the other from outside, but as an ongoing dialogue in which each transforms, enriches, and defines the other.