Cultural Globalization - LEE JUNGHU

1. Summary

Tomlinson's main argument is that the "globalization destroys culture" approach blurs the essence of the problem. Often, globalization is seen as a process in which a huge economic system (mainly Western capitalism) unilaterally weighs on local culture. However, Tomlinson says this relationship could be the opposite.

According to him, globalization is not an economic phenomenon that occurs outside of culture, but a process driven by culture in the first place. Here, culture is the way we create the meaning of life itself. Culture is how we desire something, what kind of life we dream of, and how we perceive ourselves, and this determines our behavior. For example, the act of a teenager buying a certain brand of jeans is not just an economic act of buying things, but a cultural act of expressing, 'This is who I am.' It is that these numerous individual cultural choices and actions come together to create and maintain a system called a huge global market. In other words, it is the view that culture is the cause of globalization, not the result of globalization unilaterally affecting it.

For this reason, he strongly opposes the "global monoculture" or "Americanization" argument that the world is covered in Disney and Coca-Cola and unified into one culture. He draws the line that consuming "cultural products" (hamburger) and changing "cultural practice" (the person's deep values) are completely different. In fact, the fact that there are strong anti-American and anti-Western emotions all over the world is evidence that the influx of Western "products" did not "subjugate" their "values." In Tomlinson's view, globalization is not about bringing cultures together, but rather a process that brings so many different cultures closer together that causes more friction and debate.

Instead of a "global monoculture," he presents two concepts. The first is false universalism. Like maps of Christian worldviews in the 13th century and Marx's European-centered view, historically powerful cultures have always packaged their specific values as if they were universal truths. Western-centeredness is not a new phenomenon but a repetition of this pattern. The second is 'Deterritorialization'. I think that was the most interesting concept in this article. It doesn't mean that the local culture disappears, but it weakens the link that the culture was bound to a particular 'place' or 'territoriality'. We now buy ingredients from all over the world at the local supermarket and live by watching news from the other side of the world in real time at our home. Our daily lives have become a mixture of 'here' experiences and 'far' influences.

2. Interesting points

Above all, it was most interesting that it made me think about the causal relationship upside down. I always thought globalization was a huge force that 'they (giant corporations, powerful countries) exert on us, but it was a fresh shock to see that we (individuals) could be the 'subjects' that gather everyday cultural desires and choices to create that huge flow. It made us see ourselves again as active participants, not passive victims. It was also a very sharp point to distinguish between the consumption of 'cultural goods' and 'cultural practice'. It breaks down the simple logic of "Drinking Coke makes you Americanized" at once. People have acknowledged that global goods are not just passively accepted, but smart beings who can take them, transform them to their context, give them new meaning, and "apprise."

In addition, the argument that globalization does not eliminate identity, but rather creates more, is paradoxical but deeply sympathetic. There was a question of, "Why is nationalism or regionalism getting stronger as the world gets closer?" and I thought Tomlinson's explanation (globalization spread the modern identity question of 'who are we' all over the world) could be the answer.

3. Discussion and Questions

As I read the text, I came up with a problem to think about two things more deeply.

Does "Immediacy" really make us more ethical? Tomlinson positively predicts that "immediacy," in which the world is connected in real time through the media, may give us "cultural openness or humanity-loving responsibility" instead of values like "patience." But I have a question here. Does the tragic news from around the world, 24/7, really make us more ethical? Wouldn't it lead to 'compassion fatigue' that becomes insensitive to too many stimuli, or that you pay attention to it for a moment and then forget it quickly? I'd like to discuss whether the sense of being simply 'connected' can really lead to a practical 'solidarity' for others.

Isn't the "identity portfolio" too complacent? For a dilemma where "universal human rights" and "the uniqueness of local cultures" conflict, he suggests that we can have multiple identities at the same time. For example, a person may be Chinese, Buddhist, and admire Western liberalism. And when the local culture is oppressive, they can use the identity of "universal human rights." But what if those identities collide head-on in reality? For example, when universal values such as "gender equality" and "gender minority human rights" confront a particular religious or cultural tradition irreconcilably, how does this model work? Tomlinson's pluralism is elegant in theory, but I wondered if it was too easy to avoid the most difficult and painful conflict in the real world (a situation in which one side has to criticize or force the other).