Cultural Globalization - Yeong chan Kim

 Summary

    This text aims to correct misunderstandings about globalization, offering a more conscious and clear explanation of what it is and what elements constitute it.

    It criticizes the narrow perspective that views globalization solely through the logic of capital—that is, an economic viewpoint—and instead emphasizes 'connectivity' as its true essence. Furthermore, it argues that globalization is not a process moving toward homogenization, but rather one where cultures overlap and intermingle.

    It further states that the true mode of globalization is manifested as 'deterritorialization,' driven by technological advancements and the power of immediacy. This implies the ability to enjoy multiple cultures simultaneously, both physically and offline.

    Finally, the text proposes 'multicultural identity' as a solution to the dilemmas triggered by globalization. In other words, rather than dividing ourselves into black and white, we must adopt a concept that can embrace black, white, and perhaps other colors as well.

Interesting Points

    The first new insight I gained, or more precisely, the new perspective I acquired, is that "the economy is ultimately culture." In my mind, I had vaguely thought that the driving force behind culture was the powerful flow of capital. This was because it seemed that products were derived from money and culture was selected accordingly. Within the vast system of capitalism, the value of a product appeared to reflect the level of culture. For example, did McDonald’s become today’s most successful franchise restaurant simply because it was a highly marketable product? In fact, as the text explains, it was through the desire and aspiration of people to purchase the product—forces sparked by culture—that it could become a global brand. In other words, the economy is merely a sufficient condition for culture.

     Secondly, what I found interesting is the idea that "culture creates the meaning of life." I have always liked the perspective of the British cultural theorist Raymond Williams, which I learned about in class, so the text’s definition of culture caught my attention. Williams regarded anything that generates meaning as culture, which implies that culture has no hierarchy; everything possesses its own unique meaning and value. Some people, or even many, divide culture into elite culture, high culture, and subculture. Because of such biased views, popular culture enjoyed by the majority is sometimes disparaged as low. Perhaps for this reason, I found the statement in the text that even the way we dress is a form of cultural self-expression particularly interesting. 

Discussion Questions

    What I want to discuss further is whether people around the world today actually view culture through economic reductionism. While the perspective of viewing culture through economic reductionism is clear, the power that content, in particular, holds within culture has grown so strong today that it now appears culture is superficially driven by the power of content, not the power of economics. It's not just video content; anything that can be enjoyed is made into content. Watching people enthusiastically consume short video clips, seeing them go viral and become trends, makes it feel as if entertainment is the entirety of culture. Another example is music. As performance culture gains traction, the concerts of idols or pop stars seem to lead cultural trends. It appears that the products of "fast culture," which rapidly gain popularity and are consumed, are driving culture. And the core experience of this fast culture is, again, entertainment. Of course, all these entertainment elements constitute the macroscopic perspective of economics, but the concepts we encounter most closely and frontally feel like content and entertainment. Therefore, we must pay attention to this point, as our perspective on culture could mistakenly shift toward "entertainment reductionism.

    One more point I wish to discuss is: "Can the 'identity repertoire model' truly serve as a fundamental solution to the dilemma between 'respect for cultural differences' and 'universal human rights'?" Identity is not something that can be simply peeled off like a label. To argue that multiple identities can easily overlap—just because the identities of 'Korean' and 'Buddhist' cited in the text’s example do—is arguably flawed. This is because Buddhism is an identity that has been deeply rooted within the nation of Korea for a long time. Can the French, for example, reconcile Korea's dog meat culture merely as a matter of identity overlap? I dare say it is absolutely impossible. Identity is an irrational and emotional sense of belonging and passion; it is something etched in stone. Therefore, the solution proposed by Tomlinson may merely be a parochial solution, applicable only to cosmopolitans who have already undergone deterritorialization.