What is the relation between culture and globalization? - Im Jaeyeong

1. Summarize

To define 'cultural globalization', this text begins with an in-depth analysis of the concepts of 'globalization' and 'culture' themselves.
First, the author criticizes 'economic reductionism', which reduces globalization to a purely economic process. Globalization is a 'multidimensional' process—encompassing economics, politics, technology, and culture—and its essence is the acceleration of 'global connectivity'. The author argues that culture is not merely impacted by globalization; it is an active dimension that simultaneously generates and shapes it.
According to the author, the core function of culture is to generate 'meaning', and this desire for meaning can be more fundamental than material needs. Even consumption, which appears to be an economic activity, is in fact a cultural act. The 'moment of culture'—such as choosing jeans or a mobile phone—is a 'performative' activity of "How do I want to be perceived?" These micro-actions aggregate to constitute and operate the vast network of the global market.
Next, the author questions the myth of a 'single global culture', viewing critiques of 'cultural imperialism' as superficial. He argues that eating a McDonald's hamburger does not equate to 'capitulation' to deep Western values. On the contrary, the powerful 'resilience of cultural opposition' found in regions like the Muslim world demonstrates that globalization is by no means effortlessly installing a Western monoculture.
The author illustrates the 'trap of universalism' through historical examples, all of which share a common trait: they "masqueraded" their own 'particular' culture as a 'universal' model for the world.
The latter half of the text introduces 'deterritorialization' as a core concept, signifying the "loss of the natural relation of culture to geographical and social territories." This does not mean local culture disappears; in fact, locality can even be strengthened. The key point is that local culture is no longer the 'single most important'factor defining our lives. We integrate distant events and relations into our daily lives, whether through 'global foods' at the supermarket or 24-hour news. A key driver of this deterritorialization is 'telemediatization'—the 'speed' and 'immediacy' brought by media technologies.
Finally, the author offers a new perspective on 'cultural identity'. While it is commonly thought that globalization 'destroys' identity, the author argues the contrary: globalization 'creates and proliferates' identity as a modern, 'regulatory' category. Identity is not an ancient 'possession' but a modern 'construct'. This allows us to hold a 'repertoire of identities' simultaneously without contradiction. The author concludes that this framework enables us to champion 'cultural difference' while concurrently holding a flexible 'cosmopolitan belonging' rooted in universal human rights.

2. Something new and interesting

The most interesting point was the redefinition of culture not as a 'victim' of globalization, but as its 'driver'. Typically, globalization brings to mind the image of a massive economic system (capitalism) homogenizing culture. However, the author explains that our 'moment of culture' in choosing jeans is not mere consumption, but a 'performative' act expressing "Who am I?", and that this very act is the fundamental force that constitutes the global market. This was a fresh perspective that shifted the focus from an abstract system to the individual's cultural activity of creating 'meaning'.
Furthermore, the interpretation of 'cultural identity' was also very new. It is common to worry that unique identities are disappearing because of globalization, and I originally tended to think that way myself. However, the author argued that the concept of 'identity' itself is a product of modernity and that globalization, on the contrary, is actually 'proliferating' it. This clearly explained the paradox mentioned in the deterritorialization section: why more intense ethnic and religious identity politics emerge as globalization progresses. I was impressed by the metaphor that identity is not a 'possession' to be guarded, but a 'repertoire' that we constantly construct and choose.

3. Questions and Discussions

The author argues that cultural needs can supersede material needs, and that even economic activities like consumption are cultural decisions. However, isn't this a privileged perspective that perhaps only applies to the affluent in the 'developed world'? The text briefly mentions that the 'Third World' partakes in globalization differently. But for people facing massive economic inequality, for whom survival itself is the objective, can it really be said that 'cultural choice' supersedes 'hard economic realities'?
The author concludes that a 'repertoire of identities' allows us to harmoniously hold both 'cultural difference' and 'universal human rights'. But what happens when these two directly conflict? For example, when a 'traditional' identity within a specific culture clearly infringes upon 'universal human rights' (such as the rights of women and LGBTQ people). The author suggests we can "appeal to universality," but isn't it possible that this 'universality' itself is just imposing another 'Western-centric model'—precisely the kind for which the author criticized Kant and Marx?