What is the relation between culture and globalization - Lee Hyewon

Summary

Cultural globalization is understood as part of a multidimensional process of global connectivity. The author argues against the tendency to grant economic primacy to globalization, emphasizing that economic practices are intrinsically cultural. Culture is not an inert category that merely receives the "impact" of external forces. Instead, culture is an active and consequential process of meaning generation; locally informed cultural actions, particularly consumer practices, fundamentally constitute and shape the global market network.

The notion of a single global culture resulting from this connectivity is contested. Interpretations of cultural globalization as "cultural imperialism" are limited, as they often confuse the global distribution of cultural goods with the resilient practice of cultural interpretation. Furthermore, historical examples demonstrate that supposedly universalizing narratives, from theological worldviews to Enlightenment philosophies, are frequently ethnocentric, projecting particular cultural experiences as the definitive global model.

A more effective framework is deterritorialization, defined as the erosion of culture's necessary link to fixed geographical territory, a phenomenon accelerated by telemediatization. Deterritorialization integrates distant processes into local life, thereby attenuating the singular hold of locality on individual experience. This shift offers the potential for greater cultural openness and a broader sense of global ethical responsibility. Finally, cultural identity is analyzed as a modern, regulatory construct rather than an inherited possession. This reframing allows for cosmopolitanism, or universal humanism, to be viewed as a specific, flexible identity position that can coexist with plural local attachments, thereby offering a path to reconcile the competing demands of universal human rights and cultural difference.

New Knowledges I learned

This article introduced me to concepts and perspectives for analyzing globalization that I hadn't seriously considered before, shifting my viewpoint. My first major takeaway is the rejection of economic reductionism. While the global capitalist market is undeniably central to connectivity, the author rightly resists granting it absolute causal primacy. I agree that the market is inextricably linked to cultural elements; for instance, major global content commodities (like films or music) that drive the market are simultaneously cultural products and variables that induce cultural change. Culture and economics are mutually constitutive forces, and it is inaccurate to view one as merely driven by the other.

A second fascinating concept introduced is deterritorialization. I had previously assumed that this phenomenon would inevitably lead to the outright loss of local cultures, but the essay reframed this impact. It suggests that deterritorialization does not necessarily mean the loss of local cultures, but rather the attenuation of locality’s importance in our daily lives. The fact that a physical place no longer uniquely defines our experiences, thanks to global media and technology, provides a different lens through which to view cultural change.

Finally, the essay shed new light on the dilemma between universalism and the politics of difference. I found the argument that cosmopolitanism can function as a flexible construct within the global order, rather than the exclusive possession of any one culture, particularly insightful. It allows for the reconciliation of universal human rights with plural local attachments. This view suggests that global ethics are not a "card that trumps all" but a set of transferable principles we can invoke contextually, offering a necessary path toward managing our increasingly "pressed together dissimilarities."

Questions for Discussion

The author persuasively argues that the dilemma between universalism and the politics of difference can be softened by viewing identity through the lens of pluralism. He suggests that since individuals can hold a repertoire of identities, it should be possible to reconcile local attachments with the universal appeal of human rights.

However, a pressing concern arises when translating this theory into real-world dynamics, which I believe needs more elaboration in the text. I believe that the core issue in real life is less about whether an individual can possess a non-contradictory identity repertoire and more about the external pressure to conform to globally idealized standards. The tension appears not as an internal conflict over self-definition, but as the imposition of values that make regional identities feel inadequate or compel them to reform according to a "global ideal".

For example, when a global institution pressures a developing nation to adopt specific economic or social practices, framed as "modern" or "globally ideal", is the local resistance truly a fear of contradiction? Can the mere understanding that "identity is a construct" truly mitigate the impact of a global structure that disproportionately promotes one set of cultural values over another, effectively pressuring regions to correct their local identity? I question whether the author's flexible construct accounts for these power dynamics.


use of AI - Korean translation of the original text, review of any conceptual errors in the drafted Korean outline, English translation and review of the blog post text

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is globalization--Kim younggyun

 1) Summarize From what I understand, globalization is not merely an economic trend. It is a broad concept in which the world becomes increasingly interconnected on cultural, social, political, and even individual levels. Because globalization is such an all-encompassing idea, it is only natural that debates continue over its definition. This is exactly what made studying the concept of globalization difficult for me. That is why, like Robertson and White, I tried to understand globalization mainly through the two dimensions of increasing connectivity and growing consciousness. I find their approach persuasive. When internet, transportation, and trade expand, the connections between countries grow stronger, and naturally, people begin to perceive the world as a “single place.” 2) Interesting point What I found particularly interesting while studying globalization is that it does not simply lead to “one-sided homogenization.” I used to think of globalization only as the expansion of...
Read more

What is globalization? | Yun Shinji

1.   Summary It is difficult to define the concept of ‘globalization’ with a single meaning, as the term is used in various contexts with different implications. Sociologist Roland Robertson describes globalization as “the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole". Robertson and White further elaborate it as two main trends “an increase in global interconnectedness” and "an increase in global consciousness". In this way, globalization is a complex phenomenon in which the world becomes closely connected across borders, and it is used in multiple ways in different contexts. Globalization can be broadly divided into three dimensions cultural, political, and economic. Among them, cultural globalization is the phenomenon we experience most directly in our daily lives. For example, a cultural content that becomes popular can spread worldwide and be shared globally. However, this phenomenon also raises concerns about cultural hom...
Read more

What is the relation between politics and globalization? - Yun Shinji

1) Summary The author views “political globalization” as a multidimensional, accelerated, and interconnected form of organization that transcends national borders across space and time. Rather than seeing globalization as a simple reality, the author understands it as a “relational dynamic” that produces a complex and constantly shifting political landscape. According to the author, political globalization is driven by three key processes. First is global geopolitics. This involves interactions mainly between states, including traditional balances of power, international security, territorial disputes, and other state-centered dynamics. These geopolitical interactions continue to shape how states position themselves in an increasingly interdependent world. Second is the global normative culture, which refers to political values and norms—such as human rights and democracy—that are shared or diffused across the world. These norms influence how states govern internally and how they are e...
Read more