What is the Relationship Between Culture and Globalization? - Yun Shinji

Summary

The author views globalization not as a process where the economy destroys culture, but as a process where media detaches culture from its place of origin. People often think globalization is about large corporations homogenizing culture to make money, but the author argues that cultural desire is actually the engine that moves the global market.

The first main argument is ‘deterritorialization.’ The author views globalization as not homogenizing or eliminating culture, but as separating culture from its original territory. I once had an experience abroad where K-pop was playing in a restaurant, and foreigners sitting next to me were singing along. Like this, the phenomenon of K-pop being consumed worldwide, beyond Korea, can be seen as an example of deterritorialization.

The second is a ‘critique of cultural imperialism.’ Cultural imperialism is the claim that Western culture, like McDonald’s or Hollywood movies, occupies the world and kills the unique cultures of other nations. However, the author calls this argument superficial. People might think that uncritically accepting Western culture leads to a loss of a nation's unique cultural identity. But the author argues that when people accept global culture, they actually interpret and transform it to fit their own values and tastes. In other words, people are not passive recipients of culture, and the world is not being simply homogenized as cultural imperialism claims.

Finally, the third is a ‘critique of economic reductionism.’ The author criticizes the tendency to explain globalization solely through an 'economic' lens. Reductionism views globalization as the worldwide spread of neo-liberal capitalism, seeing culture as merely a result or victim of this massive economic system. However, the author states that culture is more fundamental than the economy. Humans are not beings who only pursue economic efficiency or survival, but beings who seek to find 'meaning' in their lives and the world. For example, when we buy something, we can be seen as consuming the 'meaning' and 'symbols' attached to the product, not just the product itself. Therefore, culture is not a victim of the economic system, but rather the fundamental and crucial engine that makes the massive system of global capitalism operate.

New Knowledge I Learned

After reading this, I came to rethink and redefine the relationship between globalization and culture. Before, I hadn't thought deeply about it and used to wonder, "Isn't cultural identity disappearing because of globalization?" However, based on the critique of cultural imperialism, I realized that my one-sided thought was incorrect. When we adopt other cultures, we don't destroy our own; we interpret and transform them to fit Korean culture.

Also, the author's claim that media technology is the decisive factor that enabled deterritorialization was very interesting. In the past, it took years or decades for culture to spread, but now, through media, we can instantly learn about incidents happening on the other side of the world. The fact that we are living in an era where the idea "my place = my culture" no longer holds, due to the deterritorialization caused by telemediazation, provided a new perspective.

Lastly, the view that globalization does not destroy identity but rather creates and spreads the very concept of identity made me think, "What is my identity?" In the modern era of globalization, I find myself continuously contemplating and reflecting on my identity amidst the constant encounters between Korea's unique culture and other cultures.

Discussion Questions

The author argues that the cultural desire to seek 'meaning' can be more fundamental than economic necessity. However, according to 2023 World Bank statistics, about 9% of the world's population (approx. 700 million people) still lives in extreme poverty on less than $2.15 a day. Furthermore, the UN reports chronic food insecurity and difficulties in accessing clean water in many developing countries. For people facing such harsh economic realities, contemplating the 'meaning' of a product may sound like a privilege. Therefore, I wonder if this argument isn't a perspective centered on developed countries that are, to some extent, affluent? For people who must worry about their immediate survival, can we really say that 'consumption for meaning' takes precedence over 'necessity for survival'?

Additionally, the author claims that 'deterritorialization' makes us 'reflect' on our identity. In reality, however, we also see phenomena where extreme nationalism or religious fundamentalism—which seek to protect one's own territory and uniqueness—are strengthening as a backlash. The rise of far-right parties seen across Europe in recent years, or the emergence of protectionism under the banner of 'America First,' are prime examples. One of the key slogans that drove Brexit in the UK was also hostility towards immigrants and the 'restoration of our own sovereignty.' This is a phenomenon where extreme nationalism or xenophobia has intensified, precisely because other cultures, transmitted through media, feel too close and threatening. How, then, can we understand these aspects of identity anxiety and cultural conflict brought about by 'deterritorialization'?