In contrast to imperialism, the cultural flows or network model posits that cultural influence is not controlled by a central source by is rather exchanged amongst countries and cultures; receivers may also be originators. According to Mirza (2010), “Globalization as an aggregation of cultural flows or networks is a less coherent and unitary process than cultural imperialism and one in which cultural influences move in many different directions” (p. 72). Less coherent yes, but isn’t this the very essence of globalization? The movement of culture in different directions in an effort to unify and enrich all?
Taking the cultural flows/network model into account, can the fear of cultural imperialism can be reduced to a conspiracy theory?
If an argument could be made for the cultural flows/network model, it would be that the model embodies the very definition of globalization. The model corresponds to a network where receivers may also be originators; there is no clearly defined centre or periphery. Crane (2004) instructs, “Cultural globalization is no longer conceptualized as the emergence of a homogenized global culture. Instead, cultural globalization is recognized to be a complex, diverse phenomenon consisting of global cultures in the plural, originating from various nations and regions” (p. 1).
This new globalization is evidenced by “…cultural-linguistic markets are emerging at a level smaller than global but larger than national. These markets are… based on common languages and common cultures …a number of companies have grown beyond their original national markets to serve this cultural-linguistic world”
What say ye? Is imperialism the true agenda of globalization or just another negative side effect? …. Or is it even a real concern?
References:
Crane, D. (2004). The globalisation of culture: The fashion industry as a case study. Presented at “Questioni di Moda”, May 7, 2004, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan.
Mirza, J. (2010). Globalization of media: Key issues and dimensions. European Journal of Scientific Research, 29 (1), 66-75.
Taking the cultural flows/network model into account, can the fear of cultural imperialism can be reduced to a conspiracy theory?
If an argument could be made for the cultural flows/network model, it would be that the model embodies the very definition of globalization. The model corresponds to a network where receivers may also be originators; there is no clearly defined centre or periphery. Crane (2004) instructs, “Cultural globalization is no longer conceptualized as the emergence of a homogenized global culture. Instead, cultural globalization is recognized to be a complex, diverse phenomenon consisting of global cultures in the plural, originating from various nations and regions” (p. 1).
This new globalization is evidenced by “…cultural-linguistic markets are emerging at a level smaller than global but larger than national. These markets are… based on common languages and common cultures …a number of companies have grown beyond their original national markets to serve this cultural-linguistic world”
What say ye? Is imperialism the true agenda of globalization or just another negative side effect? …. Or is it even a real concern?
References:
Crane, D. (2004). The globalisation of culture: The fashion industry as a case study. Presented at “Questioni di Moda”, May 7, 2004, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan.
Mirza, J. (2010). Globalization of media: Key issues and dimensions. European Journal of Scientific Research, 29 (1), 66-75.