Cultural
Imperialism through Globalization
Roman Terrill in his significant
contribution to the Journal of the University of Iowa has made
an interesting sheds of the phenomenon. ‘Financial Globalization
may require countries perhaps you - to adopt powerful and
sometimes unwanted economic and political form that reflect the
views and values of other countries, particularly those of the
United States’. He then adds ‘cultural transfers that have given
consumers “global tasks” also contribute to Globalization. The
three factors …. Encourage or permit cultural transforms,
accelerating the demand for cultural imports ranging from movies
and music to fashion and food.”
Financial Globalization can be
understood by explaining aspect of a “product” you have probably
consumed at one time or another in your community movies ‘ (pp
218 and 221).
Then he examines the fact of
global screening of the Hollywood movies “Titanic”.
He informs ‘The Hollywood film
“Titanic” is poised to gross over $1 billion in world wide
tickets receipts. Like other major U.S. films “Titanic will
generate namely half of the ticket revenues, around $500
million, from movie goers outside the United States. The cost to
the studio of making and then marketing “Titanic” has been
estimated at around $300 million. From those facts one can
easily see the financial benefits of a global economy to the
American studio that produced and marketed the film. Had they
shown the movie only in the U.S., “Titanic” would made a profit
of (only) $200 million. . The ability to sell “Titanic” abroad
will allow the studio to make a shopping of $700 million in
gross profit (p 221, 222).
In fact, as Roman explain, that
before the presentation of the film began the prediction of its
U.S. ticket receipts were not nearly as high as they turned out
to be. If the movie had to rely on U. S. ticket receipts alone
to cover the huge cost and then marketing the Theme - hour
film, it likely would not have been made at all. The prospect of
global audience, therefore, justified the investment in the big
budget film. Roman then explains that the principal of benefits
of Globalization in the example of “Titanic” are the prospect of
greater profits for the company, are the prospect for “bigger”
more technically spectacular films for the average movie goer” (rac
P222).
Roman then asks, ‘ are there any
drawbacks for Globalization of the movies? …. Does the global
marketing of “Titanic pose any tangible harms or problems? Some
very vocal French citizens would answer yes.’ (P 122).
How Globalization of the Movie
industry may result in Hollywood’s cultural hegemony. Ronal
discuss that aspect also. The example of “Titanic” provides a
good illustration of the potential problem with the global
market for films. Only the Hollywood studios have the
distribution networks that allow them to justify much enormous
budgets. Ronals points out that while Hollywood can benefit from
the Globalization of movie audiences, a film studio in France
cannot because no U.S. of Mexican, or even Belgion Theater will
show its film. The benefits of global film audience are not
accessible to the vast majority of countries, where film
probably would not be marketable to a worldwide audience any
way, because they are not made in English. The concern is that
with every new “Titanic” swallowing up limited amount of money
movie – goers have to spend, there is a risk that there will be
fewer movie goers in France with any money left to spend on
French made movies. Thus the French Government has responded to
the perceived threat of American films to the French film
industry by subsidizing ( or protecting) its domestic industry.
But the subsidy to French film makers is currently in jeopardy
of being ruled invalid by WTO. So the French respond that only
the U.S. benefits from the global movie market, and more
importantly, that without its subsidy for French films, a
critical aspect of French culture is at risk of heavy loss. If
the French film makers want the benefits of the global market
place for movies; then they should develop a global distribution
network like the Hollywood studios have and that should start
marketing movies that a global audience wants to see. If the
movies that the French have to start marketing films like “Water
world”, “Jurassic Park” and “Titanic” then so it be - but it is
practically possible for the French film makers.
So, Ronal concludes that in the
period of financial Globalization the Globalization of each
industry creates similar issues.
Noami Klein examines the issue
from a different aspect. According certain MNCs believe in the
business strategy that force the world to speak in your own
language and absorb your culture. Noami cited one example , ‘In
1983 , when global reach was still a fantasy for all but a
handful of corporations. Harvard business professor Theodore
Levitt published the essay “The Globalization of Market” in
which he argued that any Corporation that was willing to bow to
some local habit or taste was an unmitigated feature. The
world’s needs and desires have been in vocally homogenized”, he
wrote in what instantly become the manifesto of global market.
He pointed out “The global Corporations operates with resolute
constancy – at low relative cost- as if the entire world (or
major regions of it) were a single entity; it sells the same
things in the same way everywhere …… Ancient differences in
national tastes of doing business disappear”’ Then Noami points
out “Levitt’s Global Corporations were, of course, American
Corporations and the “homogenized” image they promoted were the
images of America” Then she goes on ‘The twentieth century’s
familiar bogey – man “American Cultural informative” has in more
recent years, incited cities of “Cultural Chernobyl” in France
prompted the creation of “slow food movement” in Italy and led
to the burning of chicken outside the first KFC outlet in India.
Noami argues, ‘American in
particular, have never been known for their cultural sentiments
and so, not surprisingly the road to Levitt’s global marketing
is paved with cultural faux pas . The most serious of
their task plan after the collapse of European commoners, when
media mongers fell over one another to take the credit for
freedom and democracy the world over – a claim they would pay
for later on. “We put MTV into East Germany, and the next day
the Berlin Wall fell”. Rupert Murdock, meanwhile, told the world
that “satellite broadcasting makes it possible for information –
hungry resident of many closed societies to by pass state
controlled television. Here Noami asserts that by this way of
multiculturism of the world is being transformed into mono-multiculturism.
This according to her culture became, increasingly homogenized
globally. (pp 116 – 117).
Next important part Noami makes is
about in ‘Global Teens’ – meaning thereby how the teenagers of
the world are being culturally polluted by cultural offence of
US imperialist media and the aggressive of U.S. consumerisms
which seeks to control pattern of the teenagers homosenised
world over according to American pattern and taste.
These are some of the most
pertinent facts as to how the Globalization is leading to
cultural invasion by the U.S. imperialism making deep inroad
into the cultural pattern and taste of different countries.
<<
Back ||
Next >> |
