Cultural Diversity or Global Monoculture
The presentation has sparked an interesting and compelling debate on what we mean by "global culture". It is interesting to note that many of you are contrasting diversity, multiple identities and the intermingling of cultures with a monochromatic [single color] view of culture.
Try to imagine global culture not as a singular set of values, but as a set of multiple values, a composite of multiple identities. It maybe fair to argue that global multiculturalism is global culture and when we are in global cities like NY, LA, Cairo, London, Bombay, HK, Singapore, Sydney, Paris etc.. we get a sense that the age of global cultures has arrived.
This interesting article by Kenneth Keniston contrasts cultural diversity with monoculture and sheds light on the ongoing discussions on this blog. Read the article and revisit the issues already discussed on global culture.
18 Comments:
Keniston uses the Indian culture as a whole to show how global culture isnt monoculture, but it is a combonation of many different cultures. The way that he takes the Information Age as the new American imperialism is an interesting view on monoculture. You always hear about how movies, food and music are the way that American culture is taking over the globe, but very rarely about how the Internet is doing this. Keniston conclusion is this: "the Information Age will not solve the traditional problems of humankind." and goes on to say that the Internet will make many problems worse than before. I agree that not only will the Internet help American culture to spread, but it will also help those on top to continue to exploit those on the bottom.
There has been much class discussion concerning what constitutes a global citizen. It is my belief that a global citizen is one who appreciates the fact that we are all a part of a world community and acts accordingly. Moving on to global culture, it is probably more efficient to understand it as a pyramid. At the base is the largest percentage of the human population as well as the largest percentage of physical geography. These are the major cultures of the world to which millions of people belong in each category. At this level, there is no homogeneity across cultures. Moving up the pyramid to a higher level, one begins to see characteristics of the "salad bowl." This is what Martin Albrow describes in Tooting in "Traveling Beyond Local Cultures." In one community there are various ethnic enclaves. While these enclaves live in close proximity to another, there is little interaction. At this level there are less people than the previous and there is still little cultural diffusion. Further up the pyramid the "melting pot" comes to fruition. This level is conveyed by major international cities such as New York, Hong Kong and London. In these cities, people may still live in ethnic ghettos, but the logistics of a city maximize cross culture interactions and a blending of cultural aspects occurs. Just as with all upward movement in the pyramid, this level has fewer people than the previous. While cities in general may possess the largest populations in the world, this level in the pyramid is only major international cities. Also, the fact that they are international means that a large portion of the people at any particular moment are only in the city for a temporary period of time, resulting in a smaller actual population. At the top levels of the global culture pyramid there exists a large degree of homogeneity. Dr. khan spoke of how Executive Board rooms around the world appear very similar in dress (suits), language (English) and etiquette. Despite these meetings taking place around the world, there are a plethora of similarities. This level represents the smallest population in the pyramid. While it may seem paradoxical for a person to be able to exist at multiple levels at once, the ability to fluctuate between levels is representative of the multiple identities that exist within each of us. An example of this was Dr. Khan's friend who when in his home town was revered by the residents living their because of his important lineage. The traditional village represents the lowest level of the pyramid, which is the richest in pure culture. When he was not in his village, he was not revered by those around and acted accordingly.
9/29
Keniston brings up some interesting points with his spectrum of multiculturalism. One thing that he indirectly mentions is that the American culture, acting as a "global monoculture", is a necessary step for globalism until all of the framework is setup for us to have a true "cultural diversity". That is that, until we have all the programming set up for me to type an email in English and send it to a friend in Spain or India or Japan and have that person read it in their native language, we need a dominant language so that we can all communicate. There are places that complain that American culture is invasive. I personally believe that when the French complain they are just jealous that they aren't the #1 world language. The truth is that American culture is only invasive because people need to use it. Communities can operate locally without any problems and keep all American culture out. If they choose to operate on a larger scale, they have to allow in some American culture. The world will not remain a global monoculture, but we need something until we can make a transition to something better.
10/03
After watching the group presentation I became very interested in the idea of a global culture. I definitely think that we may be moving toward one, but when we will achieve it is very uncertain. I can't see that happening any time soon when there is inevitable conflict between different cultures. I would have to agree with Jason's comment that a global citizen needs to have an appreciation and awareness of the world community. I know personally from living overseas and going to school with kids from all over the World, it is beneficial to see the bigger picture and be aware of cultures other than our own. I was wondering, what values and beliefs do people foresee down the road as being driving forces in the movement towards global culture?
-Laura Coogan 10/3/2005
I agree with John, when he states that the article demonstrates the fact that there are other cultures out there. Although in the presentation we stated that the American culture is the pivotal culture, others can be successful as well. In order for a successful society to exist, other cultures have to exist as well.
I enjoyed reading Keniston article but I tend to disagree with some of the points that were made in the paper. One main point which he argued was that since India is a place where many cultural groups exist and interact peacefully than it shows that it is possible to take part in a global culture with American values but still retain one's identity and remain rooted in the culture. In India the majority of people are Hindu, Muslim or Christian. India's cluster of cultures does not represent a global culture because even though there are Muslims, Hindus and Christians who have different cultures they still have a underlying commonality of generally looking the same. Even though there are some differences everyone has a range of the same skin color. So even though Hindus are different from Christians since you can’t tell them apart based on the skin color the discrimination is significantly reduced. This allows them to retain their specific practices while accepting Western and American values. For example in India, a Christian and Hindu walk down the same street you cannot tell the religion based on the appearance of the person. So even though the other person is of a different religion you still somewhat consider him as part of your culture. This enables you to practice and retain your own cultural values. This not the case for a Christian or Hindu living in the United States. No Christian is going to walk down the street and point to a brown person and consider him as part of the same culture and religion. Since in America you are immediate able to somewhat judge religion and culture based on the fact of skin color it is harder for people to co exist and retain ones own values. One look and you immediately know that the person is a foreigner. I am not saying that it is impossible to retain ones values but it is significantly harder. In India even though there are multiple cultures it is harder to tell a person apart which is something that cannot be said about the US. This makes it easier to retain ones own values. I agree with Keniston that it is possible to take part in a global culture with American values while retaining ones individual culture but I disagree that India is an accurate model of global culture peacefully coexisting.
Arvind Sabesan 10/03/2005
I think the article by Keniston presents a valuable perspective on global culture. Through the spread of information technologies, the author claims (in India), that people may retain their local values and traditions while participating in the global culture. However, I wholeheartedly disagree with the author’s claim. Yes, a global culture very apparently exists…with the ever expanding global communication network and the spread of technologies, people are more connected now than they ever have been. And, culture is a constantly changing phenomenon—influenced by outside forces and continually absorbing characteristics from other cultures. Participating in a global culture and retaining local cultural identity, therefore, will not sustain in the long term. The global culture of today cannot be separated from the spread of the powerful and dominant American culture. Indeed, in many ways, to participate in global culture one is left with no other choice than to “capitulate” to American dominance. The spread of materialism, for example, is breaking down traditions and cultural identities around the world at alarming rates. It is unfortunate, in my opinion, to analyze one country (India) and claim that people can coexist between the global culture and local ones. Take for example the spread of global culture to indigenous communities in South America. To use materialism again – what happens to indigenous peoples in Brazil, lets say, as this American concept is introduced? Centuries of unique cultural systems crumble and cultural identities are blurred and lost. Cultures based on a very intimate existence with the environment are destroyed and replaced by unsustainable want for material goods to the point where communities can no longer function. These small and contained cultures are easily dismantled through the adoption of global culture, and provide examples of what will happen to the larger cultures of today in the long term. Ultimately, I feel that one cannot hold onto local cultural values forever…they eventually erode away as the superdominant American culture overwhelms people everywhere via the constant evolution of our global culture. And what is left of people participating in this global culture? They may still practice their traditional religion or may still speak multiple languages now, but these characteristics will only become the skeletons of previous cultural identities. In the long-term, the invasiveness of global culture will undermine many distinct cultures of today and discourage diversity.
Stephen Stolte 10/3/05
American culture is dominant, but I do not think it is fair to impose our beliefs and morals in other parts of the world. A country needs to have its own individual characteristics. While visiting Italy last spring it became appartent to me just how different America is from other parts of the world. I think a "global monoculutre" would be devestating to the world. Part of traveling and experiencing new places is so fascinating because it is so much different from your usual environment.
America and Western culture should not be criticized because English is a language many people understand and use. The fact that it is a second language to many shows that people can remain local while also taking note of the greater world and the need to be a part of it. They don't lose their local identity just because they understand events happening outside of their personal world. People in India can go see a Hollywood movie and then return to their homes and continue living the lives that are based on their traditions. There is no reason why people cant be a part of their local culture as well as part of the global culture that exists. Through the internet, if they are able to figure out the local languages problem, people should be able to live in both worlds.
Jenna Douglass 10/3/05
This post has been removed by the author.
I agree with Keniston that it is possible to have a global culture but I think that there should be more clarification on what specifically the global culture / global citizen entails. This clarification will allow us to understand where global culture might thrive. The world will never be completely homogenous where everyone does and follows similar principles. However, I feel that as time progresses there will be certain areas of the world which will have a strong push toward becoming a global culture. Keniston believes that a global culture consists of many multicultural groups coexisting together but I think he fails to talk some aspects of the global culture which are important. One of the main aspects that are vital to the proper functioning of the global society is that every culture should have a mutual respect for the other culture. This respect will only come about in a global culture when there is no one culture that is a majority. For example NYC is a multicultural place where many cultures exist but I would not call that a global culture because there is not a mutual respect for all cultures. Even in NYC the Caucasian Christian culture is considered normal and everything else is considered secondary. For example a Christian person practicing his or her religion in the street would be nothing out of the ordinary. However, a Muslim who rolled out a carpet and prayed toward Mecca would be looked upon as different and out of the ordinary. Because of this difference NYC cannot be considered a global culture. A true global society would involve no one culture as the majority and would not have any dominant player. Everyone would be 100 percent comfortable expressing their ethnic culture because no other would be able to suppress that culture. In addition all cultures would be able to relate to each other in terms of technology, jobs, the economy etc. For example they would all wear the same business suit when going to work and all use the same computer technology in their daily lives. They would have a common forum in which everyone could participate in. A person living in this type of society would be considered a global citizen.
Arvind Sabesan 10/04/2005
One of the first things said in the global culture presentation was that before we have a global citizenship, we must have a global consciousness. I think this is a key point in tracking the steps toward the creation of a global culture. Different cultures must not only have a tolerance for each other, they must accept each other's differences in order for there to be a global culture.
I found Keniston's spectrum extremely helpful in defining the different ways civilizations can becomore more (or less) interconnected. The "cultural imperialism" extreme is something that many people feel is occuring in the world today. Non-Western countries think that when Americans talk of 'globalization', they are really just using that word instead of 'Americanization'. While I don't necessarily agree with this, I think that it is important for these countries to hold onto their roots. The dominance of a single culture, or global monoculture, is evident today no matter how many people resist the idea. Personally, I have never been to Europe, but even just hearing a few people in our class speak of their experiences there, it is clear to see that cities once rich with their own culture and heritage are now mirroring American cities. What Keniston refers to as the "Jihad" portion of the spectrum could prove to be a time of extreme violence and intolerance. People's national pride will balloon into a "violent exclusion of all that is not orthodox." It is important to understand all parts of the spectrum in order to know which parts should be avoided and which parts should be something that the global community strive for.
In response to Laura's question of what values and beliefs we see down the road as being driving forces in the movement towards global culture, I think the most important values that I would like to be recognized by everyone in the world, regardless of location, are human rights, freedom of speech, and the right to live in a democratic state. These values obviously reflect me being a citizen of US, however I feel that these values would promote "unity in diversity".
Marissa Brescia 10.4.05
Keniston's article raises some interesting questions concerning the place of individual culture amidst the growing influence of global monoculture. Some have gone as far to deem this global monoculture as "American cultural hegemony... which is an invasive force that weakens, undermines or overrides traditional cultures". Keniston later uses the example of India, where learning English is a necessary precursor to success. Ascribing to a global norm for business or other worldly purposes does not diminish your own heritage. Global culture does not rest on Western norms, or any norms for that matter. It is a combination of different sets of values. My mother was raised in Northern NJ, where the only language spoken in the home was Italian. Her family continued the traditions that were practiced a generation before, in Italy. Living in America made her no less Italian. And, being Italian made her no less American. My mother balanced the multiple sets of values as being an Italian-America, the same way Americans, Indians, and Japanese can balance their distinctive heritage and global culture.
Hey all. I actually have a question about something that is happening right now that relates to global culture and to acceptance of other cultures. I hope you all can help me out because I'd like to hear how other people feel about this issue. I recently heard on the news that France has told its citizens that the government will give them money based on how many babies they can produce. Because immigration to France has seen a huge increase in the Muslim population the French think that they are going to lose their culture. While I can see their point I think that this is also a very Islamophobic mentality (I hope that's a word; I'm not sure if it is but you all know what I mean). I seem to recall that in past years France also instituted a law where no religious affliation could be worn in schools or something like that but it included banning scarves for women. France just seems to be making one religous persecution after another but they continue to do it despite public outrage. On the other hand though, if women who are not Muslim but still travel to certain (not all) Islamic dominated countries, they must be completely covered or else they may be persecuted. One of my aunt's friends was recently traveling in Egypt and she got punched in the stomach in a town market because she was not completely covered (and my guess is also because she probably looked American). Is this not the same sort of attitude that France has? How much should people have to respect and act as the culture of the country that they are in and how much should they be able to retain their own culture of their country of origin? I know that the answer is not definitive but I think that the question has major implications for global travel and learning to live more in a global community. Everyone keeps talking about trying to come up with a global set of morals and such but people continue to disrespect each other in their own country and abroad. I feel like, especially with France's actions, this is a very serious question right now.
Jason Tarasco created a very interesting diagram of global culture comparing the human race to a global citizen on a pyramid. The base of his pyramid consists of the human race, which he claims has no homogeneity across cultures. Next comes the “salad bowl”, then the “melting pot”, and finally the global citizen tops the pyramid. I agree with his logic – a global citizen should be the top of a pyramid that humans climb for the last piece of the pyramid needs to unite all sections underneath it. I would like to expand his pyramid and highlight the importance of a global culture block to that falls under global citizen. One cannot be a citizen without first having a culture to belong in. Already there is a global culture that the elite businessmen and diplomats belong in, sharing common language, dress, and etiquette – the sectors Jason pointed out. I believe this is global culture; the elite already are members of a private global society. The important words are private and elite. The term elite implies a group of selective individuals who are important in their field – most likely they hold the money in the business and the term private means that one can only be a member of the elite if he/she get the invitation. This theory follows Jason’s logic of moving up the pyramid. As humans climb the pyramid to new and higher levels on their way to global citizenship, humans are naturally dropped out of the pool - which narrows down to the poor and less able humans. The elites make up the global culture and will define global citizenship. A global culture already exists; one just needs an invitation to be a member.
Sarabeth Nicholson 10/6/05
It seems like the debate here is about the definition of culture. Some could argue that there has always been a global culture, just one characterized by turmoil and the lack of people to accept eachother for who they are and what they believe in. Other may argue that there will be no global culture until there is a global government, which is too idealistic. Too many differences and too much pride would have to be swallowed for a global government to be accepted by all the countries of the world. It depends on the perspective of the individual to determine if there will ever be a global culture.
Sean Guidera, posted 10/26
Post a Comment
<< Home