This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
It is unbiased to say that the influence of globalization in the cultural domain has, most usually, been viewed in a negative light. Normally, it has been connected with the devastation of cultural identities, targets of the quickening violation of a regulated, westernized, purchaser culture. This view, the community for which spreads from (some) researchers to anti-globalization protestors (Shepard and Hayduk 2002), inclines to understand globalization as a whole delay of truly, as a understatement for western cultural domination. Or on the other hand Alteration lists understand globalization as a multidimensional process, and not simply economic. Certainly, many scholars have separated theories of globalization into sets of political, economic and cultural globalization. The role of media and communications is frequently argued in terms of cultural globalization. Arguments about the cultural effect of global media are at the essential of discussions on Globalization. Several scholars have made the case for concentrating on cultural globalization, such as John Tomlinson (1999) who notes the importance of seeing cultural performs as vital to the sensation of globalization. Anthony Giddens (1990) describes globalization as "the strengthening of worldwide common relations, who linkage reserved areas in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events happening many miles away and vice versa. Communication routine down the limits of distance and time on social organization and contact. Martin Albrow (1996) moves extra, disagreeing that globalization results in a 'world society'. He defines globalization as "all those courses by which the peoples of the world are combined into a single world society, global society". This idea of a single global society indicates equalization, which has led to the discussion about whether globalization results in homogenization or heterogenisation. In contrast to Albrow, Arjun Appadurai (1996) has more carefully argued that the globalizing cultural forces of media and communications produce compound connections and disjuncture between different cultures. Appadurai (1990, 1996) discusses five 'possibilities' which effect culture, and argues that these factors guarantee cultural variety, and not cultural equality or power. The five 'scopes', all of which mention to a type of movement, include ethnos capes, medias capes, techno capes, finances capes, and icescapes. Ethnos capes refer to flows of people, such as tourists and settlers. Techno capes include technology that crosses borders. Finances capes state to flows of currency markets. Media's capes refer to mass media technology and images . Icescapes also refer to images, but exactly to the political and ideological characteristics. These 'scopes' influence culture not by a even effect, but through their disjuncture's.
The sensation of globalization as the quickening and strengthening of economic Communication among the people, companies, and governments of different nations. Most studies of globalization incline to focus on changes happening in the economic and political provinces. The details of those issues, such as cost rates and international agreements, have fallen within the traditional province of government administrators and political leaders. However, the dramatic changes shaped by globalization have forced policymakers to respond to public pressures in many new areas. Witnesses of globalization are progressively recognizing that globalization is having a important influence on matters such as local cultures, matters which are less concrete and hard to measure, but often oppressed with powerful reaction and argument.
Jeremy Rifkin, a prominent opponent of globalization, writes that:
"The powers that be have long believed that the world is divided into two spheres of influence: commerce and government. Now organizations representing the cultural sphere the environment, species preservation, rural life, health, food and cuisine, religion, human rights, the family, women's issues, ethnic heritage, the arts and other quality-of-life issues are pounding on the doors at world economic and political forums and demanding a place at the table. They represent the birth of a new "civil-society politics" and an antidote to the forces pushing for globalization."
Generally speaking, issues surrounding culture and globalization have received less devotion than the arguments which have retired over globalization and the environment or labor values. In part this is because cultural issues are more refined and complex, and often more confusing.
Globalization vs. local cultures
The prevailing debate regarding the effect of global popular culture industries (Globalization) on local cultures and local identities are significant today more than ever. The reason for this importance lies in the preservation of the traditional cultures and values that are carefully being sewn into the entanglements of globalization. The spread of capital across foreign lands has given a new importance for the hierarchy of order in a country to succumb to radical changes in technology and infrastructure: country, nation, community, subcultures, and the individual. In this respect, the rapid spread of technology and capital in the late twentieth century has now provided a visual look at the pending clash between tradition and globalization. In a world that is arguably dominated by the mass prospect of capital gain and industrial expansion, the significance of "local culture" and "local identity" have been given a new importance. Global enterprises that administer their influence in foreign countries (i.e. Wal-Mart) have devised another counteractive attack to local identities and cultures. In this way, global popular culture industries merely seep in, if you will, into local cultures and identities. In an unnoticeable way, this can be seen through the effect of what is termed "Globalization." "Globalization" is an historical process whereby localities develop direct economic and cultural relationships to the global system through information technologies, bypassing and subverting traditional power hierarchies like national governments and markets. In contrast, "globalization" is often used as a term to suggest the historical processes leading to a more one-way relationship between the "global" realm inhabited by multinational corporations, the entertainment industry, CNN, the Web, etc. and a subjugated "local" realm where the identity-affirming senses of place, neighborhood, town, locale, ethnicity, etc. survive (if just barely) against the global onslaught of global capitalism, media, and network identities. Globalization is a global corporate strategy of tailoring commodities to local markets. This corporate strategy stresses the importance of a product or service specifically adapting to the locality or culture it is marketed in. This fusion of globalization with localization causes a fundamental shift in the way in which commodities from foreign countries inflict their dominant popular cultural norms on a more predominantly traditional atmosphere. Through the unannounced integration of capital in an otherwise traditional atmosphere, the danger, as perceived by the public, lies in the effect it has on local identities and culture. Through Glocalization, a more modern way of subjecting the local with the global industry, the imminent diffusion of the local with global appears clear. The significance of the terms "local identity" and "local culture" have been given such grave emphasis nowadays because of the driving influence of Globalization. This slow market influence has caused self-reflexive awareness for those who are gravely affected by the changes in both culture and identity.
Influence of US. Corporation
One of the principal concerns about the new globalization of culture that is supposedly taking place is that it not only leads to a homogenization of world culture, but also that it largely represents the "Americanization" of world cultures.
The spread of American corporations abroad has various consequences on local cultures, some very visible, and others more subtle. For example, the influence of American companies on other countries' cultural identity can be seen with regard to food, which matters on two levels. First, food itself is in many countries an integral aspect of the culture. Second, restaurants can influence the mores and habits in societies where they operate. While in the United States it is common for people to buy takeaway coffee for drinking in the street or office, in Italy people usually prefer to relax and chat with peers while drinking coffee. Coffee shops offer a personal, friendly atmosphere that many Italians believe a large chain could not provide. Similarly, many people would prefer to frequent coffee shops that are each unique, while Starbucks offers a standard formula. Another example can be seen with the worldwide influence of McDonald's. Fittingly enough, the sociologist George Ritzer coined the term Mc'Donaldization. In his book The Mc'Donaldization of Society, Ritzer states that "the principles of the fast-food restaurant are coming to dominate more and more sectors of American society as well as of the rest of the world." Statistics show that within the last fifty years, McDonalds has expanded to over 31,000 restaurants worldwide.
Dr. Tariq Rahman, National Distinguished Professor of Linguistics and South Asian Studies, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, and Ambassador Akbar Ahmed, Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies, American University in Washington DC, and former High Commissioner of Pakistan to Great Britain, describe issues of cultural globalization in Pakistan "We keep hearing of globalization, deregulation, market, freedom and privatization. They evoke the image of a world without borders where one does not have to stand in long queues to get state-regulated foreign exchange, an era of the rollback of the state and of people empowerment. In short, a brave new world is conjured up. The central magic word that appeared with globalization was privatization. The reality, however, is that the state has a coercive arm which is becoming stronger while its caring side (the one which gave unemployment and pension benefits, free schools and hospitals, etc.) is being rolled back.""â€¦ Freedom and choice have become synonymous with consumerism but not with the freedom to resist the market, to oppose globalization and to oppose the tidal wave of consumerismâ€¦Choice is fine if it refers to Pepsi or Coke but just try telling a poor mother that she has a choice of schools when her monthly income is just enough to live on bread and dal (lentil soup) a day. In short, there is no meaningful choice in the absence of the appropriate income and enabling circumstancesâ€¦""Let me focus on privatization, one of the sacred mantras of globalization. Privatization was not only a product of globalization since Pakistan has always had privately run religious seminaries (madrasahs) as well as elitist English-medium schools. But the state was a bit apologetic about the latter and kept trying to hide them away from the public sight, thus educational reports do not mention them and hope for the bestâ€¦""Musharraf and almost all of the army's generals embrace globalization not only because most of them are from big cities like Karachi and Lahore, but also because it has brought the army significant benefits since 9/11 - most notably, new helicopters, tanks and weaponry. They also appreciate the KFC restaurants, the Internet, and the links with the West that have sprung up in the cities of Pakistan over the past few years. However, these leaders are selective in the aspects of globalization they wish to embrace: They are happy to accept certain economic, military and cultural gains but are equally happy to ignore other more important positive aspects that the West wishes to promote, such as democracy and human rights. To them, globalization presents an opportunity to battle a backward and stagnant form of Islam, represented by the tribesmen, for the future of a prosperous and modern Muslim societyâ€¦Unlike tribal relationships; those in the city are based primarily on financial interactions. Neighborhoods are mixed, and there is no way of deciding why should live next door. As people migrate from rural and tribal areas, their original ethnicities begin to blur. Every immigrant to the city quickly learns new ways of dealing with life: how to trade, behave and interact with a mixture of people. In contrast, tribal life continues along traditionally demarcated lines. Important decisions are still made by tribal leaders. Commentaries published in Karachi and Lahore may condemn their customs and traditions as a barrier to the march of progress, but the tribesmen would argue that globalization is the menace. With its intrusiveness and unrelenting momentum, it threatens the very core of their traditional identity and way of life. Although tribal codes throughout the Muslim world are changing as they confront the forces of globalization, they still influence behavior."