Custom Media Essays
Back To Custom Essay Example Page?
How useful is the concept of cultural imperialsiim for understanding the
influcene of western media on no western audiences?
Introduction
To best answer the question within
the title we need first to define the concept of cultural imperialism so as to
ascertain how it differs from traditional modes of imperialism; it is important
to understand how cultural imperialism is a logical by product of the long and
varied history of the west’s relationship with the rest of the world and how
this, in turn, affects the global perception of western media within non‑western
audiences. We then need to look at the most important concept in the study of
cultural imperialism, the advent of globalisation as an economic and political
reality. And finally we likewise need to define and examine the influence and
limits of western media (and new media) to discern its relative power within
the broader pattern of westernisation which has been discernible across the globe
for the past thirty years.
Before we begin we must be aware
that the history of imperialism frequently exists within individual western
cultures and it is important not to see cultural imperialism or indeed any kind
of colonisation as purely a western tactic of oppression against the rest of
the world. Britain, for example, although known as the classical
imperial nation of the world until the end of World War One at least, is a more
interesting case study (in the context of this particular study) for the
extreme form of cultural imperialism that existed within its own borders.
As the island fragmented into three
separate nations, with another autonomous culture across the Irish Sea, one
civilisation grew to be numerically and thus militarily more significant than
the other two. Inevitably England used its strength to impose its own brand of
cultural imperialism on first the strategically weaker Welsh and next, invoking
a protracted campaign of subjugation, against the Scots to the north. The English
imposed their culture upon the Celtic peoples of the island via brutality and
imperialism, stationing troops in both countries and forcing the local
population to breed with their colonial masters so as literally to root out the
essence of their individuality and homogeneity. Customs such as the Highland
attire of wearing kilts was banned for periods in the middle ages and an
official policy of extermination was pursed by London in relation to the Welsh
language. We can thus see how imperialism is an inevitable phenomenon of
evolution, one which, as we will demonstrate, is greatly accelerated by
modernisation and industrialisation. Britain is an example of the continuation
of imperialism and why being on the receiving end of it does not necessarily
entail an end to its global practice.
Cultural imperialism
“A great deal of the world’s
history is the history of empires. Indeed, it could be said that all history is
imperial – or colonial – history, if one takes a broad enough definition and
goes back far enough.” (S. Howe, Empire: a Very Short Introduction, p.1;
Oxford University Press; Oxford, 2002)
Imperialism, as a concept of one
culture attempting to dominate another, is as old as the paradigm of
civilisation itself, as we have already ascertained. History has traditionally
cast imperialists as war mongers, typified by the Spanish and Portuguese
occupation of Latin America from the sixteenth century and the Scramble for
Africa in the second half of the nineteenth century, both renowned cases of
advanced European cultures imposing their way of life and customs upon a people
ill equipped to spurn their military and technological advances. This is what
we will refer to as either political or traditional imperialism, which is
ideologically different to cultural imperialism, although the lines of
distinction between are frequently blurred, as Harvey explains.
“Imperialism is a word that trips
easily off the tongue. But it has such different meanings that it is difficult
to use it without clarification as an analytic rather than a polemical term. I
here define that special brand of it called ‘capitalist imperialism’ as a
contradictory fusion of ‘the politics of state and empire’ (imperialism as a
distinctly political project on the part of actors whose power is based in
command of a territory and a capacity to mobilise its human and natural
resources towards political, economic and military ends) and ‘molecular
processes of capital accumulation in space and time’ (imperialism as a diffuse
political‑economic process in space and time in which command over and
use of capital takes primacy).” (D. Harvey, The New Imperialism, p.26;
Oxford University Press; Oxford, 2003)
Cultural imperialism is a key
feature of Marx’s critique of media theory, which he viewed as dominated by the
ruling classes. Via this domination, he argued, the ruling classes would best
be suited to perpetuate their stranglehold on power.
“The
ideas of the ruling classes are in every age, the ruling ideas: i.e. the class,
which is the dominant material force in society, is at the same time its
dominant intellectual force. The class which has the means of material
production at its disposal has control at the same time over the means of
mental production… in so far as they rule as a class and determine the extent
and compass of each epoch, they do this in its whole range, hence, among other
things, they regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their
age; thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch.” (K. Marx & F.
Engels, Selected Works, pp.64‑65; Lawrence & Wishart;
London, 1968)
Cultural imperialism is therefore,
a social phenomenon that occurs at a later stage of a long historical chain of
colonialism that cannot be viewed out of its political and economic context.
Cultural imperialism is an intangible form of colonisation that was practised
by the western empires that took over the world and exploited insidious and
organic link between conquerors and conquered. It is thus a vague concept that
is hollow out of the specific context of its territorial and political
evolution and we must therefore take a look at the ways in which western
culture attempted to dominate foreign societies before the advent of the mass
media and westernisation.
“At some point west Europeans ruled
most of the world, but they never ruled all of it. Japan, China, Tibet, Thailand,
Persia, Afghanistan, and most of the Arabian Peninsula were not incorporated
into overseas empires.” (D.B. Abernethy, The Dynamics of Global Dominance:
European Overseas Empires, 1415‑1980, p.255; Yale University Press;
New Have & London, 2000)
If one looks at the countries and
regions that Abernethy cites as beyond the historical influence of Western
European cultural expansion it quickly becomes apparent that all except China
and Tibet have fallen under either the political or economic control of the
USA. That means, quite simply, that the USA and/or Europe have controlled, at
some point in history, almost the entire planet.
It is an immensely important point
because to understand the importance of western media upon non‑western
societies we must first comprehend the level of influence of historical
cultural ties, how the west has penetrated societies for centuries, opening up
the indigenous psyches to the fundamentals of western civilisation. Centuries
of undermining local heritages and cultures have resulted in a modern world
which is already au fait with the fundamental characteristics of western
civilisation even before the arrival of the digital media age, which clearly
makes the role of the western media one of re‑enforcement, not
instillation.
Furthermore, as a by product of
western imperial strategy, political imperialism has helped to establish
systems of law that are more western and international in their influence than
necessarily geared towards the social problems of the nation in question. The
contemporary issue of Iraq will provide analysts with the answers to the
presently hypothetical questions of the transplantation of western law in non‑western
societies.
World War Two hastened the end of the
traditional European colonial influence in most parts of the world. Two
superpowers remained ideologically, economically and politically supreme and
both were quick to realise the benefits of cultural imperialism, specifically
media imperialism in cementing their authority domestically and
internationally. The USSR used a primitive form of propaganda to minimise
nationalism and political dissent in its territories but the truth remained
that fear of reprisal and brutality remained the reason for the externally
peaceful façade of the Soviet Union. The USA, on the other hand, was quick to
realise the value of democratic cultural imperialism; the wholesale western
saturation of what the US Establishment perceives to be the ‘American dream.’
Thus, much of the accelerated
westernisation that has been witnessed since the second half of the twentieth
century has been as the result of American influences. Scholars are
increasingly discussing this process of Americanisation, the traditional powers
of Western Europe conspicuous by their absence from the discussion, and we must
bear this in mind when discussing the international problems of media and
modernity.
Westernisation
is tantamount to Americanisation. The United States leads the way in terms of
food (MacDonald’s), drink (Coca‑Cola) and visual entertainment (Hollywood
cinema). Thus, “world patterns of communication flow, both in density and
direction, mirror the system of domination in the economic and political
order.” (J. Sinclair, E. Jacka & S. Cunningham, Peripheral Vision,
p.297 in, F.J. Lechner & J. Boli (Edtd.), The Globalisation Reader,
Second Edition; Blackwell; Oxford, 2004)
“It
could be argued that the BBC produces a product that is as internationally
persuasive and pervasive as any other global corporation. It has certainly been
responsible for producing a form of cultural hegemony that has helped to
dictate and form British public opinion and social attitudes for nearly a
century.” (G. Creeber, Hideously White: British Television, Globalisation
and National Identity, pp.28‑29, in, Television and New Media
Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1, February 2004)
We clearly need to look further
than the influence of cultural imperialism and western media for the
westernisation of the globe, which has been taking place with greater
acceleration for the past forty years. We need to analyse ways in which the
west affects people’s real lives in non‑western societies.
Globalisation
The single most important
contemporary factor behind the ascension of western culture, even in the far
reaches of the globe that the European powers failed to penetrate in the
nineteenth century, is the economy and, specifically, the economic reality of
the concept of globalisation. “Globalisation means the spread of free‑market
capitalism to virtually every corner in the world.” (M. Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive
Tree, p.9; Farrar, Straus & Giroux; New York, 1999) As a paradigm,
globalisation entails bringing the entire planet up to speed with the economic
dynamics of the west, which serves as a model blueprint for non‑western
societies to attempt to emulate.
“The North‑South conflict
will not subside, and new forms of domination will have to be devised to ensure
that privileged segments of Western industrial society maintain substantial
control over global resources, human and material, and benefit
disproportionately from this control. Thus it comes as no surprise that the
reconstitution of ideology in the United States finds echoes throughout the
industrialised world.” (N. Chomsky, Towards a New Cold War: Essays on
the Current Crisis and How We Go There, p.84; Pantheon; New York, 1982)
The North‑South conflict to
which Chomsky refers is the gulf in standard of living and economic capability
that exists between the north and south hemisphere. And he his quote has proved
prophetic, although no conclusion can be offered on a process that is ongoing
and is, as yet, relatively virgin territory for scholarly analysis.
It becomes clear that the global
adoption of western attitudes with regard to political and economic structures
is a deep‑seated process that has evolved over centuries and is embedded
at an institutional level. It is a highly relevant point because, without these
building blocks in place, western media would have no influence whatsoever on
non‑western societies. We must now turn our attention to the modes of
western media that are used as tools of cultural imperialism to ascertain its
worth in penetrating autonomous national cultures.
The impact of western media and
the limits to its influence on non‑western audiences
“What can the West do to help bring
about the kind of Russia with which it can be in partnership? The first step is
to be realistic. There are definite limits to the West’s ability to influence
Russia directly, at least through government policies.” (D. Yergin &
T. Gustafson, Russia 2010 and what it means for the World, p.288;
Nicholas Brealey; London, 1994)
Historically, Russia has been the
United States’ ideological nemesis in modernity. The abolition of communism in
1991 and the subsequent adoption of western forms of economic liberalisation
and parliamentary democracy has been a less than smooth process. Indeed,
Washington has found its efforts often thwarted in trying to install the type
of political administration that they would most like to see in the Russian
Federation. However, the adoption of western‑style media in Russia has
achieved what official policy has failed to do.
In August 2000 the Kursk submarine
sank in the Barents Sea killing all one hundred and eighteen people on
board. In the aftermath, the Russian
government tried to blame the disaster on a collision with an American
submarine that had been covertly tracking the Kursk, a ludicrous claim that was
finally retracted after British scientists offered conclusive proof of an
explosion caused by a torpedo on board. (Vanishings: The Kursk Lost at Sea; The
History Channel, 18 February 2005)
In the days of the Soviet Union,
newspapers and television in Russia would no doubt have reported the same
propagandist theory of western intervention as a way of avoiding domestic
culpability. However, with the influence of western media style free press and
the brand of investigative journalism that accompanied democracy to Moscow at
the beginning of the 1990’s, the Russian media were quick to point to the blame
that lay at the hands of the government and in fact press pressure was cited as
the reason that President Vladimir Putin spent over US$130 million, twice the
Russian Navy’s entire operating budget for a year, to raise the Kursk from the
depths of the Barents Sea in October 2001. It is a key point in determining the
influence of western media on non‑western audiences and the example of
Russia bequeaths another key fact: that western media, as a tangible influence
in a non‑western society, can only have an impact in a culture that has
assumed the same freedoms of speech and opinion that has marked Russia’s
transition to democracy. Without this fundamental political ideal of freedom of
speech already in place, the cultural divide that naturally exists between the
imperialist and the colony only widens.
There are therefore definite limits
to what western media alone can achieve from the perspective of non‑western
audiences. We have mentioned Hollywood as a visual form of American
entertainment export and there is of course popular music that is generally
considered a western phenomenon. But the influence of other modes of modern
media on non‑western audiences has natural barriers set against them,
namely language and custom. However, exposure is achieved through a saturation
of international television channels and funding given to local economies that
is overseen so that western capital is not wasted on irrelevant nationalistic
concerns. Capital is likewise injected into the local media economies to ensure
a democratic marketplace for ideas and opinions and not a perpetuation of
command, authoritarian style media. This pattern has been reproduced in most
parts of the world that have experienced the effects of globalisation. The
former Soviet Bloc have opened up their domestic media markets to foreign
investment and development and a similarly inquisitive style of journalism is
prevalent, like that which had curtailed some of Putin’s policies in Russia.
However, whereas western media has resulted in a more responsible form of
government in many parts of the world it has failed to impact huge swathes of
the planet.
China stands as a lone example of a
nation that has opened its doors to economic westernisation yet resisted the
urge to adapt to a western political model. Thus, in terms of the domestic
Chinese media, the level of influence the west can claim to have over decision‑making
and unbiased reporting is negligible. The media remains state‑controlled
in China and her territories and there are severe restrictions to western media
distribution, including new media solutions, which obviously diminishes the
cultural influence of the west in that part of the world. Moreover, North Korea
remains shut off diplomatically from most of the civilised world. But the USA
and the west have more deep‑rooted problems in trying to exert their
cultural influence elsewhere.
In
recent generations the west has been reminded of the existence of a strong,
fundamental challenge to prevailing globalisation concepts; a form of identity
based not on nationalism or economics but on religion and it is here that we
find the influence of western media, in parts, to be virtually non‑existent.
“The emergence on the world stage of the Ayatollah Khomeini suggested the
potency of another way of envisioning governance and human destiny that rested
on traditional values and the primacy of religious leaders and institutions in
shaping the life of society.” (R. Falk, A Worldwide Religious Resurgence in
an Era of Globalisation, in, F. Petito & P. Hatzopoulos (Edtd.), Religion
in International Relations: the Return from Exile, p.182; Palgrave
Macmillan; New York, 2003)
The history of the cultural war
between East and West that appears inexorably destined to mark the twenty‑first
century has its roots within the same chronological time frame as the process
of conquest and political imperialism. The Ottoman Empire was the only major
contemporary rival to dominant forms of Western European ideology in the
nineteenth century and the geographical proximity resulted in a long‑running
cultural stand‑off. “In spite of frequent warfare, cultural exchange
between Ottomans and the West ranged from watchful tolerance to benign
contempt. The Christians had a long‑standing horror of Islamic
contamination, going back to the rise of Islam and intensifying with the
Crusades. The Ottomans were more tolerant of religious difference but the
millet system combined permissiveness with an effort to seal off Christian
minorities into segregated communities.” (P.D. Curtin, The World and the
West: the European Challenge and the Overseas Response in the Age of Empire,
p.178; Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, 2000)
This cultural siege mentality has
survived in most Islamic states into the twenty‑first century. The Arabian
resistance to western media and culture is truly remarkable considering the
change that has been witnessed in Japan, India, Eastern Europe and China. We
can categorically state that, in terms of the Arabic states of the Middle East,
the influence of western media on non‑western audiences is virtually non‑existent
and its presence is frequently barred by local law, as was the case until
recently in Afghanistan.
The attempt by the West to impose
its system of territorial states and regional representation upon the region as
a form of political imperialism (that was also inserted with equally
detrimental results in south‑eastern Europe) has resulted in a cultural
backlash in the Middle East that serves as a barrier against western media
imperialism to this day.
“In past years, the foremost
challenge to the (territorial state) system came from the doctrine of pan‑Arabism
(qawmiya), which sought to eliminate the traces of Western imperialism
and unify the Arab nation, and the associated ideology of Greater Syria, which
stresses the territorial and historical indivisibility of most of the Fertile
Crescent. Today, the leading challenge comes from Islamist notions of a single
Muslim community (umma). Intellectuals and politicians, denouncing it as
an artificial creation of Western imperialism at variance with Arabic yearnings
for regional unity, have repeatedly urged its destruction.”(E. Karsh, Rethinking
the Middle East, p.1; Frank Cass; London, 2003)
So, rather than existing as a part
of the world that has ‘come around’ to the western way of thinking,
transplanted by centuries of political and economic domination, the Middle East
is instead a region that has traditionally rejected the cruder forms of
historical western political imperialism. Consequently, cultural imperialism
and western media have little influence in the Middle East, certainly in
comparison with the rest of the civilised world.
We have witnessed how traditional
forms of western media have a limited scope in terms of the impact they have on
non‑western societies and that cultural imperialism has definite limits
to its real‑term qualitative qualities. However, the 1990’s witnessed the
advent of the new media tool that is quite literally reshaping the world that
we live in, especially regarding issues pertaining to information exchange. The
Internet has sparked a cultural revolution within the west and pried open
avenues of exploitation that did not exist even in the wildest dreams of the
early western imperialists. “We are journeying into a new period in which more
and more human experience is purchased in the form of access to multi‑faceted
networks in cyber space.” (J. Rifkin, The Age of Access: How the Shift from
Ownership to Access is Transforming Modern Life, p.11; Penguin; London,
2001)
The impact of the expansion of the
Internet has divided scholarly debate concerning the ways in which it will
affect popular media culture in non‑western audiences. Initially it was
thought that the broad potential for establishing web sites and exchanging
information that would otherwise be barred would be of benefit to the non‑western
cultures and would likewise help local economies and fortify indigenous
cultures. The truth has sadly been a mirroring of the broadcasting and
journalism media phenomena that have accompanied globalisation, namely that the
power to transmit information on a large scale rests with western capital.
The Internet remains predominantly
a western tool of commerce and not an international means of media liberation.
Furthermore, the increased availability of the Internet and digital satellite
communication systems in the western world has served only to exacerbate the
considerable divide that already existed between western and non‑western
cultures. Western society is now increasingly defined by its space‑time
distancing. Traditional, non‑western societies, on the other hand, are
characterised by direct interaction between people living in close proximity to
one another. The two polar opposite cultures are in fact moving further apart
as parts of the world strengthen their resolve against western cultural
imperialism and seek to turn back the advances of human technology, while the
west continues its astonishing leap through time and space. Clearly, no
conclusion can be offered of the influence of the Internet on non‑western
audiences at present.
Conclusion
“Imperialism
is much vaguer than the empire. Its extent and limits are less definite, and
for that reason open to interpretation and dispute. Power cannot be measured
exactly. Because it is very rarely a one‑way process – you need a certain
amount of compliance to give you power – it is rarely a straightforward
quality.” (B. Porter, The Lion’s Share: a Short History of British
Imperialism, 1850‑2004: Fourth Edition, p.9; Longman; London, 2004)
Cultural imperialism is a vague
concept that cannot be understood outside of the context of traditional forms
of imperialism. As a distinct branch of national culture, media is thus also
intrinsically tied to the historical ties of the west and the rest of the
world, ties forged centuries before the advent of the global media age. The
influence of western media on non‑western societies is therefore bound
with the history of international relations between the two cultures. Without
an organic amount of compliance from the local population, which takes
generations to form, the influence of western culture and media will continue
to meet serious immovable obstacles to qualitative success. By far the most
important factor is the presence and reality of economic globalisation. It is
opening just such previously closed doors for western culture to penetrate,
which is packaged attractively as economic aid and the pursuit of the western
capitalist dream.
Finally, we must be careful to
recognise the two‑way principle that is always at play behind the façade
of cultural imperialism, how indigenous cultures influence commentators of the
conquering power in the same organic way that the colonialists affect local
culture. “Because of empire, all cultures are involved in one another; none is
single and pure, all are hybrid, heterogeneous, extraordinarily differentiated,
and un‑monolithic.” (E.W. Said, Culture and Imperialism,
introduction xxv; Chatto & Windus; London, 1993)
Similarly, the roles are reversed
in societies that are hostile to any form of western imperialism. Just as
western media has led a campaign of propaganda against Islam, so the
fundamentalist Moslem states of the Middle East have resorted to the same
discriminatory measures. As the only global ideology in the world to remain
truly non‑western, the culture of the Middle East appears set on an
inexorable course of collision with western media, society and culture.
As Chomsky underscores, “the goal
of the imperial grand strategy is to prevent any challenge to the power,
position and prestige of the United States.” (N. Chomsky, Hegemony or
Survival? : America’s Quest for Global Dominance, p.13; Hamish Hamilton;
London, 2003) With this in mind it seems that the USA is prepared to resort to
modes of imperialism that historians had already written obituaries for:
traditional, military conquest of sovereign overseas territories so as to
impose western culture on ideologically opposite civilisations. As we have
seen, this remains the only viable route for establishing western media and
cultural influence at grass‑roots level on non‑western
audiences.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
D.B. Abernethy, The Dynamics of
Global Dominance: European Overseas Empires, 1415‑1980 (Yale
University Press; New Have & London, 2000)
N. Chomsky, Hegemony or
Survival? : America’s Quest for Global Dominance (Hamish Hamilton; London,
2003)
N. Chomsky, Towards a New
Cold War: Essays on the Current Crisis and How We Go There (Pantheon; New
York, 1982)
P.D. Curtin, The World and the
West: the European Challenge and the Overseas Response in the Age of Empire
(Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, 2000)
F. Furedi, The New Ideology of
Imperialism (Pluto; London, 1994)
D. Harvey, The New Imperialism
(Oxford University Press; Oxford, 2003)
S. Howe, Empire: a Very Short
Introduction (Oxford University Press; Oxford, 2002
J. Rifkin, The Age of Access:
How the Shift from Ownership to Access is Transforming Modern Life (Penguin;
London, 2001)
E.W. Said, Culture and
Imperialism (Chatto & Windus; London, 1993)
D. Yergin & T. Gustafson, Russia
2010 and what it means for the World (Nicholas Brealey; London, 1994)
Selected Articles
R.
Falk, A Worldwide Religious Resurgence in an Era of Globalisation, in,
F. Petito & P. Hatzopoulos (Edtd.), Religion in International Relations:
the Return from Exile (Palgrave Macmillan; New York, 2003)
Journals
G.
Creeber, Hideously White: British Television, Globalisation and National
Identity, in, Television and New Media Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1 (February
2004)
|
