Globalization and American Popular Culture

This past week, we discussed globalization’s role in American popular culture. We talked about the changes that globalization and popular culture have faced over the years, as well as the influence they have had on the American population.

Globalization has changed drastically since the 1900s, and has expanded all across the globe. Eitzen and Zinn (2006) give twelve instances in how globalization has evolved to fit in with popular culture:

1. Production

a.       Transnational corporations have continued building factories and manufacturing products from low-wage countries all across the world. This brought about the “global assembling line.” Since all these factories and production services has increases, many jobs have been supplying labor services.

2. Markets

a.       Goods and services are now marketed to the entire world. Companies will sometimes place markets and products in certain countries where they know the people will buy their product.

3. Technology

a.       New technologies have transformed information storage and retrieval, communication, production, and transportation. It is now easier to locate, buy, and send products and communicate via Internet to other corporations.

4. Corporate Restructuring

a.       Major corporations have internally reorganized to take advantage of the global economy. They merged and developed alliances with other corporations to ensure global success. The result of this is a decentralization of production and a concentration of economic power.

5. Neoimperialism

a.       Brecher et al. states that “globalization has taken from poor countries control of their own economic policies and concentrated their assets in the hands of first world investors.”

6. Changing Structure of Work

a.       Worker security has declined across the world since globalization has made an impact. Labor unions have lost their power, and employees can simply threaten to move the operation to a place where wages and benefits are lower.

7. Movement of People

a.       Immigration has increased under the current conditions of globalization. Women especially have moved from poor to rich countries. This so-called “feminization of migration” shows a worldwide gender revolution. This has caused a reverse flow of money, as immigrants send money back to relatives in their native land.

8. Global Institutions

a.       Many organizations have fostered transnational trade and provided economic development in underdeveloped countries. These new powerful forces quicken the process of globalization.

9. Neoliberal Ideology and Policies

a.       The neoliberalist theory argues that market forces will bring prosperity, liberty, and democracy if left unhindered by government intervention. Neoliberals promote privatization, deregulation, and dismantling of the welfare state, as well as free trade.

10. Governance

a.       Globalization has diminished sovereignty of nation-states. Because the national government accepts neoliberal ideology, they do not hinder corporate decisions regarding outsourcing and the movement of capital.

11. Permeable Borders

a.       Insularity is not possible now as environmental pollution affects everyone. Also, diseases are difficult to contain and criminal networks flourish where borders are permeable.

12. Global Culture

a.       Global culture is de-ethnicized and deterritorialized. It is established and maintained by the media, corporate advertising, and the entertainment industry. Because of this, a single world culture has been formed.

In Giddens’ essay, he depicts the vast expansion of globalization and its varying consequences. He states that globalization is not a single process, but a complex set of processes. Thus, globalization is the reason for the revival of local cultural identities all across the world. A major point that Giddens makes it that globalization “isn’t developing in an even-handed way…it looks uncomfortably like Westernization – or, perhaps, Americanization,” (2006).

                This concept of Americanization is evident in Crothers’ discussion of globalization in American popular culture.

                Soviet leaders and their allies referred to the West as culturally corrupt. They labeled Western (usually American) cultural products as insubstantial and meaningless, even going so far as to say that they promote poor moral values. Soviet leaders argued that Western values erode public morals and social order, and therefore banned any Western cultural products. However, this ban only made things worse. It stimulated interest among their citizens in American popular culture. Also, in denying their citizens access to Western culture, the governments of the Soviet bloc undermined their own legitimacy.

                Crothers states that a combination of economic, political, and cultural factors promote globalization:

• By making it possible to create more ties among people, social networks, and ideas that span traditional nation-state boundaries
• By linking people in new ways which makes it possible for work, travel, shopping, etc., to take place anytime all around the world
• By increasing the speed of communication and the expectation of instantaneous contact
•  By shaping and reshaping individuals’ ideas and identities as they are exposed to this complex world

Analysts of cultural globalization give three negative effects caused by the global spread of American popular culture:

1. Cultural Corruption

a.       Life in other countries soon became dominated by values such as consumerism, the pursuit of luxury and individual interests. People became more isolated and lacked traditional values. As a result, people’s life orientations shifted from dedication to the social good of their communities to the autonomous desire to satisfy the self (Crothers 27).

2. Cultural Imperialism

a.       The interaction of different cultures will inevitably cause conflict. Members of each culture will seek to destroy or get rid of the other. Increased cultural contact is likely to create violence and fragmentation, which is the opposite of what was promised by globalism’s proponents.

3. Cultural Homogenization

a.       Critics concerned with the concept of cultural homogenization agree that American popular culture may dominate the world. They fear that corporate-produced mass entertainment will ultimately move everyone’s values towards those associated with mass consumer capitalism.

4. Cultural Hybridity

a.       Hybridization has been defined as “the ways in which forms become separated from existing practices and recombine with new forms and new practices.” Hybridization does not always lead to equal cultural exchange, though. Also, Western societies can be as influenced as non-Western communities are influenced by the West. The term glocalization describes a process in which established cultures both shape and are undermined by the emergence of a new cosmopolitan culture whose values and ideals are determined by the demands of globalization.

The economic, political, and social aspects of globalization offer expectations from the promise of a democratic, free market future to the prospect of a global cultural war. Globalization has transformed the world into a interconnected world economy with sharing cultures and expectations.

~*~

Crothers, L. (2010). Globalization and American Popular Culture. Globalization (Third Edition ed., pp. 1-36). Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Eitzen, D. S., & Zinn, M. B. (2006). Globalization: An Introduction. Globalization: The Transformation of Social Worlds (pp. 1-11). Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.

Giddens, A. (2006). Globalisation. Globalization: The Transformation of Social Worlds (pp. 15-21). Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.

Globalization and World Politics

The three readings for the past week by John Baylis et al., Anthony McGrew, and Ian Clark both discuss the evolution of Globalization and its growing impact on the social, economical, and political aspects of the world. They argue how differently Globalization has emerged since the early 1900s and how its present effects are changing world views.

                 

       Baylis et al.’s Introduction begins by discussing the transition of Globalization from international politics to world politics. The interest with world politics resides in that it is more inclusive and follows political patterns in the world, not only those between nation-states (Baylis et al., 2). The authors state that there are two main theories to world politics: idealism and realism. Their theory of idealism encompasses the view of how the world should be and tries to aid in events to make it that way. Realism, on the other hand, stresses viewing the world as it “really is” rather than how we would like it to be.

               

      Realism focuses primarily on the states. Their ideology is that human nature is fixed and therefore, selfish. Resulting from that, world politics “represents a struggle for power between states each trying to maximize their national interest,” (Baylis et al., 4).

While realism has been the prominent way to explain world politics over the last century, there are also many other theories present, including:

• Liberalism

o   Liberalists argue that human beings are perfectible, democracy is required for that perfectibility, and that ideas are important. They reject the theory that war is the natural condition of world politics and question whether the focus should be on the state or not.

• Marxism

o   Marxists believe that world politics occur within a world capitalist economy where the most important population is classes. In this setting, class conflicts are played out. They also believe the most dominant feature is global capitalism.

• Constructivism

o   Constructionists argue that we “make and re-make the social world and so there is much more of a role for human agency than other theories allow,” (Baylis et al., 5). People who view the world as fixed do not understand the possibilities for human progress and the enhancement of people’s lives.

• Poststructuralism

o   Poststructuralists are concerned with any accounts claiming to have direct access to “the truth.” They believe there is no “truth” that exists outside of power – which all power requires knowledge and all knowledge relies on power relations.

• Postcolonialism

o   Postcolonialists state that theories such as realism and liberalism have aided in securing the domination of the Western world over the global South, but are not neutral in terms of race, gender, or class (Baylis et al., 6). They believe that global hierarchies are made possible through social construction.

McGrew’s discussion transitions to discuss the economic and cultural transformation of the effect of Globalization. Over the decades, global interconnectedness has become increasingly evident through economics and cultural events.

McGrew continues on to conceptualize globalization, and characterizes it by:

• A stretching of social, political, and economic activities across political frontiers so that one region of the globe experiences its effects from another region.

• The intensification of interconnectedness

• The accelerating pace of global interactions and processes as transportation and communication becomes easier worldwide

• The growing extensity, intensity, and velocity of global interactions

McGrew states that globalization embodies a process known as deterritorialization. In this process, social, political, and economic activities are increasingly “stretched” across the globe, becoming a significant sense no longer organized solely according to a strictly territorial logic (McGrew 18). This theory also encompasses the idea of a “shrinking world,” meaning that the sites and subjects of power may be far apart.

The Westphalian Constitution of World Politics is also brought up in this discussion. There are three sections to this constitution:

1.       Territoriality

a.       Humankind is organized into exclusive political territories with fixed borders.

2.       Sovereignty

a.       Within those borders, the government has the right to supreme, unqualified, and exclusive political and legal authority.

3.       Autonomy

a.       Self-determination constitutes countries as autonomous containers of political, social, and economic activity within its borders.

In all, Baylis et al.’s Introduction and McGrew’s discussion of Globalization and it’s impacts and theories show that the concept of globalization is transforming the Westphalian idea of sovereign statehood. They also state that globalization is beginning to transfer from international politics to global politics.

                Clark discusses the different orders of globalization and how those have changed world views over the years.

                He lists four different typologies of orders:

1.       Globalized

a.       This typology focuses on the global system, and involves the end of national politics, societies, and economies.

2.       International

a.       This typology focuses on the states, and concerns itself with the agenda of sovereignty and stability.

3.       World

a.       This typology focuses on humanity, and concerns itself with human rights, needs, and justice.

4.       Globalized International (Clark’s viewpoint of Globalization)

a.       This typology focuses on globalized states. It concerns itself with the agenda of managing relations between states penetrated by the global system but still distinguishable within it (Clark 547).

Clark extends the Westphalian order theory from Baylis et al.’s and McGrew’s discussion. He talks about the post-westphalian order and how it ties into Globalization.

Globalization is usually seen as an effect of the cold war since it led to its further geographical spread. However, it should be understood that globalization is also a factor that led to the end of the cold war: “it was the Soviet Union’s marginalization from processes of globalization that revealed, and intensified, its weaknesses,” (Clark 552). So, from this it should be stated that globalization is an element of continuity between the cold war and post-cold-war orders.

Globalization can also be viewed as an extreme form of interdependence, which follows the idea of an outside-in development. But, if consideration falls so that globalization is seen as a transformation in the nature of states, then it would seem that the states are still the main focus of the order. This would follow the idea of an inside-out development because the globalized state would be in state form.

Overall, each chapter discusses the main elements of Globalization and some of their effects on the world. While the views of the evolution of globalization may differ, they all agree that globalization is transitioning. More social, economical, cultural, and political values are being spread throughout the world as access to travel and communication are becoming easier.

~*~

Baylis, J., Smith, S., & Owens, P. (n.d.). Introduction. The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction  to International Relations (5th ed., pp. 1-14). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Clark, Ian (n.d.). Globalization and the post-cold war order. The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations (5^th ed., pp. 546-557). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McGrew, Anthony (n.d.). Globalization and global politics. The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations (5^th ed., pp. 15-30).

Czechoslovakia and the Velvet Revolution

                The year 1989 meant a time for change for many different people across the world. From Europe to South America, countries were changing, and people were revolting. As Krishan Kumar quoted in his document, The Revolutions of 1989: Socialism, Capitalism, and Democracy, “’Socialism is dead,’ agreed Ralf Dahrendorf…‘communism is gone, never to return,’” (Kumar 309). 

                Kumar follows through with his statement about the death of socialism with the theory that this death of socialism is coupled with the search for utopia. He argues that if utopia was then known as socialism, then the death of socialism must mean the death of utopia. But nonetheless, a utopian society was essential for a community.

                Vaclav Havel even stresses the importance of a utopian society. In his document, Power of the Powerless, he states that, “for what else are parallel structures than an area where a different life can be lived, a life that is in harmony with its own aims and which in turn structures itself in harmony with those aims?” (Kenney 27-28). Havel describes his theory or parallel structures in which a parallel polis results from a second culture of an independent and repressed culture. He essentially says that through independence and release from repression, a community can live in peace and harmony with one another. 

                Havel played an important role in the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia. He was transformed from a playwright to the President of a new democratic Czechoslovakia. The movie, The Power of the Powerless follows the journey of the Velvet Revolution and the rise to power of Vaclav Havel.

                On November 17, 1989, a communist-sanctioned commemoration of the 50^th anniversary of Jan Opletal’s death was being held (Kurtz 1). Opletal was murdered by Nazi forces and was a symbol of Czech resistance. After this ceremony ended, protesters moved into downtown Prague towards Wenceslas Square. They were soon stopped and beaten by riot police. 

                Havel held a meeting with Charter 77, which resulted in the creation of Civic Forum, an organization that held public demonstrations (Kurtz 1). This group was responsible for the riot of Czech citizens shaking their keys as a method to end the regime. With the many protests and demonstrations held, eleven days after the initial November 17^th riot was held, drastic changes were made. These changes are as follows:

• The resignation of the whole Politburo
• The creation of a compromise government
• The establishment of a democratic government

                The Power of the Powerless film was very helpful in guiding me through the events that took place in the Velvet Revolution. As I’ve said before, actual footage and eyewitness accounts make the events and actions seem more real to me since I obviously was not there myself. Just hearing about it firsthand and seeing what was going on really sticks with me. There was one part of the film where a couple of Czech students were discussing the Velvet Revolution. They said that it disheartens them whenever they talk about the Velvet Revolution and other people don’t really know what that is. I mean, that is such a major event for their country, and some people don’t even know about it. That would depress me, too! That would be like people in America not knowing about World War II, or the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

                To continue with Kumar’s document, he states that Czechoslovakia, along with many other countries, “had socialism imposed on them by military force from outside, [and] all show the desire to return to old symbols of nationhood,” (Kumar 318). Czechoslovakia, in this instance, did not want to be under the influence of communism or socialism. They simply wanted a peaceful change to democracy, like many other countries. But, in order to do so, a revolution had to be established to knock out the old regime.

                Kumar further investigates the similarities between both the 1989 and the 1848 revolutions. Both were “revolution[s] of the intellectuals,” led by poets, musicians, philosophers, and professors (Kumar 325). The revolutions of 1848 brought up questions about nationality and class that resurfaced in 1989. Polish and Czechoslovakian cultures collided in 1848, and were brought back again in 1989. So, Kumar makes the point that history repeats itself, and people must learn from it.

                Kumar also notes that Czechoslovakia’s Charter 77 during the Velvet Revolution, along with the “democratic opposition” in Hungary and Solidarity in Poland, shared many of the same characteristics (Kumar 330). They all shared wide-range activities (samizdat publishing, political discussions in public settings, and trade-union organizations).

              

                 In all, the revolutions of 1989 and the Velvet Revolution of Czechoslovakia had a lasting effect on the countries involved. The move to new governments through large social organizations and riots brought the people together to achieve one common goal: utopia.

               

~*~

Kenney, Padraic. 1989: Democratic Revolutions at the Cold War's End : A Brief History with Documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2010. Print.

Kumar, Krishan. "The Revolutions of 1989: Socialism, Capitalism, and Democracy." Theory and Society 21.3 (1992): 309-56. Web. 8 Aug. 2013. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/657580>.

Kurtz, Lester R., Ph.D. "Czechoslovakia's Velvet Revolution." International Center on Nonviolent Conflict (2008): 1-6. Print.