Blog2: What is the relation between culture and globalization? - Jeongeun Park

1. Cultural globalization according to John Tomlinson

What is cultural globalization according to John Tomlinson? It refers to the process by which local cultures around the world are increasingly influenced and interconnected by global forces, leading to both opportunities for cultural exchange and concerns about homogenization. He delves into how globalization impacts cultural identities, practices, and experiences on a global scale.

I could notice 6 key ideas on cultural globalization through his book, which are complex connectivity, deterritorialization, cultural homogenization and hybridization, cultural identity vs. power, non-western perspectives and cultural imperialism reconsideration. From now on, I’d like to talk about these main ideas.

First and foremost, Tomlinson argues that cultural globalization is characterized by complex connectivity, meaning that cultures are becoming more intertwined due to advances in communication, technology, travel, and the global economy. People from different regions are now more connected and able to share cultural elements like food, music and media across borders.

Secondly, one of the major effects of cultural globalization according to him is the deterritorialization of culture. This means that cultural practices, symbols, and identities are no longer strictly tied to a particular geographic location. For example, someone can participate in a global youth culture through fashion or media without having to live in a specific country.

Next, a central debate in cultural globalization is whether globalization leads to the homogenization of cultures, where local cultures lose their distinctiveness and become more similar, or whether it creates cultural hybridization where new, mixed cultures emerge. He suggests that while there is certainly some degree of homogenization, the reality is more complex, and cultural hybridization is a significant outcome of globalization. Global influences interact with local traditions, often producing new forms of cultural expression.

He also explores the relationship between globalization and cultural identity, questioning whether globalization threatens local identities or offers new opportunities for people to negotiate and express their identities in diverse ways. He emphasizes that individuals and communities have the agency to resist or adapt to global cultural forces.

While much of the discourse around cultural globalization focuses on Western influence, he stresses the importance of understanding how non-Western cultures engage with globalization. Globalization doesn’t only mean the spread of Western culture; it can involve the circulation of cultural forms from all over the world, leading to a more multipolar view of cultural exchange.

Lastly, in earlier discussions, the idea of cultural imperialism, where dominant Western cultures impose themselves on weaker cultures, was central. He challenges this simplistic view, proposing instead that the flow of culture is more nuanced and involves complex interactions between local and global forces. He acknowledges that power imbalances exist, but cultural globalization is not simply about one culture dominating others, it is also about negotiation, adaptation, and resistance.

In conclusion, John Tomlinson’s view of cultural globalization is very multifaceted. He acknowledges that it can lead to both positive exchanges and negative effects such as the loss of cultural diversity, but he emphasizes the agency of local cultures in engaging with global forces. In his view, globalization creates opportunities for cultural transformation and hybridization, not just homogenization or domination by a single culture.

2. Contrast with earlier theories of cultural imperialism

Additionally, I’d like to discuss about how he contrasts his ideas with earlier theories of cultural imperialism. Because I think this is a key aspect of his work because it shifts the narrative from a purely negative or one-sided view of globalization toward a more nuanced understanding.

Regarding the traditional view, cultural imperialism, much of the discourse around global culture was dominated by the theory of cultural imperialism before Tomlinson. This theory, especially prominent in the 1970s and 1980s, argued that global culture was essentially an extension of Western imperialism, where the dominant cultures, particularly from the US and Europe imposed their values, media, and way of life on weaker, non-Western cultures. Imbalance of power, homogenization and cultural dependency, these 3 things are the key characteristics of cultural imperialism theory.

He doesn’t entirely reject the idea of power imbalances in global cultural flows but challenges the simplicity of the cultural imperialism model for several reasons. Tomlinson argues that cultural imperialism assumes a one-way flow of culture, with Western cultures dominating passive local cultures. However, he believes this doesn’t capture the complexity of how cultures interact under globalization. Globalization, according to Tomlinson, creates a space for a two-way or multi-directional flow of culture. While Western products certainly circulate globally, non-Western cultures are not simply passive recipients. They actively engage with, modify, and sometimes resist these influences.

In addition, a key critique of cultural imperialism is that it underestimates the agency of local cultures. Tomlinson emphasizes that local cultures don’t just absorb global influences passively; they often transform and adapt them, leading to new forms of cultural hybridization. For example, Bollywood’s rise as a global film industry shows how non-Western cultures can integrate global media techniques while retaining distinct local cultural elements. In this sense, globalization doesn’t only lead to homogenization (making everything the same) but also to diversity through hybridization, where new cultural forms are created by blending global and local elements.

He also introduces the idea that cultural globalization is more of a negotiation between global and local forces than a top-down process of domination. He acknowledges that global capitalism and media have powerful influences, but he suggests that local cultures are not merely passive victims. Instead, they negotiate, adapt, and sometimes resist these influences to create something new and dynamic. For instance, global music genres like hip-hop have been localized and infused with local traditions in places like South Korea(K-pop).

3. My Opinion

I find John Tomlinson’s approach to cultural globalization to be a refreshing and more balanced alternative to earlier theories of cultural imperialism. In my view, his argument is insightful because it recognizes the complexity and multi-dimensionality of global cultural interactions, rather than reducing globalization to a one-way flow of Western dominance.

One of the key strengths of his perspective is that it moves away from portraying non-Western cultures as mere victims of Western cultural imperialism. While it’s true that Western countries, particularly the US, have exported their media, technology, and consumer goods worldwide, he shows that local cultures don’t just passively accept these influences. Instead, they often reinterpret, adapt, and localize global cultural elements, creating something entirely new and unique. This perspective acknowledges that local cultures have agency and the power to resist or blend influences, which is a more dynamic and empowering view than what cultural imperialism allows.

For instance, the global rise of K-pop demonstrates that non-Western cultures can thrive globally, shaping global tastes while retaining a distinct local flavor. This hybridization contradicts the idea of Western cultural domination, suggesting that globalization is more of a dialogue than a monologue.

Basically, I agree with Tomlinson’s critique of cultural imperialism as an overly simplistic and deterministic model. I suppose his ideas push us to see globalization not just as a force of domination but also as a site of creative exchange, where cultures meet, blend, and evolve, often in ways that are unexpected and enriching for all involved.