Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Big Mac or Big Whack?
Globalization, according to Steger, is the new "buzzword." This is concerned with the ever-growing interconnectedness of politics, economics, culture, and ideologies around the globe. However, with this growing interconnectedness comes a homogenizing of peoples, cultures, and languages. I believe that this homogenization is somewhat tragic. I mean, yes, most people will only concern themselves with the economic benefits they can in turn receive. This change from the World to "McWorld" is somewhat interesting. Is it truly moral for us to concern ourselves with wiping out other cultures to further spread this intense idea of consumerism? This sole concern for economic gain causes us to turn a blind eye to all the unethical actions taken. How is it in any way our place to have an influence in so much or to "modernize" everything we can get our hands onto? In some ways, globalization serves the greater good, but how can we ethically justify stepping on other countries/cultures and keeping them down to further promote ourselves in their own homeland?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Oh...snap. I'm sorry. I think I was writing my post when you had already put yours up. I would have tried to condense all that under a comment instead of using up a post.
Well, it's still somewhat a reply. If I didn't address everything (or anything at all, for that matter) I will look at it again and make a proper reply. Again, my apologies.
"Is it truly moral for us to concern ourselves with wiping out other cultures to further spread this intense idea of consumerism?"
With globalization comes with better economic and physical health (through medical technologies). Saying that we are "stuffing" our culture down other peoples throats, is absolutely ridiculous. Are you saying that you do not want the opportunity to buy music that came out of Atlanta because it is not the same as the music that came from wherever you're from? If you didn't like music out of Atlanta you wouldn't buy it. Saying that the expansion of cultures and the fact that I CAN eat balut with our friend 'Octo-Hobo' (sorry, I've had it once and am not a fan, but I appreciate the fact that I have the option to eat them with you) is a bad thing is almost offensive. I feel that America is a good example of where our world is headed if we keep up with Globalization at its current pace.
Do most people eat, or enjoy eating, unborn ducks out of their shells? No, not to the best of my knowledge. Is it still available in America? Yes. The parts of cultures that are less desirable seem to go away, because there isn't a market for it. That does not mean things are stamped out arbitrarily, and it is not necessarily a bad thing.
It is hard to keep my thoughts straight and on track when I can only see 6 sentences at a time. I apologize if I skipped around as much as I feel I have; this just rubbed me the wrong way.
I'm not discouraging the simple fact of diversity. It's not that I don't want to listen to music from Atlanta because it's not music from Memphis. I agree with you that with globalization comes some positive things, but it's not always a positive experience for everyone. I was simply trying to raise the question if it was moral for us to force our influence in every society. Maybe not everyone wants to change. In various developing countries, people don't have the amount of resources that large corporations can acquire, thus their sense of livelihood is diminished. They can't compete with the production of the large corporations, thus they are forced to integrate into this new system. Take a group of hunters and gatherers such as the !KUNG. They travel from place to place living off the mongongo nut. Their whole source of life revolves around this simple nut. It is in essence their livelihood for they eat, trade, and travel determined by this nut. This society communicates by a system of clicks of the tongue. This is literally their language. If their society were to be "globalized" as we know it, their language would most likely cease to exist as would their basic sense of society. Their life as they know it would cease to exist. It might seem that their life would be more positive, but they would have lost what made them the society they once were. I'm just saying what gives us the right to integrate certain societies without precedent? Not everyone might want to be infiltrated, but they will have not choice. They can't compete.
"I was simply trying to raise the question if it was moral for us to force our influence in every society."
Again, you are saying that we are forcing other cultures to change. It is almost impossible to force yourself into a market. If you are not "wanted" then you will not exist (unless the government, like our own, stupidly protects industries).
"Maybe not everyone wants to change."
If the majority did not want to change, then they wouldn't... Globalization exists because superior products are introduced to markets.
Additionally, just because an area is 'globalized' does not mean that their entire language will be wiped out. If, by some chance, it does fade out it will because they have adopted a more useful language. Those people can still communicate just fine, or can most likely communicate more efficiently. What has been lost?
More importantly, is what is lost not worth what has been gained?
"Again, you are saying that we are forcing other cultures to change. It is almost impossible to force yourself into a market. If you are not "wanted" then you will not exist (unless the government, like our own, stupidly protects industries)."
Maybe I am misunderstanding this quote...
So, are thus making the argument that societies that we don't want in our market economy we leave alone? If so, it would seem that we thus pick and choose which societies we want to "globalize." Or are you trying to say that if people don't want to be "globalized" they won't be?
As far as a society being able to control if they accept the change or not...Since when is the majority in charge? I don't agree that the majority of the people are the ones making the decisions. It's normally high ranking officials or corrupt governments that choose to accept the infiltration.
And as far as to what extent people have a choice...Some developing countries are in such a state of poverty or need that they would have no choice but to accept the change. And, in some ways, yes globalization would benefit them. But I still think it has devastating consequences.
As far as the usefulness of the language, the language of a society is just as useful as the next. The only reason that a language would become more useful than that of the original language is because of the infiltration the people experience. They could communicate with each other just fine before the change, thus the language is only more useful due to the change.
i think i understand what you are saying originally, Joy. However, I think it is important to remember one of the things that we try to do with globalization is better the country's situation with relief, such as Red Cross or Peace Corps etc. But with this comes contact with our culture. So the question is, is it worth the possibility of a loss of cultural identity to get relief and aid from other countries?
oh and i like your title. just wanted to throw that out there
I would like to just throw out this idea:
I understand your description of "McDonalization." However, as Steger points out in Chapter 5, homogenous cultural forces cause people to go outside of the "norm." So, in essence, homogenous, cultural globalization can ultimately cause an influx of new ideas and bring about diversity. As you may recall, many people get to the age when they don't want to be just like their neighbor - they want to be themselves. This idea plays a role in the context of cultural globalization. Does this make sense??
Post a Comment