Cultural Globalisation

[BobKKKindle$]

It is clear that the aggressive promotion of American products and the values that are expressed through the marketing of these products is resulting in the rapid disintegration of traditional cultures, including but not limited to, language, and cuisine. To what extent should this consequence of American-led globalisation form part of the socialist critique of contemporary global society?

Some would consider the formation of a monotonous global culture inherently negative with no need for further explanation, but is it not possible to argue that citizens in these countries choose to purchase these products, and it is somewhat reactionary to call for the defense of traditional culture?

I don't quite know what to make of this issue.

[Dr Mindbender]

The expansion of american culture in itself is'nt a bad thing (Considering large parts of its make up, particularly cuisine are from various countries anyway) but I think what is damaging is when that culture becomes synomonous with the beourgiouse strategy for class disparity, and the roots behind the cultural elements becomes lost in context.

[Sentinel]

The world has become a smaller place with the information age. I can't see this development as negative, as a matter of fact it's a fundamental part of our species advancing to the next level of development.

The problem is which information and values are spread, and who is promoting them. We can't and shouldn't fight the development, but work towards eventually taking control of it. In the meantime we must try to keep people informed so that they can see through commercialist, capitalist propaganda.

Promotion of traditional values and isolationism is quite reactionary and goes agaisnt the goal of uniting the international proletariat. The spreading of the english language (much due to american TV shows etc) for instance has opened enormous opportunities of international cooperation among working class progressives.

Just look at RL! :)

[Janus]

This was covered somewhat in this debate not too long ago:
Globalization (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65916&hl=globaliz*)


It is clear that the aggressive promotion of American products and the values that are expressed through the marketing of these products is resulting in the rapid disintegration of traditional cultures, including but not limited to, language, and cuisine.
Globalization isn't a one-way system, it works the other way as well. Americans are exposed to foreign culture while exporting various aspects of their own culture. Generally, inhabitants seek out the best traits of other cultures and attempt to integrate them with their own. Of course, this does result in the dilution of certain traditions and angers the traditionalists but it is in no way an inherently bad thing. Rather, it's a matter with cultural convergence/integration due to technological progress.

[rouchambeau]

The Frankfurt School covers this sort of issue. Try looking into their work.

[p.m.a.]

If you'd like a serious Marxist analysis of the rise of "globalization", I recommend you investigate David Harvey, particularly his book The Condition of Postmodernity. It's a study of the post-fordist changes in Capital, linking it to the development of global culture, the destruction of space-time through technology, and the repercussions for Marxists.

[Eleftherios]

If you ask me, I think the ruthless expansion of American culture to other parts of the world is a terrible, terrible thing. It is cultural imperialism, and that is almost always a one-way system. The other cultures of the world are not allowed to develop freely because of this, and while other cultures may have something very good to offer to the rest of the world, their culture is only kept within the country's or region's boundaries. I can find tons of examples of this. In contrast, some crappy American product can easily be spread all over the world (and this happens all the time).

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Bobkindles
Some would consider the formation of a monotonous global culture inherently negative with no need for further explanation, but is it not possible to argue that citizens in these countries choose to purchase these products, and it is somewhat reactionary to call for the defense of traditional culture?

IMO it is entirely based on what "Traditional Culture" is.

For example in India if you take Caste system, Oppression of Women, Child Marriages etc., as a traditional culture then yes it is inherently reactionary.

But there are some other traditional practices here that are quite progressive and most of them do not need to be defended. They adopt to changing social and cultural factors.

So defense of traditional culture in 70 % of the cases here is inherently reactionary.

[KC]

Cultural hegemony is a development of imperialism.