Globalization, language, and culture

[BobKKKindle$]

In popular discourse on globalization, an important issue is the alleged development of a single global "monoculture" and the aggressive promotion of western cultural values through advertising, resulting in the collapse of traditions and established values, especially in developing countries. An aspect of "cultural globalization" which is seen as an area of special concern is the decline of languages, as economic globalization puts pressure on young citizens to learn languages that will enable them to communicate with corporate professionals, which often comes at the expense of traditional languages, which may not be useful outside of one's ancestral village or region. At the same time, however, there is also a tendency towards cultural hybridization which produces new forms of expression, based on a combination of multiple different cultures which had previously been isolated.

As socialists, we need to discuss how we respond to these developments. Is cultural diversity an inherently good thing? Or, to put it another way, is the "death" of local languages (or, for that matter, any other aspect of indigenous culture, such as cuisine) a bad thing, something we should fight against? In a recent class discussion, someone argued (knowing that I am a socialist) that lingual differences can serve as a source of division and detract from the need for class unity - is this true?

[jake williams]

It's an interesting and important, and quite difficult and complex question. I'm going to offer some thoughts, but have it understood I'm genuinely unsure about all of this.

First off, I despise colonialism, and that whole paternalistic mindset about how We're Really Good and we're spreading our whatever all over the world to the poor backward natives.

On the other hand I just don't really like much of "traditional" cultures either. A lot of their basic values about interactions between people and gender and pleasure, and all their superstitions, I just don't agree with them that much. I don't think they should be replaced with McDonalds and MTV, but I have trouble seeing their inherent values.

To address specifically languages, we do have to consider the value they have for historians and linguists, professional or otherwise, even if beyond that they're not valuable in and of themselves for society.

To talk about the inherent value of cultural diversity, we do have to determine exactly what we're talking about. If we're talking about funny clothes and foods with exotic ingredients, and even quirky languages to some degree, it's obviously harmless and is generally enjoyable. But I think this is relatively trivial for everyone involved, and the things people actually care about go much further.

If we're talking about a multiculturalism where some people beat their wives and some don't, where some expect the world to end on Thursday and to be then saved, differentiated from their spiritually insufficient neighbours, and some have sense... I think it's clear that this is not a multiculturalism one should support. But a society of general freedom for individuals and societies, even of open discussion about basic operating values of human and social life? I'd support that.

[Red_or_Dead]

Well, I would start out with my view that culture is more a thing of an individual, than of a nation, or any other community. With that I mean that everyone is free to pick the culture(s) he/she likes. For example, I am a metalhead. I like listening to metal, and I like to look like a metalhead. I am a part of a culture, that is NOT the same as the culture that is supposed to be the culture of my nation (which would be polka, beer and church on sundays). Now, I know that some may argue that my "culture" is actualy just an obscure subculture, but I couldnt disagree more. For me it is a culture, just like any other. To put it all in one sentence: everyone picks his/her own culture. Thats how I see it, and thats how I believe it should be in a socialist/communist society.

Language: having so many languages is stupid. Its another thing that separates people, and imo, having world languages like English is extremly good. Learning new languages is never a waste of time.

Globalization: yes, but not as a tool to spread capitalism.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

As socialists, we need to discuss how we respond to these developments. Is cultural diversity an inherently good thing? Or, to put it another way, is the "death" of local languages (or, for that matter, any other aspect of indigenous culture, such as cuisine) a bad thing, something we should fight against?
Not inherently, no. Culture is never inherently good or bad - it is a matter of personal preference, and it is only useful insofar as it makes people happy. If people are not happy with their culture and wish to adopt a different one, why should we stop them? There is no reason why it should be necessarily better (or worse) to have a greater number of cultures.

However, the destruction of indigenous cultures is often a side effect and tell-tale sign of imperialism. In that case we should oppose it, not because we care about the preservation of cultural diversity or other such liberal nonsense, but because we are anti-imperialists. We should oppose the spread of Western consumerism, but without committing ourselves to the protection of (often feudal) indigenous cultures. The goal is to promote the creation of a new socialist culture, not to preserve the old.


In a recent class discussion, someone argued (knowing that I am a socialist) that lingual differences can serve as a source of division and detract from the need for class unity - is this true?
Yes, that is most definitely true. But people don't need any help from us to adopt a common international language - they're doing it very effectively right now.

[Vanguard1917]

As socialists, we need to discuss how we respond to these developments. Is cultural diversity an inherently good thing?


Interesting thread. I would say that cultural diversity is not inherently a good thing. It's a fact of life - cultural differences exist - but it should not be turned into a political end or goal.

Indeed, one of the truly progressive developments of the capitalist epoch, at least from the perspective of Marxism, is the creation, or at least the potential to create, for the first time in history, a truly world culture.

The Communist Manifesto celebrates this cosmopolitanism and the capitalist market's creation of a 'world literature':

'The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.'

Of course, we should oppose the cultural imperialism imposed politically by the West. But this should not mean dismissing the progressive developments of developed societies. Reminds me of what CLR James once said: 'I denounce European colonialism...But I respect the learning and profound discoveries of Western civilisation.'