Globalization's impact on homogenization, deterritorialization, and hybridization in American culture

¶ … Globalizing Trends on the National Culture of the United States

Globalization has a number of different meanings, with economists regarding globalization as a process that is more completely integrating the world marketplace, while political scientists may consider globalizing trends as a gradual move from conventional definitions of the state that are characterized by territorial sovereignty and the development of nongovernmental actors in the world order (Farazmand, 2002). Likewise, many academicians view globalizing trends as being so many steps towards a so-called "borderless world" while other analysts consider the trends as being fueled primarily by the private rather than the public sector (Farazmand, 2002). Irrespective of the precise definition that is used, a common feature of globalizing trends is the issue of national borders and how these borders have become more porous in recent years. A good example of this process can be found in the highly multicultural United States. To determine the facts, this paper provides a review of the relevant peer-reviewed and scholarly literature to determine the impact of several key globalizing trends on the national culture of the United States, namely homogenization, deterritorialisation, hybridisation and transnationalisation, followed by a summary of the research and important findings concerning these issues in the conclusion.

Review and Analysis

Homogenization

Some analysts believe that globalizing trends that are reshaping the national culture of the United States are destroying the traditional "American way of life. Although the traditional American way of life may have only applied to a certain demographic in the past (read rich white Americans), these critics are lamenting the impact of homogenization on the national culture nevertheless. In this regard, Giardina and Metz (2003) note that, "American cultural critics have argued that in 1990s America the nation has been involved in a crisis of identity, a struggle between who and what counts (and will count) as ideal 'American' subjects" (p. 203). Rather than making the United States a more egalitarian country, the theory goes, the globalizing trends that are driving the homogenization of the nation are manifesting themselves in spheres of influence, each with a different set of interests. As Giardina and Metz conclude, "This perceived crisis of national identity is grounded in the belief that what has traditionally been deemed the 'American way of life' has become threatened at the hands of various bodies operating within the space of the nation, each exerting more and more influence on the nation and its citizens" (2003, p. 203). Indeed, if this theory holds true, globalizing trends are having the opposite effect from homogenization, making the United States a nation of enclaves of self-interested actors uninterested in assimilation or learning the English language who share little in common except time zones and geographic borders.

Other analysts, though, argue that globalizing trends are homogenizing the United States in fundamental ways. Although the United States is no longer referred to as a "melting pot" but rather a "tossed salad" today, it is clear that globalizing trends are fueling homogenization of the national culture of the United States. For example, Hamilton and Huntley (2001) report that, "In this age of political and economic centralization, mass communications, and increased physical mobility the trend is undoubtedly in the direction of homogenization. In the United States today, for example, the North and South differ much less in the character and quality of black-white relations than they did in the past" (p. 15).

Certainly, race relations remain at the forefront of the American political discourse, particularly in the wake of the Ferguson, Missouri shooting and the nationwide demonstrations that have ensued, but the fact that Americans of all colors and creeds are taking part in these demonstrations is proof positive of the increasing homogenization of the national culture of the United States. In this context, homogenization does not refer so much to the blending of bloods but the blending of cultures, with people electing to take what they like from one and applying to their own. In fact, President Barack Obama's recent efforts to reform the nation's immigration laws to provide illegal aliens with an opportunity to become legal naturalized citizens speak volumes concerning the willing acceptance of the American culture for the cultures of other nations.

The United States is an enormous country that contains more than a third of a billion people with several different ethnic groups, religions and even languages as shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1

Demographic breakdown of the United States

Demographic

Statistics

Ethnic groups* white 79.96%, black 12.85%, Asian 4.43%, Amerindian and Alaska native 0.97%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.18%, two or more races 1.61%

Religions

Protestant 51.3%, Roman Catholic 23.9%, Mormon 1.7%, other Christian 1.6%, Jewish 1.7%, Buddhist 0.7%, Muslim 0.6%, other or unspecified 2.5%, unaffiliated 12.1%, none 4%

Languages**

English 82.1%, Spanish 10.7%, other Indo-European 3.8%, Asian and Pacific island 2.7%, other 0.7%

*A separate listing for Hispanic is not included because the U.S. Census Bureau considers Hispanic to mean persons of Spanish/Hispanic/Latino origin including those of Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Dominican Republic, Spanish, and Central or South American origin living in the U.S. who may be of any race or ethnic group (white, black, Asian, etc.); about 15.1% of the total U.S. population is Hispanic

** The U.S. has no official national language, but English has acquired official status in 28 of the 50 states; Hawaiian is an official language in the state of Hawaii

Source: CIA World Factbook at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook / geos/us.html

Some other indications concerning the current national culture in the United States can be discerned from Geert Hofstede's several culture dimensions. The Hofstede cultural dimensions for the United States are set forth in Table 2 and depicted graphically in Figure 1 below.

Table 2

Geert Hofstede's cultural dimensions for the United States

Dimension

Description

Score

Power Distance

Power distance is defined as the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organisations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. It has to do with the fact that a society's inequality is endorsed by the followers as much as by the leaders. One of the most salient aspects of inequality is the degree of power each person exerts or can exert over other persons; power being defined as the degree to which a person is able to influence other people's ideas and behavior.

40

Individualism

This score is the highest in the world. The American premise of "liberty and justice for all" is evidenced by an explicit emphasis on equal rights in all aspects of American society and government.

91

Masculinity

This score is high and can be seen in the typical American behavioral patterns. This can be explained by the combination of a high Masculinity drive together with the most individualistic drive in the world.

62

Uncertainty Avoidance

Americans tend to be more tolerant of ideas or opinions from anyone and allow the freedom of expression.

46

Pragmatism

The United States scores normative on the fifth dimension with a low score of 26 as reflected by the fact that the U.S. is the one of the only "Caucasian" countries in the world where, since the beginning of the 20th century, visiting church has increased. This increase is also evident in some post-Soviet republics such as Russia.

26

Indulgence

This dimension is defined as the extent to which people try to control their desires and impulses, based on the way they were raised. This score makes the U.S. A relatively high indulgent society

68

Source: Adapted from Geert Hofstede's cultural dimensions (2014) at http://geert-hofstede.com/united-states.html

Figure 1. Geert Hofstede's cultural dimensions for the United States

Source: Based on table in Hofstede (2014) at http://geert-hofstede.com/united-states.html

Taken together, the score on individualism, the highest in the world, with its emphasis on "liberty and justice for all" makes it clear that despite being a "Caucasian" country (this is changing rapidly as noted in Table 1 above), the United States has an increasingly homogenized culture that embraces and celebrates cross-cultural differences, but this generous tolerance level only applies if these cross-cultural differences are not viewed as being threatening to the "American way of life." Another globalizing trend that has affected the national culture of the United States is deterritorialisation as defined and discussed further below.

Hybridisation

This term carries some powerful negative connotations that mirror modern reactions to arguments in favor of race separation for fear of the mongrelization of a "pure race." Nevertheless, the actual meaning of the term provides a useful approach to analyzing the effects of globalizing trends on the national culture of the United States. For example, Bell and Bell (1998) note that, "In linguistic terms, hybridisation is creolisation, which, despite its sometimes negative connotations, is an equally productive metaphor. No cultural nationalist welcomes the label of creolisation, yet if the colonising centre is itself seen as a result of the same intermixing the insult might be softened" (p. 10). In sum, then, the same forces that have been driving globalization have exposed more people to far more languages and cultures than was ever possible in the past, and it is little wonder that foreign words and phrases wend their way into the national lexicon. This process may be viewed as harmful (just ask French-speaking Quebecers), but it is in reality a neutral outcome that can only be viewed as negative if it is judged, like changes in the "American way of life," as deviating from a superior former standard. As Bell and Bell conclude, "It should be obvious that the label [hybridisation] is only demeaning if one assumes what the process denies: that in cultures and languages there ever was a fixed, authentic centre or norm against which all derivative cultures should be judged" (1998, p. 10).

Transnationalisation

Like hybridization, transnationalism is typically cited a fundamental outcome of globalizing trends. For example, Duany (2011) reports that, "The cultural dimensions of globalization have been conceptualized as transnationalization, hybridization, Creolization" (p. 19). The process of transnationalization is defined by the United Nations as "the increased activity by international corporations and their expanding role in the world economy" (The process of transnatinalisation continues, 1998, p. 54). By contrast, Duany (2011) defines the globalizing trend of transnationalism as "the processes by which immigrants build social fields that link together their country of origin and their country of settlement," a process that includes "multiple relations -- familial, economic, social, organizational, religious, and political -- that span borders" (p. 19).

In this context, the globalizing trend of transnationalism has also rapidly accelerated the speed and volume of population movements between other countries and the United States over the past several decades (Duany, 2011). Although the United States has built a wall across the entire border it shares with Mexico to keep people out (to no avail), the border between the U.S. And Canada is the world's longest unprotected border. North Americans therefore have virtually total transnational capabilities, and Americans enjoy the privilege of unrestricted travel in Mexico for short periods of time. The party stops there, though, and this globalizing trend has been interrupted to a significant extent by the aforementioned U.S. Patriot Act and the other sometimes-draconian security measures that have been taken in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, but the importance of the physical presence of an individual in one country has been diminished, as noted above, by virtue of the other globalizing trends, most especially deterritorialisation.

Conclusion

The world is becoming a smaller place, and the importance of national borders for the citizens of countries that enjoy unrestricted access to the Internet and freedom of speech has diminished or evaporated entirely. The research showed that globalization has a number of different meanings, but there are some common features that can be evaluated by examining the globalizing trends of homogenization, deterritorialisation, hybridisation and transnationalisation and how they affect the culture of a nation. The research also showed that in an already highly multicultural society such as the United States, these globalizing trends have facilitated communications and information sharing in ways that have allowed people to more easily gather together in physical and virtual spaces. Given that these outcomes have already been realized to some degree or other, it is reasonable to conclude that the national culture of the United States has been highly influenced by these and other globalizing trends.