Globalization and cultural change

Global Culture

I find the idea that the world is becoming homogenized to American culture to be parochial, offensive and ill-formed, the product surely of American thinking. Nobody from any other culture would see the world in that light, because they are actually informed about the non-American world. Writers arguing in favor of the idea that the world is becoming homogenized to American culture are laughably ill-informed. They make heroic errors in judgment in their arguments. The reality that there is some evidence of globalization, but only in the most superficial ways has this actually made its influence. Consider a moment the supposition that food and entertainment are changing -- not only is this a great leap but food and entertainment are rather superficial when one considers the depth and breadth of individual cultures.

The first thing to point out is that culture runs rich and deep. America is an outlier in many respects, and there is no evidence that the cultural traits of America are to be found in other countries. Consider the different elements of culture as defined by Geert Hofstede -- power distance, individualism vs. collectivism, masculinity vs. femininity, uncertainty avoidance and time orientation (Hofstede, 2014). The United States has very low power distance, very high individualism, moderate masculinity, low uncertainty avoidance, and a short-term time orientation. On the time orientation, power distance and especially individualism, the United States is an outlier. Its closest neighbors in these respects are other countries derived from the English philosophical tradition -- Canada, the UK and Australia in particular. These similarities are the result of common philosophical roots in liberalism, emphasis on the supremacy of the individual, and date back to the 18th century; not the 20th century influence of America on these countries. Further, there is no evidence that these cultural values have spread in the late 20th century as the result of American influence.

The spread of something like capitalism can hardly be attributed to America either. The philosophers and political economists on whom the theory rests were British -- Smith, Ricardo, Locke, Mill -- such that the United States can scarcely take credit for the idea. Moreover, the forms of capitalism in most of the world reflect local interpretations of these British ideals (Hall, 2000). Nations that trend towards the collectivist dimension (Germany, Scandinavia, Japan) have gravitated towards a different form of capitalism than the U.S., as of nations with dramatically different governance structures like in Nigeria or southern Europe.

Nor has the American system of government gained much traction around the world. Democracy of course is a Greek ideal, not an American one, and for all the purported influence of the U.S. On spreading democracy, the form it usually takes is either northern European in influence or British. Further, today's democratic nations typically evolved as such -- it has not been imposed on them by outside powers. As a general rule, however, most nations do not really have democracy. You can sell the Chinese on Starbucks and the Russians on Big Macs, but selling them democracy and liberty has proven more challenging. When you get past the superficial levels, the influence simply isn't there.

Furthermore, the influence of American culture is overstated, even using the superficial examples. It is true that people around the world did not typically eat hamburgers -- but meat and bread is an old idea. And McDonalds itself adapts to local conditions -- it doesn't sell hamburgers in India. KFC is probably even more popular around the world than McDonalds, and this is telling. People have been frying chickens forever in many parts of the world. It may be some erosion of local culture to give them eleven herbs and spices, but it's not a big stretch -- the basic dish was globally popular long before the Colonel invaded. The influence of American pop culture, on the other hand, has been greatly overstated. Outside of the English world and Europe, nobody cares about American pop stars, and local cinema almost always outperforms Hollywood. Just because most Americans have never heard of the world's gamut of local pop stars doesn't mean they don't exist.

The Internet

Globalization is exactly that, a coming together of global goods, people and ideas. This is not strictly a one-way street, with America exporting itself around the world, and it is absurd to even think that. China has just as much influence around the world, as the dominant power in vast swathes of Asia and Africa. But even the almighty Internet -- an American invention dominated by American companies -- serves mainly as a communications tool. Its openness has become a powerful tool that allows people to build communications in their own image. This newfound openness is by far and away the greatest contribution of American culture to the world -- hamburgers are for people who can't think beyond a high school level. The Internet is not just built on the American model, but on the 21st century American model. This an American culture that has had to be exported to half of Americans, those older enough to remember a time without the Web (Tapscott, 2012). The openness, transparency and shifting communication styles afforded by the Internet is a transference of young, liberal American values around the world.

Globalization and Homogenization

Even with that, however, it can be argued that this culture is by no means homogenous. It has been adapted, as have older ideas like capitalism and democracy, to meet local contexts. It is tempting to look at a handful of global, leading cities and think that this openness to global influence is the norm in the world, but that is not the case. Ghemawat (2012) argues that there are key cities that are becoming globalized, but most of the world is not. Most of the world exists with a few elements of internationalism at best. Todays' burger or blockbuster is just an export, with limited cultural influence, just as in centuries past it would have been crops or gems that found their way around the world. The phenomenon of trade is old, and products are superficial. If a family in Dubai eats KFC for iftar, which of those things is the more deeply-embedded cultural element, the iftar or what is eaten? The food will change over the centuries with availability, but the meaning of the meal will not change.