globalisation

Suddenly, this gives me a thought. Do people really care about the cons on moving into a global culture? Professionals like businessman, politicians, traders definitely don't; they are more then willing to support it. For a student like me, who is coerced to look into such issues due to an important examination, often ended up being cynical about the world? We looked at debates, trying to understand the complexity of these issues, but in the end, nothing can be done. People in power have more things to be concerned about; activists and protesters are often turned downed.We, as selfish people, are too busy to unite ourselves and come up with solutions.

Consider the merits and drawbacks of a global culture.
Globalisation is a phenomenon which has far-reaching implications on the way we live our lives. In a world increasingly interconnected by the accessible media such as the Internet as well as modern travel, links are increasingly being forged across continents. The continous interaction of ideals, thoughts and attitudes have led to the formation of a global culture - a way of life which is no longer determined by geographical boundaries or ethnic origins. It is telling that many young people in this modern era feel they can identify more with people on the other side if the globe with whom they communicate with through the INternet than with their own family members. A global culture is not a term which is easily identifiable or defined, but it is sufficient to say that there is a trend towards the amalgamation of previously separated cultures on a scale unmatched in history. A cultural paradigm shift such as this demands a consideration of its impact in the world's population.

The move towards globalization has obviously eradicated most of the barrier which prevented the free transmission of ideas. People nowadays are more aware of issues and incidents across the world pertinent to their own lives. Citizens in the Western world are more than ever, intensely concerned with the democratic processes in developing countries such as Zimbabwe. This increased the awareness of how issues around the globe affect the way we lead our lives is a welcome change form the previously xenophobic attitudes many countries possessed. In some sense, the very presence of a global culture has led people to be more accepting of other ways of life and cosmopolitan cities such as San Francisco have demonstrated how different communities can interact peacefully and even celebrate a fusion of their cultures. The development of a global culture means that people are no longer bounded by stereotypes of other communities, since it is more difficult to cling on to these stereotypes if one’s own cultural identity is shared by other communities. The popularity of Chinese themed fusion restaurants in New York, and its recently opened Disneyland in Hong Kong are testament of how people embraced this global culture which has sought to preserve the best of what each subculture has to offer while combining it in a manner which makes it attractive to all sorts of people. This not only leads to a more vibrant, varied way of life, it also helps to breed cultural understanding and acceptance among different groups.

Furthermore, the development of a global culture means that people are no longer bounded by geography in developing their own niche interests. Youth in traditionally conservative countries like Japan are no longer bound by the restrains of culture and tradition because the global culture has enabled them to find counterparts in other ocuntires who think in similar ways. Previously, these youths could have been forced to conform to their conservative culture allowed no avenue to develop new ideas and concepts. It can be argued that allowing people to break free from their cultural restrains and interact across cultures, enables them to find a group of people more attuned to their interests, instead of remaining disillusioned in a system which discourages the development of new ideas. Looking at the way youths in China agitate against the boundaries laid in place by the government as a result of exposure to previously ideals of democracy and free speech demonstrates on how global culture can break restraints and foster the development of revolutionary exciting ideas.

While the discussion thus far has tended to portray traditional ethnic identities or cultures as being anachronistic, it cannot be denied that there is much which should be kept and treasured in these traditional cultures. After all, these roots present us with a sense of history as well as differences which ought to be celebrated. The danger of a global culture is that it has the potential to gloss over these differences, or worse, to distort them in such a way that makes them unrecognizable in the constant quest for a global culture. There have been instances in which the intrusion of other cultures has led to despoiling of legacies which arguably should have remained intact. There was a furore about how Starbucks, a coffee chain with distinctively Western identity has set up a store right in the Forbidden City of China itself. In such a scenario, the drawback of the global culture is that it failed to differentiate between what could be assimilated into a shared culture and what should be remained the distinct cultural property of the Chinese people. The development of a global culture is an unrestrained one carried out by people with no proper agenda, and it is perhaps in the midst of this, people undermined the best parts of a traditional culture. The symbol of Starbucks in Forbidden City is perhaps a lingering reminder of how an insensitive application of a symbol of global culture has led to a situation worse off then before.

Increasingly, there have been criticisms arguing that globalization acts as a force for western imperialism. It is unavoidable that acts as barriers are broken down and cultures interact, that the way of life propagated by the American has taken the front seat due to the America’s dominance in the economic and political spheres. As such, the tendency to degenerate into a culture dominated by one way of life is perhaps the greatest drawback of the global culture. The way traditional arts in Singapore has been passed over in the influx of high budget Hollywood movies, is a clear example of how there has been a disproportionate amount of Western influence over the supposedly ‘global culture’. This distorts global culture such that it is no longer a culture shared and participated in equally by the people of the world. Instead it is merely Western culture that is largely influential and applied almost indiscriminately across the globe.

It is evident that such a distortion of the global culture acts as a greatly divisive force instead of a unifying one. The trend of counter-globalization has picked up pace in the recent years, and in some cases it is argued that the acts of militant Islamic terrorists are due to their hatred of Western culture encroachment and imposition on a heritage they hold dera. This does not of course excuse their acts, but in very fact that pople are willing to die and kill in protest of this cultural imperialism provides a sense of caution that global culture is not always the uniting force it theoretically should be. Across the globe, people protest at the increasingly dominant role America is taking, not only in democratic institutions, but in our very living rooms. It seems that global culture will always have to face a truly assimilating force, or one dominated by the ruling power of the time. The promise in ancient times of a Pax Romana, a unification of the known world at the time, is an obvious parallel in the way the superpower’s institutions and way of life come to override that of other culture it assimilates. The question remains as to whether such dominance is inevitable in the formation of a global culture, or if it can be prevented by sensitivity on the part of America.

In conclusion, the advent of a global culture holds a great promise; however, it faces the dangerous tendency of being a culture which insensitivity overrides others. There is little doubt that a global culture can be very strong integrative or disintegrative force, depending on whether the balance is struck between taking the best from traditional cultures or completely eliminating them. In the end, regardless of the merits and demerits of the global culture, it seems it is here to stay, and the best attitude to take towards it would be probably be one of moderation ensuring that it remains a vibrant global culture instead of a boring homogeneous one. The distinction, if made, will determine if global culture will benefit or drag humanity down.