In their essay “Beyond Globalization Theory,” James Curran and Myung-Jin Park state: “Cultural theorists write with infectious enthusiasm about globalization as a process that is increasing international dialogue, empowering minorities, and building progressive solidarity. Political economists, on the other hand, write about globalization as a capitalist victory that is dispossessing democracies, imposing policy homogenization, and weakening progressive movements rooted in working-class…political organizations” (10-11). Globalization rhetoric consists of both negative interpretations/connotations and positive interpretations/connotations. As Curran and Park make evident, some theorists applaud globalization as a method of incorporating regional societies into a global web of trade, communication, and technology, while others view globalization as the destruction of regional economies and culture – an implication of one society’s values on other, less powerful societies.
On pages four and five of “Beyond Globalization Theory," Curran and Park highlight the pros of globalization through the modernization theory. From the ‘modernization’ perspective, global media systems are the catalyst for modernization in developing or Third World, non-Western countries. According to the theory, global communication is the gateway to modernization and media outlets are the medium through which global communication is transmitted. Yet Curran and Park argue that imposing a modern, “Western” medium of communication on a developing country has the potential to affect the country politically and socially. By giving citizens of the developing world access to First World media, which essentially broadens their awareness of cultures “outside their village” (4), we (or First World countries) are inducing the potential for political upheaval and the uprooting of that country’s unique culture and social systems. Imposing our communication systems on a country with a different economy, a different political system, and different social values (i.e. smaller amount of technology usage) has the potential to destroy the equilibrium of that country’s economy and government.
Curran and Park state that, “‘modernization’ of developing countries merely fosters dependency within an exploitative system of global economic relations. It promotes American capitalist values and interests, and erodes local culture in a process of global homogenization” ("Beyond Globalization Theory" 5). Thus, despite the notion that globalization creates a “global village” and transnational unity, this ‘unity’ can be viewed as a conformity to Western culture. While the creation of ‘McJobs’ in the Third World creates the appearance of a global economy and that the West is ‘helping’ the developing world, this transmission of industry not only wipes out local culture, it creates an economic dependence on Western countries. When a Third World country’s economy becomes comprised of Western corporations like McDonald’s, is there any economic sovereignty left in that country? And how can a Third World country financially support Western corporations? The West’s expectations of these countries can be seen as too high and too self-serving.
However, in contrast to the arguments characterizing globalization as a negative process, Curran and Park quote Anthony Giddens’ theory that, “Globalisation is becoming increasingly decentered – not under the control of any group of nations’…The rise of new communications technology, compressing time and space and transcending national frontiers is…reducing national division…people are better connected…through international channels of communication” (“Beyond Globalization Theory” 7). Thus, transnational connections are only possible through global communication, which, as Curran and Park go on to say, increases global awareness of public affairs, empowering individuals with knowledge of the world and other cultures they may not have had access to prior to global media. Yet, reliance upon global media to connect the world poses an array of problems in countries that do not have access to technology. As Pippa Norris discusses in her article, “Information Poverty and the Wired World,” poorer nations that do not have Internet access are being left out of the “global village” simply because they have little to no exposure to global media. She argues that countries without internet access are pushed to the periphery of communication networks (2) and their exclusion is essentially creating social disparities between those included in the ‘information age’ and those that are left in the realm of ‘information poverty’. She quotes Kofi Anan’s words that living without telecommunications services is comparable to living without basic human necessities like food and water (6). Thus, if global communication is the key to modernization and a strong force fueling globalization, how is globalization effectively incorporating all nations into the ‘global village’ when many don’t even have access to any form of media communication? This obvious impediment questions the incentives behind globalization – is it really in the best interest of all countries or is there an ulterior, capitalistic motive fueling the process?
Works Cited
Curran, James and Myung-Jin Park. De-Westernizing Media Studies: “Beyond Globalization Theory.” London and New York: Routledge, 2000. Print.
Norris, Pippa. “Information Poverty and the Wired World.” The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics. Vol. 5, No. 3, (2003): 1-6. Web.
No comments:
Post a Comment