Globalization may be best defined as a process of information being sent and received among different countries throughout the world. Looking at the etymology of the word “globe” one can see it refers to a spherical model[1]. This word description implies the need for information to be in all directions, three dimensional, encompassing all countries, with a multidirectional flow, not one which is unidirectional. As Curran and Park describe, however, global cultural diversity, although visible in some aspects, has its foundation in domination by western culture[2]. Fischer describes how the decoding of information is different across the globe[3]. Curran and Park maintain that this decoding I done through an “American conception of the world”[4]. The difference in message decoding is manifested in economical and social arenas. This idea is supported by Hardt as he states how speech, thought and perception are a result of constant exposure to the “power in the public sphere”[5]. Noam Chomsky’s work reinforces this idea. In the documentary, Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky states,
When you can’t control people by force, and when the voice of people can be heard, you have this problem; it may make people so curious and so arrogant they don’t have the humility to submit to a civil rule and therefore you have to control what people think and the standard way to do this is to resort to, what in more honest days, used to be called propaganda, the manufacture of consent, is a creation of necessary illusions; various ways of either marginalizing the general public or reducing them to apathy in some fashion[6].
Globalization can, therefore, include a process of the transfer of information which may be controlled, misinterpreted, or reinterpreted depending on the environments in which it is sent and received, encoded or decoded. On the other hand, countries of the world may be subject to the lack of traveling information as a result of the social, economic, or political climate present which may result in a lack of information due to differences in technology, speed, or value. This lack of information may fall into the category labeled “information poverty”[7]. As Pippa Norris describes in his article, there are positive and negative aspects to the growing use of the internet. Its use for education, communication and worldwide movements can all be positive uses of a world wide connection, but if only part of the world is connected, the global aspect is lost and a “digital divide” is created, putting some nations at a disadvantage as compared to others[8]. It may be most fair to say that globalization is a process of capturing and encompassing an entire sphere, which has its shortcomings and inequalities and cannot reach completion and full potential until all networks are developed and a distinct three dimensional relationship is clearly assembled.
[1] Globe (2011, January 28). In Wiktionary. Retrieved February 6, 2011, from http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/globe
[2] Curran, J., & Park, M. (2011). Dewesternizing media studies (pp. 6-7). London, England: Routledge.
[3] Fischer, Annemarie. KeyNote: Globalization. Global Media Narratives in the Digital Age, Spring 2011 CourseBlog, Annemarie Fischer. 3 February 2011.
[4] Curran, J., & Park, M. (2011). Dewesternizing media studies (pp. 6-7). London, England: Routledge.
[5] Hardt, H. (2004). Myths for the masses: an essay on mass communication. , 6-7.
[6] Chomsky, N. (Actor). (2009). Manufacturing consent [Online video]. Youtube. Retrieved February 6, 2011, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJuqoDvyXOk
[7] Norris, P. (2000). Information poverty and the wired world [Editorial]. Press/politics, 5(3), 1-6.
[8] Norris, P. (2000). Information poverty and the wired world [Editorial]. Press/politics, 5(3), 1-6.
I really like the way that you applied the idea of a sphere to represent the multiple directions in which information travels. Considering that the west has more influence than the rest of the world, do you think this is a bad thing or merely a fact of life? People often say that other cultures are often subjugated by this unequal distribution of influence, but this happens all the time in history. Cultures, except the very few that remain completely isolated, are formed and influenced by their interaction with other cultures. By trying to preserve these cultures as discrete and unchanging units, are we essentially limiting them?
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment, Kristen. As for the first question, I'm not sure I would label globalization with value judgments such as good or bad. Looking at it as a process, I'm not sure it can be labeled as anything but a process. I think that the idea of the end result of globalization as bringing people together to share equally their cultures and experience is a good idea, and in my opinion, that would mean globalization has been successful. I do admit, however, that defining it by its end result would imply a time line of start and finish and that may be impossible to define. As for your second question, I wonder who you are referring to as the ones who are trying to preserve. In either case, I think that even the attempt to preserve is a result of some experience with globalization and implies that it is a force that is felt. I'd have to say that according the way I define globalization, I would have to maintain that until a discourse between the "preserved" and the rest of the world is initiated, globalization is still in process as there would be inconsistencies in the spherical model. I also think that those cultures you refer to as preserved would be most fit to decide if they were limited as it is a matter of perception for those experiencing it.
ReplyDelete