W6. Cultural Globalization /Jungho Kang

1. Summary

This article explains cultural globalization.  First of all, globalization is a complex and accelerated process that increases "connectivity." What does 'connectivity' mean here? Connectivity is the use of communication technology through electronic devices in our daily lives. We are interdependent with other things through the use of these technologies. This level of interdependence can be asserted historically unprecedented.

 If you agree with the process of increasing globalization, you should consider the various complexities in this process. The most important of the complexities is that the economic sphere is an essential element in increasing connectivity. Under capitalism, economic meaning can never be ignored. But we have to be wary of saying that the economic sphere is causally superior in the process of globalization (It was called economic reductionism). There are two reasons for this worry. First, economic redistribution can be viewed as an unrealistically narrow economic concept of the world, because it sees the economy as a machine-like sphere. As a second reason to oppose causality, we can passively overlook the culture, neglecting the active or transformative nature of culture itself, with the influence of globalization on culture. Culture is a dimension that is created and formed at the same time as globalization.

Next is world culture. Most scholars assume that the globalization process will lead to a single culture of the world. I cannot say that this is wrong, but I cannot say it is right. I have previously stated that globalization is a process of increasing connectivity, but increasing connectivity does not mean that the world is unified economically, politically, and culturally. For example, it cannot be said that the global economic system has a significant impact on the 'Third World' like Africa. So we must say that the word globalization is a process that does not work equally in all regions. Most critics are concerned that globalization may dominate the world culture due to the products of multinational corporations. However, it is dangerous to simply refer to cultural products as culture itself. It is because cultural products alone cannot discuss the value of culture itself.

 In fact, the idea of ​​world culture has existed for a long time. A map produced in Europe in the thirteenth century shows the world where the religion of Christianity is central. The communist world imagined by Karl Marx is a unified world of international cultural tastes that incorporate language and literature. And Marx also destroys non-Western cultures and praises the world of Euro centrism. These Marxian ideas need to be reconciled in modern times, but what is important is that they can coexist with the Western ethnocentric tendency to universalize the world culture and the vision of a rational and progressive humanism, the root of an equitable communist society, it is. Without these 'models' like Marx, this can cause another problem in globalization.

 Another way to understand cultural globalization is 'decontamination'. If globalization is an increase in connectivity, de-territorialization refers to the extent of connectivity to areas of everyday life. Traditionally, when you understand cultures traditionally, the notion of culture is implicitly associated with that territory. The concept of de-territorialization means the loss of the "natural" relationship of culture to geographical and social territory. That does not mean, however, that de-territorialization loses its local culture. Did large cities such as London, New York, Madrid, and Tokyo in the world lose their local culture? It's not like that. The decontamination means everyday dependence, such as watching American dramas at home, eating Italian food, and buying Japanese figures. Decontamination can change the experience of the community and promote a new sense of cultural openness, human reciprocity and global ethical responsibility. Most people think that globalization threatens cultural identity. But this article suggests a combination of cultural identity and global citizenship. It is to understand global humanism and human rights and duties as a place of specific identity throughout the world. From this standpoint, globalization can be used not only as a position for a specific country, but also as a basis for understanding various ideas.

2. What was interesting?

 Every time I get to know various theories about sociology and see various articles, I feel the lack of knowledge about other fields. To understand sociology, we need to require deep and broad understanding of philosophy, politics, economics, and so on. After reading this article, I thought "Is it possible for various ideas to coexist within the capitalist system?" Most people will agree that culture can be determined by the economy. The capitalist system is so solid and clever that it seems impossible to overcome. But I thought this think is wrong because I live in a world of capitalism. People in the middle Ages might have thought that it was impossible to overcome the serfdom in the same way. Maybe I can’t see the fall of capitalism, but I wondered about the system after that.

3. Discussion Point

 I think that it is not enough to explain the 'cultural product' and 'practice of culture itself' of multinational corporations. Especially, this sentence ‘But they do not in themselves provide much solid evidence of a capitulation to deeper Western cultural values.’ If consumption of such products instead of drinking domestic hamburger brands, domestic tobacco, and domestic drinks is interpreted as surrender to Western cultural values? Within the capitalist system, the value of these multinational corporations' cultural products is getting higher and higher, and I think they have a danger of being connected with a ‘Gentrification’ in a small sense and a ‘Culture Of Totalitarianism’ to a large extent. What do you think?