Sociology 2: Class 17: Globalization, Culture, Identity Copyright © 2011 by Evan Schofer Do not...

Sociology 2:Class 17: Globalization,

Culture, Identity

Copyright © 2011 by Evan Schofer

Do not copy or distribute without permission

Announcements

• Midterm exams available for review during office hours (NOTE LOCATION!!!):

• Office hours locations for Feb 28-March 4:• Beth Gardner, Erin Evans, & Natasha Miric: SST603

Rachael Chatterson: SST 682; Drew Duncan: SST 619• After this week, email your TA to see your exam

• Final exam coming up• Review sheet will be out soon• Section next week: Final exam review

• Today’s Class: Globalization & Culture• What is culture, and how does globalization affect it?• Is culture/identity a source of conflict?

Review: Cultural Globalization

• “Culture” refers to many things:– 1. Popular culture: movies, music, clothing– 2. World Society Theory: Culture = common

norms, cognitive models, scripts.– 3. Group culture/identity: Shared beliefs,

traditions, world-views, way of life• Example: An indigenous that shares a particular

religion, language, cuisine, etc.• Example: National groups (e.g., the French)

Cultural Globalization

• Question: Is there such a Orange County culture?

• If so, what are some of its distinctive features?• Food? Language? Accent? Worldview?

Globalization and Culture

• One obvious trend:– Western (often American) culture is increasingly

dominant around the globe• Ex: English is arguably the primary global language

– And, many local languages are dying out

• Ex: Western music, clothing are popular everywhere

– Other examples from readings? Personal experiences?

Perspectives: Globalization & Culture

• 1. Modernization theory– Dominant view in 1950s and 1960s, now criticized

• Prediction: Traditional “cultures” would die out, as everyone became “modern” and “rational”

– Modernization theorists thought this was a good thing

• “Primitive” cultures were replaced by “advanced” ones• Local identities were replaced by modern social &

political identities• “Superstition” replaced by rationality, science,

“enlightenment”.


• 2. Marxism / World-System Theory• Argues that power & culture are intertwined• Marx: Ideas of a society are the ideas of the ruling class

– Western economic domination is accompanied by cultural domination

• Often called “Cultural Imperialism” • Westerners can effectively spread their culture via

colonialism (and later via media, advertising)– This helps maintain economic dominance

• Non-Western people may reject their own culture, prefer to wear Western clothes, listen to Lady Gaga, and eat at McDonalds.


• 3. World Society Theory• Argues that a key facet of globalization is the

emergence of a “world culture”– Embodied, in part, in international associations

• Global culture provides norms, scripts, and models that shape the behavior of governments

• Consequence: Governments, laws, societies are becoming increasingly “isomorphic”

– Contrast w/ World System Theory: World culture may relate to historical dominance of West….

• But, culture is not principally a mechanism of furthering the dominance of the West

– Rather, it now evolves somewhat independently of the interests of powerful countries

» Ex: Environmentalism, human rights…


• 4. Homogenization vs. Hybridization: A view from anthropology

• Reading: Martell: “Is Globalization Homogenous or Hybrid?”

– Homogenization: Becoming similar or uniform throughout

• Latin: Homo = same; gen = make• Homogenized milk = mixed up really well so that the fat

doesn’t separate out from the liquid

– Hybrid: A new breed created by joining two or more varieties (e.g., of plant)

• Refers to the mixing or blending of cultures.

Homogenization vs. Hybridization• Martell: “Is Globalization Homogenous or

Hybrid?”– Issue: “The homogenization thesis”

• Also called the “McDonaldization Thesis” (Ritzer)• The idea that global information flows and capitalism will

result in cultural uniformity• We all eat at McDonalds, watch the same TV shows• Ex: 1.1 billion viewers of Baywatch in 1990s (p. 91)

– Fits with theories we discussed:• Modernization: Everyone modernizes• Marx / World-system Theory: Everyone dominated by

global capitalists, Western media• World Society Theory: Spread of global norms/models.

Homogenization vs. Hybridization

• Criticisms of the Homogenization view– 1. Observed exceptions to a single dominant

culture• Example: India has a vibrant film industry “Bollywood”• Hasn’t been wiped out by American films

– 2. Media & consumption are only a part of culture• Watching similar TV or movies doesn’t erase many

other cultural differences (beliefs, religious views, etc)

– 3. Global culture can be seen as increasingly fragmented

• More and more cable TV stations• Shift from mass consumerism to niche consumption.


• Criticisms of the Homogenization view– 4. Homogenization view treats receivers of culture

as very passive• Argument: People don’t just passive absorb culture• Instead: they play an active role…

– Accepting some ideas and rejecting others

• Example: Even McDonalds, supposedly the source of uniformity, has to adapt to local demands/customs…

– 5. The dominant culture isn’t “pure”… it reflects influences from other cultures

• Asian, Latin American, African cultures influence Western music, media, food, etc.


• Hybridization. Culture & consumption reflect hybridization – mixing and recombining

• Also called “creolization”… a new language created by mixing others.

– Issue studied by Anthropologists• Locals are influenced by global culture, but also re-

interpret it and adapt it to their lives.• “Local cultural entrepreneurs have gradually mastered

the alien forms which reach them through the transnational commodity flows and in other ways, taking them apart, tampering and tinkering with them in such a way that the resulting new forms are more responsive to, and at the same time in part outgrowths of, local everyday life…” (Ulf Hannerz). Examples???

McDonalds: Homogenous or Hybrid?

• McDonalds in Japan & Taiwan– Fried shrimp burger; Chicken rice-cake burger

McDonalds: Homogenous or Hybrid?

• McArabia!

• The idea of hybridization was originally about how local people transformed global culture

• But, examples from the West also illustrate the process.


• Example: Indian film industry• Bollywood – Mumbai• Tamil film industry – Chennai

– Clearly reflects local tradition…• Video\Bollywood_Trailer.mp4

– But also absorption of Western ideas… but is it homogenization or hybridization?

• Video\Endhiran_-_Official_Trailer_-_HQ.flv• Video\Best_action_scene_ever._ever._ever._--_Endhira

n_Robot.flv


• Martell’s conclusion:– Homogenization thesis is too simple… but it needs

to be “revised rather than rejected” (p. 90)• Hybridization is an important cultural process• But, global homogenizing forces (like cultural

imperialism) do exist… • It isn’t “either”/”or”, but “both”…

Culture, Identity, & Conflict

• Issue: Is conflict inevitable when globalization brings cultures into contact with each other?

– Does globalization of Western/American culture generate conflict?

• Huntington: Clash of Civilizations

– And, more generally: Can ideas like culture, ethnicity, and “identity” explain conflict

• Ex: Genocide in Balkans, Rwanda• Ex: Conflict between radical Islamic groups and

Western/Christian/capitalist societies

– Answer: It depend on what you think ethnicity / identity is…

Perspectives on identity/culture

• Two views of identity/ethnicity/culture:

• 1. Primordial view• Culture/ethnicity/identity is “primordial.” It is deeply

rooted, fundamental, and enduring• Consequently, cultural differences are difficult to

overcome– Conflict often results

• This view is common in media, popular culture.


• 2. The “social constructionist” view: Culture/ethnicity/identity are malleable: They change over time and with social context

• People exhibit different identities in different contexts• Identities disappear and return (or are “re-invented”)

– Ex: Quebecois in Canada

• Political processes and social circumstances shape and alter identities.


• Empirical evidence: Strongly supports the social constructionist perspective

• 1. Culture/identity is not innate and unchanging

• Example: Balkan conflict between Serbs and Croats• Primordialist claim: Hatred is centuries old: “There will

always be blood on the Balkan soil”• Evidence: Surveys suggest that trust and intermarriage

were very high in 1980s, before political conflict began.


• 2. Culture/identity is often the product (not cause) of political struggle

• Example: Balkan political leaders strategically invoked ethnicity, stoked hatreds to gain support

– Inflammatory speech about external threat = a powerful frame to garner social/political support

• Elites & social movement groups frame selectively, thereby “constructing” the conflict along certain lines

– Is fight against Al Qaeda a fight against an Islamic group? A bunch of Saudis? A bunch of oil-rich bourgeoisie?

Culture and Conflict

• Samuel Huntington: Clash of Civilizations– A. There are distinct “civilizations” in the world,

with different histories, beliefs, and cultures• Ex: Western, “Confucian”, Islamic, Hindu, Latin

American

– B. These will become the main “fault lines” of conflict in the future

• Replacing the “Cold War” battles over ideologies.


• Why will there be conflict among civilizations?

• 1. Differences in civilizations are fundamental

• Different language, history, religion, beliefs about individuals, families, and groups

• “These differences are more fundamental than beliefs about political ideologies and political regimes.” (Reader, p. 28)

• 2. Globalization: The world gets smaller• Globalization increases and intensifies interactions

among “civilizations”.


• 3. Economic modernization is “separating people from local identities” (p. 28)

• Local identities are dying out, allowing groups to organize under broad “civilizations”

– For him, civilizations are primordial… more so than local identities…

• Example: There are many Islamic sects (often in conflict with each other); If those sects unite under “Islam”, the potential for conflict increases

• Result: There is greater “civilization consciousness” in non-West.


• Huntington’s prediction: These cultural differences will lead to greater global conflict: A clash of civilizations

• Either among civilizations… or “the West versus the rest”

• Issue: Sociologists have been very critical of this view:

• The general idea of coherent “civilizations”• And, the primordial view of culture…


• Bowen: “The Myth of Global Ethnic Conflict”• Argues against Huntington (But focuses on civil war, not

global conflict)• Also: Optional reading: Hironaka: “Ethnic Conflict in

Weak States”

• Issue: There are many bloody conflicts raging in developing countries

• Westerners often attribute them to enduring ethnic hatreds

• Treat them as sad but inevitable• And, many fear Huntington-like conflict of “West vs. the

Rest”…


• Question: Do ethnic hatreds explain civil wars?

• Bowen: No…• Civil wars are a product of political struggle… made

worse by weak governments, poverty• Emphasis on ethnic identity/conflict = a Western

stereotype… not at all describing what is happening “on the ground”.


• Example: Katangan revolt in the Congo– From Hironaka 2005

• Typical account: war is result of “tribalism and ethnicity” (p. 131, citing Young)

• Actually, Katangans aren’t an ethnic group!• Katanga a province (like a US state) filled with many

different ethnic groups – which fought on both sides• Rather, the war was rooted in economics and politics

– For instance: Katanga was wealthy; they wanted to stop people from migrating, taking jobs.


• Issue: Katangan war did help solidify the “Katangan” cultural identity

• People began to be willing to “die for Katanga”• But, it would be a mistake to assume that conflict was caused by strong cultural identities

• Example: Cold War: I knew people in high school that wanted to “Nuke those commie Russian bastards”

• Even strong identities can dissolve; Or, be replaced by others (e.g., desire to fight radical Islamic fundamentalists).

Local Reactions to Globalization

• So, if globalization doesn’t inevitably lead to ethnic conflict… what’s up with Al Qaeda?– The general issue: How can we understand

reactions against the West?

Local Responses to Globalization

• Local reactions against Western culture, imperialism:

• 1. Opt out. Ignore or shun the external culture– Examples: Many indigenous groups, the Amish

• Historically most common. Arguably the most “authentically” traditional response to outsiders

• Typical outcome: children abandon traditional culture; traditional groups shrink or disintegrate

– Many traditional societies do not have strong institutions of social control… can’t compete with Western education, media, labor market.


• Reactions against Western culture, imperialism:

• 2. “Reactionary movements”: Social movements that attack the system, offer an alternative

• Examples: French social movement against American food, popular culture; Some Islamic fundamentalists.

– Note: Some movements attack a specific (or symbolic) part of the dominant culture. Others are total rejections of it.

• Examples from readings, personal experience?


• Kurzman reading: “Bin Laden and other Thoroughly Modern Muslims”

• Argument: There are two kinds of reactionary movements: “Traditional” and “Modern”

– Traditional Reactionary Movements:• Ex: The Taliban in Afghanistan• Mostly fight to get outsiders to leave• Usually organized by actual indigenous people

– Participants are usually local

• Not very common…


• Kurzman reading: “Bin Laden and other Thoroughly Modern Muslims”– “Modern” Reactionary Movements:

• Ex: Bin Laden & Al Qaeda• Typically organized by highly educated people• More like a social movement

– Sophisticated use of media, etc…

• Not really a very “local” response at all…• Argument: These are modern social movements.

Reactionary Movements

• Reactionary movements are just like other social movements. They rely on:

• Resource mobilization: resources, organizational capacity

• Political opportunity structure: allies, lapses in repression

• Framing: Use of symbols, imagery (often religious).


• Example: Radical Islamic fundamentalist groups

• Resource mobilization: • Leaders are highly educated

– Some even have degrees from American universities

• Oil rich countries have tremendous resources– It is easy to find donors for any pro-Islamic cause.


• Example: Radical Islamic fundamentalist groups

• Political opportunity structure• Radical groups clearly took advantage of friendly

regimes (e.g., the Taliban) to train, build capacity• Relative lack of repression in US is an opportunity

– Note: Increased security after 9/11 means fewer opportunities for protest/attacks

– Note: These groups also attack pro-US regimes like Egypt… but repression is much greater.


• Ex: Radical Islamic fundamentalist groups

• Framing: Use of symbols, imagery• Religion provides a powerful set of images

– Enemy isn’t just bad, but “evil” & “satanic”

• Another frame: attacking “imperialism”, the “system”– Standing up for the “little guy”, fighting the “bully”

• Reactionary movements always claim to authentically represent locals; that they aren’t part of the “system”

– Ex: Leaders don’t emphasize educational degrees or wealth; They emphasize the small village they came from.


• Issue for future discussion: How would strategies for dealing with Al Qaeda differ if we think of it as a modern social movement?

• Rather than a “traditional” reactionary movement…

Sociology 2: Class 17: Globalization, Culture, Identity Copyright © 2011 by Evan Schofer Do not...

Documents

Transcript of Sociology 2: Class 17: Globalization, Culture, Identity Copyright © 2011 by Evan Schofer Do not...