http://www.quebecoislibre.org/11/111115-12.html
Though the website title may imply otherwise, the above article is written in English. It outlines the perils of cultural homogeneity. The author makes the case for "cultural diversity", but not just superficial cultural diversity in terms of characteristics like race, ethnic, or religion. The author argues that cultural diversity must also include and focus on a diversity of ways of thinking, ways of life, personalities, and so on - a "diversity of substance".
The author's first argument against cultural homogeneity echoes one made by Akande, in that "cultural homogeneity is dictated by the leaders, not embraced voluntarily by the people in the culture". Essentially it is the desire by an elite few (countries, people, or non-state actors) to impose their way of life upon others who are not living said way of life. I agree with this sentiment, especially since many of the cited examples of 'cultural homogeneity' are superficial and do not really indicate an intrinsic/substantive cultural homogenization. People often cite the fact that English is becoming more and more ubiquitous in the world today as evidence of cultural homogeneity. This, however, is merely a result of the utility of the english language in the world today. Even if a French businessman speaks English in his daily business dealings, for example, he in all likelihood still goes back home to a French-speaking family, eating French food, watching French TV shows and living a French life. It seems that, in my opinion, a lot of the "evidence" of cultural homogeneity really does not indicate a homogenization but rather is indicative of just things and practices that Western nations demand of others in order to participate in their economic and political system. Western business attire has become the dress code in international arenas and capitalism/democracy are spreading across the globe.
This does not indicate cultural homogeneity - cultural diversity will continue to thrive even in the face of globalization because globalization is not doing anything to change the intrinsic properties of cultures that make them diverse.
Do the elites desire anything more than the more superficial homogenization? Is there evidence that they are in favor of getting rid of these deeper aspects of culture?
ReplyDeleteI see what this article is saying but I would go as far as to say that in some ways religion could also be a form of diversity of substance. Religion is in some cases a way of thinking, a life style, and does shape a lot of individual's personalities. I also don't think that it is necessary the elite imposing their way of life on others who are not living it. I think this is evident in any nation with different political parties. Though the culture could be that nation's nationality, within the nation there is a cultural diversity on people's opinions on policy and other issues.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that certain aspects of assimilation of the world, in the realms of business and language, do not truly constitute cultural homogeneity. I think that especially in the business world, people have become more conscious of dealing with the individual cultures and respecting their viewpoints. However, this does not mean they are disregarding their own views, but rather becoming more understanding of others. In one of our readings, Dr. Francis Fukuyama argues that as time goes on the world may move towards holding more universal ideals than not, but this will be an extremely slow process (“Economic Globalization and Culture”). These universal ideas may be considered by many to be cultural homogeneity. Do you agree with this idea of slow progress or no?
ReplyDeleteI would agree that to date there are no real indications of cultural homogeneity around the world. Coming from California I have experienced first hand two very distinct ways of life within just the United States between the two coasts. Valerie mentioned this in another way when discussing people's opinions on policy, but even in the way that people live their lives, what they believe, the food they like, the music they listen to, the slang they use, etc., all of that varies across just the United States and indeed across the world. To me, these are all indicators of culture that are not becoming more homogenized, but rather remain diverse and are almost becoming more diverse as people gain access to new elements of culture and can decide for themselves which parts they like and can incorporate those into their own distinct local culture that will inherently be different than anywhere else in the world.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about how globalization is not causing culture homogeneity and cultural diversity still exists. I think that superficial changes of culture, or the spread of western consumer culture does not mean there is cultural homogeneity. Regarding your point about the elites, if they only impose superficial aspects of culture; does this mean they are against spreading deeper aspects or are they simply not focused on that? Also, would superficial homogeneity exist without the elites imposing their views?
ReplyDelete