The
Marxist
Volume: 16, No. 02
April-June 2000
GLOBALISATION OF CULTURE - TO WHAT END?
- SUKOMAL SEN
“But
original
sin
is
at
work
everywhere.
As
capitalist
production,
accumulation,
and
wealth,
became
developed,
the
capitalist
ceases
to
be
the
mere
incarnation
of
capital.
He
has
a
fellow-feeling
for
his
own
Adam,
and
his
education
gradually
enables
him
to
smile
at
the
rage
for
asceticism,
as
a
mere
prejudice
of
the
old
fashioned
miser!
While
the
capitalist
of
the
classical
type
brands
individual
consumption
as
a
sin
against
his
function,
and
as
“abstinence”
from
accumulation,
the
modernised
capitalist
is
capable
of
looking
upon
accumulation
as
“abstinence
from
pleasure”.
‘Two
souls,
.alas
dwell
within
the
breast.
The one is ever parting from the other..(Goethe’s Faust)”
Marx
here
explains
the
capitalists’
‘avarice’
for
consumption
as
the
accumulation,
production
and
surplus
value
go
on
increasing.
Marx
says,
‘Luxury
enters
into
capital’s
expenses
of
representation’2
“Accumulate,
accumulate!
That
is
moses
and
the
prophets!….
Therefore,
save,
save,
i.e.
reconvert
the
greatest
possible
portion
of
surplus
value
or
surplus-product
into
capital!”3.
Capitalists
accumulate
not
for
accumulation’s
sake
but
to
convert
it
into
capital
and
to
generate
more
surplus
value.
But
what
for
this
surplus
value?
Marx
explains,
“At
the
historical
dawn
of
capitalist
production
-
and
every
capitalist
upstart
has
personally
to
go
through
this
historical
stage,
avarice,
and
desire
to
get
rich,
are
the
ruling
passions”4.
But where does this ‘ruling passion’ “to get rich” lead the capitalist system to? For constantly increasing production, the capitalists need expansion of their markets. So Marx already explained it in the Communist Manifesto,”The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexion everywhere”5.
Here
is
the
key
to
the
present
phase
of
capitalist
globalisation
which
has
now
assumed
the
fiercest
form.
Capitalist
globalisation
assumed
a
new
dimension
of
transnationalisation
of
production,
capital
flow
and
consumer
tests
engulfing
the
entire
world.
Economic
Globalisation
Invades
Cultural
Patterns
Worldwide proliferation of internationally traded consumer brands, the global ascendancy of popular cultural icons and artefacts, and the simultaneous communication of events by satellite broadcasts to hundreds of millions of people at a time on all continents are visible marks of economic globalisation invading the cultural arena. Some feel that the most public symbols of globalisation consist of Coca-cola, Madonna and the news on CNN. Whatever the casual and practical significance of this phenomena, there can be little doubt that one of the most directly perceived and experienced forms of globalisation is the cultural form. Despite the complexity of cultural interactions between societies over the last three thousand years, the intensifying movement of images and symbols and the extraordinary stretch of modes of thought and modes of communication are unique and unparalleled features of the late twentieth century and the new millennium. There is no historical equivalent of the global reach and volume of cultural traffic through contemporary telecommunication, broadcasting, satellite TV screens and transport infrastructure. Thus globalisation leads to widening, deepening and speeding up of world wide inter-connectedness in all aspects of contemporary social life, from the cultural to the criminal, the financial to the spiritual. Few areas of social life escape the reach of the processes of globalisation . These processes are reflected in all social domains from the cultural through the economic, the legal, the military and the environmental.
Since
the
concept
of
culture
is
so
‘encompassing’
that
it
can
easily
be
taken
as
ultimate
level
analysis
-
isn’t
everything
in
the
end
‘cultural’?
The
dimension
of
culture,
has
to
be
made
more
specific,
and
yet
this
has
proved
difficult
to
achieve,
since
culture
is
in
anyway
such
a
complex
and
elusive
idea.
Does
Culture
Matter
for
Culture
matters
for
globalisation
in
the
obvious
sense
that
it
is
an
intrinsic
aspect
of
the
whole
process
of
complex
connectivity.
However,
it
does
not
mean
that
culture
is
intrinsically
more
globalising
on
account
of
the
ease
of
the
‘stretching’
of
the
relations
involved
and
the
inherent
mobility
of
the
cultural
forms
and
products.
Looking
at
the
present
phase
of
capitalist/imperialist
globalisation
all
sorts
of
its
dimensions
are
noticed.
The
impact
of
multinational
corporations,
the
international
division
of
labour,
the
increasing
phenomenon
of
labour
migration,
financial
and
commodity
trading,
the
significance
of
trading
regulatory
agreements,
financial
prescriptions
at
global
level,
and
bodies
such
as
the
World
Trade
Organisation,
World
Bank
and
IMF
–
all
testify
to
the
globalisation
of
‘material
exchanges’
involved
in
economic
relations.
Obviously,
there
are
lots
of
instances
in
which
production,
exchange
and
consumption
of
commodities
do
remain
relatively
local
activities,
but
a
trip
around
the
neighbourhood
will
quickly
reveal
how
much
it
is
not
a
local
produce.
Software
productions
in
India
will
cater
to
the
markets
in
USA,
UK
and
Australia,
intensive
banana
production
in
Latin
American
continues
to
satisfy
the
needs
of
European
and
American
markets
and
make
year
-
round
availability-show
and
these
local
based
productions
act
as
constitutive
of
the
global
process.
Equally,
in
the
cultural
arena
symbolic
exchanges
float
free
of
material
constraints
-
as
books,
CDs,
celluloid,
electronic
flows
on
to
TV
screens
and
Videos
and
so
forth
constitute
the
cultural
aspect
of
these
globalising
process.
It
does
not
mean
that
culture
predominates
in
the
globalisation
process.
One
way
is
to
think
about
the
consequentiality
of
culture
for
globalisation,
then
is
to
grasp
how
culturally
informed
‘local’
actions
can
have
globalising
consequences.
A
world
of
complex
connectivity
(a
global
market
place,
international
fashion
code,
an
international
division
of
labour,
a
shared
eco-system)
links
the
myriad
small
everyday
actions
of
millions
with
the
fates
of
distant
unknown
others
and
even
with
possible
fate
of
the
planet.
“
All
these
individual
actions
are
undertaken
within
the
culturally
meaningful
context
of
local
mundane
life
worlds
in
which
dress
codes
and
the
subtle
differentiations
of
fashion
establish
personal
and
cultural
identity.
The
way
in
which
this
‘cultural
actions’
become
globally
consequential
is
the
prime
sense
in
which
culture
matters
for
globalisation.
To
be
sure,
the
complexity
of
the
chain
of
consequences
simultaneously
entails
the
political,
economic
and
technological
dimensions
of
globalisation.
But
the
point
is
that
the
‘moment
of
culture’
is
indispensable
in
interpreting
complex
connecticvity”6
.
This
is
how
a
Western
intellectual
explains
global
consequentiality
of
‘cultural
actions’.
Globalisation in its cultural dimension also discloses its essentially dialectical character in a particularly vivid way. There exists a cultural politics of the global arena which one can grasp by referring to the example of ecological consequences of local actions. The Green movement slogan ‘Think globally, act locally’ suggests a political strategy motivated by a clear collective cultural narrative of what the ‘good life’ entails. This strategy involves the mobilisation of agents – increasingly via sophisticated media campaigns – to achieve institutional changes at a global level. And if such a strategy is sometimes successful, it is because it draws on and appeals to very general cultural dispositions more than engagement with scientific-technical arguments over environmental problems. So culture also matters for globalisation in the sense that it makes out a symbolic terrain of meaning – construction as the arena for global political intervention.
Cultural
Imperialism?
The
Organisational
Dimension
of
Cultural
Globalisation
Cultural
globalisation
as
a
dimension
of
this
ongoing
capitalist
globalisation,
or
Fiedel
Castro’s
terminology
-
imperialist
globalisation
has
the
obvious
object
of
dominating
the
national
culture
as
also
transform
or
pollute
it
to
suit
the
imperialist
design
of
exploitation
and
rendering
the
people
frustrated
and
demoralised.
Commercialisation
of
media
and
the
cultural
symbols
and
artefacts
and
the
global
tide
driving
for
profit
using
‘culture’
as
a
commodity,
constitute
the
modus
operandi
of
‘cultural
imperialism’.
It
is,
however,
unhelpful
to
focus
exclusively
on
the
conscious
active
agency
of
individuals
and
the
local
direct
impact
of
artefacts
and
objects
in
describing
the
glolbalisation
of
culture.
Of
course,
cultural
practices
can
be
and
are
actively
imposed
in
places
distant
from
their
original
site
of
production.
‘Empires,
in
particular,
stand
as
an
important
example
of
the
extensive
reach
of
new
cultural
ideas
that
are
backed
in
their
impact
by
the
possibility
of
coercive
force
and
the
reality
of
political
subordination.’7
The
process
of
the
globalisation
of
culture
is,
however,
more
complex
and
varied
in
their
forms
and
in
the
relationship
between
producers
and
receivers.
Thus
an
important
fact
of
this
process
is
captured
by
reference
to
the
notion
of
modes
of
interaction
that
is,
the
dominant
ways
in
which
cultural
globalisation
operates
from
imposition,
through
emulation
to
diffusion.
The
idea
of
‘Cultural
Imperialism’
is
connected
with
a
further
element
of
the
globalisation
of
culture
-
the
establishment
of
the
infrastructures
of
cultural
production,
transmission
and
reception,
and
the
extent
to
which
cultural
flows
and
processes
are
institutionalised
,
that
is
regularised
and
embedded
across
time
and
space.
As
with
any
form
of
power,
cultural
power
cannot
be
mobilised
and
displayed
in
the
absence
of
organisations
that
create,
transmit,
reproduce
and
receive
cultural
messages
or
practices.
These
imply
more
than
technologies,
central
as
they
are.
For
technologies
must
be
displayed
and
operated
by
social
organisations.
Globalisation
of
culture,
therefore,
implies
emergence
of
infrastructures
and
institutions
of
cultural
transmission,
reproduction
and
reception
on
a
global
transregional
or
transnational
scale.
For
example,
in
terms
of
television,
this
might
include
the
development
of
an
international
market
in
television
programming,
the
creation
of
transnational
television
production
and
distribution
companies,
the
global
diffusion
of
television
sets,
the
establishment
of
trnsnational
system
of
satellite
broadcastings
and
the
emergence
of
relevant
regulatory
regimes.
Transnational
Secular
Ideologies
Vs.
Contemporary cultural globalisation is a dimension of imperialist globalisation which is motivated by the avarice of the capitalists for garnering more surplus value by concentrating on entertainment industry.
But
the
spread
of
thought
over
vast
distances
with
considerable
social
consequences
is
no
monopoly
of
the
modern
era.
However.
what
does
distinguish
European
modernity,
especially
from
the
late
eighteenth
century,
is
the
emergence
of
ideologies
and
modes
of
thought
that
are
unflinchingly
secular
in
their
orientation
and
simultaneously
claims
a
universal
applicability.
The
ambiguous
fruits
of
the
European
Enlightenment
include
the
emergence
of
modern
science
and
modern
political
philosophies
and
programmes.
Socialism,
and
particularly
its
Marxist
variant
has
its
roots
in
the
experience
of
European
nineteenth
century
capitalist
industrialisation
and
urbanisation
-
forged
from
both
philosophical
reflection
and
practical
struggle.
Yet
the
ideas
and
languages
of
socialism
swiftly
spread
to
more
backward
regions
of
the
world
economy
and
ultimately
to
societies
almost
untouched
by
those
changes.
That
is
not
to
suggest
that
those
ideas
did
not
undergo
a
profound
transformation
in
their
passage
east
and
south.
Nevertheless,
it
is
incontrovertible
that
ideas
and
arguments
initially
forged
in
the
cauldron
of
early
European
industrialisation
simply
found
their
way
to
Russia,
China,
India,
Japan,
South
and
East
Asian
countries,
the
Carribean
and
Latin
America
and
lately
in
Africa.
It
is
equally
incontrovertible
that
in
their
many
local
variations
socialism
and
Marxism
have
proved
a
central
factor
in
the
organisation
and
outcome
of
political
struggle
and
political
rule.
The
international
travels
of
socialism
and
Marxism
have
received
a
great
deal
of
attention
-
not
surprisingly,
given
the
conscious
use
of
these
ideas
by
vanguard
parties
domestically
and
internationally.
But
less
attention
has
perhaps
been
paid
to
the
parallel
diffusion
of
scientific
and
liberal
discourse
from
the
West
to
the
rest
of
the
world
over
the
last
two
centuries.
As
a
result,
the
spread
of
a
Western
scientific
world
view,
though
global
in
its
extent,
has
been
slow
to
percolate
beyond
the
elite
stratum
of
scientists,
technologists
and
educationists
intimately
involved
in
its
disciplines.
The
global
spread
of
Western
liberalism
falls
between
the
proselytizing
of
international
socialism
and
the
structural
diffusion
of
Western
science.
On
the
one
hand,
Western
liberalism
has
spread
a
distinctive
set
of
ideological
positions
and
political
values
--
Civil
and
political
rights,
limited
government,
self-determination,
etc.
The
adaptation
of
liberal
doctrines
by
Indian
elites
during
the
second
half
of
the
nineteenth
century
is
perhaps
the
best
known
example
of
this.
The
increased
participation
by
Indians
in
top
administrative
posts
and
their
increased
contact
with
liberal
political
notions
–
through
elite
Indian
higher
education,
involvement
with
British
officials
and
government
offices
–
contributed
to
the
development
of
Indian
nationalism.
These
are
all
examples
of
global
flow
of
secular
ideologies
from
the
West
to
the
East
in
the
last
century
and
the
first
half
of
the
twentieth
century.
But
this
was
not
cultural
globalisation
in
the
contemporary
sense
of
the
term,
where
cultural
globalisation
forms
a
dimension
of
capitalist
imperialist
globalisation
with
the
express
motive
of
imperialist
exploitation
of
the
working
people
of
the
third
world
countries
as
also
the
advance
capitalist
countries
and
capturing
the
resources
of
the
developing
countries
for
aggrandizement
of
the
super-profit
of
the
capitalists.
Under
the
Globalisation
dispensation
world
is
reduced
to
the
status
of
economic
territories
to
be
exploited
by
transnational
capital
without
any
accountability
or
obligation
to
the
Nation
States.
This
process
has
changed
significantly
the
balance
of
power
between
TNCs
and
Government.
TNCs
today
influence
the
major
economic
decisions
of
the
world,
such
as
what
to
produce,
how
much
to
produce,
where
to
produce
and
when
to
shift
from
one
region
or
country
to
another
in
search
of
higher
profit
margin
etc.
These
decisions
significantly
determine
the
current
and
future
control
of
world’s
resources.
Thus
culture
is
an
aspect
of
globalisation
where
the
TNCs
operating
in
cultural
production
sphere
dominate
the
world
market
and
seek
to
generate
and
perpetuate
a
value
system
among
a
considerable
section
of
local
populace
designed
to
serve
the
imperialist
interest
of
loot
and
political
hegemony.
Global
Infrastructures-Needed
Telecommunications:
Technological
revolution
constitutes
a
basic
pillar
for
capitalist
globalisation.
Revolution
in
telecommunication
technology
is
one
such
important
device
which
speeded
up
the
globalisation
process.
The
first
experimental
communication
satellite
was
launched
by
the
USA
in
1962.
This
was
followed
by
the
inauguration
of
INTELSAT
(International
Telecommunications
Satellite
Organisation)
which
expanded
access
to
satellite
communications
and
made
a
share
in
the
existing
telephone
and
television
channels
available
to
most
nations.
In
terms
of
numbers
of
channels
and
their
geographical
reach,
there
has
undoubtedly
been
a
globalisation
of
the
telecommunication
infrastructure
in
the
post
war
era.
The
vast
majority
of
international
cables,
both
old
and
new,
lie
across
North
Atlantic,
North
Pacific
and
the
Mediteranean.
Nonetheless
in
the
post
war
era,
more
states
have
at
least
been
able
to
look
into
those
networks
and
have
established
small
national
telecommunication
systems.
With
international
links
-
all
of
which
has
ensured
that
for
anyone
linked
into
the
system
the
concept
of
time-space
compression
is
a
lived
reality.
However,
none
of
this
telecommunication
infrastructures
could
really
facilitate
regularised
global
communication
if
it
were
not
accompanied
by
a
further
form
of
collective
infrastructure
-
shared
languages
and
linguistic
competences.,
It
is
English
that
stands
at
the
very
centre
of
the
global
language
system.
It
has
become
the
central
language
of
international
communication
in
business,
politics,
administration,
science
and
academia
as
well
as
being
the
dominant
language
of
globalised
advertising
and
popular
culture.
The
main
language
for
computing
is
English
-
providing
the
written
language
for
Windows
and
internet
protocol.
Estimates
suggest
that
80%
of
all
the
electronic
coded
information
stored
in
the
world
is
in
English.8
But
the
most
important
and
relevant
point
is
that
English
has
been
the
native
language
of
the
two
modern
hegemonic
powers,
British
and
the
USA.
Moreover,
in
the
present
era
of
capitalist/imperialist
globalisation,
those
powers
exercise
their
authority
in
all
domains
of
human
life
–
the
economic,
political
and
military
and
of
course,
in
the
cultural
domain
as
well.
So,
the
influence
of
American
and
British
cultural
development
or
decadence
is
clearly
visible
on
the
national
cultures
of
the
recipient
countries
.
And
in
India
,
the
influence
of
the
Western
decadent
culture
–
sex,
crime,
violence,
imperialistic
hegemonyism
and
money-fetishism
–
are
all
an
everyday
experience.
Cultural
TNCs
The
telecommunication
and
cultural
industries
have
from
their
inception
had
an
international
dimension.
From
the
late
nineteenth
century,
early
telecommunication
corporations
benefited
from
the
international
and
imperial
possessions,
while
international
news
agencies
spread
their
bureaus
around
the
world
and
publishing
houses
dispersed
their
catalogue
widely.
Nonetheless,
in
the
post
war
era
every
sector
of
the
communications
and
cultural
industries
has
seen
the
rise
of
larger
and
larger
corporations,
which
have
become
increasingly
multinational
in
terms
of
their
sales,
products
and
organisations.
Until
the
1970s,
large
telecommunication
corporations
and
media
entertainment
conglomerates
could
not
be
found
in
many
countries,
but
they
were
for
the
most
part
national
corporations,
serving
domestic
markets
and
they
were
engaged
in
quite
separate
sectors.
Telecom
companies
and
television
broadcasts
in
most
countries
had
been
owned
or
partly
owned
by
the
state,
and
private
sector
firms
had
to
operate
in
a
highly
regulated
sector.
But
since
1970s,
the
national
and
global
regulation
of
telecommunication
and
media
industries
has
been
transformed,
some
domestic
markets
have
become
ultra
competitive
and
/
or
saturated,
and
the
distinct
technologies
on
which
different
media
sectors
used
to
depend
have
become
increasingly
freed
together.
This
resulted
in
five
main
trends
in
Corporate
organisation
and
activity;
the
increasing
concentration
of
ownership;
a
shift
from
public
to
private
ownership;
the
increasingly
transnational
structure
of
the
corporation
that
survives
through
the
establishment
of
subsidiaries
or,
more
likely,
the
purchase
of
local
firms,
titles
etc.;
general
corporate
diversification
across
different
types
of
media
products;
and
an
increasing
number
of
mergers
of
cultural
producers,
telecommunication
corporations
and
computer
hardware
and
software
firms.
But
in
the
wake
of
ongoing
globalisation,
deregulation
and
liberalisation
of
the
business
environment
have
had
a
major
impact
on
the
communication
sector.
Telecommunication
corporations
have
been
privatised
all
over
the
world,
foreign
competitors
have
entered
previously
closed
markets
and
there
has
been
a
wave
of
multinational
alliances.
At
the
same
time,
barriers
to
cross-media
ownership
have
come
down
and
foreign
firms
have
been
allowed
to
purchase
domestic
corporations.
Then
drive
for
liberalisation
culminated
in
the
‘land
mark’1997
World
Trade
Organisation
telecommunication
agreement
which
was
signed
by
68
countries
including
India.
These
countries
represent
90
per
cent
of
the
$600
billion
per
annum
telecommunication
services
market,9
and
the
agreement
requires
them
to
open
their
markets
to
foreign
competition
and
to
allow
foreign
companies
to
buy
stocks
in
domestic
operators.
“A
crucial
factor
in
getting
the
deal
completed
was
having
the
largest
telecom
firms
involved
‘more
directly
in
trade
policy
making’.
AT&T
hailed
WTO
pact
as
‘an
important
step
toward
fully
competitive
markets’.
The
US
trade
representative
and
the
EU
trade
commissioner
both
noted
that
the
measures
will
spur
development
of
the
global
information
highway
that
‘increasingly
provides
the
infrastructure
for
doing
international
business."10
The
Government
of
India’s
decision
to
privatise
the
telecom
industry
in
India
has
to
be
viewed
in
this
background
of
globalisation
and
the
WTO
agreement
-
thereby
surrendering
to
dictates
of
media
imperialism.
The
simultaneous
deregulation
of
telecommunication
and
media
industries
has
been
accompanied
by
an
increasingly
complex
web
of
interlocking
alliances
and
co-funded
projects.
The
digitisation
of
information,
including
music,
visual
imagery
and
text,
has
seen
extensive
potential
synergies
emerge
between
telecommunication
companies,
computer
hardware
and
software
firms,
media
corporations
and
broad
larger
and
multinational
corporations.
There
can
be
little
doubt
that
above
the
plethora
of
local
and
national
cultural
industries,
a
group
of
around
20-30
very
large
MNCs
dominate
global
markets
for
entertainment,
news,
television,
etc.
and
they
have
acquired
very
significant
cultural
presence
on
nearly
every
continent.
And
there
is
also
no
doubt
that
this
cultural
presence
is
directed
towards
dissemination
of
the
decadent
capitalist
values,
much
against
the
toiling
people
and
a
healthy
and
sublime
national
culture.
It
has
to
be
noted
that
all
these
corporations
have
their
home
base
in
OECD
countries
and
the
majority
of
them
in
the
USA.
Taking
a
wide
swathe
of
Corporations,
UNESCO
reported
in
1989
that
of
the
81
largest
communication
corporations
(by
turnover),
39
were
from
the
USA,
28
from
Western
Europe,
8
from
Japan,
5
from
Canada
and
1
from
Australia.11
.
The
following
table
will
show
how
gigantic
are
the
Major
Media
Corporations,
which
are
almost
based
in
OECD
countries
and
dominate
the
world
music
market.
Major
media
Corporations,
key
joint
ventures,
mid-1990s
|
First-tier
media
firm
partners |
Second-tier media firm partners |
Telecommunications and information
firm
partners
|
|
|
|
|
*Time-Warner Disney Bertelsmann |
Viacom, TCI, Sony, NBC, Bertelsmann, News Corpn. Bertelsmann, NBC, TCI Time-Warner,
Sony,
Universal,
Polygram,
News
Corporation |
Kirch, EMI,Kinnevik, Cox,Hachette,United news and Media, PBI Comcast Kirch,Hearst,CLT.,Dream works,Canal Plus,.TFI,Cox Comcast Kirch,
Canal
Plus,
United
News
and
Media,
Havas,
CLT,EMI,
Pearson,BBC. |
US West, Bell South, Ameritech, Oracle Ameritech,SBC,GTE, Bell South, America Online,US West America Online |
Viacom News Corpn. Universal NBC TCI |
Time-Warner,Universal, Polygram, News Corpn. Sony Time-Warner, Viacom, TCI, Polygram, Sony, Bertlesmann NBC, Bertlelsmann Viacom Time Warner, Disney All major media corpns. |
Kirch, Pearson, Cris-Craft EMI,Canal Plus,Softbank Granada,Globo Trelevisia, MGM,BBC,Carlton Kirch, CLT Canal Plus Kirch, Canal Plus, United News and Media, Havas, CLT, EMI,Pearson,BBC |
Nynex, Sprint Microsoft, National Geographic America Online |
Sources:
Information
from
Herman
and
McChesney,
1997;
Internet
infoseek,
the
Business
Channel |
*
of
late,
merger
has
taken
place
between
American
On
Line
(AOL)
and
Time
Warner.
Radio
and
the
Music
Industry
Of
all
the
electronic
media
of
modern
mass
communication,
radio
has
been
the
most
easily
globalised.
Radio
experienced
teransnationalisation
of
its
broadcasting
scope
and
global
diffusion
in
its
use
and
ownership
long
before
other
electronic
media.
Alongside
its
other
trnsnational
functions
like
Government
and
Military,
the
medium
has
been
a
significant
agent
of
cultural
diffusion.
In
some
way
the
musical
form
is
one
that
lends
itself
to
globalisation
more
effectively
than
any
other.
The
relative
ease
of
cultural
diffusion
in
this
sphere
has
been
reflected
in
the
spread
of
many
genres
and
major
artists
all
over
the
world.
There
can
be
few
more
global
products,
images
and
messages
than
those
associated
with
Madonna,
Michael
Jackson
and
the
Spice
Girls.
The
decadent
value
of
these
products
is
too
well
known.
The
globalisation
of
the
music
industry
has
taken
a
number
of
forms.
First,
it
has
involved
the
creation
of
transnational
corporations
producing
and
marketing
records.
Second,
it
has
involved
the
import
and
export
of
musical
products
and
penetration
of
national
markets
by
foreign
artists
and
music.
Third,
it
has
in
part
been
based
on
a
broader
transfer
of
style
and
images
that
are
largely
rooted
in
American
Youth
Culture
and
black
culture
that
have
provided
the
ultimate
source
of
the
industry’s
cultural
output.
Outside
the
West
there
is
an
enormous
range
of
local
musical
traditions
and
styles.
But
the
global
music
industry
seeks
to
a
great
extent
undermine
the
local
musical
traditions
and
to
influence
the
new
generation
by
the
latest
Western
styles
–
Pop
Music,
Rock’N
Roll
and
Michael
Jackson.
Cinema
The
actual
number
of
films
produced
and
the
total
hours
of
screen
time
created
by
the
global
film
industry
are
relatively
small
by
comparison
to
the
global
volume
of
television
produced
or
the
number
of
hours
of
radio
broadcast,
or
indeed
the
sheer
volume
of
books
published
and
news
print
created.
Yet,
the
Cinema
industry
occupied
a
special
place,
aesthetically,
culturally
and
politically,
in
the
contemporary
world.
Film
and
Cinema
make
up
both
the
oldest
of
the
cultural
industries
qua
culture
industry
and
the
industry
which
was
globalised
earliest
in
terms
of
organisation
and
genre.
Meaning
globalisation
of
Cinema
as
diffusion
of
film
making
capacities
and
organisations
around
the
world,
then
it
is
fair
to
say
that
there
has
been
a
straight
forward
globalisation
of
the
film
industry.
According
to
statistical
surveys
undertaken
by
UNESCO,
a
significant
number
of
nations
both
inside
and
outside
the
West
have
the
capacity
to
produce
feature
films.
In
1980s,
for
example,
only
the
USA,
Japan,
South
Korea,
Hongkong
and
India
were
producing
more
than
150
feature
films
a
year
and
only
another
twenty
or
so
nations,
mainly
western
were
producing
more
than
fifty
films
a
year.
One
of
the
main
manifestations
of
globalisation
in
the
film
industry
has
been
co-production,
where
the
developoment
of
a
film
is
funded
by
money
from
organisations
in
more
than
one
nation.
The
forms
this
deal
takes
are
many
and
varied
including
50
-
50
deals
between
two
equal
partrners,
variants
of
majority
and
minority
share
holding,
multiple
stake-holders
etc.
The
US
Film
industry
has
not
relied
on
co-production
as
a
source
of
finance
or
potential
distribution
networks
given
the
internal
strength
of
the
indigenous
film
industry,
the
large
size
of
its
domestic
market
and
its
well-organised
international
distribution
net
works.
The
same
can
be
said
for
the
Indian
and
Hongkong
industries,
which
have
been
relatively
self-sufficient.
However,
in
Europe
co-productions
have
certain
times
been
an
important
source
of
finance
In
the
1980s
the
major
film
exporters
in
the
world
were
the
USA,
India,
France,
Italy
and
the
USSR
(though
the
current
state
of
the
Russian
film
industry
is
distinctly
less
promising
since
it
is
no
longer
heavily
subsidized),
the
UK,
Germany,
Japan
and
Hongkong.
But
it
is
unquestionably
the
USA
which
dominates
world
trade
in
films.
Actually
America
exerts
a
hegemonistic
hold
in
the
sphere
of
cultural
penetration
through
cinema.
Imperialist
nations
have
evolved
their
own
value
system,
which
is
ego-centric
and
money-based.
Globalisation
of
culture
and
its
American
domination
thus
exerts
a
very
powerful
influence
for
debasement
of
the
value
system
of
the
working
people
of
different
nations.
Television
While
the
global
presence
of
the
film
industry
is
long
established,
the
globalisation
of
the
television
industry
has
been
a
more
recent
phenomenon.
Television
requires
a
higher
level
of
individual
capital
investment
from
households
than
cinema.
It
is
a
technology
of
relative
affluence.
It
is
only
in
the
1980s
and
1990s,
that
sufficient
domestic
markets
have
emerged
outside
the
West
for
a
genuinely
global
television
market
to
develop.
In
the
last
20
years,
a
series
of
technological
and
political
changes
have
transformed
the
televisual
landscape
and
have
contributed
to
the
globalisation
of
television
as
a
medium
and
as
an
industry.
First
and
foremost,
the
number
of
countries
with
broadcasting
systems
and
number
of
televisions
available
on
which
to
watch
their
output
have
steadily
risen.
Technology
has
further
accelerated
the
process.
The
most
important
technological
shifts
have
been
the
advent
of
satellite
and
cable
television.
When
cable
and
satellite
are
included,
the
number
of
channels
in
Europe,
fore
example,
increased
in
the
five
years
from
1988
to
1993
from
104
to
165
and
within
the
EU
from
77
to
129,
the
total
number
of
channels
broadcasting
in
Europe
has
risen
to
over
250.12
In
India
presently,
about
50
to
60
channels
are
operative.
Technological and economic changes have been accompanied by waves of political and legal deregulation in almost every Western and many developing states. In the process of globalisation, it has taken the form of commercialisation or privatisation of existing territorial channels, the establishment of loose regulatory frame-works for the provision of satellite and cable services; the abandonment of regulations which restricted television company ownership to home nationals . The combination of technological change and deregulation has fuelled the global market for programming and made possible the cross-border ownership of television stations and the global dissemination of some television channels. It has also stimulated cross-border production and co-financing alongside national production of programmes for global markets.
This
deregulated
television
regime
has
enabled
the
Western
Tv
channels
to
penetrate
the
markets
of
the
developing
countries
and
as
a
consequence
the
Western
capitalist
values
and
its
degenerated
version
are
also
powerfully
affecting
the
value
system
and
morale
of
these
developing
countries.
India
is
a
glaring
example
in
this
case.
The
Internet
Much of the impact of the interactive television was weakened with the emergence of the Internet as the global computer net-work by the mid 1990s.
Two
factors
contributed
to
the
burst
in
Internet
activity.
First
the
establishment
of
the
World
Wide
Web
(www)
as
the
easier-to-use
multimedia
portion
of
the
Internet
along
with
browser
software
by
the
mid-1990s
were
decisive
in
bringing
the
Internet
closer
to
the
mainstream.
The
www
offered
access
to
seemingly
limitless
information
and
data
and
unprecedented
possibility
for
interaction.
Although
the
Internet
is
inherently
a
global
medium,
its
course
is
being
determined
primarily
in
the
United
States
and
a
few
other
Western
nations.
Commonly
said,
the
Internet
has
become
the
information
highway.
Here
also
the
American
monopoly
giant
Microsoft
rules
the
roost.
The
Internet
empire
is
a
subject
for
itself
so
far
as
the
globalisation
of
the
media
and
its
Western,
particularly
American
monopolization
is
concerned.
Millions
of
dollars
are
involved
in
these
global
business
transactions.
Now
the
media
and
the
software
industries
are
organizing
nationally
and
globally
to
have
digital
copyright
standards
enacted
to
protect
their
control
over
digital
content.
This
is
a
complicated
area,
however,
taking
the
law
into
uncharted
territories.
Many
librarians,
educators
and
others
oppose
media
efforts,
contending
that
the
media
giants
want
to
extend
copyright
well
beyond
the
traditional
fair
use-standards.
The
media
giants’
proposed
copyright
standards;
one
US
public
interest
group
states,
‘will
make
the
World
Wide
Web
look
a
lot
less
like
library
and
lot
more
like
a
book
store’.13
In
December
1996
the
media
giants
won
a
major
victory
when
160
nations
-
urged
on
by
the
Unites
States
-
agreed
to
extend
copy
right
into
cyber
space
with
the
desire
of
encouraging
the
development
of
the
Internet
as
a
commercial
medium.
This
World
Intellectual
Property
Organisation
agreement
will
require
ratification
by
thirty
nations
to
become
a
formal
treaty
and
the
trade
associations
of
the
media
industry
have
announced
their
plans
to
lobby
aggressively
in
the
United
States
and
globally
on
behalf
of
the
agreement.14
Globalisation
of
Culture
and
its
Political
Impact
The
emergence
of
the
global
media
system
and
the
audio
and
visual
amusement
industry
-
the
Internet,
Telecommunication,
Cinema
and
Tv
have
a
very
serious
significance
and
far-reaching
consequences
for
the
entire
world.
In
the
present
stage
of
capitalist
development
-
the
capitalist
/
imperialist
globalisation,
these
systems
are
used
extensively
for
business
and
commercial
communications
as
well
as
for
the
production,
transmission
and
reception
of
popular
culture.
Elite
cultures,
academic
and
scientific
cultures
while
obviously
making
use
of
these
technologies,
and
occasionally
featuring
as
content
within
them,
are
drowned
in
high
seas
of
business
information
as
needed
for
global
economic
transactions
and
commercialised
popular
and
cheap,
sometimes
debased
and
vulgar
culture.
No
historic
parallel
exists
for
such
extensive
and
intensive
forms
of
cultural
flow
that
are
primarily
forms
of
commercial
enrichment
to
satisfy
the
avarice
of
the
business
magnets,
the
media
TNCs
for
more
and
more
profit.
For
the
present
day
players
of
capitalist
globalisation,
culture
is
nothing
more
than
a
commodity
and
so
make
it
popular,
if
necessary
obscene,
and
sell
it
at
the
highest
rate
of
profit.
Another
aspect
need
not
go
unnoticed.
Since
capitalist
globalisation
runs
after
more
and
more
profit,
so
also
it
runs
after
production
of
more
and
more
luxury
consumer
goods
which
fetch
them
a
higher
rate
of
profit.
So
an
important
aspect
of
globalisation
is
to
whet
up
the
appetite
of
consumerism
of
the
people
who
can
afford
to
buy
more
and
more
luxury
consumer
goods
and
thus
it
generates
a
consumerist
life-style
among
a
big
section
of
the
people.
This
consumerist
culture
and
life-style
almost
acts
like
opium
which
keeps
a
large
section
of
the
people
away
from
any
struggle
against
the
capitalist
exploitation
and
imperialist
hegemonism
as
their
political
consciousness
gets
blunted
by
`consumer
revolution'.
Moreover,
the
incipient
liberalisation
beginning
with
1980s
gradually
generated
a
`foreign
taste,
foreign
technology,
fetishism'
–
an
obsession
with
the
stereo-typed
symbols
of
modernity
–
Japanese
perfection,
American
ingenuity,
German
efficiency,
French
sophistication,
Italian
taste,
as
these
qualities
were
believed
to
be
embedded
in
commodities.
Commercial
advertising
underlined
the
nationality
of
the
foreign
technology
behind
particular
products.
It
showed
rather
interestingly
that
`commodity
fetishism'
in
the
age
of
globalisation
is
linked
not
only
to
certain
global
style
of
consumption
but
also
to
the
imagined
location
of
one's
culture
and
nation
in
a
global
hierarchy.
In
India,
the
symptoms
are
very
much
in
evidence.
Within
a
decade,
the
impact
of
this
global
cultural
changes
has
transformed
the
face
of
the
Indian
cities.
Temping
advertisement
using
semi-nude
women
models
advertising,
fancy
shops,
new
foreign-brand
cars,
televised
soap
operas,
luxury
goods,
foreign
fast-food
restaurants
and
still
more
visible
youth
culture
with
crude
foreign
imitation
proliferated.
Presently,
the
Government
of
India
is
also
thinking
in
terms
of
allowing
foreign
participation
in
print
media
as
they
have
allowed
foreign
participation
in
all
other
industries.
The
result
is
going
to
be
disastrous,
when
the
Fourth
Estate
-
the
fourth
pillar
of
the
state
on
par
with
Legislative,
Judiciary
and
Executive
-
is
being
handed
over
to
the
foreign
multinationals.
The
globalisation
of
culture,
using
culture
as
a
commodity,
,
as
it
commodifies
every
sphere
of
life,
by
the
monopolists
and
the
MNCs
have
grave
implications
for
the
society
and
the
nation
as
a
whole.
The
anti-labour,
anti-people,
demoralising,
frustrating
and
cynical
character
of
the
cultural
globalisation
in
the
hands
of
the
imperialists
and
profit-
greedy
monopolists
is
destined
to
act
against
democracy,
freedom
and
a
decent
life.
It
will
only
promote
sex,
violence,
hatred,
ethnic
and
communal
strife
and
demoralise
the
oppressed
people
from
the
path
of
resistance
and
fighting
for
a
radical,
social
and
political
alternative.
Moreover,
in
the
third
world
countries
this
imperialist-
led
cultural
globalisation
blunts
the
edge
of
anti-imperialist
consciousness
of
the
people.
Marx’s
Vision
of
Globalisation
of
Culture
In
contrast
to
this
predatory
globalisation
of
culture,
one
has
to
go
back
to
Marx,
who
standing
in
a
tradition
of
socialist
internationalism
stretching
back
to
Saint
-Simon,
presents
a
particularly
bold
picture
of
a
global
culture,
though
very
sketchy,
in
the
depiction
of
a
future
communist
society.
This
is
a
world
in
which
the
divisions
of
nations
have
disappeared,
along
with
all
other
particular
‘local’
attachments,
including
religious
beliefs,
a
world
of
universal
language,
a
world
literature
and
cosmopolitan
cultural
tastes.
Marx
visioned
in
the
Communist
Manifesto
as
back
as
in
1848
a
cosmopolitan
character
of
production
and
consumption
in
every
country:
“In
place
of
the
old
wants
satisfied
by
the
productions
of
the
country,
we
find
new
wants,
requiring
for
their
satisfaction
the
products
of
distant
lands
and
climes.
In
the
place
of
the
old
local
and
national
seclusion
and
self
sufficiency
we
have
intercourse
in
every
direction;
universal
interdependence
of
nations.
And
as
in
material
so
also
in
intellectual
production.
The
intellectual
creations
of
individual
nations
become
common
property.
National
one-sidedness
and
narrow-mindedness
become
more
and
more
impossible
and
from
the
numerous
national
and
local
literatures
there
arise
a
world
literature”.15
Marx
thus
depicts
a
genuine
humanistic
ideal
that
informs
his
universalizing
vision
and
the
sense
of
the
possibility
of
the
harmonious
global
order
out
of
a
revolutionary
change
for
which
he
gave
his
ringing
call
‘Proletarians
of
the
World,
Unite!
Marx’s
vision
is
thoroughly
opposed
firstly,
to
the
contemporary
idea
of
a
global
culture
dominated
by
the
comodifying
practices
of
global
corporate
capitalism
-
the
cultural
‘heavy
artillery’,
that
Marx
so
penetratingly
describes
and
secondly,
to
the
threat
of
the
global
domination
by
Western
culture,
its
ego-centric
values,
ethos
and
life-style,
particularly
American.
Notes:
1.
Karl
Marx,
Capital
Vol.I,
Moscow,
1954,.
Page-593
2.
Ibid
-
Page
594
3.
Ibid
-
page-595
4.
Ibid
-
Page
593
5.
Marx,
Communist
Manifesto
,Selected
Works,
Moscow
1977,
Page
112
6.
John
Tomilinson,.
Globalisation
and
Culture,
Polity
Press,
Page-26
7.
David
Herd
&
Anthony
McGrew,
David
Goldblatt
&
Jonathan
Penaton,
Global
Transformations,
Polity
Press,
Page-330.
8.
‘The
Coming
Global
Tongue’.
The
Economist,
21
December
1996.
9.
Edward
S.Herman
&
Robert
W.McChesney,
The
Global
Media,
Madhyam
Books,
Page-112
10.
Ibid
11.
UNESCO(1989),
World
Communication
Report,
Paris
12.
Global
Transformations,
Opp.cit,
Page-358
13.
The
Global
Media
,
Opp.cit.
14.
Ibid
15. Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto,Selected Works, Moscow, 1977, Page-112.