How are media contributing to the globalization of culture? Discuss with reference to developments in one or more media industries.
The goal of this paper is to observe the varying ways that culture has been represented in differing media industries, around the world, highlighting both positive and negative effects. Here, I discuss the television, film, and advertising industry as these are the core, determining sectors of public perception. The predominate theories that will be explained are that of the Hybridization, cultural imperialism, cultural primacy as well as mapping which dissects the intertwined nature of film and television when it comes to cultural matters. As well as this, I discuss politics and western power, weighing whether previous colonial advantages still carry over into the globalised world. All these theories are important to understanding the successful integration of western cultures with different societies and subsequently, whether globalisation is the correct term to be used to summaries this change in our cultural understanding. The main suppositions involved here is that media industries are highly influenced by political persuasions and that culture is becoming increasingly merged alas removing individuality and representation of disadvantaged, non-HIC (high income countries).
Firstly, it is important that we define the meaning of globalisation, starting with a definition from the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development), they define globalisation as “The term… generally used to describe an increasing internationalisation of markets for goods and services, the means of production, financial systems, competition, corporations, technology and industries.” Continuing, it mentions its positives, it “gives rise to increased mobility of capital, faster propagation of technological innovations and an increasing interdependency and uniformity of national markets.”. Although Kraidy (2002), verbalises scepticism over the term globalisation, proclaiming that ‘globalization has in some ways replaced cultural imperialism – used as an umbrella term with similar meanings’
Mapping, a theory Carter et al focuses on in their paper, Mapping the Sensible (2023), is elucidated as “derived from a traditional geographical meaning into something more universal, encompassing social, historical and intertextual concepts”, further adding “Mapping is however more than a method of collecting data, a tracking of relations, a form of projection; it is also a perceptual and affective practice, a mode of expression.” With that, we can assume “mapping” is helpful to understanding the differing perceived views of communication which go beyond the original intended meaning depending on the context in which it is presented.Context will be contingent on one’s culture therefore there is no way to globalise one contextual meaning as there will always be contrasting perceptions.
With film being the primary media analysed, Carter et al (2023) references ‘Tom Conley’s Cartographic Cinema’ (2007) which broaches the idea that the place that we see in film is a “fallacious authenticity” of its true appearance. This can affect the opinion of those who witness this exaggerated idealism, leading to a false expectation of a place, people, or structure. This can occur for all countries, no matter their GDP or political standing although the representation tends to be distinctly different for countries with media disadvantages on the world stage such as LIC (low-income countries). LIC seem to have a more negative portrays of their societies compared to their richer counterparts.
An example of one deceiving reality in film is that of the Mexican culture. Rios (2015) discusses various examples of movies where Mexicans are represented by foreign, mostly American, film companies. Get the Gringo (2012) is one example that Rios analysis. She infers ‘This film shows an exaggerated social decadence and inhuman conditions that exist in Mexican prisons.” She adds by highlighting the representation of the people of Mexico, being used a comparison between the Americans. “The “bad” people in this movie are the Mexican police and prison inmates. The hero is a U.S. citizen.” These comparisons show the “fallacious authenticity” that Conley (2007) talks about and how richer countries have the power in controlling the stereotyping rhetoric.
However, film companies such as Disney Pixar have started to increase their use of varying cultures to rectify their representation issues of the past. Analysed by Nieuwboer (2019), Coco (2017) “follows a consistent approach of Spanish pronunciation” and “included traditional songs as well as their own songs which were partly in Spanish” which is indicative of progress being made around cultural representation.
Continuing her discussion on Mapping, Carter (2023) sees it as “productive… of the specific subjectivity and sensibility that she terms colonial whiteness.”Mapping can be used to highlight and subvert the preconceived stereotypes of groups, minorities, and cultures but it can evidence that the context and the producers of a film will determine whether these stereotypes can be subverted or reinforced. With Carter et al (2023) deeming that “cinema takes model the audio-visual cultures of western metropoles’, it be observed that cultures in cinema seemed to be shown through a western bias lens, meaning that cultures are not truly depicted.
Another of the many aspects of media is advertising. Research into the advertising industry has proved to be surface level in the past, only fully delving into the ‘products of the advertising industry’ (Sinclair 2015). Now, research includes political and social influences, industry relationships as well as the multiplex changes from ‘old’ to ‘new’ media. With the rise and the ultimate amelioration of the internet, advertisers have started to prefer the internet over traditional advertising formats such as television. Advertising is seen as the “most visible and public dimension” (Sinclair 2015) of the media industries due to its versatility between media spaces.
Advertising derived from propaganda beginnings with a “neo-Marxism” (Sinclair 2015) approach to promote the idealism of the time. Although, the extremity at which Marxism occurs now is lesser, there is a more politically attuned economic approach to advertisements, with an empathises to “commodification” (Sinclair 2015).
Commodification is, described here by Bhasin (2017), “‘commodifying’ any service or good, own it and sell it for a profit.” Commodity has some beneficial qualities such as increasing innovation through competitiveness between brands which can therefore benefit consumers as they can obtain better products and prices. On the other hand, Bhasin (2017) also highlights the negatives, by mentioning that “in order to create a balance between society and market ethics must be considered in order to ensure a long-lasting exchange of values” which, when it comes to culture, ethics can be infringed upon if culture becomes overly commodified and thus exploited.
Advertising and its relationship to culture is a complicated matter of its own, summarised here, as “a heuristic and analytic concept as a rhetorical trope used to denounce all cultural forms in which commerce encroaches upon spheres of life where it ought not belong” (Sinclair 2015). Carter et al (2023), similarly to Sinclair, takes on a rather critical approach to film’s cultural encroachment, stating that “limits of commonality defined through a differential distribution of aesthetic experience and mutually communicable judgement, and writings on politics and aesthetics more centrally concerned with histories of both class hierarchy, and the politics of race and Empire.”
Dismissing the term of globalisation entirely is that of Kraidy (2002), preferring the term of “cultural imperialism” instead. The theory explicated here “that audiences across the globe are heavily affected by media messages emanating from the Western industrialized countries”, deeming that the western, ex-colonial countries, command the media stage. Corcoran (2007) will concur, “most studies of global television have been written from a solidly Western viewpoint.”
When discussing America, the strongest of the western powers in the media industry, and its influence, Corcoran (2007) uses American “cultural primacy” as the preferable term for “cultural imperialism”, which encompasses the American domination of one’s national media industry. US companies fully assimilate themselves into a nations system, setting up bases and hiring their people. Questions arise as to the content they produce, the ethics and morals they establish and whether they start to change a very nations identity.
However, a counter question is offered by Corcoran (2007), “Should we take a benign view of American media companies establishing bases across Europe, hiring European staff?” Sinclair (2015) believes that because of “their privileged place in social communication” that “they wield extensive influence on public opinion, cultural norms and values, and the popular imaginary” so then it is relevant to ask whether the economic benefits of large cooperation’s outweigh the threat to one’s culture.
Kraidy (2002) provides the theory of cultural hybridity to help us understand the merging of cultures through multiple frames. The theory, here voiced by Garcia-Candini (1995), has three main defining features of cultural hybridity, One is to combine “previously separate cultural systems”, for example mixing street artistry with poetry. The second feature is that of “deterritorialization of cultural processes”, the method of adapting one cultural context and placing it into another to create a new meaning. The final aspect “entails impure cultural genres that are formed out of the mixture of several cultural domains.” There are several perspectives here that will apply to cultures dependent on their situation. All have these aspects have been amplified by the increased connectivity of the world, as Kraidy (2002) believes that “a degree of hybridization in all cultures can be assumed” as we have previously merged and intertwined ourselves in different culture through “warfare, trade, migration, and slavery.” Therefore, media has magnified our connection to each other, socially and economically.
The news and the press are a more obviously politically persuaded method of communication. As another globalised industry, television has shared much of the same journey as films with a large amount of transnational cooperation being the main proprietors of content produced. In America, “Comcast, AT&T, Disney, Paramount Global (formerly ViacomCBS), News Corporation (owner of Fox), and Sony control more than 90% of the media” (Seth 2022)
Corcoran (2007) theorises Western civilisations create, and subtlety integrate popular culture into previously colonised societies to ultimately convince them that western ideals are the better way of life. Because of this, Corcoran (2007) states “Over the last decade, the increasing concentration of ownership, especially in the USA, has made it difficult to know which conglomerate owns which local outlet at any particular time.” Holding similar opinions is that of Kraidy (2002) who states that ‘international communication flows, processes, and effects are permeated by power.’ Whilst Carter et al (2023) notion that popular culture is a modelof “western metropoles” also evidences Corcoran line of thought.
Continuing, Corcoran (2007) analysis’s the American media system and how it is controlled by government sympathising cooperation’s and individuals by musing that the America “is the recipient of enormous direct and indirect subsidies and/or government-granted monopoly franchises.” Similarly, Kraidy (2002) also discusses the political side of media systems with also mentioning it is becoming “difficult to distinguish clearly between capital flows and media flows.”
Tiered television entities are becoming an increasingly contentious issue in politics between authoritarian regimes and western idealising nations. These bridges in culture are being made by transnational companies to broaden their profits. Corcoran (2007) uses Rupert Murdoch as an example. News Corporation, owned by Murdoch, has increased their efforts to conquer the Indian television market which have become “frustrated with the slow pace of Star TV’s access to China.” Comparatively to Corcoran is that of the opinion of Sinclair (2015) who argues that “everybody is opposed to consumerism, from the Pope to Occupy Wall Street” because of “the issue of the complex moral baggage carried not so much by the consumer culture–society couplet in itself as by consumerism, the total ethos of social values on which it is said to rest” therefore not blaming the cultural – societal relationship, more so consumerism for the variety of issues faced by globalisation.
To evidence his views around the merging of cultures, Corcoran uses Tomlinson (1991, 1997) to address the disintegration of cultural singularity. Namely, Tomlinson discusses the disunification of cultures which, “in the post-NWICO (New World Information and Communication Order)” appears to be becoming increasing common, overall spiking a debate around the amalgamation of cultures, theorised as “cultural homogenisation”, and the endangerment “cultural diversity”
“Cultural homogenisation” by American and western nations negatively affects poorer nations. The success of media outlets in poorer countries can still not overcome order of the hawkish past of colonialism. Western cultural still seem to override the media in countries that they should probably have little to do with. “The major American companies still have a pre-eminent place in world media markets” (Corcoran 2007).
Corcoran (2007) also debates the effects of American ‘cultural primacy’ on smaller countries, particularly those who such interconnected values and languages. An example given by Corcoran (2007) that Papathanassopoulos (2005) theorised was that of Ireland and the pressures and controls that Britain has over its regulations. With limited national profit availability to them, Irish media must nationalise to survive alas succumbing to the regulations and polices that Britain proposes.
The core theory around the understanding of non-fiction television and how it has globalised is The ‘CNN effect’ by Robinson (2002), which articulates the domino effect that global media has on a nations policy making. Media, defined as a ‘soft power’, can be centre in a “chain, leading from television news viewing to public attitude formation which then influences government policy”. This nuance but alarming standing of the non-fiction media can hinder or promote polices that they see fit.
Media influence is strongest, according to Robinson (2002), “when critical of government policy and news frames are sympathetic to the suffering of foreign populations.” Media influence can also be persuasive when governments can appear indecisive about policies, majorly when it comes to the “use force in humanitarian crises” Sinclair (2015) empathies the same when musing about media communication in general, “stating that they (the media) wield extensive influence on public opinion, cultural norms and values.”
An example which is given by Shaw’s (1996) covers the Kurdish refugees during the latter Gulf War which shows the power that the media has over governments. In 1991, enough television attention from western news outlets around the starving refuges at the time garnered a vast amount of the western populations outrage, at their own respective government’s inaction, as well as sympathy for the refuges. Ultimately, you could say that this manoeuvred governments into action. Howbeit, with this example, motives for the actions taken cannot be easily distinguished as Turkey is NATO ally; alas there was a political agenda for the devolved parties.
Corcoran infers that the ‘CNN Effect’ is going to be obsolete after “the American declaration of a global, open-ended ‘war on terror’” during 2001. The ‘war on terror’ has allowed for ‘more aggressive foreign policy agenda’ to be at play. Using the empire of “transnational media management operations”, these operations are made to “influence news agendas in North American and European television channels, by promoting coverage of some issues over others and carefully controlling the framing of news stories in ways that support their military strategy.
Corcoran (2007) within his paper displays two sides of a very contentious argument although he himself continuously represented a more critical view of the American television media system. He shows the side of Tomlinson (1995,1997) who takes a very pessimistic approach, framing the American multimedia machine as an encroachment on the cultural ways of life of disadvantaged countries whereas Chalaby (2006), who Corcoran (2007) briefly highlights, appears to have a starkly different approach, whereby the American system is ahead of the curve when it comes to a ‘global–local adaptation’. He also dismisses the ‘CNN Effect’ as the Americans take on a more belligerent approach to using their all-round media power.
With Corcoran (2007) focusing on the political side of the non-fiction television space, the same theories that he proposes maybe not be as strongly as applicable for the fictional side of television although it is likely that theories such as American “cultural primacy” is very much applied to all aspects of television and film, as can be evidence by Carter et al (2023) and their research into film. There, Carter et al (2023) explains that films are created with a “western metropoles” in mind therefore showing that films show various cultures through the western ideals. This comes back to the theory of Conley (2007) who talks about the “fallacious authenticity” of films.
The term of globalisation as the more positive and preferable term to “cultural imperialism”(Kraidy 2007) is a contentious argument but one where there will be no firm answer due to the lack research into this topic from less powerful nations, according to Corcoran (2007) who states, “most studies of global television have been written from a solidly Western viewpoint.” as well as Carter (2023) stating that “colonial whiteness” plays a role in the representation cultural stereotypes we see portrayed on screen.
With Sinclair (2015), his piece concludes that within the advertising industry that “The putative national origin of agencies became less important than the combined interpenetration of capital from different national origins” hence why Corcoran (2007) theory of tiered production industries are important to the “western form of hegemony.”
Concluding, culture has been vastly changed by the rapid developments in media from all varying aspects of the industry. Culture as we have seen in from the colonial past has been altered by stereotypes created from western ideals. If we go back to the definition of globalisation, is it indictive to ask whether the OECD positive of “uniformity of national markets” is truly a positive outcome of globalisation. Negatives such as “cultural homogenisation” (Tomlinson 1991, 1997) and consumerism and exploitation of culture causes concerns of “cultural imperialism” (Kraidy 2002) although Corcoran (2007) would argue that “The very notion of globalisation, of course, is often ideologically loaded.” Alas, maybe the term isn’t the problem, more about creating correct and equal representation of cultures. It appears that progress around cultural appropriation and representation in films and television are being made, or at least attempted, by large, prominently American, cooperation’s. Examples such as Nieuwboer (2019) analysis on Coco show this. Ultimately, differing interpretations lessen the ability for a definitive answer and more board research needs to be done.
References
Bhasin, H., 2017. What is Commodification – Its advantages and disadvantages. Marketing91[online], 25th of December 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.marketing91.com/commodification-advantages-and disadvantages/
Carter, E., Malcomess, B. and Rositzka, E. 2023. Introduction: Mapping the Sensible. Mapping the Sensible: Distribution, Inscription, Cinematic Thinking [online] De Gruyter, pp.1-22. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110769012-001
Corcoran, F., 2007. Television Across the World. New Review of Film and Television Studies [online], 5 (1), 81-95. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17400300601140209
Kraidy, M. (2002). Globalization of culture through the media. Encyclopaedia of communication and information [online]. Vol 2, pp. 359-363. New York, NY: Macmillan Reference USA. Retrieved from: https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1333&context=asc_papers
Nieuwboer, M., 2019. Representation of Mexican Culture in Animation Films for Children [online]. Thesis (MA). Universiteit Utrecht. Retrieved from: https://studenttheses.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/20.500.12932/33826/Representation%20of%20Mexican%20Culture%20in%20Animation%20Films%20for%20Children%20-%20Master%20Thesis%20Marit%20Nieuwboer%206228712.pdf?sequence=1
OECD, 2001. Globalisation. In: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [online]. Paris, France. Retrieved from: https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=1121
Seth, S., 2022. The World's Top Media Companies. Investopedia [online], 30th of October 2022. Retrieved from: https://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/021815/worlds-top-ten-media-companies-dis-cmcsa-fox.aspx
Sinclair, J.,2015. Advertising, the Media, and Globalization. Media Industries [online]. 1(3). Retrieved from https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/mij/15031809.0001.308?view=text;rgn=main
Rois, F.,2015. 8 examples of the problem Hollywood has portraying Mexico and Mexicans. Borderzine [online], 26th of April 2015. Retrieved from https://borderzine.com/2015/04/8-examples-of-the-problem-hollywood-has-portraying-mexico-and-mexicans/
Archived a 2.1
