Sociology 2: Class 17: Globalization, Culture, Identity Copyright © 2013 by Evan Schofer Do not copy or distribute without permission

Announcements Final exam coming up Review sheet will be out soon 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. World Society Theory: Culture = common norms, cognitive models, scripts. –2. Popular culture: movies, music, clothing –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” (i.e., American & European) 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”.

Perspectives: Globalization & Culture 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 –Example: Marketing Coke to supplant traditional drinks… Non-Western people may reject their own culture, prefer to wear Western clothes, listen to Lady Gaga, and eat at McDonalds.

Perspectives: Globalization & Culture 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…

Perspectives: Globalization & Culture 4. Homogenization vs. Hybridization: A view from anthropology 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.

Homogenization vs. Hybridization 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.

Homogenization vs. Hybridization 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.

Homogenization vs. Hybridization 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._-- _Endhiran_Robot.flvVideo\Best_action_scene_ever._ever._ever._-- _Endhiran_Robot.flv

Homogenization vs. Hybridization 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.

Perspectives on identity/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.

Perspectives on identity/culture 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.

Perspectives on identity/culture 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 Question: Do cultural differences lead to conflict? Samuel Huntington: Clash of Civilizations An argument related to the primordial view –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.

Culture and Conflict 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”.

Culture and Conflict 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”.

Culture and Conflict 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: Sociologists criticize the general idea of coherent “civilizations”… no such thing. And, they criticize the primordial view of culture…

Perspectives on identity/culture Bowen: “The Myth of Global Ethnic Conflict” Argues against Huntington (But focuses on civil war, not global conflict) 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”…

Culture and Conflict Bowen: “The Myth of Global Ethnic Conflict” –“The very phrase “ethnic conflict” misguides us. It has become a shorthand way to speak about any and all violent confrontations between groups of people living in the same country. Some of these conflicts involve ethnicity or cultural identity, but most are about getting more power, land, or other resources.

Culture and Conflict Bowen: 3 mistaken assumptions: 1. Ethnic identities are ancient and unchanging The is the primordial view of ethnicity… it is widely refuted by sociological research –Instead “ethnicity is the product of modern politics” Example: Serbs and Croats in the Balkans Example: Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda.

Culture and Conflict Bowen: 3 mistaken assumptions: 2. Ethnic identities motivate people to persecute and kill Answer: “Less than we usually think, and when they do, it is only after long periods of being prepared, pushed, and threatened by leaders who control the army and the airwaves. It is fear and hate generated from the top, and not ethnic differences, that finally push people to commit acts of violence.”

Culture and Conflict Bowen: 3 mistaken assumptions: 3. Ethnic diversity inevitably leads to violence In fact, most extremely diverse societies peaceful And, huge conflicts result across groups that are culturally quite similar –Somalia Rather, the issue is often the relationship between ethnic groups and those in power…

Identity Construction and Conflict “Ethnic Cleansing” in the Balkans/Yugoslavia –Conflict between Serbs and Croats Primordialist claim: Hatred is centuries old: “There will always be blood on the Balkan soil” –BUT: Surveys suggest that trust and intermarriage were very high in 1980s, before political conflict began –People lived peacefully in same neighborhoods for decades –Balkan political leaders strategically invoked ethnicity, stoked hatreds to gain support –Inflammatory speech about external threat = a powerful frame to garner social/political support –Invoking hatreds and committing atrocities helps consolidate allies and eliminate political rivals –Several leaders stood trial for war crimes at the Hague…

Identity Construction and Conflict The Rwandan Genocide (1994) Approx. 800,000 people killed Primordialist claim: Ethnic hatreds led to conflict –Hutus vs. Tutsis –Evidence: Killings were politically motivated Very complex situation. In a nutshell: Ethnic identities were first polarized by colonial policies Recently, one of the Hutu political parties attempted to consolidate power by attacking and demonizing opponents –While it was supposedly an “ethnic” conflict, many victims were Hutus (political enemies of the attackers)…

Identity Construction and Conflict Example: Katangan revolt in the Congo 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 –Often, the provincial borders split ethnic groups… which fought on opposite sides Rather, the war was rooted in economics and politics –For instance: Katanga was wealthy; they wanted to stop people from migrating, taking jobs.

Identity Construction and Conflict 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 Even strong identities can dissolve quickly; Or, be replaced by others.

Construction of ethnic polarization Example: Polarized identities in US after 9/11 Issue: Who attacked us? –Saudis? (Most attackers were from Saudi Arabia) –A rich oil baron? (Bin Laden) –Muslim extremists? –An isolated nutcase? –Questions: Did US leaders seek to polarize identities after 9/11? –Either to consolidate support in US or to build momentum for war? Could leaders have channeled animosity in a different direction? Or not invoked ethnic/religious identity at all? –Why “muslim extremists” rather than other options?

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.

Local Responses to Globalization Reactions against Western culture: 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?

Local Responses to Globalization 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…

Local Responses to Globalization Kurzman reading: (cont’d) –“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.

“Modern” Anti-Western Movements “Modern” anti-Western movements are just like other social movements. “Grievances” aren’t sufficient to explain them They rely on: Resource mobilization: resources, organizational capacity Political opportunity structure: allies, lapses in repression Framing: Use of symbols, imagery (often religious).

Anti-Western Movements Example: Radical Islamic fundamentalist groups Resource mobilization: Leaders are highly educated –Some even have degrees from American universities Weapons & resources from US & USSR (cold war) were critical to the formation of many groups –Al Qaeda, for example Oil rich countries have tremendous resources –It is easy to find donors for any pro-Islamic cause.

Anti-Western Movements Ex: 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. Weak unstable countries provide opportunities –Currently: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq.

Anti-Western Movements 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.

Anti-Western Movements Issue for reflection: 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…