« BACK TO FORUM
 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
Cameron Klapwyk
Joined: Aug 26, 2011
Posts: 52 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male & 26
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
City: Guelph
|
Globalization or cultural imperialism: rekindling the debate
August 28, 2011 - 11:40 AM
|
|
Recently I re-read The Wayfarers, by Wade Davis. Davis is a Canadian ethnobotanist who has a skill for painting vividly engaging portraits of different people groups he has had the privilege of coming in contact with through his research.
His book can be summarized within this key quotation:
"If diversity is a source of wonder, its opposite - the ubiquitous condensation to some blandly amorphous and singularly generic modern culture that takes for granted an impoverished environment - is a source of dismay. There is, indeed, a fire burning over the earth, taking with it plants and animals, cultures, languages, ancient skills and visionary wisdom. Quelling this flame, and re-inventing the poetry of diversity is perhaps the most important challenge of our times."
Essentially, Davis argues that globalization, westernization, or whatever you might want to call it, is responsible for the decline of marginalized societies around the world. Their own traditions are being infringed upon both socially and spatially.
And while there seem to be many obvious benefits to the "shrinking" of the globe during the digital age, one of the downsides of this rapid increase in interconnectedness is the manner in which culture remains only as it is able to maintain relevance to the globalized self and community.
Of course we cannot simply go about glorifying tradition and denigrating any form of change simply because it threatens tradition, but what are we to make of globalization's profound impact on culture? Is it really, as Davis suggests, a homogenizing force? Or might globalization actually serve to illuminate culture in certain ways?
This post was edited on: 2011-08-28 at 11:41 AM by: Cameron Klapwyk
This post was edited on: 2011-08-28 at 11:42 AM by: Cameron Klapwyk
This post was edited on: 2011-08-28 at 11:42 AM by: Cameron Klapwyk
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
prieten47
Joined: Oct 26, 2006
Posts: 764 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 53
Country: Japan
Province/State: Hokkaido
City: Sapporo
|
Re: Globalization or cultural imperialism: rekindling the debate
August 31, 2011 - 08:13 AM
|
|
Like so many things, I suppose "it depends." It depends on what is being globalized. Things like McDonald's and Coca Cola are a disaster and do trample all over diversity in world cuisine. However, some things like human rights should be globalized, especially if it means "wonderful" traditions like female circumcision are wiped out. Traditional misogynist cultures are fighting back tooth and nail against globalization. Sometimes I think it would be easier to create an asylum law where only women are allowed to seek asylum in the West. But realistically, globalization may be the only positive influence in such misogynist cultures.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Cameron Klapwyk
Joined: Aug 26, 2011
Posts: 52 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 26
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
City: Guelph
|
Re: Globalization or cultural imperialism: rekindling the debate
September 1, 2011 - 11:37 PM
|
|
Prieten47,
Thanks for your response.
I am not sure I see things in as black and white a manner as you do. Certainly it would be hard to argue against a universal standard of human rights. But who gets to define these rights? The modern human rights discourse is disproportionately dominated by western voices who often do a poor job of speaking on behalf of those whose understanding of human rights are much different.
As far as female circumcision is concerned, I, as a white Canadian, would have a difficult time even conceiving of a way to support the practice. This is not to say that in certain cultures it does not have an extremely important symbolic role? Absolutely not. That's why it exists.
I am not sure it is fair to consider such a practice inherently misogynist. And yet it still may be oppressive.
But how can the non-oppressed fairly enlighten the oppressed as to their oppressed state. How can these two groups truly relate? This is where I was going with my question. Globalization is not some sort of natural phenomenon that is outside the realm of human control. On the contrary it is largely guided by the actions of the privileged as concerns their actions with the underprivileged. Is this an oversimplification? Of course it is. But I believe the point still remains. Who decides what elements of globalization ought to permeate a culture. Does globalization imply that there are elements of culture that are inherently either good or desireable?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
prieten47
Joined: Oct 26, 2006
Posts: 764 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 53
Country: Japan
Province/State: Hokkaido
City: Sapporo
|
Re: Globalization or cultural imperialism: rekindling the debate
September 3, 2011 - 09:00 AM
|
|
cklapwyk wrote:
As far as female circumcision is concerned, I, as a white Canadian, would have a difficult time even conceiving of a way to support the practice. This is not to say that in certain cultures it does not have an extremely important symbolic role? Absolutely not. That's why it exists.
I am not sure it is fair to consider such a practice inherently misogynist. And yet it still may be oppressive.
But how can the non-oppressed fairly enlighten the oppressed as to their oppressed state. How can these two groups truly relate? This is where I was going with my question. Globalization is not some sort of natural phenomenon that is outside the realm of human control. On the contrary it is largely guided by the actions of the privileged as concerns their actions with the underprivileged. Is this an oversimplification? Of course it is. But I believe the point still remains. Who decides what elements of globalization ought to permeate a culture. Does globalization imply that there are elements of culture that are inherently either good or desireable?
Well, I see you are firmly in the "moral relativist" camp. I guess that's very stylish on the campuses right now.
Have you heard the screams of agony as the little girls have their clitorises and labia cut off with a dirty, dull razor? Would you like to explain the distinction between oppression and misogyny to them? I am sure they will find it comforting to know they have undergone a procedure that has symbolic significance to... you?
Sorry to be so hard on you, but moral relativism is indefensible. It all too often defends the indefensible. I feel I can endorse the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, which is also supposedly one of the guiding lights here at TIG), even though in my opinion it is not strong enough. Can you ?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Cameron Klapwyk
Joined: Aug 26, 2011
Posts: 52 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 26
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
City: Guelph
|
Re: Globalization or cultural imperialism: rekindling the debate
September 3, 2011 - 10:20 AM
|
|
Prieten,
You asked, "Have you heard the screams of agony as the little girls have their clitorises and labia cut off with a dirty, dull razor? Would you like to explain the distinction between oppression and misogyny to them? I am sure they will find it comforting to know they have undergone a procedure that has symbolic significance to... you?"
I was hoping for a productive discussion about the impact of globalization on different cultures around the world, and now I find myself being attacked for suggesting that female circumcision served/serves a symbolic purpose in some cultures. But at the same time I do personally find it to be degrading and inhumane. And what would be the purpose of me, a person completely outside of a culture in which it was practiced, explaining its apparent symbolic significance? And just because something serves a culturally significant purpose does not make it morally acceptable. I never suggested such a thing.
Obviously I am more of a cultural relativist than you. That is fine. It is good for discussion. But what we have begun to discuss here is not even close to what I hoped would be discussed.
I wished to talk about whether or not globalization was homogenizing culture and how it was impacting cultural identity.
You can keep attacking me for views you only assume I hold. Or we can productively discuss the impacts of globalization on culture in a more general sense. That I would love to do.
Every two weeks a language dies out, because its last native speaker passes away. What do we make of the many ways that beautiful aspects of culture (let's just agree that female circumcision is one of the ugly aspects) are dying out very rapidly because of the global spread of a set of values and lifestyles that are not compatible with old ways of life? Do we simply view this as progress.
As for the UNDHR, I am a staunch supporter of this document. But I believe that a global community needs to go further than ensuring that individual rights are guaranteed and also look at ways that society and community rights can be simultaneously protected. This, of course, is very tricky terrain to navigate.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
|
