The anti-globalism message asserted its foothold at the Fall 1999 WTO meeting in Seattle with the "McDonaldization of the world" becoming the catch phrase for the sins of global capitalism; i.e., the destruction of other cultures. In a documentary film that I show to my "Global Management" students ("Life and Debt"), the loss of cultural pride on the part of Jamaicans who have been forced to abandon their indigenous dairy and farming industries is potently illustrated. Jamaica was "done in" by becoming dependent on the IMF for loans, which meant it had to open its markets to free trade (and to the U.S. dumping of subsidized agricultural and dairy products into the Jamaican marketplace). However, the same kind of kowtowing to marketplace efficiency reasoning is taking place in the wealthier countries in the European Union. For instance, Swedes have been told that they need to get out of the dairy industry and import their dairy products from Denmark since that country is more efficient at producing dairy goods. Can this prioritizing economic efficiency go too far? Of course, viewed from the standpoint of the Market, business can only benefit from any homogenization of cultures that occurs as a result of globalization of the marketplace -- economies of scale being another undeniable economic truth. Is "consumption culture" worth saving? Won't Frenchmen still be French even if they are drinking Gallo wine from California?
That is the great question: when two cultures meet, we can see two phaenomena, the melting pot and the destruction of one by the other. The melting pot is a building event, where two kinds of culture bring their fruits (e.g., the Ilea paraguaiensis tea consumed in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile and Paraguay is a fruit of melting pot). But there is the minimization of local culture if it is not good for creating a market for consumption of manufactured products. Without any manichaeism, the question does begin to be answered by identifying these situations. We must remember, also, that there is a great difference between impact in countries which have been colonies and those ones which have explored colonies. National identity, in the last ones is stronger than in the others.
Thank you, Ricardo. You have increased the complexity of the dilemma for me. I had not thought that the question has a more nuanced answer when it is being asked about the culture of the previously colonized -- cultures in which native languages have been banished or forgotten as these languages are the languages of "the uneducated" in society. I will have to mull this over for a few more weeks; I am no longer so certain of what the answer ought to be. However, thank you for reminding me that there are never simple answers when one is talking about culture. Gwen
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Social Psychology