What are your thoughts on the gobal culture? Not gobalization from the economic veiwpoint (we have that thread) but rather from the sociological viewpoint.

I'll share my thoughts thus far. It is pretty obvious that there is some form of it. Even in the Untied States you see that, you have a national culture in a nation with no real "culture." You go from state to state and can be assured you can find a Macys, or a Filenes, or a JcPenny (all owned by the same company). Same goes more or less with food.

On the gobal scale, you see that with large corperations.

But does this really help? Thoughts?

The internet continues to build it.

I didn't even think of that aspect. Communication! Exactly.

I supposed that there is a global "culture" insofar as there are shared traits among all groups of human beings. I suppose the question might be posed as: is a "global culture" overtaking/superceding the differences between traditional cultures? In which case, i would say that's happening slowly with things like the internet and corporations, as you say.

The question is that, and do you think it is good for soceity as a whole?

I think its making the world kinda boring and pushing an extreme into everything. Extreme sports, extreme contests, it has to be extreme to hold any interests in the younger generations because they're exposed to so much. Boring in that with so much exposed to you and available in any major city, why bother traveling anymore. Uniqueness is disappearing. When the same food, clothes, souveneirs, are available everywhere the whole travel experience is rather bland.

There are good things about it. If it in fact is a global "culture," then communication between and among various subgroups becomes much easier. It's a lot easier to relate to someone who lives in a modern industrialized society than it is to relate to someone who doesn't know what a computer is.

That being said, I agree with Keys that the blandness is a huge disadvantage.

However, I don't really blame companies for spreading out like that. It's the nature of the beast. What I would like to see however, would be movements to fight against this global culturalization. Countries that insist on keeping their native languages and celebrating their native holidays for example, or various cultures that put their own spin on the modern world (Japanese fast food restaurants for example, or architects who use elements from their native architecture when designing modern buildings).

But it isn't possible to simply "crop out" Indian culture for example, and drop it in America. Undoubtedly, it will get skewed, cut up, and mashed, and Americanized... thus, globalization really means something altogether in different countries. What is American culture in India? Africa? Phillipines?

I don't believe it will ever come to a point that everyone has the same culture such that we are bored with anothers. You can never fully experience another culture until you have gone to its homeland.

The global culture we have is a consumer "culture" that in fact mostly just represents the parochial interests of mostly US-based transnational corporations. When I went to Sri Lanka recently, I was admiring the road to Kandy, through villages and whatnot, but literally every ten seconds there was a giant Coke sign plastered on a shop. This is not a mutual exchange: it's about several companies getting together and force-feeding the rest of the world consumer crap that's even been banned in several countries (look at the recent case of Coke in India).

Consumer culture is extremely dangerous in that it's homogenizing influence is forcibly destroying other cultures through various ways (ie. destruction of the rainforest for cheap, expendable products). I'd recommend, if you all want a bigger picture of the argument, you read Jihad vs. McWorld by Benjamin Barber. Barber's thesis is basically that this homogenizing "McDonaldization" of the world is causing a reaction which could be labelled "Jihad" or intolerant tribalism. The threat is of course that genuine democracy will be destroyed in this clash (if it's even existed).

Anyways, my point is that this is not a mutual exchange. Given the power of Coke for example, should it be any surprise that while they claim to be supporting the "Global Village" by branding every man, woman, child and dog on their way to more profits, they're shooting union leaders in Colombia and churning out crap that's literally been used as pesticides by some people? (link)

The problem is, psycholopher, this isn't genuine communication. You can traffick US-made cultural symbols with a person now in the Phillipines, great. But this isn't real cultural understanding, and in fact it might be related to what Erich Fromm would call anomie in industrial society. Essentially you're around a bunch of people, moreso than in the past, yet you experience alienation at this fact. Think about the city: is that real neighborly communication, or is it some false image whereby you actually feel lonelier?

Blizzard I think you have hit it right on the nose. I completely agree that the monolithic Capitalist culture is spreading by these means of "modernism." This is one point I think we can always borrow from the Marxist school. The Bourgeoisie ideology under the economic system of free market capitalism, is spreading to every country on the planet as it revolutionizes the means of production. For capitalism to work most efficiently, it has to spread to every state and create modern industrial infrastucture. I think this is what we are witnessing, as "Globalization." The World is smaller only because the same "technology" exists everywhere, and we are all consuming the same things, roughly speaking. The modes of extistence are the same. However, those in the non-west, must reconcile this change, because it will change their society somewhat. I will change that culture's context.

I do not think, that the world is anywhere headed toward a unipolar cultural state, modeled after the west. But I do think, that modernism's spread to the whole world, is forcing every culture to "change" but not nessecarily into a western type culture. For example, two people in different parts of the world might listen to music on iPods, however the music they listen to, is that of their own culture. The global context of "cultural isolation" is ending, and being replaced by this "globalization." But even though the context is becoming similar, the cultural differences persist. Hindu's won't suddenly be eating big macs, simply becuase there is a McDonalds down the road. The normal barriers between peoples still exist: language, religion, history/traditions, and ofcourse race/ethnicity. Everyone just lives out their culture in the same global context.

I agree with you, to an extent. Sure, Hindus won't be eating Big Macs, but they'll have McDonald's, the very essence of our version (Americanized) of western civilization. And I'm not too sure how long language will hold out either. We can see now, in the book, The Story of English (link) that the globalization of communication has lead to a new form of English being commonly accepted. I can only guess that with time, not only will English become a singlized form, but all languages will.

Hmm, Ok, you make a good point about langauge adaptation, I'll give you that. But I think I need to clarify what I'm saying. I did say that what is lost in "Globalization" is "Cultural Isolationism." No man is an island, nor is any culture. As I said, the bourgeoisie culture of the west is pervasive, but it can only change the context of culture. By context I will clarify, and say "civilization", which is defined by "technological" development, not by a commonly shared history and ethnic background, or shared set of values. Capitalism is a pervasive mode of production, but its values do not have to penetrate a culture. The culture must adapt! It must progress, but it will progress in its own unique way, if it is to survive.

I was once an avid protester of Globalization, but I have come to see it as a stage in a positive(progressive) developement in human civilization. Yes the the world is changing, for better or worse, it always has. The progression of history is not bound by morality. There is a famous quote from a book called "The Leopard" and it says "If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change" -Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa

As for your point on English, it is seen as the connection of different cultures as some many diverse groups know English. Many years ago, I believe French was similar to how English is today. In time like you said, there will be a combination of all langues. That could happen or what could happen is the worlds major language could change again. Such as on the news a few months ago, they said Japanese would be the worlds language. I personally can't see this happening, but who knows? Or perhaps a universal language which combines them all. Another aspect on Global Culture I'd like to bring up is money, each country/continent seems to have their own form of it. Now why not have one for of money? It would change the market as we know it, and make it a lot easier for travelers and such to purchase foreign items.

I'm thinking a bit more about what "global" and "local" actually means, but while I think of an adequate response I just want to say I've revised my opinions and no longer think the "capitalist machine" is homogenizing us. For now, I'm just going to say it's quite a bit more complicated, although I don't necessarily agree with you thehuman (interesting points nonetheless). In general I'm queasy about definitions of "culture." I think there are serious power differentials in the world today (as evidenced by the richest few and the poorest many), but what exactly that means for global culture(s) and modernities I'm not yet sure.

Here in America, consumer culture exists not because we have been forced, or tricked into buying things, but more of because we're all trying to "one up" each other. Social norms in America continue to become more complicated, and expensive. This isn't because advertisers continually convince us that we need unnecessary things, but its because we are socially expected to own these things. We fear that if we don't keep up with the "Jones'" then we'll be looked down upon. This is how these mega corporations became so "mega". It's how they then managed to spread to other countries, too.

Look at it this way, this comparison was made in a book I have read, although probably worded better, in Nation of Rebels. Imagine that every doctor in one city goes to work every day in a honda civic. No one assumes the other to be a better doctor, or more well off. Suppose that one of those doctors then decides to buy a BMW in order to look better than the other doctors. Soon, more doctors will follow and purchase a BMW, to the point where the doctors driving the BMW become the norm, and those still driving the honda are forced to upgrade, only now these doctors are upgrading simply to not seem poor, as opposed to the original doctor who upgraded and appeared to be better than everyone else. This pattern will continue until each doctor must have a ferrari in order to not be looked down upon.

Consumer Culture IS America culture. The only problem with this is that it's become so incredibly powerful in America, that it's spreading throughout the world, to the point where Consumer Culture is becoming Global Culture, which is where the problem lies. Well, really its up to anyone to decide whether or not this is a problem. It has it's ups and downs, like stated earlier, everything kind of becomes boring since every country eventually ends up with nearly the same culture. But at the same time, it becomes easier to communicate with people from all over the world. As far as my opinion, I like the way thehuman is thinking.

I think you have some excellent point spurius. But I have a different explanation, for what your saying.

The american perspective has a big problem, and that is its ethnocentrism. We assume that what happens in the west is the modern norm, and everyone else, the so called "other" possess different qualities than us. One thing that anthropology does is to force us to see ourselves as not just americans but as a species.

The idea your really talking about is called "Status driven behavior." But this isn't something unusual in most cultures around the world. Indeed this same motivation is channeled into kinds of behaviors in different cultures, naturally in a consumer culture, status is based on wealth. But it can be expressed in other ways.

For example, Franz Boas who studied Kwakiutl native americans, discovered that they have a culture ceremony called potlatch, where tribal communities within the Kwakiutl come and give gifts, the wealthiest as a sign of status give the biggest gifts, and these offerings are shared amongst the entire society. When the french/british colonists arrived, many of the Kwakiutl became wealthier and wealthier until the gift/offerings became so large that they had to burn them because they would go to waist. Entire fortunes were destroyed as a sign of high status. Eventually the potlatching was outlawed by the white society which took over.

The truth is that "trying to keep up with the Jones" is the american form of status motivation. Human beings have a built in motivation for status. This most likely evolved over time, because it serves as a form of trust and status amongst ones peers has its own cultural rewards. Status motivated logic often leads people to do irrational things:

These kinds of behaviors are part of human nature, and status motivates us to do all kinds of things, including expressing our wealth, but also power. Indeed, status is sexy, why do you think leaders, even corrupt ones, often have willing female mistresses. Culture defines what status is, but human nature motivates us to go after it.

What does all this mean for Globalization?

If a the consumer culture does indeed permeate other cultures by globalization it will probably pervert the current cultural definitions of status, just like with the Kwakiutl potlatch. But the perversion, is the irrational lengths people are will to go in order to show social status, and will have self-destructive consequences. As I said in my earlier post, the context will change, but the outcomes will essentially be the same.