Cultural homogenization

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
See also: Dominant culture

Cultural homogenization is an aspect of cultural globalization,[1][2] listed as one of its main characteristics,[3] and refers to the reduction in cultural diversity[4] through the popularization and diffusion of a wide array of cultural symbols—not only physical objects but customs, ideas and values.[3] David E. O'Connor defines it as "the process by which local cultures are transformed or absorbed by a dominant outside culture".[5] Cultural homogenization has been called "perhaps the most widely discussed hallmark of global culture".[3] In theory, homogenization could work in the breakdown of cultural barriers and the global adoption of a single culture.[3]

Cultural homogenization can impact national identity and culture, which would be "eroded by the impact of global cultural industries and multinational media".

Bollywood), religion (Islam, Buddhism), food, and clothing in the West, though in most cases insignificant in comparison to the Western influence in other countries.[4][12][14] The process of adoption of elements of global culture to local cultures is known as glocalization[4][6] or cultural heterogenization.[15]

Some scholars like Arjun Appadurai note that "the central problem of today's global interaction [is] the tension between cultural homogenization and cultural heterogenization".[8] The Arab's World was found to be uncomfortable with the former as many of them perceived it as either a real or potential threat to their political, economic, and cultural independence.[16]

Perspectives

The debate regarding the concept of cultural homogenization consists of two separate questions:

  • whether homogenization is occurring or not.
  • whether it is considered good or not.

John Tomlinson says, "It is one thing to say that cultural diversity is being destroyed, quite another to lament the fact."[17]

Tomlinson argues that globalization leads to homogenization.[17] He comments on Cees Hamelink, "Hamelink is right to identify cultural synchronization as an unprecedented feature of global modernity."[17] However, unlike Hamelink, he believes in the idea that homogenization is not a bad thing in itself and that benefits of homogenization may outweigh the goods of cultural diversity.[17]

Appadurai, acknowledging the concept of homogenization, still provides an alternative argument of indigenization. He says that " the homogenization argument subspeciates into either an argument about Americanization or an argument about commoditization.... What these arguments fail to consider is that at least as rapidly as forces from various metropolises are brought into new societies, they tend to become indigenized."

Although there is more to be explored on the dynamics of indigenization, examples such as Indonesianization in Irian Jaya and Indianization in Sri Lanka show the possibility of alternatives to Americanization.[18] He remarks over this that "One man's imagined community is another man's political prison.[19]

Generally homogenization is viewed negatively, as it leads to the "reduction in cultural diversity."[4] However, some scholars have a positive view on homogenization, especially in the area of education.[20] They say that it "produces consistent norms of behavior across a set of modern institutions, thus tying institutions such as the modern nation state and formal education together in a tight political sphere."[20]

Teaching universal values such as rationality by mass schooling is a part of the positive benefits that can be generated from homogenization.[20]


International style is generally described as an example of cultural homogenization.[21]

See also

References

  1. ISBN 978-1-59884-073-5
    . Retrieved 4 February 2013.
  2. S2CID 20371168
    . The article takes a critical perspective on globalization, seeing it as aligned with the spread of neoliberal capitalism, a tendency towards cultural homogenization, the imposition of dominant 'global north' ideas and the resultant growing inequalities in health and well-being.
  3. ^
    ISBN 978-0-521-76077-5
    . Retrieved 4 February 2013.
  4. ^
    ISBN 978-1-4129-2416-0
    . Retrieved 4 February 2013.
  5. ISBN 978-81-7188-547-3
    . Retrieved 4 February 2013.
  6. ^
    ISBN 978-0-435-33160-3
    . Retrieved 4 February 2013.
  7. ISBN 978-0-7619-1853-0
    . Retrieved 4 February 2013.
  8. ^
    ISBN 978-0-470-76642-2
    . Retrieved 4 February 2013.
  9. ISBN 978-0-387-28256-5
    . Retrieved 4 February 2013.
  10. ISBN 978-0-7456-3558-3
    . Retrieved 4 February 2013.
  11. ^
    ISBN 978-0-415-30052-0
    . Retrieved 4 February 2013.
  12. ^
    ISBN 978-0-415-92088-9
    . Retrieved 4 February 2013.
  13. ISBN 978-81-7188-547-3
    . Retrieved 4 February 2013.
  14. ISBN 978-90-272-0256-7
    . Retrieved 4 February 2013.
  15. ISBN 978-0-19-927979-1
    . Retrieved 4 February 2013.
  16. JSTOR 4330392
    . Retrieved 2021-08-13.
  17. ^ a b c d John Tomlinson. Cultural Imperialism: A Critical Introduction. Continuum. pp. 45–50, 108–13.
  18. ^ Arjun Appadurai. Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy in Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. University of Minnesota Press. pp. 27–30, 32–43.
  19. ISBN 978-1-4051-3612-9
    .
  20. ^ a b c David P. Baker and Gerald K. LeTendre. National Differences, Global Similarities: World Culture and the Future of Schooling. Stanford University Press. pp. 1–4, 6–10, 12.
  21. ISBN 9780203094235. Retrieved 2020-04-18. {{cite book}}: |website= ignored (help
    )
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_homogenization&oldid=1189412033"