Globalization

Do you think there is a way to minimize the dominance of western culture and to promote globalization by understanding different cultures as well ?

That is a really good question and also a very hard one to answer. I think that it is possible because of the internet and social media because that is mainly how the idea of culture and cultural values spread nowadays. But because of the dominating discourse on how the western democratic society is the most 'desirable', it becomes hard for other cultures to intervene and promote their cultural identities when it is largely considered as 'undesirable.' We can bring this idea to the example of how China, predominantly viewed by the west as authoritarian, corrupt, and lacking in the protection of human rights may find a harder time to advocate for their cultural ideologies. However, it is also important to not forget the importance of education. I believe that when a society becomes more educated, they will go out and seek the truth for themselves and at the same time consider other perspectives on an argument rather than blindly take in information. But then this also brings us to the argument of whether education can ever truly be objective in that it may forever remain as a political tool used to produce intellectuals that continue to support the domination and spread of the liberal democratic society.

I believe that at the root, western culture will always play a dominant role. But in regards to globalization, with the increase in mass media hopefully people can see that there are more ways to see the world and to understand it. We can see the negatives of the western culture in comparison to the others or we can see the benefits. I don't believe that any culture is fully bad, but how it is portrayed plays a large role. Now that we have graduated from just the use of newspapers, it's easier for other users around the world to be able to post their opinions and pieces online. I don't think we will ever be able to minimize the western power but we can garner a stronger voice in the smaller cultures.

I think what's interesting is how we chose to define "Western Culture". It is a bit monolithic, and I feel it can have a number of different meanings depending on the context. For examples, some discussions might be focused primarily on the United States' very prominent role in the world; others may talk about how many European countries are becoming more socially, economically, and environmentally progressive while the U.S. lags behind or is at least more conservative (particularly environmentally and in terms of societal values). In any case, I think it will be interesting to say where the conversation around America will head, especially in terms of cultural influence, with the election of Donald Trump, and the frankly scary rise in boldness of bigotry and white nationalism (that has already been gaining prominence in many European states).

Your point (Jessica) about education makes me think of Dewey and his emphasis on a democratic opportunity for education. If we apply Dewey's prescription to mankind of: education as a "conjoint communicated experience" where "each has to refer his own actions to that of others, and to consider the action of others to give point and direction to his own, is equivalent to the breaking down of those barriers of class, race, and national territory" (125). When we think about textbooks that we use and the presence of dominant liberal democratic ideologies imbedded in the content, it's difficult to find objectivity. However, I believe that its not necessarily the objectivity that we are striving for but an equal (ie. democratic) playing field across the discourse that features and embraces different ideologies. And it is this variety that becomes available to professors, students, and academics alike. After all, culture and history is highly context dependent and subjective. Thus, it might be beyond mankind's capability to ever achieve full objectivity. How do you think we can practically go about to make the subjective ideologies in our world more respected and understood?

If that were theoretically possible, it would definitely take a lot of conscious effort, something that society as a whole lacks as of yet in regards to self-awareness. Without a doubt, Western culture is pervasive and its exercise through 'soft power' is striking. The presence of McDonalds in virtually every country, the euro-centric values of beauty that lie within nearly every major culture, and the 'gold standard' – the US dollar – that is now used as a base amount for international trade and comparison all demonstrate how deeply-engrained Western (American in particular) culture has become. In truth, it is hard to see how this could all be undone, as even history was originally presented as a teleological approach to Western dominance through the then-common practice of colonialism. With regards to the extensive spreading tendrils of American culture, I cannot imagine this phenomenon coming unraveled in our lifetime – with the exception of another, newer dominant culture taking its place.

A very good question. Although I do think that the we probably have very different understanding of the concept of the concept of dominance of western culture and globalization. The spread of the western culture is almost inevitable. We could see this trend in the ideology of "white supremacy". Even in China, we have a lot of commercials promoting the "white", such as in cosmetics commercials. Also, as our professor has once mentioned about the soft power of US. They have been successful in trying to affect the world with their own values. In the process of globalization, we would certainly need to look at different cultures. But I am not sure if these understandings of different cultures would make huge difference in the process of globalization.

I agree with the point made above about how much power the mass media has in our world today and shape our ideas of culture. It is important to note that the media consciously shapes the way we perceive our nation, who belongs to it and who doesn’t. It creates an ‘us’ and ‘them’ group while including and excluding the other. For example, nowadays we see many discourses that depict Canadian nation’s humanitarian work and generosity for letting in many immigrants and Syrian refugees which emphasizes the Western democratic ideal of tolerance, freedom and diversity that is mentioned by Sen. This also implicitly suggest that the ‘them’ are the immigrants and the ones that are in need mainly people from non-western countries. This idea is implicitly suggested in the media over and over again shaping the citizen’s idea about who are seen as the superior and ideal. However, despite the fact that Canada is depicted as very generous and tolerant to multiculturalism it is interesting to see that the amount of refugees that Canada has let in the country does not even compare to the amount that other Middle Eastern, European or African countries have let in. Also the fact that most immigrants that are let in Canada are mostly middle or upper class citizens from outside the country for the nation's economic growth and own interest. By looking at Canada as one of the western democratic countries which, are said to promote and benefit from maintaining the idea of freedom and tolerance, we start to question whether their values are actually put in practice and whether they are that distinct from Asian countries.

Canada as a country that is known for its multiculturalism is a great example for how the message media can be framed and shaped. Multiculturalism masked the continuity of white privilege and muted the deeply entrenched conflicts of race. If white people are accused of racist, they can just shield themselves with their "tolerance" and start point to how much worse immigrants are. The inferiority in the cultures of racial others and the need for their reformulation is assumed by the framework.

Great question. I agree with the points mentioned above regarding the mass media's influence on the promotion of western culture and the role that education plays towards being able for one to identify for themselves the culture, values, and ideals that resonate most with themselves. I think that promoting globalization in terms of these wide spread values is possible, but would be especially difficult for those that do not have the means to see the pros and cons of western culture, such as people living in impoverished conditions where they have very little for themselves and look towards the culture of those in the capitalist west as people who can have everything. As well, these people who do not have the resources of those in the west may not have access to computers, books, and an education that challenges western culture and points out the flaws it has.

A good question. Speaking of the Western culture dominance, I think there are some reasons behind. Since the West always puts it eyes first on new technologies, many of the great people come from there have invented a lot of new things that are practical for people to use, especially in our contemporary society. People always seek around for tools that are useful and easy to use, and those new technologies could actually provide it. When things become easier to use, which gives people lots of convenience, then normally people would say it is a good thing to use and they will use it from now on. This has nothing to do with where the things came from. Consequently, a lot of people cannot get rid of such new technologies now because no one would like to complicate his own life again. And this has given the rise to the Western culture. Somehow, I would conclude that the widespread culture dominance is inevitable. If other societies could think of other ways to make people's lives easier without such technologies, then the majority of people might change their ideas.

Because there were different cultures and ideas set on different regions of the world in the first place, the forms of living among various countries could be clearly distinct even when considering environmental and other outside effects on people. Otherwise, every single country in the world would have a single way of living i.e. Western ways of living, thinking, understanding and interpreting. It can't be just said that the Western cultures rule all over the world, which is not true, whereas those might have bigger impact than some other minor cultures seemingly and practically. As Western cultures took hegemonic position, western countries have more authority, control and impact on the lifestyles of people, however, it doesn't mean that other countries live without having their own roots and origin of cultures. I agree with the idea that Western cultures would take their dominant position for long, but do not agree with that they will always dominate. It would take long time to move a power from one culture to another that involves all other complicate interactions, however. Considering the history that repeats again and again, it was not the western culture that rule the entire world since the beginning, sometime in the past; there was another hegemonic power, Mongol dynasty which owned the largest territory in the entire human history spreading over the Asia and Europe and powerful influence back in 13th century. And who knows what culture takes the next dominant position?

I think that with the dominance of social networking platforms and growth of international media, cultures outside of the Western society are slowly but surely making impacts on the global community. The only thing is that as all exchanges go, not only are non-Western cultures exported, more Western culture is being even more actively permeating into the global culture and the culture of various nations.

In response to Cecilia's question, I think the methods of minimizing the dominance of Western culture depend on the impact of globalization in mediating the interactions between the West and the East. Just as globalization has increased the flow of Western culture to Asian societies, it has also opened the possibility for increased flow of Asian cultures into Western societies which will hopefully create acceptance of new and different cultural norms. I think this can be related to the ongoing development of the relationship between North America and Asia-Pacific which is best illustrated by the significant populations of Asian migrants/immigrants in global cities such as Vancouver, Toronto, Los Angeles, etc., who have contributed different languages, food and social ideas to their new homes.

Overall, I hesitate to agree with Sen when he suggests that there is such a thing as "American Exceptionalism" or western dominance. I like to believe, that each country has certain circumstances which are a result of it's historical conditions, and its present conditions. Therefore, as India was highly collectivistic its goal was never to go and colonize/exploit other individuals. Instead, while Westerners were using others, such as Indians, to do their development, the Indians were doing others development (much more in line with Wallerstein's argument). This is one of the main reasons that India was unable to develop at the pace of the western countries. However, if you see now, India is the world's fastest growing economy. And yes, I would like attribute this to globalization. Globalization is allowing India to obtain individuals with high education level who come in and support the infrastructure. At the same time, India is also able to export the numerous amount of goods it creates. Globalization is also giving individuals in India to be up to par with western countries, allowing them from much faster acquisition of knowledge and tools which can help India develop.

I believe that western culture will maintain a dominant role in globalization so long as other cultures continue to compare themselves to the west. When one hears the term globalization, what typically comes to mind is the pervasiveness of western culture and the impact it has on many other cultures and societies around the world. What is interesting is the pace at which globalization from the west is occurring; countries in Asia and Europe have not entirely shown to progress as quickly. Though many societies might resent the United States, for example, for its superiority in the global market, most countries embody U.S. culture through the media. As mentioned above, the media influences and reinforces people's perceptions of western supremacy. I do not necessarily think that other cultures cannot gain an upper hand in globalization in comparison to the west, but I do believe that it will require great effort to suppress the economic, political, and cultural dominance of the west.

I recently wrote an essay on this topic of how Western culture is dominating through soft power such as Hollywood films. We tend to view the world through white savior's eyes and that the 'other' cultures are devalued and degraded through the portrayals of negative stereotypes. In order to promote globalization and understand different cultures/values, we need to maintain multicultural awareness and remain sensitive to all audiences when responding to social media posts.

The Western culture is definitely having deep impact on the process of globalization. However I don't really think we tend to view the world through white savior's eyes. This really depends on what country you come from and what kind of education you received, for example, I got a lot of Korean friends who come to UBC for university education. It seems to me that they are all very proud of their own culture and didn't devalued or degraded their culture. However, it's true that western culture have different judgement on eastern culture.Same as eastern culture to Western culture. I like your point of raising multicultural awareness, but I am really pessimistic about the current situation and don't really know how we should do this.

In my opinion, power relations always remains. The country with more resources will remain more powerful than others. I personally do not think many dominant countries help others simply because they want to help. The more powerful country always want something in return such as money or natural resources. They use the term help in order to exploit others. Also while all these charities are set up, they also push their western values onto countries who value their own cultures. For instance, setting up schools in other less developed countries may seem as a way of helping, but most schools are following the western standards, imposing western values. For instance, many younger generations India who receive western educations, are unable to adapt to their own culture anymore. They are taught that the western world and culture is a much better and superior place than their own homes and own culture, thus creating discrimination within the culture. Here is a video that explains this situation : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAGTaC2yGFQ

I believe that until there is a drastic shift in political power or economic advancement of many third world countries, the countries, or group of countries, with the most power, in this case the west, will continue to dominate globally. But as it stands now, the western countries see no reason to give up the power that they have already. But, if other global forces are able to rise to power, however unlikely, they would be able to push back and impose their ideas on the so called west. As well as that, I think that if there comes a time in which many countries are able to sustain themselves economically and are able to gain more power, then they will be able to resist the dominance of the west. In terms of promotion of globalization, it has already happened. What need to happen now is promotion of education and promoting different races and empowering them from within.