What is the relation between culture and globalization? / Choi Jaemin

 1. Summary

John Tomlinson's World Culture Theory explains the relationship between globalization and culture. Basically, it explains that globalization is a very complex and difficult term to define in one word.So expounds the world culture from Tomlinson's point of view, Tomlinson examines the global communications that have broken down borders through the complex links between the people who have occurred, with the tremendous development of the scientific and communication technologies of modern society. Global communication here means globalization.

Tomlinson narrates the meaning of the physical space in which he is located. Globalization allows us to free ourselves from physical constraints and communicate with people in remote areas, such as people in other countries, and enable many exchanges in such fields as information, science and technology. This globalization means that culture is out of its own territory, which in turn becomes cultural globalization. Here, Tomlinson establishes his own theory of cultural globalization. From his cultural shearing point of view, it means that globalization has not only been done physically, but also socially and culturally. This enables penetration into other new cultures, enabling the formation or interaction of new cultures.

Globalization here does not only mean simple cultural unification. Tomlinson's cultural globalization is a complex single-urbanization that is completed through the interaction of heterogeneous humans, nations and society. Also, he thinks globalization is a phenomenon of capitalist markets. However, it is not limited to capitalism, or to economic areas. Globalization is a complex area that cannot be explained only by one. Therefore, globalization is a complex process in which various areas such as economy, politics, and technology, science and culture are simultaneously connected.

Tomlinson also mentions the complex linkages of globalization. It is a concept of modernity, and it is explained about discontinuity.The discontinuity here is that the modern society developed with the characteristics of the pre-modern society, but it is a completely different form of society from the pre-modern society. Thus, although ostensibly similar, globalization is not entirely rooted in the pre-modern world, but it is reconstructed in different forms and implies a variety of meanings.

The concept of deterritorialization also, says Tomlinson.
In modern times when mass media is universal, globalization caused by contact between different cultures cannot be understood only by imperial theory, and the concept of deterritorialization is put forward. The deterritorialization here is the loss of natural relations between cultural, geographical and social territories. This is the cultural condition of globalization, and does not mean a complete cultural and territorial blockade, which means that no technology can completely deviate from physical locality.

Finally, talk about cosmopolitanism and cultural identity.
Here comes a dilemma that is not easy to solve. That's why one formality to solve this phenomenon is the cultural identity, and the cultural identity is a particular modern entity.

2. Interesting point

In fact, there's nothing much to say about what I've learned from Tomlinson's writings. Because not because I knew all of Tomlinson's arguments and information, but because I didn't know all of them.  So, I can't feel like "It's so new for me!!"
So now I will talk about what impressed me in Tomlinson's article.
The most impressive part for me was 'deterritorialization'. I think the concept of this deterritorialization is the most essential part of the description of Tomlinson's cultural world.
With deterritorialization, the relationship between culture, geography and social territory is naturally lost, which is that it is a cultural condition of globalization, and I totally agree with this view.
In fact, territory was one of the most important concepts in the lives of existing humans, primitive humans. Humans have never escaped the territory they are located in, so primitive humans have never dreamed of the concept of globalization. However, humans began to globalize because of the technology that allowed them to escape their territory, such as ships and airplanes. From that globalization, many cultures were created and turned away through sharing, combining, and trading. So the concept of Tomlinson's deterritorialization was most impressive to me.
But I also agree with his interpretation that the concept of physical territory has not completely disappeared. Still, territory is an important keyword for humans.

3. Question

I have a question about the concept of deterritorialization.
To be honest, it's more accurate to say that it's something I want to talk about with you than to be curious about.
Tomlinson says that while the concept of deterritorialization has apparently led to the loss of natural relations between the territories, the link between culture and the territory is not completely. I certainly agree with this.
However, I think it can be different for each person. Some may feel that in modern globalization, territory means nothing, or that it's ridiculous in the first place.

I want to know what you think. If you deny the concept of deterritorialization, it will certainly require a lot of theoretical ground, but I don't think that's necessary for me now. I'd like to know your simple thoughts and simple reasons.
What do you think?