[Reading 2] What is the relation between culture and globalization?

Summary

In order to understand 'cultural globalization', we need to know about various definitions, including globalization. Globalization refers to a complex, accelerated, and integrated global connection process without giving priority or causal superiority to any one. The abstract concept of globalization is a network of interconnections and interdependencies that characterize the material, social, economic, and cultural life of modern society. Globalization is virtually ubiquitous and crosses international boundaries. The most important thing in the globalization process is that the institution of the global capitalist market is a very decisive factor in globalization. The capitalist system cannot escape global domination, and cultural analysts stress its importance.

Cultural globalization is a way of expanding and strengthening social relationships, which means sharing ideas, meanings, and values around the world. Cultural globalization refers to the integration of scholars from various academic fields, such as anthropology, sociology, communication, cultural research, geography, political science, and international relations. It is particularly extensive because there are several concepts that can be recognized as cultural or transnational. Cultural globalization is one of the three main aspects of academic globalization. Originally, unlike other aspects, cultural globalization was not an extensively studied subject. However, it was gradually emphasized because it is very basic to see and understand globalization from a cultural point of view. Given that globalization is both effective and created and formed at the same time, we can take a deeper look at global culture.

One of the many assumptions about the globalization process is that it will lead to a single global culture. This is because close integration systems in the global market can see the effectiveness of connections in areas that provide models. As an example, when the "form" provided by global franchises spreads around the world, it becomes an integrated culture. Indeed, globalization has some aspects of unity.

However, increasing global connectivity does not mean that the world is 'integrating' in the broadest sense, economically or politically. Official Hollywood films, Western pop music genres and television formats are seen in many places, where Bernardo Bertolucci once referred to as "cultural totalitarianism." Many people have criticized this anxiety and cannot evaluate or add to a particular debate here. If the analysis is limited to a rather superficial problem of the global distribution of cultural assets, we will just observe that the problem cannot be solved. What is at stake in cultural analysis is not the ability of Western companies to dominate the wide market around the world with their products, but rather the depth of cultural implications of this ability. We should be careful not to confuse cultural assets with their own practices.

Ecumenism refers to the world churchism and its movement to unite Christian denominations and churches into one. In the progressive aspect of ecumenism, it transcends internationalism and gives leniency to other religions. This makes it seem indistinguishable from secular humanism that does not reject other religions from the standpoint of followers of each religion. What the author wants to emphasize is that this tendency toward unjust universalization, or a particular culture that we pretend to be universal, is not limited to both religious world views and "modern" cultures, but can be seen at the core of European Enlightenment rationality. From this source, the imaginary projection of "Our World" towards "the world" is preserved as a key feature of Western cultural modernity. The Continent of Europe 'will legislate for everyone else,' Kant (1784) said, citing the idea of universal history from a global perspective. Secondly, I would like to take an example of a European thinker who, although he took something from the Kant tradition, was arguably a more influential world and culturally closer to our time. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels present a bold vision of a future world where national division has disappeared, along with all other "local" attachments, including a world of religious beliefs. In the past, people reproduce offspring and form a universal interdependence among countries, from being satisfied with state seclusion and self-sufficiency.

Marx's views, formed in the mid-19th century, were shaped at a time when global capitalism was similarly turbulent and dynamic, and are still relevant today, although not in the form he had imagined. In contrast to modern neo-Marxists, Marx, who tends to be primarily pessimistic, appears not to be ashamed at all of his Eurocentralism and amusedly optimistic about the prospects of globalization. In fact, such sentiments could hardly thrive in today's liberal intellectual culture, which is sharply aligned with claims of cultural differences.

Still we can learn a lesson from Marx's example. The ethnocentric tendency to universalize the convergence of world culture can coexist with a reasonable liberal humanistic vision. Using one's culture as a "clear" model requires the premise that the model is true, enlightened, rational, and good. This is exactly what we have to do to avoid the violent competition of the worldview, which now seems so threatening in the world. Creating internationalism in the sense of "world citizenship" is probably the most immediate cultural challenge facing globalization.

The author noted that globalization creates institutionalized forms of cultural alliances while spreading the institutional characteristics of modernity across all cultures. He says globalization has played the most important role in creating and spreading cultural identity. Every culture forms meaning through the practice of collective symbolism, which is close to the cultural universality we can obtain.
 
At the end of the article, the author says that not all cultures have institutionalized and established the institutional characteristics of modernity. Despite the tendency of culture and the state to claim "universality" as their possession, they consider universality a composition and want to make it work in an international global order. We urgently need to come up with far more agile and flexible cultural concepts than we have so far, facing a future world that we have called a diversely biased and different ethnic nation.

Interesting Point

First of all, it was interesting to explore globalization and cultural globalization from various perspectives. In particular, Clifford Gertz's last emphasis was impressive. When we looked at cultural globalization, we felt like we were talking about the necessary posture. "We urgently need to come up with far more agile and flexible cultural concepts than we have so far," he said, "as we face the future world of various biased ethnic states, which we called different ethnic states, not blockages and superblockages." I think I've thought about it one more time in this area. I only felt that globalization was good because many countries could develop, but I also thought I should not forget that there are differences between countries and positions.

Discussion

Globalization can be a way to deliver various cultures, but it can also be a means to unilaterally convey the cultures of advanced countries. In fact, it is easy to find relevant cases around us. When you go to the cinema, you can see that most Hollywood movies and blockbusters are very difficult to find movies from non-advanced countries. Or even if you look at the brands while shopping, you can easily access famous brands from advanced countries, but the reality is that brands from other high-quality countries are hard to buy through direct purchases. As the economy becomes a top priority society today, culture is also being sold as a commodity, and movies, music, fashion, and food culture using the capital of advanced countries dominate the world. Without a proper understanding of culture, the culture of advanced countries may expand globally, sometimes ignoring the culture of developing or underdeveloped countries. We need to think more deeply about cultural globalization.