What is the relation between culture and globalization?

 #1

    The author starts by explaining the meaning and character of 'cultural globalization'. Globalization is a multidimensional process, which happens simultaneously in economy, politics, technological developments of environmental change of culture. Globalization is a complex, accelerating, and integrating process of global connectivity. The author describes globalization as 'flows of virtually everything that characterizes the modern life. The author says connectivity defines our use of communication technologies, and at the same time, it is characteristics of the urban environments that most of us inhabit. Then he explains how impact of global dominance of the capitalist system on globalization is cared more, but cultural impact is neglected. 

    Then the author explains the cultural process and the meaning of it: cultural processes are oriented towards the construction of socially shared meanings. The author says the way to understand the consequentiality of culture for globalization is to grasp how culturally informed 'local' actions can have globalizing consequences. He gives a example of consumer activity. How consuming activity has consequences from the employments of workers in distance to natural resources consumed in the industrial process.    

    In the next paragraph, the author talks about a global culture. He explains the expression 'single place' from Roland Robertson. The author argues understanding global culture as one single unified place is not correct, and we have to qualify the idea of globalization by saying that it is an uneven process. Then he adds that cultural globalization implies a form of cultural imperialism. For example, brands such as Disney, Coca-cola, and Marlboro are dominating the world's culture. He explains how this cultural imperialism is based on the Western, especially the USA. Because of this, there is a wave of anti-Western feeling from Muslim world which demonstrates the resilience of cultural opposition to the Western imperialism. 

    The author explains the history of Western-based globalization. There are two examples, which are map, and Karl Marx's depiction. A map was made in the Western culture and back then, it was dominated of the representation by elements of Christian theology. According to this, the author points out the tendency towards unwarranted universalizing can be seen at the core of European Enlightenment rationality. Karl Marx presented a vision of a future world in which the divisions of nations have disappeared, along with 'local' attachments, including those of religious belief. 

    Now, the author talks about deterritorialization. The idea of deterritorialization implied 'the loss of the natural relation of culture to geographical and social territories'. Deterritorialization, means the significance of the geographical location of a culture. However, the author points out that deterritorialization is not simply the loss of the experience of a local culture. Localities thrive in globalization and they retain a hight degree of cultural distinctiveness. This does not only implies to the exotic corners of the world, but also to the metropolitan centers. For example, how big capitals such as New York, Tokyo, Madrid has their own cultural feeling. 

    Additionally, the author explains about 'telemediatization' which is a key factor in globalization. How use of media and communication technologies have improved over the few decades and how it helps us to define what it is like to be a social being in the modern world. Plus how the 'speed' of the modern technologies have impacted on globalization.

    Finally, the author explains about Cosmopolitanism and cultural identity. Speaking of cosmopolitanism, there is a dilemma between the universal human rights and cultural difference. The author suggests another way to this dilemma, which is 'cultural identity'. He explains cultural identity as specific modern entities. He points out problem with understanding globalization as a threat to the cultural identity is that people confuse the Western-modern form of cultural imagination with a universal of human experience. He expresses the importance of pluralism of cultural identities and identities are constructs, not possessions. 

#2

    It was interesting to read about 'cosmopolitanism' and 'deterritorialization' in globalization. Especially, the part where it says that locality thrive in globalization even in the metropolitan centers. How the cities have same huge buildings of companies such as Nike, Apple, or Coca-cola, but they all have their own cultural feeling. Also it was interesting to learn that in historical context, 'maps' are the representation of Western-based globalization. 

#3

    As it says in this article, every culture has their own cultural identity, and cultural identity, is not a possession, it is construct. Then what makes the difference in cultural identity? Throughout this COVID-19 situation, I was shocked how lot's of Western countries' people don't wear a mask because wearing a mask violates their freedom/rights. Even in this crucial situation, wearing a mask was not in their priority. Therefore, I was wondered how could human-being become so different due to the difference of cultural identity.