Local and Global

I still feel that America and England are still major influences on other cultures primarily because of the media and transnational corporations. To me, there still seems to be this idea that individuals strive to live like the Americans and British despite the fact that the Nordic countries rate much higher on social attainment and overall wellbeing. For example, I don’t think there is a single person who doesn’t about the royal family in England whereas who knows about the royalty in other countries? I also feel there is still a major push around the world to learn English whereas the prevalence of bilingual speakers in the U.S. is not as common.

It’s great that the media is starting to globalize the local and that several segments of the economy are operating under many languages. But, I don’t think this is to bring people together and to promote other cultures, as it is a business move to bring in more revenue.

Because of globalization, I believe more and more people are becoming accepting of other cultures, however, I feel that a lot of cultures have become commercialized. For example, third world countries commercialize their culture for tourist packages to attract foreigners. In one documentary that I watched in the past, one country was selling burkas to tourists, and they would try them on “pretending” they were part of the local culture. There was no respect as if it were a mask. Globalization and consumption allow us to become "the other" or act like we are part of another culture by consuming their products and attire. 

Globalization of the Local

Interesting word choice and mostly accurate description of the American system: "the juggernaut of globalization as Americanization could, in just a few decades, wipe out the cultural, ecological, and zoological diversity that took millions of years of human, plan, and animal evolution to produce."

"There is no minimizing the dangers posed to the environment by the flattening of the world."

--I find this quote very interesting because a friend of mine, who is a biology major, argues that we will eventually build something that will have the ability to undo all of the damage we are causing to the environment. She believes there is no way to positively change our lifestyles enough to create lasting recovery and thinks we should all bank on the advancement of technology to build something that will clean the earth up quick and easy........her view may be far-fetched, but I believe the author and my friend have a point when it comes to the irreversible nature of the damage.

Is there really anything we humans can do to change the pollution and damage we are causing on the earth? We can talk about it. We can also talk about how not enough people are talking about it. Time isn't stopping, years are passing, and things are only getting worse.

The author has a point in his "Globalization of the Local" argument. Uploading does make nearly all things possible as so many people worldwide have the tools to create and upload their own content. Anything anyone shares now has the potential to reach people on every continent. Although Americanization via globalization is still very powerful, uploading is a force that won't be stopped. Citizens everywhere are curious and creative and exploring and surfing the web; the flow of information will only expand.

"Globalization now belongs to everyone who can figure out how to take advantage of its opportunities and minimize its dislocations."

Globalization of the Local

• "globalization means Americanization"
• Yes, that's generally what I've been led to believe. I mean, we don't really see foreign brands over here, do we? Maybe the number is growing.
• "It is becoming clear that the flat-world platform, while it has the potential to homogenize cultures, also has, I would argue, an even greater potential to nourish diversity to a degree that the world has never seen before."
• Very interesting. But wouldn't diversifying the entire world be, in a sense, homogenizing it? 
• uploading = "globalization of the local"
• Hmm... tell me more.
• "The fact that more people can now not only survive but even thrive by staying home in their native region, in their own environment, has got to be a net plus for the forces of cultural diversity versus the forces of homogeneity."
• But if people stay in their own country/culture, how does the world get diversified??
• "Even those individuals who have had to uproot themselves from developing countries to go west... have been able to take advantage of the flattening of the world to hold on to many aspects of their local culture."
• So people do need to leave their own country for this globalization of the local to work...
•  "Globalization of the local 'is globalization in reverse. Instead of global media enveloping Asia, the region's 'local' media are going global. This... is being driven by the demand for local news and information from Asia's diasporas, notably the millions of Chinese and Indian emigres now living in all parts of the world.'"
• (Same note as above.)
• "Globalization has empowering and disempowering, homogenizing and particularizing, democratizing and authoritarian tendencies all built into it."
• Both good and bad... It's basically a contradiction in itself, or at least that's how the author is explaining it. (I develop this thought further in the last bullet point.)
• Toodou = Chinese version of YouTube
• "I am confident that this flattening phase of globalization is not going to mean more Americanization, but more globalization of local cultures."
• I'm not against globalization, honestly. I think it would be really cool to have access to other cultures' products without having to travel to each country. But the "globalization of the local" that the author describes only works for people who may have left their country of origin and want to stay connected. For instance, a Japanese newspaper only has a very narrow audience in the United States, really only people who have emigrated from Japan and possibly American students studying Japanese/Japanese culture. Native Americans (not to be confused with American Indians - I mean Americans who were born in the United States) without any Japanese background would have no use for a Japanese newspaper, and so those ideas are only spread to a very small number of people. Like Toodou - it's great that Chinese people can create their own content for all the world to see, but how much of the world besides China will actually understand what's going on? I can only fathom a functioning world with limited globalization, that is, only the globalization of products and possibly art styles. Otherwise, if every nationality in, for example, this melting pot of America is catered to in their own culture, then where does the American culture, the American language, the American opinion go? Complete globalization is homogenization. There wouldn't be a division anymore. I believe that when someone moves to another country, let's say the United States, they intend to adopt that country's culture. I wouldn't move to Nigeria unless I was willing to completely change my lifestyle, especially my language. Of course I can still have ties to my old American life, but I live in Nigeria, and if I wanted to live the American life, complete with American newspapers, films, and fast food, I should have stayed in America. I am an American, born and raised, but my mother is Brazilian, and I have such a strong connection with that culture that I've considered many times just moving there once I graduate because I feel the Brazilian in me so much more. Even if I don't, though, I will still read a Brazilian book or go to an American celebration of Brazilian Carnival every once in awhile, but I will remain an American consumer of American culture.

(This reading reminded me of a project I did my freshman year about samba and its globalization: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbZJNLt_6sc)