Cultural imperialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It has been suggested that Cultural colonialism be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)

This article or section is missing citations or needs footnotes.
Using inline citations helps guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. (August 2007)

Cultural imperialism is the practice of promoting, distinguishing, separating, or artificially injecting the culture or language of one nation into another. It is usually the case that the former is a large, economically or militarily powerful nation and the latter is a smaller, less important one. Cultural imperialism can take the form of an active, formal policy or a general attitude. The term is usually used in a pejorative sense, usually in conjunction with a call to reject foreign influence.

1 Early history
2 Theory and debate
3 Examples
4 See also
5 References
6 External links

[edit] Early history

The Greek culture built gyms, theatres and public baths in places that its adherents conquered (such as ancient Judea, where Greek cultural imperialism sparked a popular revolt), with the effect that the populations became immersed in that culture. The spread of the koine (common) Greek language was another large factor in this immersion.

As exploration of the Americas increased, European nations including England, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal all raced to claim territory in hopes of generating increased economic wealth for themselves. In these new colonies, the European conquerors imposed their language and culture.

Similarly, policies of Russification were carried out in the Russian Empire throughout the 19th century.

A revealing instance of cultural imperialism is the Prayer Book rebellion of 1549, in which the English state sought to suppress non-English languages with the English language Book of Common Prayer^[1] . In replacing Latin with English, and under the guise of suppressing Catholicism, English was effectively imposed as the language of the Church, with the intent of it becoming the language of the people. At the time people in many areas of Cornwall did not speak or understand English.

In the lands conquered by Islamic armies, Arabic language and Arabic culture prevailed. From Morocco all the way to Indonesia, many local languages, religion, architecture, customs, even names were mixed with Arab Islamic traditions. Examples include the incorporation of Arabic calligraphy into the design of the Hagia Sofia mosque in Istanbul upon its conversion from a church. A significant amount of independence was kept for local traditions in many places that maintained daily interactions with non-Islamic lands; economically, politically, and culturally. An example is the continued existence of belly-dancing, which according to the stricter rulings of modesty and propriety in Islamic rulings is a fairly taboo practice, however, it is found all across the middle east. Less cultural tolerance for existing traditions was practiced in lands that were kept more isolated from interactions with the non-Muslim world, such as Afghanistan and Saudia Arabia, where the strictest (to the extent of distortion) practices of Islamic law are shown. Cultural imperialism is also witnessed in Islamic lands gained through the incorporation of the Arabic language into the culture and educational systems.

This dissemination of Arabic may be partly explained by the fact that according to Islamic tradition the Islamic holy book, the Qur'an, is written in Arabic that has never changed the slightest bit in content or language ever since the times of the Prophet Muhammad in the seventh century AD.^{[citation needed]} Furthermore, Islamic tradition has also held that translations of the Qur'an from Arabic, a metaphorical, tri-literal-root, semetic language, into other languages may introduce changes in the nuanced meanings of the words. Thus, wherever Islam spread new adherents were encouraged to master classical Arabic for their Qur'anic studies.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Theory and debate

'Cultural imperialism' can refer to either the forced acculturation of a subject population, or to the voluntary embracing of a foreign culture by individuals who do so of their own free will. Since these are two very different referents, the validity of the term has been called into question. The term cultural imperialism is understood differently in particular discourses. E.g. as "media imperialism" or as "discourse of nationality" (Tomlinson, 1991)^[2]

Cultural influence can be seen by the "receiving" culture as either a threat to or an enrichment of its cultural identity. It seems therefore useful to distinguish between cultural imperialism as an (active or passive) attitude of superiority, and the position of a culture or group that seeks to complement its own cultural production, considered partly deficient, with imported products or values.

The imported products or services can themselves represent, or be associated with, certain values (such as consumerism). According to one argument, the "receiving" culture does not necessarily perceive this link, but instead absorbs the foreign culture passively through the use of the foreign goods and services. Due to its somewhat concealed, but very potent nature, this hypothetical idea is described by some experts as "banal imperialism." Some believe that the newly globalized economy of the late 20th and early 21st century has facilitated this process through the use of new information technology. This kind of cultural imperialism is derived from what is called "soft power." The theory of electronic colonialism extends the issue to global cultural issues and the impact of major multi-media conglomerates, ranging from Time-Warner, Disney, News Corp., SONY, to Google and Microsoft with the focus on the hegemonic power of these mainly American communication giants.

[edit] Cultural diversity

One of the reasons often given for opposing any form of 'cultural imperialism,' voluntary or otherwise, is the preservation of cultural diversity, a goal seen by some as analogous to the preservation of ecological diversity. Proponents of this idea argue either that such diversity is valuable in itself, or instrumentally valuable because it makes available more ways of solving problems and responding to catastrophes, natural or otherwise.

Opponents of this idea deny the validity of the analogy to biodiversity, and/or the validity of the arguments for preserving biodiversity itself.

[edit] Said and post-colonial studies

The writer Edward Said, one of the founders of the field of post-colonial study, wrote extensively on the subject of cultural imperialism, and his work is considered by many^{[attribution needed]} to form an important cornerstone in this area of study. His work attempts to highlight the inaccuracies of many assumptions about cultures and societies, and is largely informed by Michel Foucault's concepts of discourse and power. The relatively new academic field of post-colonial theory has been the source for most of the in-depth work on the idea of discursive and other non-military mechanisms of imperialism, and its validity is disputed by those who deny that these forms are genuinely imperialistic.

[edit] Rothkopf on dealing with cultural dominance

David Rothkopf, managing director of Kissinger Associates and an adjunct professor of international affairs at Columbia University (who also served as a senior Commerce Department official in the Clinton Administration), wrote about cultural imperialism in his provocatively titled "In Praise of Cultural Imperialism" in the Summer 1997 issue of Foreign Policy magazine. Rothkopf says that America should embrace "cultural imperialism" as in its self interest. But his definition of cultural imperialism stresses spreading the values of tolerance and openness to cultural change in order to avoid war and conflict between cultures as well as expanding accepted technological and legal standards to provide free traders with enough security to do business with more countries. Rothkopf's definition almost exclusively involves allowing individuals in other nations to accept or reject foreign cultural influences. He also mentions, but only in passing, the use of English and consumption of news and popular music and film as cultural dominance that he supports. Rothkopf additionally makes the point that globalization and the Internet are accelerating the process of cultural influence.^[3]

Culture is used by the organizers of society — politicians, theologians, academics, and families — to impose and ensure order, the rudiments of which change over time as need dictates. It is less often acknowledged as the means of justifying inhumanity and warfare. [...] cultural differences are often sanctified by their links to the mystical roots of culture, be they spiritual or historical. Consequently, a threat to one's culture becomes a threat to one's God or one's ancestors and, therefore, to one's core identity. This inflammatory formula has been used to justify many of humanity's worst acts.

[O]ne need only look at the 20th century's genocides. In each one, leaders used culture to fuel the passions of their armies and other minions and to justify their actions among their people.

Rothkopf then cites genocide and massacres in Armenia, Russia, the Nazi Holocaust, Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda and Timor as examples of culture (in some cases expressed in the ideology of "political culture" or religion) being used to justify violence. He also acknowledges that cultural imperialism in the past has been guilty of forcefully eliminating the cultures of natives in the Americas and in Africa, or through use of the Inquisition, "and during the expansion of virtually every empire." But he adds that the charge of "cultural imperialism" has too often been a rhetorical cudgel used by mullahs, dictators, authoritarians, demagogues and others to help shore up their rule in the face of influential foreign ideas about freedom, democracy, human rights and the social practices and ideas that support those ideals.

The most important way to deal with cultural influence in any nation, according to Rothkopf, is to promote tolerance and allow, or even promote, cultural diversities that are compatible with tolerance and to eliminate those cultural differences that cause violent conflict:

Successful multicultural societies, be they nations, federations, or other conglomerations of closely interrelated states, discern those aspects of culture that do not threaten union, stability, or prosperity (such as food, holidays, rituals, and music) and allow them to flourish. But they counteract or eradicate the more subversive elements of culture (exclusionary aspects of religion, language, and political/ideological beliefs). History shows that bridging cultural gaps successfully and serving as a home to diverse peoples requires certain social structures, laws, and institutions that transcend culture. Furthermore, the history of a number of ongoing experiments in multiculturalism, such as in the European Union, India, South Africa, Canada and the United States, suggests that workable, if not perfected, integrative models exist. Each is built on the idea that tolerance is crucial to social well-being, and each at times has been threatened by both intolerance and a heightened emphasis on cultural distinctions. The greater public good warrants eliminating those cultural characteristics that promote conflict or prevent harmony, even as less-divisive, more personally observed cultural distinctions are celebrated and preserved.

[edit] Examples

Some real-world examples that may illustrate various forms of cultural imperialism are:

The forced assimilation of the Ainu of Japan through the slaughter of the deer they depended on for sustenance and cultural survival [2]
The beating of Native Hawaiian children for speaking the Hawaiian language in school during the early territorial period [3]
The importation of items such as infant formula into non-Westernized societies (see Nestlé boycott)
The active suppression of pre-war Yugoslavian cultural practices and common language in Croatia with powerful pro-Catholic sanctions.
The ongoing threat to the Inuit hunting culture in Greenland by political groups such as Greenpeace, and of the traditional Thule culture in Greenland by encroachment of a cash-based economy.
The forced use of French as the language of Occitania.

[edit] See also

[edit] References

^ Book of Common Prayer
^ TOMLINSON, John, Cultural Imperialism: A Critical Introduction, Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991.
^ [1]Rothkopf, David, "In Praise of Cultural Imperialism," Foreign Affairs, Summer 1997, Volume 107, pp. 38-53; all descriptions of Rothkopf's points and his quotes are from this article