Global media; distributed globally, consumed locally. 

By: Past Novel Larasaty,

BACKGROUND

The debate about how cultural imperialism and capitalism has been confused and diffused with the globalisation is a never ending study of perspective. Initiating Williams (1961), Hall (1977) and Schiller (1992) arguments about how cultural imperialism and capitalism have also applied in culture aside from the economic and political fields, Hesmondhalgh (2002) reiterates that cultural industries are central to our lives because they create the media texts that influence our understanding of the world. In another perspective raised by Appadurai (1990) and Boyd-Barrett (1995) and Wise (2008), globalisation has subtly shifted today’s world circumstances into a more flexible, yet complex, hybridism. Drawing those perspectives, this essay will illustrate how media convey and alter the contents, including global information and cultures into different places to be suitable for the producers to make and consumers to get pleasure from accordingly. 

CULTURAL IMPERIALISM

To begin with, it was derived from the view of Marxism by Schiller (1992) that the Western drive is still the hegemony within the media and culture influence. Marxist point of view puts stress on how media are the tools of manipulation (Berger, 1991) and this cultivates the notion that there is a domination of Western cultures within the media content (Schiller, 1992). Stevenson (2002) restated that Williams (1961) supported this notion by explaining the workers perspective in cultural industries and how they have produced the media from the more powerful sources into less powerful receivers. Both scholars believed that the more powerful media makers have control over the less powerful ones, which in this case referred as media consumer. Since then, this situation is known as cultural imperialism or practice of capitalism by the more resourceful sides (America and other Western countries) towards the powerless ones (the developing countries).

Latter, it was once argued by Tomlinson (2001) that cultural imperialism has became the general intellectual currency of the twentieth century and it includes economic power, political influence, and cultural dominance. Tomlinson also restated Fejes’ (1981) work about how he described media imperialism related to cultural imperialism. Fejes argued that media imperialism focused on the control exercised by the Western transnational corporations over the flow of information and the dissemination of media products worldwide (Tomlinson, 2001: p. 34-36). In other words, media distribution flow goes from Western countries into the rest part of the world, especially the third world’s countries and happen to label the products as ‘global culture’. Global culture defined as cultures brought from one part to another world widely in global context. Drawing back to what Schiller argued about how America and Western culture have influenced many parts of the world, especially in cultural value distribution, there is some extent to where people do consume the Western products. They like and apply what they see on MTV as well as how they enjoy reading Bazaar magazine as the products of Western media in their social and daily lives. The cultures spread and being consumed by people are assimilated, fostered and even modified in terms of presentation and application. Inasmuch the role of the media, which direct or indirectly owned by certain people and corporate, there is a strong relation between media control and ownership with the display of the contents. 

Referring to Schiller (1992) and Tomlinson (2001) ideas, the dissemination of global cultures brings certain highlight that they contain Western influence in terms of production and presentation. Regardless how people are being aware or not, they are consuming American culture and there is an interesting subject of bringing universal media content to be locally adjusted, in other words, to be homogenised. Cosmopolitan magazine, for instance, have established in most East Asian countries using local language and localised content. However, they still use American and Western models and celebrities as the figures (Cosmopolitan websites) showing that there is a portion of ‘Western’ cultural feature to be seen in outside America. Another example of global culture was presented by MTV and how it has been developed since 1980s. Negus (1996) pointed out that MTV takes effort to cut down its American content and mixing it with more local news in Europe, Asia and Latin America in order to cater local tastes. Not to mention that there are some extent where the features of America-like bands on local MTV in Hong Kong (Banks, 1996), there is an attempt of MTV to be localised in order to enable audiences to be familiar with its contents. 

“Debates surrounding cultural imperialism focus upon the perceived threat of cultural domination posed by the economically powerful Western culture industries through their ownership of the means of production and transmission of cultural good within the global capitalist market” (Beynon and Dunkerley, 2000: p. 28). This argument re-emphasised that the owners of media and cultural industries are playing pivotal role in producing and distributing the cultural contents. They have the full authority and considerations of how the contents within the media should be constructed and distributed. Schiller (1992) has stated that “powerful US companies have used their considerable resources, in collaboration with their overseas counterparts, to achieve internationally the operational arrangements they enjoy at home” (1992, p. 11). In other words, it can be implied from this point of view that capitalism tends to homogenising culture force that it produces and reproduces a culture of consumerism.

In cultural industries perspective, it can be analytically illustrated that America have certain power to produce and control their flow of cultural commodities to other countries. There is also the tendency of the US government is supporting the spread of US media, particularly films, into the rest of the world (Straubhaar, 2007). Law and regulations about media exports are quite lose in order to accelerate the distribution to many countries outside America. Alongside this condition, the reception in many countries, although not all regarding strict law in China and Arab countries for example, is also opened and appreciative. They generate money from the industry and furthermore, they influence audiences by their cultural values through their media content. Comprehending that America have initially exported and distributed their cultures in many forms, they certainly have strong potential to keep expanding the market in many alternative ways, including localisation. They authorise and give credit to local media companies to adapt and modify their ideas in making media contents. Another example of Western influence and distributed media content is a UK quiz ‘Who Wants to be a Millionnaire?’ which has the same format in more than 100 countries (Wikipedia). Yet the details and features like language, prizes, title of programme and other visual details are subject to be customised into the local adapting country. Sony Pictures Television International, as the production house of the quiz realised that by franchising the programme, they get to be known world widely (BBC News, 2005). Therefore, liaising with local media industries in Europe, Africa and Asia is a beneficial attempt to gain attention and generate profit.

Moreover, Tomlinson (1991) also raised an idea that globalisation is “a particular way of discussing cultural imperialism…it involves all the complex political issues and indeed the political commitments – entailed in the notion of cultural domination” (p. 22). From the perspective of political and economy in cultural hegemony, there is a strong highlight in the role of America as the supplier and controller of the media circulation, including their cultural influence, to many parts of the world. Min (2003) raised the idea that the mass market for films in the United States enables major film companies to dominate overseas markets. Hollywood movies, for instance, are a culture commodity exported into the rest part of the world and being accepted without any significant politic or economy obstacles. Not to mention that the censorships might happen in some countries, but Hollywood movies have successfully enter the world market and generated a huge profit to certain companies. Studies have shown that in Malaysia, Indonesia, The Philippines, China, and India, international communication and media have intertwined the idea of media imperialism and how it is being imposed by the distribution process (Fung, 2006; Gunaratne, 2001; Chang et al, 2000). Within Asian context for instance, the media corporations from America like Freemantle and Viacom have dominated the proliferation of global network. They present more than half percentage of media content and influence in many parts of the world (Schiller, 1992 and Shuker, 2008). In sum, this is a perspective arguing that globalisation is another form of cultural imperialism, seen from the political-economy development that brings culture as part of the commodity in the media.

GLOBALISATION IS COMPLEX

The contrary of cultural imperialism and capitalism arguments defines globalisation into a more hybrid and disjuncture flow of information and culture that media convey. Glocalisation was an idea suggested by Appadurai (1990) in regards to the complexity of globalisation. He described that globalisation nowadays is no longer about how Western world, especially America, has the biggest impact to the rest part of the world. He also claimed that in certain parts, there are more influences from local cultures rather than from the Western ones. He stated examples such as Indonesianisation in Papua, Koreanisation in Japan and Indianisation in Bangladesh (Appadurai, 1990) and so on to describe that the changes in one culture does not necessarily have to be from America nor to be called as Americanisation. In terms of proximity, it is more likely to occur that closer culture locations may influence one particular place stronger than the farther ones, for instance that one particular country had colonised in the past by other nations. Thereafter, realising that a culture may be formed by the influence of many other cultures, the description of globalisation becomes more complex in regards to how local culture adapts and competes with Western culture. Wise (2008) supported Appadurai’s idea that globalisation cannot be considered as a single cultural dimension. It involves many strains and constrains especially referring to the five scapes suggested by Appadurai; techno, ethno, ideo, finance and media. Migration of people, for instance, brings the cultural movement from one place to another (Appadurai, 1990). In spite of seeing colonialism like Britain in India, Portuguese in Botswana or Dutch in Indonesia, people migration like Chinese people moving to America or Indonesian moving to Suriname is also another example of how one culture could move and affect new places where the people are moving to.

In another perspective contrasting the negativity of American and Western domination, Boyd-Barret (1995) and Tomlinson (1991) encountered that media content should also be viewed from the perspective of the viewers, not just the producers. Instead of judging how capitalist the media nowadays are, there is the space of audiences’ mind where they see and receive the media as something inspiring, and not feeling any doctrines upon the contents. There is an extent to where people believe and accept the existence of global culture as something positive. Extensively, the influential impact brought by modernised and globalised media industries is categorised into high culture and popular culture. High culture, as mentioned by Reimer and Rosengren (1990) is referring to those people who frequently use cultural media content such as news and other informative form of media content. On the other hand, popular culture has an entertainment focus for leisure purposes. The populations that fit within popular culture tend to enjoy music and fictional movies to fulfil their media information needs. Both types of are reflecting the modern social life which means that specific effects from certain content of global media take account of the construction of human value. 

Again, another point of view I would like to reiterate to support the positive and constructive impact of globalisation is from Appadurai’s work about how global culture is distributed amongst many parts of the world. His argument includes how the distribution is a form of complexity between the five scapes. Tomlinson (1991) supported this idea by defining globalisation as the spread of the culture modernity which means that the process is more than just a domination of one party towards another. Another point of view from Castell (1996), as quoted by Gunaratne, (2001, p. 124) claimed that “global economy emerged as a result of the new infrastructure provided by new information and communication technologies”. This argument related to how Appadurai (1996) was trying to describe that people live with a sense of community with others, hence communications and technologies in global context are irresistibly a primary concern.  For instance, people receive broad knowledge about cultures and important updates from world’s media network. This imply that news network such as CNN or BBC is a beneficial to those countries outside the US and Europe in receiving global and international news. Furthermore, there is recently a growing expansion of competitive media company from outside ‘Western World’ such as Al Jazeera network airing from Middle East and having more ‘citizen journalism’ format as their source of news (Rawnsley, 2012). Regardless how the agenda setting has been planned from each ideology of the media companies, international news from broader media network is reasonable afterwards. Technology, therefore, is inevitably one good effect of globalisation in empowering people’s ability to access information and knowledge. This modernises the idea that not only the ‘Wests’ are smart, but also the ‘East’, including how crises and conflict in the world helped by others using the technology both in warfare or in nationals relations (UN, video conference). As well as how new media enables people to stay connected through Facebook, which originally from America but now has many languages in all over the world (Facebook, 2012); hence people do not necessarily know English to communicate using Facebook. In addition, the distribution of advance technology now become more broadly spread, as well as knowing that Apple’s iPhones are built in China (Foxnews, 2008) using spare parts made in Korea. Those are all the implications of having the globalisation in the world, especially in media and cultural context.

Re-emphasising the idea that cultural industries are central to people’s live (Hesmondhalgh, 2002), media texts have better influence to the people within their close region. In relation to how global media distributed and localised, there are the differences of audience tastes. Therefore, media have to find a way to be accepted more openly in many places (Jones, 2005); otherwise they will not succeed winning audiences mind and attention. Audiences’ interest, as Fiske (1987) would describe as the differences in people and social groups cannot be homogenized, are requiring globalisation to produce an equivalent theory of voices. In other words, the heterogeneous society needs to be accommodated with representative, yet informative, contents of culture when they consume global media in their local context. As an example, Voice of America, a public diplomacy campaign by the US government broadcast (VOA Website, 2012) is aired in Indonesia frequently and showing Indonesian perspective of how America look like. They display Indonesian people who live in America and include testimonials of broad theme about living in America. 

Moreover, audiences’ preference and decency should also be considered as the motive why globalisation reiterates positive functions and effect. In the growing television era, it was proposed by Straubhaar (2007) that between 2002 and 2006, East Asian countries started to import more Korean cinemas and series instead of Hollywood’s. This is because people are nowadays preferred to watch what is going on within their transnational regional than the global channels. Straubhaar (2007) also suggested that the glocalisation creates a complex new hybrid culture with multiple layers where older traditional forms may persist alongside new ones. That is why the international version of some TV programmes or magazines is altered and modified by the local media companies. In application, this localisation of global media enhances people’s creativity in reproducing media contents like series or magazine. In order to be received well, people will want to buy international ‘brand’ that contains local contexts. Conclusively, it is justifiable to perceive globalisation as a constant movement of cultures. It involves many countries, from Western to Eastern and interconnecting them, to contribute in the process of globalisation instead of dominating one particular place by another or else.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the development of culture commodity involves movement and influence from the Western world into many countries. However, this view has changed and debated over altogether with how globalisation process has interacted with social changes in culture, political and economy. Inspired by Marxism, cultural imperialism emphasises so much on the domination of America and Western world within the flow of media distribution. Latter, globalisation includes the disjuncture and many other factors affecting how cultures are influencing each other, raised by Appadurai.  He proposed the complexity within the flow of cultures rather than just saying it as one way of cultural domination. Drawing the two points of view bring their own justifications which are still valid up until now regarding how the theory and school are being practiced in media industries. Therefore, it is nowadays a bigger portion of media presentation in terms of localising the global culture.

In application, the local and global media are aware that global culture is a trending topic within the society; hence there is an attempt to foster the international version of media content but using local features. Referring back to arguments and studies about American influence and domination in media, there has been an adjustment in the global culture product to the local culture (Fung, 2006; Klanten, 2005; Wise, 2008). In order to fulfil what market want, more than just invading their minds by Western culture, the global media is trying to adapt their contents with local entities to be accepted in many local places. By doing so, the audiences are still paying attention to and enjoying the global media and brandings within the localised and familiar contents. Despite of illustrating the phenomena of glocalisation as a form of modern cultural imperialism, I have stated my points and examples showing the extent of advantage in altering global media into more localised content. 

Not to mention that the origin media owners in Western world are also making profit out of their media distribution, I draw more attention to what globalisation has bring to social progression and improvement. Instead of stating that Westerners have influenced and dominate the third world countries’ culture, realising the fact that a broad cultural context cannot be, however, homogenised by one particular rule to be exactly similar. They will have to pass the extent to where global media might contain and distribute, but not to be consumed in original version or portion without editing and amending the features with local contextual features. Glocalisation, moreover, is a term where the global culture conveyed by global media is being modified and fostered to enrich and heterogenised within the local context. In sum, I support the function of globalisation to enhance human living and modernise the world’s perspective. 

REFERENCES

APPADURAI. A. 1990. Disjuncture and Difference in Global Cultural Economy. Theory, Culture and Society. Volume 7(1990), pp. 295 – 310.

APPADURAI, A. 1996. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalisation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

BANKS, J. 1996. Monopoly Television: MTV’s Quest to Control Music. Oxford: Westview

BEYNON, J., and D. DUNKERLEY, 2000. Globalization: the Reader. London: Athlone.

BOYD-BARRETT and NEWBOLD. 1995. Approaches to Media: A Reader. London: Arnold

BERGER, A.A. 1991.  Media Analysis Techniques. London: Sage.

FISKE. J. 1987. Television Culture. London: Routledge

HALL, S. 1977. Culture, the Media and the Ideological Effect. In: J. CURRAN (ed). Mass Communication and Society. London: Edward Arnold

HESMONDHALGH, D. 2002. Cultural Industries. London: Sage

KLANTEN, R., MEYER, B., JOFRE, C. 2005. On Air: The Visual Messages and Global Language of MTV. Berlin: GraphicomSrl.

NEGUS, K. 1996. Popular Music in Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.

REIMER, B and ROSENGEN, K. E. 1990. Cultivated Viewers and Readers: A Life-style Perspective. In: N. SIGNORIELLI and M. MORGAN (eds). Cultivation Analysis: New Directions and Media Effects Research. California: Sage.

SCHILLER. H. 1992. Mass Communications and American Empire.Oxford: Westview.

STEVENSON, N. 2002. Understanding Media Cultures. London: Sage

STRAUBHAAR, J. 2007. World Television. London: Sage.

TOMLINSON. 1991. Cultural Imperialism. London: Continuum.

WILLIAMS, R. 1961. Culture and Society (1780 – 1950). Harmondsworth: Penguin.

WISE, J. M. 2008. Cultural Globalisation: A User’s Guide. Oxford: Blackwell.

E-JOURNAL

CHANG, T., T. LAU, H. XIAOMING. 2000. From the United States with News and More: International Flow, Television Coverage, and the World System. International Communication Gazzete [online]. Vol. 62, no. 6. [Accessed 9 January 2012]. Pp. 502 – 522. Available from: http://gaz.sagepub.com/content/62/6/505

FUNG, A. 2006. Think Globally, Act Locally [online]. Global Media and Communication. vol. 2 no.1. [Accessed 9 Januari 2012], p.71-88. Available from: http://gmc.sagepub.com/content/2/1/71

GUNARATNE, S. 2001. Prospects and Limitations of World System Theory for Media Analysis: The Case of the Middle East and North Africa. International Communication Gazette [online]. 63(121), [Accessed 13 February 2012], pp. 121-148. Available from: http://gaz.sagepub.com/content/63/2-3/121

JONES, S. 2005. MTV: The Medium was the Message. In: Critical Studies in Media Communication. Vol. 22 (1) pp 83 – 88 

WEBSITE

BBC News. 2005. Millionaire Dominates global TV [online]. Accessed at 6 March 2012. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4436837.stm

COSMOTHAI. 2012. Cosmopolitan Thailand [online]. Accessed at 20 February 2012. Available from: http://www.cosmopolitanthai.com/2010/

COSMO INDIA. 2012. Cosmopolitan India [online]. Accessed at 20 February 2012. Available from: http://cosmo.intoday.in/index.jsp

COSMO HONGKONG. 2012. Cosmopolitan Hong Kong [online]. Accessed 20 February 2012. Available from: http://www.cosmopolitan.com.hk/

VOA. 2012. Voice of America [online]. Accessed 6 March 2012. Available from: http://www.voanews.com/english/news/about-the-us/

WIKIPEDIA. 2005. Who Wants to be a Millionnaire? [online]. Accessed 29 February 2012. Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_variants_in_Who_Wants_to_Be_a_Millionaire%3F

REUTERS, FOXNEWS. 2010. Inside Apple’s Secret Manufacturing Plants [online]. Accessed 5 March 2012. Available from: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/18/inside-apples-secret-manufacturing-plants/

STAN. 2010. Security Tight at Apple’s China Manufacturing Facilities. Accessed 5 March 2012. Available from: http://www.chinahearsay.com/security-tight-at-apples-china-manufacturing-facilities/

RAWNSLEY, G. 2012. Facebook Revolutions 2011. Accessed 5 March 2012. Available from: http://wwwpdic.blogspot.com/2012/02/facebook-revolutions-2011.html

FACEBOOK. 2012. Facebook: Select Language [online]. Accessed at 9 February 2012. Available from: http://www.facebook.com/