Infinite Cycle of Influence (Paper 5)

The Internet, television, cable, and cell phones are a few examples of the new found technology that contributes to the inevitable transformation of this world. People from all over the world are able to diffuse their culture and learn about others within a matter of seconds. Some presume this to be negative, stating that this technology isn’t helping to learn about other cultures but is only “globalizing American culture and American cultural icons" (Legrain 1), and that Hollywood movie stars are dominating the globe. This in turn “impos[es] a deadening cultural uniformity” which costs the rest of the world an authentic, traditional way of life. The flip side states that globalization “can free people from the tyranny of geography.”(Legrain 1) Meaning just because you are born in a specific country doesn’t mean you are restricted to only learning that one specific country’s customs and cultures. So which point of view is correct? Is globalization just the imposition of American culture on the rest of the world, or can it free you to broaden your perspectives and look at life through another’s eyes? When just glancing at the question on this topic, it is easy to say that the world is dominated by the United States of America and American culture with obvious symbols like jeans, McDonald’s, and Madonna. When getting a deeper understanding, the question that arises is, what is it that makes these American icons so globally accepted? There is no clear difference between globalization and American universalism because the two are intertwined in a cycle too accustomed to break. The world is undoubtedly influenced by American pop culture, but what is forgotten is American pop culture is dominated by the rest of the world.
There are fears that the globalization of American culture could do much damage to certain regions of the world spiritually, morally, politically, and culturally. To many countries who’s roots are deeply embedded within their daily life, the thought of western globalization is not only an annoyance, but is dangerous. For instance, there is no region more resistant to Western ways than the Islamic Middle East. In this region, there is not the thought of violence, but no hesitation when it comes to protecting its cultural identity. In fact, “there is no part of the world where violence is more often used in the anti-globalization struggle” (Rubin). Another reason other regions are hesitant to globalization is the fact that “much of globalization is related to what historically is called modernization, a set of behaviors and beliefs that challenge traditional society . . . globalization is seen as a major threat to tradition” (Rubin), which intensifies the fight against it in most customary countries. Violence occurs under extreme circumstances, and patterns often show that when violence does occur, it involves keeping culture alive in future generations. “Each culture defines and divides childhood . . . one of the most culturally specific” (Fass 202-203) experiences of one’s life. As a result, they will do whatever it takes to instill their culture into their children without any unwanted imposition. Children can be considered a “sensitive node for cultural contention in the politics of globalization” (Fass 202-203) that often causes an extreme amount of controversy. This, however, doesn’t mean that there are no countries that welcome globalization and are intrigued by the individual freedom of learning about new ways. In fact, a majority of the world is now more accepting to new ways than ever before. There are many American empires built by the curiosity of foreign nations. For example, the Disney Empire has grown and established itself in a number of Asian pacific countries, European countries, the Western hemisphere, and even in South Africa. Disney, just like jeans, Coca Cola, Madonna, Elvis, and Bruce Willis, are all icons of American culture that are embraced by the rest of the world. They have become so recognizable and common place that the Former Canadian Prime Minister Kim Campbell observed that "images of America are so pervasive in this global village that it is almost as if instead of the world immigrating to America, America has emigrated to the world, allowing people to aspire to be Americans even in distant countries" (“Cultural Impact #2: Pop Culture”). Not only is it entertainment that is being diffused, but also, like mentioned before, modernized ideas and values. When researching, I found that the “spread of democratic ideals to developed nations” (“Advantages and Disadvantages of Globalization”) was listed as a main advantage of globalization.
While I agree with the aforementioned claim, I do believe that there is a whole other half missing. Yes, it is obvious that the majority of the world, primarily the developed countries, is greatly impacted by American icons. My question is, how American are these icons? As the “melting pot” of the world, the United States of America is just as much a recipient to culture change as the rest of the world. The fact that we are “an explosion of cultural exchange” (Legrain 1) is what makes us the most appealing culture to the world. “American culture has spread throughout the world because it has incorporated foreign styles and ideas” (Pells 1), and every society can relate to it in some aspect or another. “The heterogeneity of America's population—its regional, ethnic, religious, and racial diversity—forced the media, from the early years of the 20th century, to experiment with messages, images, and story lines that had a broad multicultural appeal” which further explains the single most “important way that the American media ha[s] succeeded in transcending internal social divisions, national borders, and language barriers . . . by mixing up cultural styles.” (Pells 1) Not only can the world relate to certain aspects of American culture, but most icons aren’t even originally American! For instance, “Levi Strauss, a German immigrant, invented jeans by combining denim cloth with Genes, a style of trousers worn by Genoese sailors” (Legrain 1). So, jeans as an American icon are “in fact an American twist on a European hybrid” (Legrain 1). Many other American icons that are thought to be major influences to the rest of the world are actually increasingly diffusing other cultures to the United States. For example, the Kabbalah religion became first noticed when pop icon Madonna converted herself and her family. After Madonna, other famous American stars converted, like Brittany Spears, Demi Moore, and Paris Hilton. This, in turn, created a huge curiosity and increase in the uses of “the tools of Kabbalah, such as meditation on sacred texts” (“Finding their religion”).
There is no clear difference between globalization and American universalism because the two are intertwined in a cycle too accustomed to break. The world is undoubtedly influenced by American pop culture, but American pop culture is not only affected, but also dominated by the rest of the world.

Works Cited

"Advantages and Disadvantages of Globalization." Ideas. 22 Nov 2007 .

"Cultural Impact #2: Pop Culture ." Globalization101. 25 Nov 2007 .

Fass, Paula. Children of a New World: Society, Culture, and Globalization. New York City: New York University Press, 2007.

"Finding Their Religion...." Jesus is Savior. 23 Nov 2007 .

Legrain, Philippe . "Cultural Globalization Is Not Americanization." The Chronicle of Higher Education: The Chronicle Review. 09 May 2003. 23 Nov 2007 .

Pells, Richard. "Is American Culture "American"? ." E Journal USA. 21 Nov 2007 .

Rubin, Barry . "Globalization and the Middle East: Part One." Yale Global Online. 16 Jan 2003. 22 Nov 2007