Does the Cultural Imperialism Thesis Still Have Relevance Today?

Introduction

“Cultural imperialism” thesis is a political economy approach to construct our understanding to the internationalisation of the cultural industries across the world. The term gained prominence in the 1970s and is frequently synonymous to “media imperialism” in addressing the phenomenon of internationalisation in media industries, focusing on the “control exercised by the western transnational corporations over the flow of information and the dissemination of media products”( Fejes 1981 cited in Tomblison 2002 :25)

The term “Imperialism” is usually associated with eighteenth-century England in reference to colonial rule, which is essentially associated with the notion of “domination”, “power” and “control” over some less developed countries by America, mass media and multinational capitalists. On the global stage, the media system is dominated by a few large transnational corporations (TNCs) and especially the U.S. based media conglomerates towering over the world market. Among the many powerful elites, the United States is the country that attracts the most critical condemnatory towards their self-absorbing “invasion”. They seek to exert their economic power across boundaries of countries, building alliances with local firms and further defy local administrative boundaries and protectionism; “constitute a formidable political force” and remain “under political and ideological attack in an increasingly market dominated environment”. (Herman & McChesney 1997:1; Lee 2003:160)

Media Market Expansion and its Impact on Culture

The media market expansion is firmly tied to profit motive and take the advantage of economic of scale through flooding the global market with their cultural products. It is not hard to find evidence of American mass culture which have indeed extended beyond the notion of popular, and further transformed into normality which embedded into people’s ways of life.

Media have an overwhelming importance in the process referred to be “cultural imperialism”. (Tomblison2003:22) The power of mass media is expanding exponentially in synchronisation with new media technology development which is introduced by the western countries.  Some authors argue that Mass media are “manipulative agents” capable of having direct effect on audiences’  “consciousness, ways of thinking, ways of living”.  (Feje 1981; Lang 1982 cited in Segrave 1997:270)

Media is indeed playing a major role in spreading the American culture, and the popularity of their products has injected immense influence on the “prevalent attitudes, beliefs and values” within the particular society, “lived experiences of people” and “general condition of living”, especially on youth in China.(Hesmondhalgh 2007:82) People in modern society have no doubt watch a lot of TV, however many authors argue that media tend to “overemphasise the representational aspect of culture experience and actions” in the discourse of cultural imperialism and that the notion of culture becomes narrowly limited if it is merely referred to “lived experiences of people”. (Hesmondhalgh 2007:82; Tomblison 2002: 23) To avoid over simplistic generalisation of culture experience, the term “Culture” should be defined as “the signifying system through which necessarily a social order is communicated, reproduced and explored.” (Williams 1981:31 cited in Hesmondhalgh 2007:82) Cultures studies approach encourages people to examine the aspect of culture based on non-material related form of power, for instance “norms, authority, legitimacy, honour and prestige”.(Blondel: 2004:24)

Critics of media imperialism tend to concern on the institutional and structural aspect of global media. (Tomblison 2002:22) The aspect of cultural domination tends to be reduced to the issue of ownership control and distribution of cultural products within the global capitalist market. While practices associated with these corporation were generally ignored, and it also failed to acknowledge the local conditions that motivate media audiences.  (Hesmondhalgh 2007:236; Lee 2003:253)

The Chinese Market

China is one of the largest markets that have long been targeted by those global conglomerates. They use China’s eagerness to join WTO as a key to integrate China into one of the orbit of global capitalism. (Lee2003:9) The WTO has opened the door for foreign capital to invest in media advertising and management, but under no circumstance the party state will relinquish its editorial authority. Nor the global conglomerates likely to contest state ideology. (Lee 2003:24)

In fact, media policy in China is largely subjective to Central leadership prudence and rather strict controls. The Chinese media industry appears to utilize its bureaucratic status to set up layers of protection and restrict the incoming overseas competitions in terms of content and geography. (Lee 2003:210) China has indeed brought down ownership regulation and allows U.S.  Corporation to invest in internet companies, however, internet must not carry unlawful information or have links with foreign websites.(Lee2003:15) Also, Hollywood import quota is limited in fifty films per year, and not to mention that News media still remains unopened to foreign ownership. In sum, the party state has demonstrated a strong position to maintain tight controls of the media industry, which does not rest with the idea of being dominated by the western power.

 

Another critical concern in relation to the discourse of cultural imperialism is the intensified concentration of foreign media power would potentially lead to the decline in public service standard. Alternatively, “deregulating” media to private interests will result in difficulties to maintain public involvement in the policy-making process. McChesney(2003:126) and Herman (1997:1) continued to argue that the overt dependence on commercialism would present danger to citizen participation in public affairs, understanding of public issues, and thus to the effective working of democracy.

The situation of China has presented a rather different political scenario upon entering a historical stage of bureaucratic capitalism. First of all, communist discourse still remains hegemonic, if only rhetorical ideology, thus democracy is not embraced in China, as overt press censorship remains a critical mechanism of control. On the other hand, imported technologies, the global flow of information and commercial media may provide hopeful prospect for china to create open and reasonable public sphere. However, Lee believes there are many reasons to be sceptical of the assumption. Censorship and intimidation remain wide significant. Chinese leaders have the power to for coopting and new technologies if the multinational media firms do not play up to their political desires. Besides the investors have very little commitment in public value. A public sphere based on consuming entertainment commodities constructs a poor foundation for public debate. Despite of all these factors, Lee still believes that the expanding range of information offered by globalisation in China media at least contributes some potential to develop a more open and reasonable public sphere. (Lee 2003:211, 53,89,140)

Imperialism in relation to the spread of capitalism

The second meaning of “imperialism” evolved in the early twentieth-century Marxist analysis of the stage of modern capitalism. (Tomlinson2002: 4).It leads to most common arguments of Cultural imperialism identified as the linking to the spread of capitalism. Capitalism has being criticised as a cultural force in disseminating the gospel of a culture of consumerism, characterised by commodification of all cultural action and experience. (Tomblison 2002:26).Capitalism is a political and economic system which governs the mode of production in a society, and not to be confused with the cultural sphere. Critics of cultural imperialism would argue that commercialisation may pose danger to diversity being swept away with what perceived to be popular.

Therefore, the culture of capitalism transformed into a homogenising global culture dynamic, which inherently incapable to deliver meaningful and satisfying cultural experience. The outcome is notwithstanding display some positive effect for Chinese citizens who seem to have put such imported commodity culture into good use. The rise of commercial media has increased the volume of media production and thus the increased market competition provides more choice and diversity for audiences, despite the fact that media are still mainly owned by political authority. A more important consequence has been given to a decreasing portion of in public sphere occupied by official public discourse, and the new incentive structure to encourage wider range of topics like “personal live of leaders”, “ethnic relations”, “the plight of unemployed” and even corruption subject to careful management.  “The people” have been granted with more concern of their daily private lives in media production, rather than being a term that closely regulated by China’s political hierarchy in the past. (Lee 2003:151-154) Moreover, the ability to exchange ideas and information in and out of China helps to increase size and diversity of culture’s stock, which also gives the Chinese more opportunities to organise autonomous and diverse discussion of public affairs, although radical critics of the government are not likely to occur. (Lee 2003: 155)

Economic Liberalisation under the “Socialist Regime with the Chinese Characters”

“Homogenisation” is not necessarily concerned with domination Tomlinson(2002:129) argued, and it has other consideration such as “universality and uniformity”, which associated with the cultural process of modernity.  The Chinese are eager to “follow the international trend” that of capitalism dynamic to promote economic and trade development, and so as to improve living standard, secure adequate growth and demand, reduce poverty and so forth. However, the environment of economic liberalisation, market competition and global trades do not represent a full picture of democratic liberalism in China, but a bureaucratic capitalist market that serves the interest of “socialism with the Chinese Characters”. Moreover, capitalism is like any other theories that remains contentious and, at all times, contestable, even in the current developed Western societies. Therefore, such does not give rise to the valid question on the righteous of having other third world countries to adopt the system out of their own discretion.

Cultural Invasion

 

If media is the catalyst focus in the discussion of cultural imperialism, then the idea of “invasion” of an indigenous culture by the Western is one of the most common ways to address the outcome of the process.(Tomblison 2002: 23 ) Many authors claim that authentic, “local” and “traditional culture” have been driven out of existence by the bombard of slick commercial and media products, mainly from the United State (Tunstall 1977:57; Schiller :1969) These trends lead to profound changes in societies around the world by “altering values, undermining progressive political forces and eroding local culture.” (Lee:2003:240)

“Local” often refers to  those “belong to a geographical region”. Noticed that cultural imperialism thesis addresses matters in predominantly spatial terms. Thus the talk of “nation sovereignty” and “culture” is essentially a spatial talk which involves with national boundaries between “local” and “foreign”.  However, it is important for us to question how a culture possibly “belongs” to an area, in the sense of “indigenous” is that of “belong naturally”? (Tomblison 2002:23) As opposed to consider culture as an “inherent element that comes naturally”, for instance somewhat “geographically determined” according to cultural imperialism thesis, Tomblison(2002 :23)believes that culture is developed by human beings.

Culture studies approach also views culture as a “hybrids” of older forms, and encourage people to consider culture as a complex space where many different combined and conflict, rather than a bounded, fixed “one, shared culture” (Hall 1994:323 cited in Hesmondhalgh 2007:41, 217) Appadurai (1990 cited in Lee 2003: 140) suggest that globalisation often result in such hybrids that constitute new form in and of themselves. Instead of accepting the simplified image of American culture being imposed on other countries, he perceives globalisation as a “complex flow of ideas and information in many different directions and between many different locations.”  The increasing flow of information in China, has accelerated the access to wider range of images and ideas for Chinese audiences, thus they will more resources to create their own identities through the improvement of a more open public spheres. (Lee 2003:140)

Patriotism as a  Secret Weapon to Secure the Chinese Party-State Pegime

Chinese youth have been drawn into the global culture more than the regime had anticipated. The influence of American culture and products is important, students refer to NBA, Coca-cola, fast food, Hollywood and computers among their reasons for their fascination with the United States. (Lee 2003:108). Not surprisingly, the Chinese Party-State regime confronts difficulties to “integrate China within the global community” in coincidence with “building legitimacy and support for a strong China led by the Communist Party”. (Lee 2003:102) Besides, the national response to multinational competition by organising domestic media group appear to have a slim chance to succeed. Thus, the state has developed successful response by playing the nationalism card- to promote “cohesive and united spirit of patriotism”, as perceived to be crucial in shaping expectation regarding the future growth of Chinese wealth and international influence.

The May 1999 embassy bombing event has drastically shaped Chinese youth attitudes towards the United States. It took the lead in “excoriating the United States for groundlessly violating Chinese sovereignty and attempt to police the world”. Around the same time, five Chinese youth have written a book called ‘China Can Say No’ in accounting a raising nationalist feeling in the broadening of mass culture. In reflecting their new perspectives, they cited American’s efforts to block China’s Olympic bid, opposition to WTO bid, American’s support in Taiwan issues. They came to realisation, that “United States was not the bastion of idealism that it claimed to be; “human rights” was merely a facade behind which the United States pursued its national interests.” (Lee 2003:107) Overall, the Chinese youth felt humiliated at the regime’s inability to response from “provocation” of the United States, while at the same time they expect the Party-state to defend China’s national interests while they also expect China to remain open for international business, as an essential requirement for economic growth.(Lee 2003:110)

The youth actions should not merely consider as resistance to the American super power but a process of constructing their national identity in the global community. National identities are not belongings rooted in deep attachments to homeland nor necessarily “geographically determined” but rather complex cultural constructions that have arisen in specific historical conditions. (Tomblison 2002: 84) The 1989 Tiananmen event demonstrated that western culture products had the effects that inspired youth to construct revolution against their own leaders. However China in 2002 is a far different place for youth, with the Chinese media playing a major role in the transformation process, to which “reconfigure system of power and network of social relation”. (Lee 2003:113; Murdock 1993:533) Moreover, media forms and structure most likely to foster the development of citizens rather than mere consumers(Garnham1993:264). Chinese domestic media has its firm grip on the control of the cultural development, and this is precisely what is at stake in the discourse of cultural imperialism.

The concept of national identities is the cultural outcome of processes including: the rise of capitalism, Western rationality, the emergence of a complex and contested cultural field that struggles for public visibility and authority. (Murdock1993:523; Tomblison 2002:84)These are essentially the feature of modernity- having breaking down the traditional interest in the shifting relations between symbolic and economic system. (Murdock 1993:523) Neither globalisation nor cultural imperialism is adequate to assess the spatial and geographical changes in the cultural industries across the world. (Hesmondhalgh 2007:238) Both theories represents a loss of power, a retreat deeper into the life-world in the face of system-world colonisation, which have serious undermined the “coherence, wholeness and unity” of individual national state. (Tomblison 2002:175; Garnham 1993:251,265,259)

Maybe it’s Cultural Imperialism, Maybe it’s Modernity

Modernity is perhaps another approach to address the discourse of cultural imperialism, given that cultural practice is imposed in the “weak” countries without being coerced from the “powerful”. The process is exactly opposite, the “strong” one is spreading its much virus alike cultural decay to the “weak” ones, while the outcomes of global cultural deconstruction remains the centre of attention. Chinese people may be convinced that such “enlightened” process is an inevitable path for the nation’s prosperity, but the outcome remains an uncertainty. Especially the case of the economy may be developed at the expense of the Chinese cultural tradition. The party state will be facing pressure on mass democracy in the popular cultural field dominated by commercial entertainment, which likely to be governed by the interest of America. But under no circumstance the state will relinquish its editorial authority, and thus the Chinese domestic media would use its bureaucratic status to preserve the Chinese cultural tradition to a certain extent, if not slowing down the pace of global cultural erosion.

Conclusion

Cultural imperialism thesis provides a simplistic way for people to understand the process of internationalisation in the cultural industries. Firstly, media plays a deterministic role in the discourse of cultural imperialism; its power has been overemphasised on the spreading of American culture, which would not only end up with a narrow view of culture, but also neglect other symbolic power that contributes to the process of internationalisation in the cultural industries. The cultural imperialism thesis generally undermines the power of national state, and the notion of “imperialism” refers to cultural conquest across the world displays irrelevance to the current context, especially in the case of China.

Second, the cultural imperialism thesis is essentially critiques for global capitalism. The thesis is at false in arguing that culture domination is involved with the spread of consumerism culture, which is criticised as inherently incapable to deliver meaningful and satisfying cultural experience. In fact, capitalism is a political and economic system which governs the mode of production in a society, and not to be confused with the cultural sphere. As oppose to many critiques with commercialisation may present danger to democracy in public arena; I have present evidence that the rise of commercial media delivers more benefits than setbacks to the Chinese audiences, and that offsets the bureaucratic political coercion and offers hopeful potential for a more privatised and open public sphere.

Furthermore, cultural imperialism is at false in arguing that the domination of American culture is destroying “local” authentic cultures. Such approach considers the notion of culture as limited in geographic terms, but in fact, culture construction have been raised in historical conditions. On contrary, globalisation increase flow of ideas and information, and thus provides more resources for people to construct their culture identities.

Moreover, critiques of cultural imperialism are essential elements of capitalist modernity. Modernity thus becomes a better way to speak of cultural imperialism in that ascribed to the interconnectedness to the world, given that the so called “global” cultural practices have been imposed without being coercive. However, the discourse does not rectify the concern regards to the backward Chinese cultural tradition, although it bypasses the notion of being dominated by the western power which is at stake of the cultural imperialism thesis.

Reference

Blondel, Y(2004)The power of symbolic power: an application of O’Neill’s game of honour to asymmetric internal conflict, Uppsala University Press

Ferguson,M. (1992) ‘The Mythology about Globalization’, European Journal of Communication 7: 69-93.

Garnham,N. (1993) ‘The Mass Media, Cultural Identity and the Public Sphere in the Modern World’. Public Culture 5: 251-265.

Herman,E. & McChesney,R. (1997) The Global Media: the new missionaries of global capitalism, London: Cassell.

Hesmondhalgh,D(2002) The Cultural Industries, Sage,

James,P(1993) Cultural Imperialism in the Late 20th Century , Journal of Contemporary Asia 23(2):139-148

Lee, C (2003) Chinese Media, Global Contexts, Routledge,

McChesney,R(2003) ‘Theses on media deregulation’, Media Culture Society 25(1):125-133

Murdock,G(1993) ‘Communications and the Constitution of Modernity’, Media, Culture and Society 15(4): 521-539.

Segrave,K(1997) American Films Aboard:Hollywood’s domination of the world’s movie screens from the 1890s to the present, McFarland

Schiller, H. (1996) Information Inequality: the deepening social crisis in America, London: Routledge

Tomlinson, J. (2003) ‘Globalization and Cultural Identity’, in D. Held and A. McGrew (eds) The Global Transformations Reader, pp. 269–77. Cambridge: Polity.

Tomblison,J(2002) Cultural Imperialism: A Critical Introduction, Continuum International Publishing Group

Tunstall,J(1977) The Media Are American: Anglo-American Media in the World, Constable

Livingston,W(2001) “Reconsidering cultural imperialism theory”. Transnational Broadcasting Studies Archives, No. 6, Spring/Summer <www.tbsjournal.com/Archives/Spring01/whiteef.html>