Category Archives: Globalization

In my post America vs. Europe: A False Debate I said the following:

It’s very hard to attribute cultural exports to a single country or region and thus generalize about its aesthetic vibrancy. The character of cultures is increasingly cosmopolitan. Indeed, the spread of markets and commericalism has not diluted the best of culture, it has instead provided more and diverse choices for citizens. So, I think it’s unproductive to argue America vs. Europe and then especially derive predictions about innovation, a process that will be more and more de-nationalized.

Steve Silberman left a thoughtful, lengthy comment summing up the counter-argument which is probably more widely held: globalization, internationalization, Americanization, etc. haven’t made cultures richer, instead they’ve become more standardized, more plain, less interesting, less unique, and so on.

Steve is right that small U.S. towns probably look more similar now than they did 40 years ago. As I said in my post: "For example, 50 years ago kids growing up in New Jersey and Louisiana would be slightly different (though still very similar) due to being in different parts of the country. Now, the kids would be VERY similar, though their hobbies and career paths could be much different than before due to increased opportunities to learn about other cultures, jobs, etc."

In terms of world cultures, I would argue that citizens anywhere now have more and better cultural choices. It’s easier than ever to listen to Japanese jazz in San Francisco. There are more and better genres of literature, dances, music than ever before. It’s just as easy to get good sushi in San Francisco as it is London or Frankfurt or Tokyo. Yes, those four cities are now more the same because of this common offering, but as people we become different through this greater choice; we can buy high quality sushi OR authentic Indian food, and so forth. Diversity decreases across cities, but increases within cities. A San Francisco citizen now has a richer cultural menu to choose from, even if it looks pretty similar to Tokyo’s.

Chris Yeh opines that we can achieve *both* financial and social/cultural gains — a country should be able to engage in free trade and globalization without losing its culture. He says:

What would you rather do? Live in a quaint European village full of charming shops and restaurants but have no access or communications with the outside world? Or live in Orange County with broadband access to the Internet, Skype calls to anywhere on the globe, and the ability to order the world’s treasures delivered to your doorstep by Amazon and UPS?

I want BOTH — I want the authentic élan of a Swiss village combined with the connectedness of Silicon Valley. And so I think the main question should be: Is globalization doing its best to give us the best of both, or is it unduly promoting the hyper connectedness while depriving cultures of any unique authenticity and flavor? At the moment, I think it’s doing a pretty good job at offering both. But it’s easy to think it’s entirely one-sided.

As Tyler Cowen points, the junk food — the McDonald’s– is all around us. Yet this is a symptom of the riches we now enjoy. You don’t have to buy the junk if you don’t want to. He points out that high and low culture are complements: "Paris and Hong Kong, both centers of haute cuisine, have the
world’s two busiest Pizza Hut outlets."

I just spent an hour watching an awesome debate (Real player) between George Mason economist (and blogger) Tyler Cowen and Maryland professor Benjamin Barber on the impact of globalization on cultural diversity.

It seems to me that right now there is no force more important to understand than globalization. Reading The World is Flat is not enough, partly because of its shallow treatment of certain issues but mostly because *everyone* has read it, which means that you no longer can offer original, imaginative insights if you are only armed with Friedman’s point of view.

There are many ways to look at globalization, and I am still a novice at unpacking most of them. One area that I am becoming increasingly fascinated by, however, is the argument that globalization is homogenizing and standardizing cultures thus depriving nations of authentic uniqueness, and the counterargument that globalization is in fact increasing diversity of culture through improved consumer access to markets. A few weeks ago I linked to a NYT Mag cover story which argued that the new global "cosmopolitan" is a good thing. Last summer while in Zurich I commented how great it was to hear American music on the radio.

Professor Cowen went first in the debate, and spoke with tremendous eloquence. His book Creative Destruction argues that market-driven globalization increases individual choice such that a nation’s people can improve their culture and change it for better through an indeed synthetic product which incorporates other cultures. Cowen believes that while before cultural differences were dependent on geography, now cultural pockets are driven by an individual’s interests, hobbies, and desires. For example, 50 years ago kids growing up in New Jersey and Louisiana would be slightly different (though still very similar) due to being in different parts of the country. Now, the kids would be VERY similar, though their hobbies and career paths could be much different than before due to increased opportunities to learn about other cultures, jobs, etc. Finally, Cowen raised a point about "cultural imperialism" and how he sometimes feels guilty staring out at the world from the world’s superpower and saying it’s all good. He says that there’s a problem of assigning credit for the cultural exports of the world and that America gets credit for a lot of things which are actually foreign produced.

Professor Barber presented some strong counterpoints. He starts by saying that cultural authenticity is key, and a hodgepodge of cultural borrowings is not the original. Is an Americanized crepe the same as the original in France? (Cowen’s rebuttal is that some say the best Indian food isn’t in India, it’s in America, and that the point is more people have access to crepes than ever before, and that’s a good thing.) Second, he says that homogenization is largely driven by corporate interests to standardize. If there’s 1 Starbucks on a Paris street, it’s OK; the French can now sample a different kind of coffee. If there are 10 Starbucks, still OK. If there’s a Starbucks on every block, is this an assault on the "collective character" of Parisian dining? Finally, he said that globalization is in some way connected to terrorism (hence his book Jihad vs. McWorld). If a culture doesn’t like an aesthetic assault from a superpower, they can respond with bombs, not just closing their wallets.

All in all, a stimulating debate, and two more books on the to-read list.

"The Case for Contamination" written by a Ghanian and Princeton prof in today’s NYT Mag, suggests that the cries of "cultural imperialism" are misguided. Americans’ laments that you can’t travel overseas without hearing more American music on the radio are condescending. I find this angle of globalization super interesting, super important, and on the whole, a good thing.

This WSJ op/ed (free) makes a novel point: radical Islam spreads outside the Middle East, due to globalization, such that believers are all over world, especially in Western Europe. Western European nations’ (Germany, France, etc.) strong sense of national identity – rooted in blood, soil, and shared memory – is often inaccessible to immigrants. With Muslims increasingly segregated in these European countries, Osama appears and offers a universal vision of radical Islam stripped of any local customs or beliefs. With this, Muslims can feel a sense of belonging. So, we need to focus on integrating Muslims in Western European nations and lowering the bar to assimilate into a local culture.

The issues raised in this article are related to my post, which has five excellent comments, The Fundamental Human Need for an Identity (and Religion).