The precincts of the world seem to be shrinking, the demarcations are getting blurred; globalization has evolved form being just a figment of visionaries to a ubiquitous phenomenon. Satellites, jet planes, Internet and coke cans all seem to carry the contagion.
The homogenizing influences of globalization promote integration and the removal not only of cultural barriers but also of many pejorative dimensions of culture. Globalization is a vital step toward both a more stable world and better lives for the people in it. Besides, current trends that fall under the broad definitional umbrella of ‘globalization’ are accelerating a process that has been incessant throughout history as discrete groups have become familiar with one another, allied, and commingled - ultimately becoming more alike. The blending of cultures through migration, dissemination of news, ideas and fashions through trade, travel and media and through the rise of global references ---- Coca-cola, Addidas, Rupert Murdock has led to an indisputable uniformity. It has evolved into an impeachable tradition, binding and infallible.
The reverberations of globalization are no longer superficial rather they have percolated into every local sphere of culture be it language, art, education, religion, entertainment, food, attire, dances, songs or books. ‘Glocalization’ as most economists term it certainly seems to be an ideal portmanteau for the phenomenon.
It is said about the language that it is the essence of a culture, converge the language and people would follow. One of the landmark achievements of globalization has been the introduction of a universal language - English. It is estimated that by 2050 half of the world would be more or less proficient in it.
Even the most ironclad barriers are succumbing to the force of globalization. The countries like Russia and communist China are also opening their gates for the world, symbolizing a convergence of ideologies. Shanghai for example has evolved into a glasshouse for global brands. Globalization is not only transforming the world; it is creating its own metaphors as well. Satellites carrying television signals now enable people on opposite sides of the globe to be exposed regularly to a wide range of cultural stimuli. Russian viewers are hooked on Latin soap operas, and Middle Eastern leaders have cited CNN as a prime source for even local news.
The fall of individualism can also be credited to globalization. Individuals are forming new communities, linked by common interests and fads that cut across national borders. People today are chatting with foreigners sitting miles away, scientists are sharing their ideas over the Internet, and environmentalists are campaigning together using email. Groups like an international Juventus supporters’ club, a worldwide U2 fan club have become a commonplace. It all signifies greater understanding and cohesiveness creeping into world culture. The world is indeed becoming one. David Beckham may walk the Santiago Bernabéu with his ingenious coiffures but it does not much time for our budding footballers in the street to emulate his style. Such has been the impact of globalization pervasive and ‘all embracing’.
However, it would be juvenile to even imagine that a planet of seven billion people could incorporate a single culture. It would be impossible to counteract or eradicate the subversive elements of diverse cultures prevalent in the present world, preposterous to think of framing social laws that would transcend culture.
The fear that globalization would lead to an undifferentiated culture is pretty benign. After all drinking coke is not a compulsion but a matter of choice. English may usurp other languages not because it what people prefer to speak but because, like Microsoft software, there are compelling advantages to using it if everybody else does.
Nobel laureate Amartya Sen pointed out - “the culturally fearful often take a very fragile view of each culture and tend to underestimate our ability to learn from elsewhere without being overwhelmed by that experience”.
Beyond the obsessions of global uniformity, there exist an opulent potpourri of cultures so eclectic and so apart. People are not only guzzling Mac D’s hamburgers, there are over 8000 Indian restaurants – six for every Mac Donald’s in the UK up from just six in 1950. Mariah Carey and Madonna are global chart toppers, but so are Britain’s Elton John and Ireland’s U2 and how about our very own A.Rehman. If Tom Clancy and Jeffrey Archer sell well abroad so do Paulo Coelho, Vikram Seth and Arundhati Roy. And not to forget J.K. Rowling and J.R.R Tolkein who seemed to have taken the world by a storm. Today India produces more commercial films than Hollywood. People around the world are looking beyond Armani and Gucci. The hegemony of brands is approaching a suffocating end. These realities tend to endorse the fact that globalization does not threaten local cultures; instead it led to the enhancement and diversification.
Appearances may be deceiving. The progressive world gives an impression of having tacitly approved globalization. However the ground realities differ. The majority people still remain untouched by the phenomenon, preserving the inveterate cultures. One of the many contrasts is the disparity that exists between the third world countries and the developed nations. As the rich have got richer and the poor have got poorer, there cultures have moved strikingly apart. I had mentioned earlier that drinking coke instead of being a compulsion is a matter of choice; you can easily narrow that down to a matter of affordability.
Another important change accompanying globalization is that of immigration. Emigrants carry their revered habits and cultures across the globe and tend to assimilate as immigrants the practices of their accepted land, leading to a multicultural society.
The homogeneity of globalization exists only in parochial sphere of urban life, beyond that the effects if any are very limited.
No comments:
Post a Comment