Sociology 2: Class 17: Globalization, Culture, Identity

Copyright © 2010 by Evan Schofer Do not copy or distribute without permission

Announcements

• Final exam coming up – Review sheet will be handed out soon • Today’s Class: Globalization & Culture • What is culture, and how does globalization affect it?

• Is culture/identity a source of conflict?

Review: Cultural Globalization

• “Culture” refers to many things: – 1. Popular culture: movies, music, clothing – 2. World Polity Theory: Culture = common norms, cognitive models, scripts.

– 3. Group culture/identity: Shared beliefs, traditions, world-views, way of life • Example: An indigenous that shares a particular religion, language, cuisine, etc.

• Example: National groups (e.g., the French)

Cultural Globalization

• Question: Is there such a Orange County culture?

• If so, what are some of its distinctive features?

• Food? Language? Accent? Worldview?

Globalization and Culture

• One obvious trend: – Western (often American) culture is increasingly dominant • Ex: English is becoming the global language • And, many local languages are dying out • Ex: Western music, clothing are popular everywhere – Other examples from readings? Personal experiences?

Perspectives: Globalization & Culture

• 1. Modernization theory – Dominant view in 1950s and 1960s, now criticized • Observation: People in colonies & non-Western countries were adopting “modern”/Western views • Prediction: Traditional “cultures” would die out, as everyone became “modern” and “rational” – People thought this was a good thing • “Primitive” cultures were replaced by “advanced” ones • Local identities were replaced by modern social & political identities • “Superstition” replaced by rationality, science, “enlightenment”.

Perspectives: Globalization & Culture

• 2. Marxism / World-System Theory • Argues that power & culture are intertwined • Marx: Ideas of a society are the ideas of the ruling class • Western economic domination is accompanied by cultural domination • Often called “Cultural Imperialism” • Westerners can effectively spread their culture via colonialism (and later via media, advertising) – Some argue that this helps maintain economic dominance • Non-Western people may reject their own culture, prefer to wear Western clothes, listen to Brittany Spears, and eat at McDonalds.

Perspectives: Globalization & Culture

• 3. World Polity Theory • Argues that a key facet of globalization is the emergence of a “world culture – Embodied, in part, in international associations • Global culture provides norms, scripts, and models that shape the behavior of governments • Consequence: Governments, laws, societies are becoming increasingly “isomorphic” – Contrast w/ WST: World culture may relate to historical dominance of West….

• But, culture is not principally a mechanism of furthering the dominance of the West – Rather, it now evolves somewhat independently of the interests of powerful countries » Ex: Environmentalism, human rights…

Perspectives: Globalization & Culture

• 4. Hybridization: A view from anthropology • Reading: Hannerz: Scenarios for Peripheral Cultures • Contrasts two views on culture – A. Homogenization (also called “saturation”) • Based on ideas from Modernization Theory • The idea: that globalization erodes local cultures, makes the whole world homogeneous • “As transnational cultural influences unendingly pound on the sensibilities of people of the periphery, peripheral culture will step by step assimilate more and more of the imported meanings and forms, becoming gradually indistinguishable from the center.”

Perspectives: Globalization & Culture

• Hannerz: Scenarios for Peripheral Cultures.

– B. Hybridization (also: creolization, maturation) • Claim: Much local culture is embedded in daily life • Locals are influenced by global culture, but also re interpret it and adapt it to their lives • “Local cultural entrepreneurs have gradually mastered the alien forms which reach them through the transnational commodity flows and in other ways, taking them apart, tampering and tinkering with them in such a way that the resulting new forms are more responsive to, and at the same time in part outgrowths of, local everyday life… • Can anyone think of examples?

Culture, Identity, & Conflict

• Issue: Is conflict inevitable when globalization brings cultures into contact with each other?

– Does globalization of Western/American culture generate conflict?

• Huntington: Clash of Civilizations – And, more generally: Can ideas like culture, ethnicity, and “identity” explain conflict • Ex: Genocide in Balkans, Rwanda • Ex: Conflict between radical Islamic groups and Western/Christian/capitalist societies – Answer: It depend on what you think ethnicity / identity is…

Perspectives on identity/culture

• Two views of identity/ethnicity/culture: • 1. Primordial view • Culture/ethnicity/identity is “primordial.” It is deeply rooted, fundamental, and enduring • Consequently, cultural differences are difficult to overcome – Conflict often results • This view is common in media, popular culture.

Perspectives on identity/culture

• 2. The “social constructionist” view: Culture/ethnicity/identity are malleable: They change over time and with social context • People exhibit different identities in different contexts • Identities disappear and return (or are “re-invented”) – Ex: Quebecois in Canada • Political processes and social circumstances shape and alter identities.

Perspectives on identity/culture

• Empirical evidence: Strongly supports the social constructionist perspective • 1. Culture/identity is not innate and unchanging • Example: Balkan conflict between Serbs and Croats • Primordialist claim: Hatred is centuries old: “There will always be blood on the Balkan soil” • Evidence: Surveys suggest that trust and intermarriage were very high in 1980s, before political conflict began.

Perspectives on identity/culture

• 2. Culture/identity is often the product (not cause) of political struggle • Example: Balkan political leaders strategically invoked ethnicity, stoked hatreds to gain support – Inflammatory speech about external threat = a powerful frame to garner social/political support • Elites & social movement groups frame selectively, thereby “constructing” the conflict along certain lines – Is fight against Al Qaeda a fight against an Islamic group? A bunch of Saudis? A bunch of oil-rich bourgeoisie?

Culture and Conflict

• Samuel Huntington: Clash of Civilizations – A. There are distinct “civilizations” in the world, with different histories, beliefs, and cultures • Ex: Western, “Confucian”, Islamic, Hindu, Latin American – B. These will become the main “fault lines” of conflict in the future • Replacing the “Cold War” battles over ideologies.

Culture and Conflict

• Why will there be conflict among civilizations?

• 1. Differences in civilizations are

fundamental

• Different language, history, religion, beliefs about individuals, families, and groups • “These differences are more fundamental than beliefs about political ideologies and political regimes.” (Reader, p. 28) • 2. Globalization: The world gets smaller • Globalization increases and intensifies interactions among “civilizations”.

Culture and Conflict

• 3. Economic modernization is “separating people from local identities” (p. 28) • Local identities are dying out, allowing groups to organize under broad “civilizations” – For him, civilizations are primordial… more so than local identities… • Example: There are many Islamic sects (often in conflict with each other); If those sects unite under “Islam”, the potential for conflict increases • Result: There is greater “civilization consciousness” in non-West.

Culture and Conflict

• Huntington’s prediction: These cultural differences will lead to greater global conflict: A clash of civilizations • Either among civilizations… or “the West versus the rest” • Issue: Sociologists have been very critical of this view: • The general idea of coherent “civilizations” • And, the primordial view of culture…

Perspectives on identity/culture

• Bowen: “The Myth of Global Ethnic Conflict” • Argues against Huntington (But focuses on civil war, not global conflict) • Also: Optional reading: Hironaka: “Ethnic Conflict in Weak States” • Issue: There are many bloody conflicts raging in developing countries • Westerners often attribute them to enduring ethnic hatreds • Treat them as sad but inevitable • And, many fear Huntington-like conflict of “West vs. the Rest”…

Perspectives on identity/culture

• Question: Do ethnic hatreds explain civil wars?

• Bowen & Hironaka: No… • Civil wars are a product of political struggle… made worse by weak governments, poverty • Emphasis on ethnic identity/conflict = a Western stereotype… not at all describing what is happening “on the ground”.

Perspectives on identity/culture

• Example: Katangan revolt in the Congo • Typical account: war is result of “tribalism and ethnicity” (p. 131, citing Young) • Actually, Katangans aren’t an ethnic group!

• Katanga a province (like a US state) filled with many different ethnic groups – which fought on both sides • Rather, the war was rooted in economics and politics – For instance: Katanga was wealthy; they wanted to stop people from migrating, taking jobs.

Perspectives on identity/culture

• Issue: Katangan war did help solidify the “Katangan” cultural identity • People began to be willing to “die for Katanga” • But, it would be a mistake to assume that conflict was

caused

by strong cultural identities • Example: Cold War: I knew people in high school that wanted to “Nuke those commie Russian bastards” • Even strong identities can dissolve; Or, be replaced by others (e.g., desire to fight radical Islamic fundamentalists).

Local Reactions to Globalization

• So, if globalization doesn’t inevitably lead to ethnic conflict… what’s up with Al Qaeda?

– The general issue: How can we understand reactions against the West?

Local Responses to Globalization

• Local reactions against Western culture, imperialism: • 1. Opt out. Ignore or shun the external culture – Examples: Many indigenous groups, the Amish • Historically most common. Arguably the most “authentically” traditional response to outsiders • Typical outcome: children abandon traditional culture; traditional groups shrink or disintegrate – Many traditional societies do not have strong institutions of social control… can’t compete with Western education, media, labor market.

Local Responses to Globalization

• Reactions against Western culture, imperialism: • 2. “Reactionary movements”: Social movements that attack the system, offer an alternative • Examples: French social movement against American food, popular culture; Some Islamic fundamentalists.

– Note: Some movements attack a specific (or symbolic) part of the dominant culture. Others are total rejections of it.

• Examples from readings, personal experience?

Local Responses to Globalization

• Kurzman reading: “Bin Laden and other Thoroughly Modern Muslims” • Argument: There are two kinds of reactionary movements: “Traditional” and “Modern” – Traditional Reactionary Movements: • Ex: The Taliban in Afghanistan • Mostly fight to get outsiders to leave • Usually organized by actual indigenous people – Participants are usually local • Not very common…

Local Responses to Globalization

• Kurzman reading: “Bin Laden and other Thoroughly Modern Muslims” – “Modern” Reactionary Movements: • Ex: Bin Laden & Al Qaeda • Typically organized by highly educated people • More like a social movement – Sophisticated use of media, etc… • Not really a very “local” response at all… • Argument: These are modern social movements.

Reactionary Movements

• Reactionary movements are just like other social movements. They rely on: • Resource mobilization: resources, organizational capacity • Political opportunity structure: allies, lapses in repression • Framing: Use of symbols, imagery (often religious).

Reactionary Movements

• Example: Radical Islamic fundamentalist groups • Resource mobilization: • Leaders are highly educated – Some even have degrees from American universities • Oil rich countries have tremendous resources – It is easy to find donors for any pro-Islamic cause.

Reactionary Movements

• Example: Radical Islamic fundamentalist groups • Political opportunity structure • Radical groups clearly took advantage of friendly regimes (e.g., the Taliban) to train, build capacity • Relative lack of repression in US is an opportunity – Note: Increased security after 9/11 means fewer opportunities for protest/attacks – Note: These groups also attack pro-US regimes like Egypt… but repression is much greater.

Reactionary Movements

• Ex: Radical Islamic fundamentalist groups • Framing: Use of symbols, imagery • Religion provides a powerful set of images – Enemy isn’t just bad, but “evil” & “satanic” • Another frame: attacking “imperialism”, the “system” – Standing up for the “little guy”, fighting the “bully” • Reactionary movements always claim to authentically represent locals; that they aren’t part of the “system” – Ex: Leaders don’t emphasize educational degrees or wealth; They emphasize the small village they came from.

Reactionary Movements

• Issue for future discussion: How would strategies for dealing with Al Qaeda differ if we think of it as a modern social movement?

• Rather than a “traditional” reactionary movement…