Globalisation Vs The Rest of the World- extended blog

With the integration of culture and nationalities, the movement of people and the adaptation of foreign behavior almost seeming like a positive concept, globalization poses as a negative one. According to Nederveen Pieterse (2004) ‘globalization invites more controversy than consensus, and the areas of consensus are narrow by comparison to the controversies’. To myself, globalization invites both a utopian view and dystopian. A utopian view is considered a positive and inspiring view and dystopia reflecting the opposite- negative and frowned upon. Among these so-called controversies is the worldwide domination of global media empires. Their presence can be identified as a negative aspect and is very much evident in our every day life. Unknowingly, many of us have adapted to the spread of media empires, either simply buy purchasing the latest apple IPhone or securing a Facebook or Twitter account. With the strong power of the media, Pieterse (2004) states that ‘globalization involves more intensive interaction across wider space in shorter time than before’. This is when I question the force of globalization and become mindful of its presence and nature within our everyday lives. Is globalization controllable or is it just the beginning for a radical change in society in the future years to come?

Thompson (2005) refers to globalization as ‘the growing interconnectedness of different parts of the world, a process which gives rise to complex forms of interaction and interdependency’ (Rantanen, 2005, pg.7). With the process of interconnectivity taking place, globalization encourages facets such as information, media and cultural flows to move beyond original boundaries and land themselves in a foreign, as they both contribute to the supremacy of media empires. Through the worldwide spread and easy access to information around the world, mass media empires are free to grow and dominate, for example Rupert Murdoch and the Fox Broadcasting. Other global companies such as Apple, Coca Cola McDonalds have placed themselves on the tip of the media empire iceberg, as they are recognized and experience worldwide. According to Steven (2003) ‘the dominant media have the power to set political agendas and shape the cultural landscape’. To an extent, this theory suggests that globalization invites the mass media to control what we believe and say. Unconsciously, we are exposed to this theory via the simplest form, such as advertisements and news reports, which are all designed to send out one particular main message to selected audiences. This links the concept of globalization and the media to the process of hegemony. Steven (2003) states that ‘hegemony is achieved when the power of the dominant groups in a society appears natural’. This notion is ultimately successful through the process of globalization as subconsciously, society has adapted to the ways of dominant groups. Steven (2003) further goes on to discuss hegemony as ‘it works within everyday culture and seems to provide a frame for understanding experience’. It is in the media empire such as Facebook and Apple that everyday culture has adapted to.

Consumers of media empires, especially those that utilize social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter, would argue that globalization has a positive influence upon every day behavior and allows us to be connected to others around the world, in a matter of minutes. It is this interconnectedness of the world that people depend on, for simple things such as news, information and connecting with family or friends all over the world. From these experiences, people ultimately enjoy integrating themselves among the global media, making globalization, as a whole, a utopian concept. With this access and ability, due to the advancement in technology, global media has been able to secure itself in our everyday lives as a positive movement and ultimately replaced present day activities. Without the media’s influence and presence, the matter of time and space becomes irrelevant, as globalization allows the convergence of culture and people. According to Albrow (2005), ‘globalization refers to all those processes by which peoples of the world are incorporated into a single world society, global society’ (Rantanen, 2005, pg. 7). This interconnectedness of the world caused by the media can threaten the present social structures that have one been taken for granted, for example talking on the telephone and conversations happening face to face. This is when the concept of convergence can come out as a controversial outcome from globalization. With the growing technological advances, the convergence of culture and social media has proven to be an uncontrollable force throughout generations.

One of the ways that people and culture have converged is the rising popularity of social media sites, a virtual soapbox where people can share beliefs, opinions and thoughts on different issues. According to Kissmetric statistics (2012), the average Facebook user spends 700 minutes per month on Facebook. This is immediately alarming, as this is just an average statistic, and has not taken into account the amount of time spent on other social media sites. This is where dystopian views are created against the concept of globalization. People begin to realise the dominance global media empires have upon their everyday life and are unable to conform to such lifestyle. The supremacy of media empires also evokes the conflicting views between what is valued local and global. These two concepts ultimately clash, resulting in a dystopian view of globalization, as what was once considered to be local becomes valued as global. A prime example of this is the diasporic nature of culture, as it crosses national boundaries; people are exposed to different ways to life. Religion, food, fashion, music and film are among many things that are made locally, are then projected into the process of globalization. Pieterse (2004) believes ‘economic, political, cultural and social dynamics are not simply different facets of a single globalization; rather they are prisms through which globalization takes shape and is experienced’. This applies to today’s society, where we are able to enjoy foods from different cultures, be Indian; Japanese or Italian and we are able to practice in different religions and ways of life. These are just some of the ways that the process of globalization can make people feel almost suffocated by the integration of the media and everyday lifestyle. It is in the influential role of the mass media where people are able to mix culture and adapt to certain types of lifestyle, once of the many characteristics of globalization. This becomes a negative concept to some, rather than positive, as local values seem to diminish and the line between local and global disappears. This limits the originality and the uniqueness of some cultures, therefore posing globalization as a negative force within the media.

With both the utopian and dystopian views in mind, it quick to judge the world as easily influenced, naïve and content with the control that the mass media has upon on us, hence globalization becoming a concern rather than concept and matter of life. Many could argue that globalization encourages the uncontrollable and forceful flow of information, culture and capitalism. Pieterse (2004) addresses a radical view, stating that ‘globalization means the onset of a borderless world’. This poses a threat to maintaining the control upon globalization, as everyday more people are becoming connected and alert to social media. It would be hard to believe ten years ago, that it was socially acceptable to be on your smart phone mid conversation, Facebook and Twitter replaced face-to-face interaction and it was possible to be aware of the news to a global extent. This just goes to show how dominant the power of the media truly is and proves the fact society are turning a blind eye to the force of globalization by embracing it’s presence, rather then reject it. From this we are ask ourselves the question, is globalization controllable? Can the boarders that once existed between nations and cultures be rebuilt and culture be refined to its original state?

References:

Nederveen Pieterse, J 2004, ‘Globalization: consensus and controversies’, Globalization and culture: global mélange, Rowan & Littlefield, Lanham, Md., pp. 7–21

Rantanen, T 2005, ‘Theorizing media globalization’, The media and globalization, Sage, London, pp. 1–18

Steven, P 2003, ‘Political economy: the howling, brawling, global market place’, The no-nonsense guide to the global media, New Internationalist, Oxford, pp. 37–59

http://blog.kissmetrics.com/facebook-statistics/

Videos:

Celebrities as a global identity- but at what price?

When asked the question of what is a global identity, I immediately think of celebrities and the certain ideologies and culture they posses. Global identity means for celebrities, worldwide recognition and status among which should pay thanks to the evolving establishment of globalization. We as audiences are able to see these global identities played out in the well-known and publicized lives of celebrities. Moore (2012) states, “popular culture- circulating through the media- is one of the most common ways in which contemporary identity politics is played out”. These so called contemporary identity politics are the main players in the game of obtaining a global identity. Many would question what does it entail for you to be viewed and labeled a globalized identity?

To achieve such status it is expected in today’s society for celebrities to endure all levels of popularity such as local, national, regional and then finally global status. Take Justin Bieber for example of someone who has transitioned through being a local celebrity, busking at shopping malls through to a regional celebrity via YouTube video. Nowadays, Justin Bieber has become a globalized brand with such popularity, fame and success, therefore a global identity, as he is known worldwide. But with such fame and popularity, there is a significant price celebrities pay to have a global status. With the help of social networking sites and the mass media, privacy boarders are lowered and everyone around the world can easily check where celebrities are holidaying or what issues they are dealing with. To audiences, this could be seen as a positive, working in their favor of obtaining a global identity as a celebrity or a negative, damaging careers and celebrity culture.

The view towards global identity for celebrities incurs more controversy than praise, as Nederveen Pieterse (2004) believes ‘globalization means the onset border less world’. This leaves no hope for celebrities as they are unable to protect their global identify with no boarders whatsoever.

So at the end of the day, when you are reading a trashy magazine, naming and shaming celebrities for having that one too many drinks or cellulite, have a think about the price they have paid for being in the magazine in the first place.

(Excuse the language within the video!)

References:

Nederveen Pieterse, J 2004, ‘Globalization: consensus and controversies’, Globalization and culture: global mélange, Rowan & Littlefield, Lanham, Md., pp. 7–2

Moore, C, 2012, ALC 215 Study Guide, Topic 4

Images sourced from Google Images

 

What is creative Vs. What is copyright

The concept of globalization evokes not only the diasporic movement of culture and people, but also the convergence of them. These days, what was once taken for granted as being local has the ability now to be recognized as global icon- heavily through the media. Diaspora can be defined as either the physical flow or cultural flow of people among nations, where different ways and views of life are exposed to what is considered traditional behavior. This is where local identities are made global ones.

Various facets such as music, fashion, religion, art and film are influenced by the convergence of local and global identities. But at what point is it okay to rip off other cultures to better your own?  In the defense of copyright culture, people take what is not originally there and turn into something that can be worldly known and acknowledged. The line between local and global has slowly faded in the shadows left by globalization. Should there be a certain law that copyrights certain cultural products from being parodied or remade? An example of something being remade into another cultural discourse is the award winning Japanese anime film, Ponyo, which can be interpreted as the Japanese version of Hans Christensen’s The Little Mermaid.

This is an example of converging what was once considered local and transforming into a global media facet, also could be argued that it is creative, yet susceptible to copyright issues. With some features of the fairy tale changed, (instead of a mermaid, it is a goldfish that desires to be human) director Hayao Miyazaki has paid particular attention to the importance of environmentalism, a very much global issue. Locally, Japan is renowned for their growing environmental problems and Miyazaki has taken this discourse and placed it globally- for all cultures to acknowledge and appreciated. This links to the theory given by Steven (2003) who believes ‘the dominant media have the power to set political agendas and shape the cultural landscape’. It can be also said that Miyazaki has taken a utopian idea, being the fairy tale of The Little Mermaid and transformed it a dystopian view.

Therefore, to the convergence of what is considered local and global, is simply a key player in the works of globalization, but leaves us wondering what is creative and what is copyrighted when it comes to diasporic cultures?

 

 

References:

Steven, P 2003, ‘Political economy: the howling, brawling, global market place’, The no-nonsense guide to the global media, New Internationalist, Oxford, pp. 37–59

Al Jazeera- biased or martyrs for Middle Eastern media?

When asked the question is Al Jazeera a counter to Western media imperialism or a mirror version of Fox New style propaganda, there are many issues that are immediately raised such as what is valued as global and local, what comes down to as a choice versus culture and what type of role the media plays in controlling out day to day lives and thoughts.

In order to decipher what side of the fence you stand on when it comes to these opposing issues with Al Jazeera being viewed as a biased and opinionated broadcasting company or simply a voice for the oppressed?

El Nawawy and Iskander (2003) believe that when it comes to depicted Al Jazeera as bias ‘many Westerners have accused Al Jazeera of being biased toward the Palestinian cause’ and that Al Jazeera has a practice of describing Palestinian suicide bombers who strike in Israel as “martyrs”. With this in mind, audiences are going to view Al Jazeera as a localized broadcasting company rather than global and reflecting some kind of propaganda, advertising these events in order to gain support and recognition. But isn’t that the same way of viewing other broadcasting companies such as Fox News? Both influenced by gatekeepers and media watchdogs, Al Jazeera and Fox News ultimately reflect one another’s intentions and way of broadcasting news. Both want to be honest and balanced, but at what price?

This is where things become complicated. Both companies are striving to portray themselves as accurate representations of their nations and both are aiming at being ethically balanced and culturally aware. El Naway and Iskander (2003) state that ‘many Arab viewers who watch CNN believe that American television is biased against Arabs’ and that. A circle of arguments begin.. But if you dive in further, Fox News possess flaws in their broadcasting

With the Afghanistan and Iraq war, America’s broadcasting could be seen as objective and highly critical of countries around them, censoring what is really going on whereas Al Jazeera are depicting a true reflection of events. It all comes down to the issue of globalization. With Al Jazeera showing the devastating effects of war, Fox News are desperate to cover it up based upon commercialism and ratings. Therefore it could be argued that America, in a way, are not contributing to the process of globalization.

And the cycle of arguments circulates again…

El-Nawawy, M. 2003, ‘The battle for the Arab mind’, Al-Jazeera, the story of the network that is rattling governments and redefining modern journalism 2003, Westview Press, Boulder CO, pp. 45-69, 217-218

Big Brother- cultural experiment or social entertainment?

When asked the question- do you contribute to what is known as the public sphere? I immediately answer yes. Everyday we are exposed to what is considered to be a global village, mainly through the presence of the Internet and television. Through media flows such as posting blogs, pictures and creating opinionated Facebook statuses, we are contributing to globalization and the public sphere. Within this public sphere, citizens are able to voice opinions, share thoughts, experiences and ultimately- their culture.

A prime and modern day example of this is Big Brother- the reality series that reflects a social experiment where cultures, values and beliefs are exchanged between strangers. As much as people conform and lose a sense of individuality, everyone is different, resulting in clashes or friendships.

The nation watches on, there is a global village taking place, where citizens from different backgrounds are forced to spend day in, day out, with each other. In other words, Big Brother poses literal example of a public sphere- with the public being the housemates and the sphere being the boundaries of the house. Conversations and behaviors will result in either agreements or values and morals will clash. Big Brother creates this for television and pure entertainment. The intention behind this reality series, questions the prominence of dominant groups and whether it is exerting a hegemonic view towards the world- through the power of the media.

According to Steven (2003) ‘hegemony is achieved when the power of the dominant groups in society appears natural’. In the Big Brother house, the equivalent could be the dominant personalities over the shy and timid- a natural and common assumption. Steven (2003) also states that hegemony ‘works within everyday culture and seems to provide a frame for understanding experience’.

On the notion of online forums and blogs, at what point do we ask ourselves, are we subconsciously being watched and monitored by gatekeepers and watchdogs, therefore do we become self conscious and more aware of we say?

Reference: Steven, P 2003, ‘Political economy: the howling, brawling, global market place’, The no-nonsense guide to the global media, New Internationalist, Oxford, pp. 37–59.

The Olympics- just another global media event?

With the recent arrival of the Olympic games upon our television screens and its infiltration within our newspapers, many ignore the global significance that comes with them. An important question to ask ourselves is, is the Olympics an example of a global event? In other words, are these games built towards displaying the best athletes from around the world, bringing them together and lowering the boarders that divide them? Or is it simply a soapbox for global companies to showcase their products and first world countries rather than all?

In order to wrap your head around this thought, the concept of what is a global event needs to be explored. To myself, global events such as the Olympics, movie premiers and product launches reflect globalization with their traits- the crossing of international boarders and the convergence of nationalities and cultures. Many would argue against the idea of the Olympics being a global event. The coverage of the London 2012 Games as caused a public uproar, which Channel 9 focused mainly on events such as swimming and the many mistakes endured by our Aussie athletes. This got me thinking, is this issue ongoing in all competing countries? Therefore, the game should not be considered to be global- as televised events focus on local rather than global countries. There is also the issue of the unspoken pressure that is added upon well-known athletes and first world countries to perform well.

The power of the media is also highly influential in the process of global events, as Stevens (2003) states ‘ the media companies play important economic and symbolic roles in most modern states’. In terms of global events and in particular, the Olympics media companies such as McDonalds and Coca Cola depend heavily on branding and sponsorship throughout the duration. This raises the question of, is the Olympics all for good sportsmanship and the showing of elite athletes compete or a business opportunity for first world countries?

Resource: Steven P, 2003, The no nonsense guide to the global media, New Internationalist, Oxford, pp 37-59.

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/olympic-sponsors-unite-behind-jessica-ennis/4003092.article

 

Globalization Vs. The rest of the World

With the integration of culture and nationalities, the movement of people and the adaptation of foreign behavior almost seeming like a positive concept, globalization poses as a negative one.  According to Nederveen Pieterse (2004) ‘globalization invites more controversy than consensus, and the areas of consensus are narrow by comparison to the controversies’. To myself, globalization invites both an utopian view and dystopian. A utopian view is considered a positive and inspiring view and dystopia reflecting the opposite- negative and frowned upon.

 

Among these so-called controversies is the worldwide domination of global media empires. It can be identified as a negative aspect and is evident in our every day life. Unknowingly, many of us have adapted to the spread of media empires, either simply buy purchasing the latest apple IPhone or securing a Facebook or Twitter account. With the strong power of the media, Pieterse (2004) states that ‘globalization involves more intensive interaction across wider space in shorter time than before’. Accroding to statistics, the average Facebook user spends 700 minutes per month on Facebook. Enough said.

 

As one of the many facets of globalization, information and media flows are able to upheld by global empires, at they both contribute to the supremacy of media empires. Through the wide spread and easy access to information around the world, mass media empires are free to grow and dominate, for example Rupert Murdoch and the Fox Broadcasting. Other global companies such as Apple, CocaCola McDonalds have placed themselves on the tip of the media empire iceberg, as they are recognized and experience worldwide.

 

With this in mind, it quick to judge the world as easily influenced, naïve and content with the control that the mass media has upon on us, hence globalization becoming a concern rather than concept and matter of life. Many could argue that globalization encourages the uncontrollable and forceful flow of information, culture and capitalism. Peitrese (2004) addresses a radical view, stating that ‘globalization means the onset of a borderless world’ It would be hard to believe ten years ago, that it was socially acceptable to be on your smart phone mid conversation, Facebook and Twitter replaced face to face interaction and it was possible to be aware of the news to a global extent. Goes to show how dominant the power of the media truly is.

From this we are ask ourselves the question, is globalization controllable?

http://gigaom.com/2006/07/11/the-rise-of-the-socially-integrated-media-empire/

Image source: http://www.englishblog.com/2011/07/cartoon-king-kong-murdoch.html#.UBYF-nDYJsQ

Reference:  Nederveen Pieterse, J 2004, ‘Globalization: consensus and controversies’, Globalization and culture: global mélange, Rowan & Littlefield, Lanham, Md., pp. 7–21

Statistic reference: http://blog.kissmetrics.com/facebook-statistics/