GLOBALIZATION AND CULTURAL IDENTITY.
A corollary of de-localization….is reaction against it, manifested in efforts to rediscover and reestablish lost cultures, to re-localize identities in a supposedly original pure form .
(Ronald Niezen). Obviously Niezen was referring to some of the efforts that have been made, and continue to be made by Countries and international bodies to curtail the potential impact the globalization could deposit on the cultures of the world. Globalization has had enormous impact on how capital is acquired in the world market as well as on technology and communication, it would be folly not to expect similar impact on world cultures. But the question is, should globalization be permitted to permeate into the cultural essence of nations without check? Would the cultures of weaker nations be able to survive and thrive and maybe even benefit from the cultural onslaught of more economically advanced countries, such as the U.S., and Germany or the United Kingdom. Returning briefly to Niezen s statement, it is no secret that these stronger countries have immense cultural advantage and could easily dominate the cultures of less culturally endowed nations, via globalization. France is one of the countries that have been quite persistent on her effort to limit the cultural influences of countries like the United States. Also the United Nations have some programs designed to limit cultural influences on other countries precipitated by globalization. So should there be a concentrated effort made to limit such cultural implications. Again going back to Niezen s point, there maybe instances that could require some intervention in order to secure a particular cultural aspect from total demise. But that ought not to be done if there are other plausible alternatives, because different cultures could actually benefit from one another. Ultimately it is the opinion of this writer that cultures should be left alone, there should be no concerted effort to protect cultures from what could be perceived as cultural takeover . Nations should refrain from re-localized identities .
Cultural products usually include such things as movies, records, or videos, and fashions, while this paper does not support cultural isolation, it does support equal cultural exposure. For instance if the United States insists on exporting ger cultural products to other nations, it must be willing to import cultural goods from the countries it exports cultural products to. If there are cultural goods from the other nations that the U. S. exports cultural
products to, then it would only be fair that those nations have an equal opportunity for their cultural products to be available in the U.S.
But nations should not intentionally isolate themselves culturally for fear they may lose there cultural edge. While cultural differences ought to be recognized and nurtured it makes no sense to avoid other cultures entirely, because when a nation isolates herself 2 culturally, it denies her citizens the right to make individual choices on their own cultural preferences. If a country denies herself cultural exposure, then that nation neglects that fact that cultures are usually multiform and constantly evolving, cultures are not stagnant, they are dynamic, and they acquire elements that drive them to drive them to desirable changes because of exposure to other cultures. It may not be wrong to defend tradition, but tradition should also be allowed to benefit from other experiences and therefore be allowed to grow. There are no doubts about the imbalance in political and economic powers between nations, but cultural isolation that doesn t address the entire inequality simply would not help the resolve the economic and political inequities.
By permitting cultural diversity, nations show that they are willing to celebrate that diversity, they show that they are willing to help their societies to evolve to a better level. Most nations have evolved into multi layered cultures from experiences in diversity, no nation is a one culture entity. By permitting cultural exposure a society allows its members to take advantage of the benefits that results from cultural mingling. Societies would appear more legitimate it they recognize and allow other cultures to exist and flourish. By accepting other cultures people acknowledge themselves as part of a larger human link. There is abundant evidence that cultural intermingling does help other culture to grow stronger. For instance the writings of Homer and Nietzsche did not reside exclusively in Germany, but it was actually embraced and studied all over the world.
Different culture do not weaken one another, they actually have the potential to strengthen each other. Japan for instance has had an extensive contact with the west, but there is no doubt that the western culture has not destroyed Japanese culture. It is actually much more likely that the cultural interaction between the western countries and Japan may have made Japanese culture stronger. India has had many centuries of cultural integration with United Kingdom, and it would be inaccurate to call India a British cultural Zombie. With the present economic and technological arrangement in the world, it is quite difficult for any nation to completely isolate herself culturally from the rest of the world. While is obviously important to respect each others culture, it is impossible in this day and age for nations not to encounter each others culture one way or another.