Editing Cultural imperialism (section)

===Criticisms of "cultural imperialism theory"===
Critics of scholars who discuss cultural imperialism have a number of critiques. ''Cultural imperialism'' is a term that is only used in discussions where [[cultural relativism]] and [[Constructivist epistemology|constructivism]] are generally taken as true. (One cannot critique promoting Western values if one believes that said values are good. Similarly, one cannot argue that Western epistemology is unjustly promoted in non-Western societies if one believes that those epistemologies are good.<ref name="White" />) Therefore, those who disagree with cultural relativism and/or constructivism may critique the employment of the term, ''cultural imperialism'' on those terms.

John Tomlinson provides a critique of cultural imperialism theory and reveals major problems in the way in which the idea of cultural, as opposed to economic or political, imperialism is formulated. In his book ''Cultural Imperialism: A Critical Introduction'', he delves into the much debated "[[media imperialism]]" theory. Summarizing research on the Third World's reception of American television shows, he challenges the cultural imperialism argument, conveying his doubts about the degree to which US shows in developing nations actually carry US values and improve the profits of US companies. Tomlinson suggests that cultural imperialism is growing in some respects, but local transformation and interpretations of imported media products propose that cultural diversification is not at an end in global society.<ref>Lechner, Frank J. and Boli, John (2009). ''The Globalization Reader'' (4th ed), Wiley-Blackwell. p.341</ref> He explains that one of the fundamental conceptual mistakes of cultural imperialism is to take for granted that the distribution of cultural goods can be considered as cultural dominance. He thus supports his argument highly criticising the concept that [[Americanization]] is occurring through global overflow of American television products. He points to a myriad of examples of television networks who have managed to dominate their domestic markets and that domestic programs generally top the ratings. He also doubts the concept that cultural agents are passive receivers of information. He states that movement between cultural/geographical areas always involves translation, mutation, adaptation, and the creation of hybridity.

Other key critiques are that the term is not defined well, and employs further terms that are not defined well, and therefore lacks explanatory power, that ''cultural imperialism'' is hard to measure, and that the theory of a legacy of [[colonialism]] is not always true.<ref name="White" />