Editing Cultural imperialism (section)

==Contemporary ideas and debate==
''Cultural imperialism'' can refer to either the forced acculturation of a subject population, or to the voluntary embracing of a foreign culture by individuals who do so of their own free will. Since these are two very different referents, the validity of the term has been called into question.

Cultural influence can be seen by the "receiving" culture as either a threat to or an enrichment of its [[cultural identity]]. It seems therefore useful to distinguish between cultural imperialism as an (active or passive) attitude of superiority, and the position of a culture or group that seeks to complement its own cultural production, considered partly deficient, with imported products.

The imported products or services can themselves represent, or be associated with, certain values (such as [[consumerism]]). According to one argument, the "receiving" [[culture]] does not necessarily perceive this link, but instead absorbs the foreign culture passively through the use of the foreign goods and services. Due to its somewhat concealed, but very potent nature, this hypothetical idea is described by some experts as "''banal imperialism''". For example, it is argued that while "American companies are accused of wanting to control 95 percent of the world's consumers", "cultural imperialism involves much more than simple consumer goods; it involved the dissemination of American principles such as freedom and democracy", a process which "may sound appealing" but which "masks a frightening truth: many cultures around the world are disappearing due to the overwhelming influence of corporate and cultural America".<ref>{{cite book|last=Sayre|first=Shay|title=Entertainment and Society: Influences, Impacts, and Innovations |year=2010|publisher=Routledge|location=Oxon, New York|isbn=978-0-415-99806-2|page=31|edition=2nd|author2=Cynthia King}}</ref>

Some believe that the newly globalised economy of the late 20th and early 21st century has facilitated this process through the use of new information technology. This kind of cultural imperialism is derived from what is called "[[soft power]]". The theory of electronic colonialism extends the issue to global cultural issues and the impact of major multi-media conglomerates, ranging from [[Paramount Global|Paramount]], [[WarnerMedia]], [[AT&T]], [[Disney]], [[News Corp]], to [[Google]] and [[Microsoft]] with the focus on the hegemonic power of these mainly United States–based communication giants.

===Cultural diversity===
One of the reasons often given for opposing any form of cultural imperialism, voluntary or otherwise, is the preservation of [[cultural diversity]], a goal seen by some as analogous to the preservation of [[biodiversity|ecological diversity]]. Proponents of this idea argue either that such diversity is valuable in itself, to preserve human historical heritage and knowledge, or instrumentally valuable because it makes available more ways of solving problems and responding to catastrophes, natural or otherwise.

===Africa===
Of all the areas of the world that scholars have claimed to be adversely affected by imperialism, Africa is probably the most notable. In the expansive "age of imperialism" of the nineteenth century, scholars have argued that European colonisation in Africa has led to the elimination of many various cultures, worldviews, and [[Epistemology|epistemologies]], particularly through [[neocolonialism|neocolonisation]] of public education.<ref name="Sabrin2013">{{Cite web |hdl = 10724/28885|title = Exploring the intellectual foundations of Egyptian national education|date = 2013|last1 = Sabrin|first1 = Mohammed|url=https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/sabrin_mohammed_201305_phd.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180401075655/https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/sabrin_mohammed_201305_phd.pdf |archive-date=2018-04-01 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>Monga, C. 1996. ''Anthropology of Anger: Civil Society and Democracy in Africa.'' Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner</ref><ref name =wa>wa Thiongo, N. 1986. ''Decolonising the Mind: The Politics of Language in African Literature.'' London: James Curry.</ref> This, arguably has led to uneven development, and further informal forms of social control having to do with culture and imperialism.<ref name=Abdi>{{cite journal | last1 = Abdi | first1 = Ali A | year = 2000 | title = Globalization, Culture, and Development: Perspectives on Africa | journal = Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences | volume = 2 | issue = 1| pages = 1–26 | citeseerx = 10.1.1.474.5351 }}</ref> A variety of factors, scholars argue, lead to the elimination of cultures, worldviews, and epistemologies, such as "de-linguicization" (replacing native African languages with European ones), devaluing [[Ontology|ontologies]] that are not explicitly individualistic,<ref name=Abdi /> and at times going as far as to not only define Western culture itself as science, but that non-Western approaches to science, the Arts, indigenous culture, etc. are not even knowledge.<ref name="Sabrin2013"/> One scholar, [[Ali A. Abdi]], claims that imperialism inherently "involve[s] extensively interactive regimes and heavy contexts of identity deformation, misrecognition, loss of self-esteem, and individual and social doubt in [[self-efficacy]]."<ref name=Abdi /> Therefore, all imperialism would always, already be cultural.

===Neoliberalism===
[[Neoliberalism]] is often critiqued by sociologists, anthropologists, and cultural studies scholars as being culturally imperialistic. Critics of neoliberalism, at times, claim that it is the newly predominant form of imperialism.<ref name=Abdi /> Other scholars, such as Elizabeth Dunn and Julia Elyachar have claimed that neoliberalism requires and creates its own form of [[governmentality]].<ref name=Dunn>Dunn, Elizabeth C. 2004. ''Privatizing Poland: Baby Food, Big Business, and the Remaking of Labor'' Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press</ref><ref name=Elyachar>Elyachar, Julia. 2005. ''Markets of Dispossession: NGOs, Economic Development, and the State in Cairo'' US: Duke University Press</ref>

In Dunn's work, ''Privatizing Poland'', she argues that the expansion of the [[multinational corporation]], Gerber, into Poland in the 1990s imposed Western, neoliberal governmentality, [[Ideology|ideologies]], and [[Epistemology|epistemologies]] upon the post-soviet persons hired.<ref name=Dunn /> Cultural conflicts occurred most notably the company's inherent [[Individualism|individualistic]] policies, such as promoting competition among workers rather than cooperation, and in its strong opposition to what the company owners claimed was [[bribery]].<ref name=Dunn />

In Elyachar's work, ''Markets of Dispossession'', she focuses on ways in which, in [[Cairo]], [[NGO]]s along with [[International nongovernmental organization|INGO]]s and the state promoted neoliberal governmentality through schemas of economic development that relied upon "youth microentrepreneurs".<ref name=Elyachar /> Youth microentrepreneurs would receive small loans to build their own businesses, similar to the way that [[microfinance]] supposedly operates.<ref name=Elyachar /> Elyachar argues though, that these programs not only were a failure, but that they shifted cultural opinions of [[value (personal and cultural)]] in a way that favoured Western ways of thinking and being.<ref name=Elyachar />

===Development studies===
Often, methods of promoting development and social justice are critiqued as being imperialistic in a cultural sense. For example, Chandra Mohanty has critiqued Western [[feminism]], claiming that it has created a misrepresentation of the "third world woman" as being completely powerless, unable to resist male dominance.<ref name=Mohanty>{{Cite journal |jstor = 1395054|title = Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses|journal = Feminist Review|volume = 30|issue = 30|pages = 61–88|last1 = Mohanty|first1 = Chandra Talpade|year = 1988|doi = 10.1057/fr.1988.42|doi-access = free}}</ref> Thus, this leads to the often critiqued narrative of the "white man" saving the "brown woman" from the "brown man". Other, more radical critiques of [[development studies]], have to do with the field of study itself. Some scholars even question the intentions of those developing the field of study, claiming that efforts to "develop" the [[Global South]] were never about the South itself. Instead, these efforts, it is argued, were made in order to advance Western development and reinforce Western hegemony.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Dossa | first1 = Shiraz | s2cid = 144101973 | year = 2007 | title = Slicing Up 'Development': Colonialism, political theory, ethics | journal = Third World Quarterly | volume = 28 | issue = 5| pages = 887–899 | doi=10.1080/01436590701371595}}</ref>

===Media effects studies===
The core of cultural imperialism thesis is integrated with the political-economy traditional approach in media effects research. Critics of cultural imperialism commonly claim that non-Western cultures, particularly from the Third World, will forsake their traditional values and lose their cultural identities when they are solely exposed to Western media. Nonetheless, Michael B. Salwen, in his book ''Critical Studies in Mass Communication'' (1991),<ref name="Salwen">{{cite journal |last=Salwen |first=Michael B. |date=March 1991 |title=Cultural imperialism: A media effects approach |journal=Critical Studies in Media Communication |volume=8 |issue=1 |pages=29–38 |doi=10.1080/15295039109366778}}</ref> claims that cross-consideration and integration of empirical findings on cultural imperialist influences is very critical in terms of understanding mass media in the international sphere. He recognises both of contradictory contexts on cultural imperialist impacts. 
The first context is where cultural imperialism imposes socio-political disruptions on developing nations. Western media can distort images of foreign cultures and provoke personal and social conflicts to developing nations in some cases.<ref>{{Cite journal |doi = 10.1177/107769908706400108|title = American TV in the Philippines: A Test of Cultural Impact|journal = Journalism Quarterly|volume = 64|pages = 65–144|year = 1987|last1 = Tan|first1 = Alexis S.|last2 = Tan|first2 = Gerdean K.|last3 = Tan|first3 = Alma S.|s2cid = 145405598}}</ref> 
Another context is that peoples in developing nations resist to foreign media and preserve their cultural attitudes. Although he admits that outward manifestations of Western culture may be adopted, but the fundamental values and behaviours remain still. Furthermore, positive effects might occur when male-dominated cultures adopt the "liberation" of women with exposure to Western media<ref>{{Cite journal |doi = 10.1177/107769908806500225|title = Culture Clash: Impact of U.S. Television in Korea|journal = Journalism Quarterly|volume = 65|issue = 2|pages = 431–438|year = 1988|last1 = Kang|first1 = Jong Geun|last2 = Morgan|first2 = Michael|s2cid = 144463700}}</ref> and it stimulates ample exchange of cultural exchange.<ref>{{Cite journal |doi = 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1977.tb01854.x|title = TV across the Canadian Border: Does It Matter?|journal = Journal of Communication|volume = 27|issue = 4|pages = 40–47|year = 1977|last1 = Sparkes|first1 = Verone}}</ref>

===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" />

===Dealing with cultural dominance===
[[David Rothkopf]], managing director of [[Kissinger Associates]] and an adjunct professor of [[international relations|international affairs]] at [[Columbia University]] (who also served as a senior [[United States Department of Commerce|U.S. Commerce Department]] official in the [[Clinton Administration]]), wrote about cultural imperialism in his provocatively titled ''In Praise of Cultural Imperialism?'' in the summer 1997 issue of ''[[Foreign Policy]]'' magazine. Rothkopf says that the United States should embrace "cultural imperialism" as in its self-interest. But his definition of cultural imperialism stresses spreading the values of [[Toleration|tolerance]] and openness to cultural change in order to avoid war and conflict between cultures as well as expanding accepted technological and legal standards to provide free traders with enough security to do business with more countries. Rothkopf's definition almost exclusively involves allowing individuals in other nations to accept or reject foreign cultural influences. He also mentions, but only in passing, the use of the [[English language]] and consumption of news and popular music and film as cultural dominance that he supports. Rothkopf additionally makes the point that [[globalisation]] and the [[Internet]] are accelerating the process of cultural influence.<ref name=rothkopf>Rothkopf, David, [http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/cultural/globcult.htm "In Praise of Cultural Imperialism"], ''Foreign Affairs'', Summer 1997, Volume 107, pp. 38–53; all descriptions of Rothkopf's points and his quotes are from this article {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081117105019/http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/cultural/globcult.htm |date=17 November 2008 }}</ref>

Culture is sometimes used by the organisers of society—politicians, theologians, academics, and families—to impose and ensure order, the rudiments of which change over time as need dictates. One need only look at the 20th century's [[genocide]]s. In each one, leaders used culture as a political front to fuel the passions of their armies and other minions and to justify their actions among their people.

Rothkopf then cites genocide and [[Wiktionary:massacre|massacre]]s in [[Armenia]], Russia, the [[The Holocaust|Holocaust]], [[Cambodia]], [[Bosnia and Herzegovina]], [[Rwanda]] and [[East Timor]] as examples of culture (in some cases expressed in the ideology of "political culture" or religion) being misused to justify violence. He also acknowledges that cultural imperialism in the past has been guilty of forcefully eliminating the cultures of natives in the Americas and in Africa, or through use of the [[Inquisition]], "and during the expansion of virtually every [[empire]]." The most important way to deal with cultural influence in any nation, according to Rothkopf, is to promote tolerance and allow, or even promote, cultural diversities that are compatible with tolerance and to eliminate those cultural differences that cause violent conflict:

:Successful multicultural societies, be they nations, federations, or other conglomerations of closely interrelated states, discern those aspects of culture that do not threaten union, stability, or prosperity (such as food, holidays, rituals, and music) and allow them to flourish. But they counteract or eradicate the more subversive elements of culture (exclusionary aspects of religion, language, and political/ideological beliefs). History shows that bridging cultural gaps successfully and serving as a home to diverse peoples requires certain social structures, laws, and institutions that transcend culture. Furthermore, the history of a number of ongoing experiments in [[multiculturalism]], such as in the European Union, India, South Africa, Canada and the United States, suggests that workable, if not perfected, integrative models exist. Each is built on the idea that tolerance is crucial to social well-being, and each at times has been threatened by both intolerance and a heightened emphasis on cultural distinctions. The greater public good warrants eliminating those cultural characteristics that promote conflict or prevent harmony, even as less-divisive, more personally observed cultural distinctions are celebrated and preserved.<ref>{{Cite book | last1 = O'Meara | first1 = Patrick. | last2 = Mehlinger | first2 = Howard D. | last3 = Krain | first3 = Matthew. | title = Globalization and the challenges of a new century : a reader | year = 2000 | publisher = Indiana University Press | location = Bloomington, Ind. | isbn = 978-0-253-21355-6 | pages = [https://archive.org/details/globalizationcha00patr/page/445 445]–446 |url=https://archive.org/details/globalizationcha00patr| url-access = registration | quote = 445 chinese. }}</ref>

Cultural dominance can also be seen in the 1930s in Australia where the Aboriginal Assimilation Policy acted as an attempt to wipe out the Native Australian people. The British settlers tried to biologically alter the skin colour of the Australian Aboriginal people through mixed breeding with white people. The policy also made attempts to forcefully conform the Aborigines to western ideas of dress and education.<ref>{{Cite journal |doi = 10.1080/08164649.2012.705575|title = Turn This Water into Wine|journal = Australian Feminist Studies|volume = 27|issue = 73|pages = 279–287|year = 2012|last1 = Caruso|first1 = Jennifer|s2cid = 146125147}}</ref>