In this thread, I mentioned the perception of American cultural imperialism (I’m not going to defend the perception, but it exists), to which Macro Man replied:
Which seems fair enough (although it’s just what I’d expect from a capitalist 
).
But is it entirely true?
Can culture be exported and imposed (I’m talking surreptitiously, not by means of crusade etc) to (generally) unsuspecting/unwilling recipients?
Oh and before we get started, please don’t suppose that I have any kind of agenda here.
Yes, of course it can. You can, for instance, adopt measures which undermine social institutions which support, reinforce and give effect to the current culture. A pretty well undeniable case is the effect of slavery in destroying the family and social structures of enslaved Africans, leading to the fairly rapid eclipse of most of their african culture in the enslaved population. The extinction of the culture of the enslaved population was not the objective of the slavers - I don’t imagine they could have cared less about culture - but it was the effect of what they did. And there would be many less dramatic but equally effective examples.
UDS- your point, though valid, doesn’t really relate to the OP.
The real question here is this: much of American pop culture, and a host of American businesses, have made their presence felt around the world. Examples abound.
“Spiderman” is playing at theaters on every continent, and in the process, it’s undoubtedly driving out locally-made films that MAY be of higher quality, and almost certainly deal with more serious issues.
Kids all over the world are listening to Britney Spears CDs. In the process, musical tastes around the world may become homogenized, and fewer young people may listen to the traditional music of their respective homelands.
McDonald’s has outlets all over the world. When people get used to eating at such places, they may lose interest in having traditional family dinners, or eating “real” meals.
The Gap has outlets all over the world. Kids who want to look cool may feel compelled to wear the clothes they see there, forsaking traditional garb.
Small wonderm then, that people around the world often complain about perceived American “cultural imperialism.” It may seem to them that they can’t escape from American pop culture. (Hence, during anti-globalization riots, it’s not uncommon to see protestors attack a Starbuck’s or McDonald’s).
The real question is, whether you like American pop culture or not, is it being “forced” on unwilling people? I have to say, no!
Look, there’s much about American pop culture I don’t like, and frankly, I DON’T want the rest of the world to resemble an American suburb.
But to use a cliche, NOBODY holds a gun to Italian kids’ heads and says, "Stay away from that Fellini festival, and go see ‘Jurassic Park.’ " NOBODY kidnaps Iranian girls and holds them hostage until they take off their chadors and put on Gap jeans. NOBODY stuffs Big Macs down French kids’ throats. NOBODY is invading India, stealing sitar records, and replacing them with 'N Sync CDs.
American corporations have tried selling all kinds of things overseas. Sometimes they fail miserably (as with NFL Europe; nobody in Europe is much interested in American football), sometimes they succeed brilliantly. Ultimately, American corporations aren’t the ones who decide what foreigners buy.
Fact is, Italian kids WANT to see “Jurassic Park.” Iranian girls WANT to wear Gap jeans. Frenchmen WANT to eat Big Macs. And Indian girls WANT to listen to American dance music. If they DIDN’T want what the American firms are selling, the American firms would lose a fortune, and they’d go out of business.
UDS, I think you’re missing the discussion. I believe Mangetout is asking if culture can be imposed without the use of force (without such things as slavery, crusades, and invasion). Can it be done more subtly?
I believe culture flowing across borders is usually with the cooperation of the people on the receiving end, but I can envision how the same effect could be achieved surreptitiously with propaganda and economic superiority. If a country has minimal publishing, film, or telivision industries, it could be flooded with foreign books and films with foreign viewpoints. Media saturation will have an effect, especially if the local culture does not have the same means to “advertise” itself. Some local traditions may be lost amidst the cacophany of voices from the outside world.
The effect is doubled if foreign businesses are allowed to open their doors there and the “invading” culture is economically superior. The local populace may reap the benefit of new jobs, but they will have to adapt to the corporate culture of the foreign businesses. Learning the GM way or how MacDonalds does things increases the influence of the outside culture and puts a face on the messsages they already get from books and films.
They don’t even have to like the invading culture to be affected by it. As the folks on Madison Avenue know, advertising will work if you can reach saturation - even if the message is annoying as Hell. Also, if the other side has a vastly inferior advertising budget, their days are numbered.
I just thought of something. There is one example of a coordinated effort by the US to influence other cultures through propaganda[sup]*[/sup]: Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty.
From their website (bolding mine):
We have judged these cultures to be inferior and are bringing our culture of free-market democracy[sup]**[/sup] to them via shortwave radio whether they like it or not .
[sub]*“propaganda” doesn’t have to mean false or misleading information. It can also mean information presented from a particular point of view
**Culture doesn’t have to be all material things such as Disney and MacDonald’s, it can be ideas such as democracy, capitalism, women’s equality, etc.[/sub]
I don’t want to limit this debate to the spread of American culture (although it is a rather noticeable example).
Yes, but how does this disprove the OP? Sure RFE/RL has an editorial bias, but a) nobody is forcing Russians or Uzbeks to tune in to RFE/RL, even if they have shortwave radios (you can also listen on streaming audio on the Web now in a couple dozen regional languages at www.rferl.org, BTW), and b) even if RFE/RL is promoting a message of superiority, that doesn’t mean listeners have to believe them, and quite a number probably don’t.
Well the use of force isn’t necessary for American culture. I think we have some of the best advertisers/image makers in the world. Overall this creates a slick impression that snowballs as each product by virtue of being “American” shares de facto.
Couple that with cash to create massive ad campaigns that might dwarf local competitors and you can create effective monopolies. It’s not force, it’s marketing expertise backed by deep pockets.
We also spend more on our movies than any other country. More special effects, intensely competitive work force from the actors to the directors and crew, makes a product that is generally more flashy, attention getting, and exciting.
In Australia I believe we aren’t being forced to adopt foreign cultures, but it’s very hard not too. I read once in the Courier Mail http://www.couriermail.com.au (I can’t find the article it is from a couple of years ago) that the cost of making an episode of an Australian TV show costs between $200 000 and $400 000, while the cost of buying a show from the US was between $10 000 and $20 000. Obviously the TV stations are going to show as much TV from the US as they can because it’s far cheaper while still getting good ratings.
Movies made in the US can have budgets of $100 million or more, while if you added up the budgets of all movies made in Australia in one year it would probably be less than that. Since they have such a huge budget movies from the US that invovle special effects and big stunts are nearly always better than Australian movies. So people prefer to see these movies with great special effects than the poor special effects in Australian movies.
It’s hard to say what a typical Australian meal is, but lets take steak as an example. If I want to go to a restaurant and buy a steak it will take about an hour to order, get served, eat and pay the bill and leave. It will also cost $20 or more. If I go to McDonalds I can get a burger, fries and coke served in less then 5 minutes, I can eat it anywhere and it will cost only $6. Or I can stay home and have 2 large pizza, garlic bread, lasagne and a drink delivered for $20.
While we’re not being forced to adopt US culture, by making it a lot cheaper than alternatives it does make it hard not too. It’s not really too bad though. Australian culture and US culture aren’t too different to start with. I can’t think of a good Australian sitcom off the top of my head and most US shows are high quality Australia can still make good movie dramas and comedies since they can be made without huge budgets.
I think there are two ways that a country could be exporting a culture that is not wanted (in some sense).
First, it is possible in some countries that the consumers want the products/culture in question, but that the government (or other institution-religious, social, whatever) does not want. To use astorian’s example, there may be girls in Iran that want the Gap jeans, but that doesn’t mean that the government, religious leaders, or parents want them. You could generalize this to the idea that, anywhere that a culture is “exported” to, there are people that will like and accept the import, and those people opposed to it. Those opposed may object not only to the first group of people, but also to those supplying the culture. In our democratic society, we may think, “tough, that’s their choice” (certainly, that’s my way of thinking), but not all people of other cultures feel the same way.
Second, there is the idea of using an economic advantage to push products that convey the culture. In the examples listed upthread, each of the elements of “Culture” mentioned - the Gap, McDonald’s, music, movies, etc. - is delivered by a product - the jeans, the hamburger, the CD, the video tape, etc. If US can produce these items cheaper than local products, and they sell in larger volumes, then I could see a local resident feeling that the US has used their economic advantage as a type of “cultural imperialism”.
I’m not sure in either case that the US firms are morally at fault - there is, in the end, some willingness to buy the product at the other end - but I do see how the perceptions can arise.
Its not so much a question o an unwilling recipients as apathetic recipients.
In any given population, there might be 1% pro other-culture, 10% anti other-culture and 89% who really couldnt care less.
It doenst matter that 10 times as many people hat the other culture as like it, inevitably, the apathy group will win out. America’s way is to make their culture as cheap and convenient as possible. Once you have 89% of the population on your side, you have effectivly marginilised the others.
However, interestingly enough, if you do a bit of study in Ancient history and the conquests of the different groups, tying to instill your culture onto another group by any means seems to have failed miserably. The romans seem to have realised this and the only thing they wanted out of a conquered nation was an annual tithe and peace. There are quite a few reasons why this is so but that would be an entirely different topic altogether.
[trivial nitpick]there’s nothing in the OP to disprove; I’m asking a question, not making any kind of assertion[/nitpick]
I guess this will depend on the country it is exported to also.
I have heard it said of India that it chose to adopt the good parts of British culture during the Raj and then disposed of all the other portions when it no longer required them. But it takes a big (old) country to have the facility to do this.
Other problems arise with all advances in technology, and it really becomes a moralistic decision.
If you give a sick child penicillin, you also bring with you the atom bomb. If you introduce cars you also bring the traffic accident.
Where do you stop?
Culture is never only a positive feature. It costs with a price tag.
Missionaries in the South Pacific destroyed thousands of years of indigenous culture when they told natives their nudity / lifestyle was wicked, sinful, ungodly. The introduction of Christianity brought massive changes to these peoples lives.
Good or bad, I’ll leave for others to decide.
Culture is not static, so it cannot be “protected” from “rival” cultures “subtly slipping in.” Or not so subtly in the case of Coke, of course
Culture is a tar-baby. Either the introduction of a foriegn culture is adopted, or an anti-culture springs up around it (or both).
Some great answers so far, keep 'em coming.
I wonder if it might be fairer to be asking whether import of culture is inevitable in a climate of free trade with a much larger country…
Well…there are ways to export culture without people being really asking for it :
-First, there’s the efficiency of marketing techniques. I assume it’s quite well known that there’s a large apathetic part in any population who will buy what they’re presented often enough with enough insistance. That’s particulary true for mass consumption music. But also for the movie industry.
-Second there are market reasons. For instance, a lot of french people actually prefer to watch some hollywood movie on their TV, rather than some other french movie. That’s a choice. On the other hand the french public rather prefer french detective stories, series, etc…on the overall. But they’re way more costly to produce than just buying an american equivalent which has already been amortized in the american market, and in other countries, hence is extremely competitive. Actually, the price difference is so large that there’s no competition at all. It’s actually two different kind of “products”. So, the french TV will tend to fill its programms with cheap american series and reserve the costly french TV production for prime time or somesuch. And France is a rich country with a large population. A poorer or smaller country will be in an even worse situation from this point of view.
So, it’s not exactly the US imposing its culture on unwilling people, nor locals welcoming with delight foreign cultural creation. It’s plainly the american entertainment industry using usual market tools to sell something which is no more than a “product”. It’s not like we’re debating about the great american litterature conquering the world…
I think we should distinguish between physical objects associated with American culture and more purely “cultural” products.
Marketing American music, movies, TV programs abroad yields almost pure profit - the costs have already been covered by domestic consumption. The vendor can charge a price as low as they want to, (especially if they need not translate/dub it). I think a case can be made that this is a form of cultural imperialism, though that is probably not the goal.
I have a harder time with saying that McDonalds or the Gap is as subversive or insidious. Sure McDonalds may be cheaper and faster than what the local product is, but that is not because it is being subsidized by Americal consumers but rather because that is what McDonald’s is all about. If McDonald’s steals customer base from local restaraunts it is because the locals value quick and cheap better than a better lunch (or I suppose because thay have been brainwashed by American cultural imperialism). I don’t know that I would consider McDonalds to be competing with regular restaraunts anyway.
I think we should distinguish between physical objects associated with American culture and more purely “cultural” products.
Marketing American music, movies, TV programs abroad yields almost pure profit - the costs have already been covered by domestic consumption. The vendor can charge a price as low as they want to, (especially if they need not translate/dub it). I think a case can be made that this is a form of cultural imperialism, though that is probably not the goal.
I have a harder time with saying that McDonalds or the Gap is as subversive or insidious. Sure McDonalds may be cheaper and faster than what the local product is, but that is not because it is being subsidized by Americal consumers but rather because that is what McDonald’s is all about. If McDonald’s steals customer base from local restaraunts it is because the locals value quick and cheap better than a better lunch (or I suppose because thay have been brainwashed by American cultural imperialism). I don’t know that I would consider McDonalds to be competing with regular restaraunts anyway.
Something I would like to point out about this, is that I just had chinese food for dinner, because it’s cheaper than eating at McDonald’s. Culture’s mix, that’s what the course of history is, a series of the mixtures of cultures in succession until it brings you up to modern day. Wars bring culture with them much faster than any other medium. I also tend to disagree that a larger percentage of people are against the acceptance of culture than are for the acceptance of culture. I think that Japan is a great example of a country that couldn’t get enough American culture for a certain amount of time. We all live in the world together and we can choose to hide from the people outside or borders or we accept that they are here and get influenced by them. That’s it. I think American civilization is JUST as influenced by other cultures as it has influence. We eat every nationality’s food you can imagine. You wanna come to my house? I can take you out to get any kind of food you can think of. Want to go to China town? In fact when American’s settle overseas do they claim certain areas? For instance I live in a heavily dominican area. Are there heavily American areas of London, or Tokyo? Cultures mix, and that’s just the way it goes. I don’t think it’s forced, it just happens, it’s inevitable.
Erek