Can culture be exported to unwilling recipients?

A culture can’t be unwillinglly accepted by a society. I’m going to use Princeton anthropologist Clifford Geertz’s definition of communication: “Culture is shared meaning, shared understanding, shared sensemaking.” I.e, culture can be seen as the collective output of a society and the way that this society reacts to its environment.

As such, culture is dynamic and changing; as long as the environment or the society is changing, so too is the culture. A culture can’t help but be influenced by a change to its environment. So, when McDonald’s introduces a chain of restaurants into a society, the society can choose to accept or reject the new addition to its environment. If no-one in the society wants the McDonalds chain, then there’s nothing much McDonald’s can do, short of staging an orgainised coup, implementing their own McGovernment and making McDonald’s mandatory eating. Which, when you think about it, isn’t exporting American culture at all anyway. When was the last time American’s were forced by law to eat McDonald’s. But I’m waffling… enough of this imagined McTerrorism.

However, as has been mentioned above, McDonald’s can (and does) use its economic strength to raise consumption of their product. Again, same as before. McDonalds cannot force people to want their burgers, but if they’ve got enough money (which they do), they can make enough people start thinking about McDonald’s, whether it’s positive, negative or apathetic thoughts. McDonald’s succeeds because people do want the service it provides, and because it can tell people about that service so that they have the option of wanting it. If local cultural output does not have the economic strength to compete against this, then the introduced culture will indeed dominate.

As such, the problem is American economic dominance, rather than cultural dominance. The second is an effect of the first. If a culture changes, it’s only because the society wants it to change. Economic circumstances can affect its range of choices, however.

And Jockstrap, re Australian sitcoms, how about the classic Mother and Son or the recent Kath and Kim (which is being highly acclaimed, but I believe it is somewhat patchy. However, when it’s good, it’s very good.)

As for the assertion that NFL Europe isn’t much of an attraction–I have read several different articles to the contrary. However, a great many of the fans seem to be there not because they like football, but because it’s a well-organized party.

Many thoughts in this thread are interesting, but naive.

This taxfunded American Agency says this on its factsheet

The USIA uses quite a lot of tax dollars to sell the American way of life. This is not smart merkating by Hollywood Movie Studios, this is official policy, and was created 1953 by the Eisenhower administration, to fend off The Red Menace.

USIA’s actions over the years include, but is not limited to:

  1. Paying campaign contributions to political parties, promoting commercial television in their respective countries. The Sedish conservative party accepted grants and maintained this policy for decades. When we finally got TV with Ads, lo and behold - the biggest buyer of airtime is Proctor&Gamble. This provides income for the Sedish TV-stations, but kills small companies here. P&G buys them.

  2. Giving away TV-stations to 3rd World countries, providing they dedicate x% of the airtime to programming made in the U.S. The reason is that even Baywatch promotes America, by presenting beautiful people, in nice settings, having cars, money, sex and gadgets.

OH, and I do have cites for this.

I’m not arguing against this, just saying that there is indeed an American Cultural Imperialism, which is even official tax-paid, policy.