Cultural Imperialism: Valid Complaint?

[Alex_Dubinsky]

Renob (and others), you’re right. In the past, it was impossible to create a monoculture. Evolutionary psychology and instinct conspire to constantly recreate subcultures, and to fracture any culture that exists.

The real concern, which I omitted (because I was arguing about the principle of everyone becoming the same, not its likelihood) is that technology is making the threat a reality.

20th century innovations like national media (tv and movies) have a very strong unifying influence. The internet is in some ways more powerful (but not in others, because it also leads to a tendency to balkanize). Future technologies, which will look more like the Internet was originally supposed to (“global village” “global consciousness”) are the real threats. The internet never solved the “bazaar” problem of a million people trying to talk to eachother. In the future this will be solved. When a million people can talk to themselves, the aforementioned society-creating instincts will kick in on this larger scale. Instead of small clubs, organizations, or towns where people come to think alike, the instincts will play out on a global scale.

Anyway, the debate is two-fold. Will a monoculture develop. and Is a monoculture bad. Can we at least agree that yes, a monoculture would be very bad?

[Renob]

@Alex_Dubinsky

The real concern, which I omitted (because I was arguing about the principle of everyone becoming the same, not its likelihood) is that technology is making the threat a reality.

I don’t buy it. Even in the U.S. there are many different cultures. I see technology as making it less likely that people will be part of your ill-defined “monoculture” as it will allow much more freedom for individuals to define themselves however they see fit. In a nation where everyone watched the same three TV channels, listened to similar radio stations, read newspapers edited by people who went to the same schools, and shopped at the same handful of national chain stores, it was much more likely they would have a similar culture. Today, with people picking and choosing what media to access, having a variety of stores online, and being able to interact with people across the globe, I don’t think there’s a threat of a “monoculture.”

Anyway, the debate is two-fold. Will a monoculture develop. and Is a monoculture bad. Can we at least agree that yes, a monoculture would be very bad?

Why would it be bad, if that’s what people chose? You seem to think that this would lead to the death of everyone on earth but I just don’t buy your view of history. When civilizations collapsed another civilization arose. The people didn’t die off.

[Mangetout]

I think there’s an assumption at large here that the open market will eventually settle on what people choose - in the most simplistic sense, that’s obviously true - because how else would the market arrive at it.

But that doesn’t mean the market will end up delivering what people actually want, in a broader sense - people don’t actually want their jobs exported to foreign sweatshops; people don’t actually want their children’s toys painted with lead; people don’t actually want to have to speak to some incomprehensible stranger with broken English in order to sort out a query with their phone bill - and yet those things have been delivered to us by the open market.

We’re not necessarily good at making short-term, small, local decisions that are consistent with our longer term, broader, global desires and goals - we’re also not necessarily very good at acting together to make the market do what we really want - expediency wins the day often enough - we don’t actually hold out for the best solution, we plump for the least worst.

I’m not saying that I have a better idea, or that we should all strip naked and embrace communism, but I think it’s naive to think that the open market gives us what we would really like.

[Anne_Neville]

@Alex_Dubinsky

It doesn’t matter if the other countries WANT our culture.

The evil of cultural imperialism (imperialism is maybe wrong word, it implies being forced and economic profit, etc) is that it’ll kill diversity and make everyone the same.

OK, so how do we keep them from getting aspects of our culture, if they want them? The problem is, most cultures manage to produce people that aren’t stupid, so they get what they want, even if we don’t help them.

A good recent historical example is the atomic bomb. In 1945, we had it, and the Soviets wanted it. We certainly tried to keep them from getting it, but they managed to get it anyway. And atomic bombs are a cultural innovation that’s relatively easy to keep secret, compared to something like fast food…

[Renob]

@Mangetout

I’m not saying that I have a better idea, or that we should all strip naked and embrace communism, but I think it’s naive to think that the open market gives us what we would really like.

People may say they want to buy low-cost goods and still have them made by high-paid union workers in the U.S., but when it comes down to actually spending their money, many choose to buy low-cost goods from overseas. They may say they want something but they don’t choose it, so it’s questionable whether or not their desire was very strongly held. For others who want to assuage their conscience and buy high-priced “fair trade” bananas, the market also gives them what they really like.

People’s desire to get a good deal usually overrides their other desires. So the market gives them what they really like – a good deal. But if people want to pay more for politically-correct goods, there are people willing to sell them these things, too. The market provides a variety of options for consumers and people can buy goods and services based on what they really like.

[Mangetout]

@Renob

People may say they want to buy low-cost goods and still have them made by high-paid union workers in the U.S., but when it comes down to actually spending their money, many choose to buy low-cost goods from overseas. They may say they want something but they don’t choose it, so it’s questionable whether or not their desire was very strongly held. For others who want to assuage their conscience and buy high-priced “fair trade” bananas, the market also gives them what they really like.

What about things they didn’t realise they never wanted, until it happened? (lead paint on toys, for example).

People’s desire to get a good deal usually overrides their other desires. So the market gives them what they really like – a good deal. But if people want to pay more for politically-correct goods, there are people willing to sell them these things, too. The market provides a variety of options for consumers and people can buy goods and services based on what they really like.

They can’t have what they really like - they can have whatever they find most acceptable out of the choice on offer.
I agree though that much of the problem is that we find it hard to connect small actions now to long term broader consequences later (that’s probably a factor in other human behaviours such as smoking etc too).
But there’s also economy of scale It might be that politically correct goods (whatever that actually means) are inherently more expensive to produce, period, or it might just be that because they’re a smaller market, they can’t take advantage of cheap bulk processes that higher demand commodities have.

So you can’t actually have what you want - you can have your choice out of what everybody is prepared to tolerate - it isn’t the same thing.

[Renob]

@Mangetout

What about things they didn’t realise they never wanted, until it happened? (lead paint on toys, for example).

If toys are painted with lead paint, do you you really think people would buy them? The recent incidents with lead paint illustrate what happens when consumers discover that businesses are deceiving them – the products of those businesses become quite unpopular.

They can’t have what they really like - they can have whatever they find most acceptable out of the choice on offer.

Yep, that’s called life. I may really like to have sex with Jennifer Lopez, but that’s not a realistic choice. I may really like to eat at Morton’s Steak House every night, but that’s not a realistic choice. In every aspect of life, people usually don’t get “what they really like” in the sense that their most unrealistic whim is satisfied. They must choose from a list of available choices and they choose the best option possible.

I agree though that much of the problem is that we find it hard to connect small actions now to long term broader consequences later (that’s probably a factor in other human behaviours such as smoking etc too).

Probably, but that simply means that people prefer to choose short-term pleasure over long-term considerations. It’s still the choice people make. It’s still what they want.

But there’s also economy of scale It might be that politically correct goods (whatever that actually means) are inherently more expensive to produce, period, or it might just be that because they’re a smaller market, they can’t take advantage of cheap bulk processes that higher demand commodities have.

So what? Some people want low prices and care less about how a product is produced. Some people are willilng to pay higher prices in order to feel better about how a product is produced. Both sides win in a free market.

So you can’t actually have what you want - you can have your choice out of what everybody is prepared to tolerate - it isn’t the same thing.

Again, your definition of “want” isn’t really germane to reality. The way you define people getting what they want is if people are free to choose from an infinite variety of options so they get exactly what they desire. In reality, people make trade-offs about everything. Pretty much every decision you make (in every aspect of your life) involves settling in some way for something that does not quite live up to your ideal choice.

So when I define people getting what they want, you are right in a sense that people cannot choose to have exactly what they want. Their choices are constrained by the reality that there is a finite number of goods and services to be allocated and that trade-offs must be made. But if you are to condemn this, then it’s not really a condemnation of the market. It’s a condemnation of life.

Perhaps, then, I should not use the word “want.” Let’s just say that in a market system the preferences of people are revealed. People may say they want something but when it comes down to spending their money you actually see what they prefer. When they are faced with a cost in obtaining something, it is a more realistic indicator of what people prefer than when they merely say they want something (after all, expressing a desire costs nothing).

[Mangetout]

I suppose what I’m trying to say is that it seems plausible that in a free market, monstrous entities might arise that are no longer entirely subject to the control of their creators (the punters), but are to some extent capable of exerting (as a gestalt corporate entity, not through the conscious action of their management) control in the other direction - driving, directing and shaping the market so as to perpetuate and favour their own existence and diminish or suppress their competitors - overriding or subverting the control notionally held by the paying customers.

[Mangetout]

@Renob

If toys are painted with lead paint, do you you really think people would buy them? The recent incidents with lead paint illustrate what happens when consumers discover that businesses are deceiving them – the products of those businesses become quite unpopular.

OK, perhaps that was too extreme and obvious an example, but there are plenty of other that are not so - take the call centre thing - I’m certain that I never explicitly chose to have to deal with someone who barely speaks English when I have a query with my bank account or phone bill, but that’s what I ended up with - what choice did I have, really?

Yep, that’s called life. I may really like to have sex with Jennifer Lopez, but that’s not a realistic choice. I may really like to eat at Morton’s Steak House every night, but that’s not a realistic choice. In every aspect of life, people usually don’t get “what they really like” in the sense that their most unrealistic whim is satisfied. They must choose from a list of available choices and they choose the best option possible.

Yes, but I do think it’s also true that large corporate entities act to reduce the range of choice available. I don’t think they do it on purpose - I don’t think they can even help doing it.

Perhaps, then, I should not use the word “want.” Let’s just say that in a market system the preferences of people are revealed. People may say they want something but when it comes down to spending their money you actually see what they prefer. When they are faced with a cost in obtaining something, it is a more realistic indicator of what people prefer than when they merely say they want something (after all, expressing a desire costs nothing).

I’m still not sure I’m happy with that definition (but I’m aware I can’t win the argument here). I think it’s actually possible for people to unwittingly dig themselves into a miserable hole where nothing actually resembles their preferences at all; but rather the result of the decisions they were pretty much forced to make.

[Renob]

@Mangetout

OK, perhaps that was too extreme and obvious an example, but there are plenty of other that are not so - take the call centre thing - I’m certain that I never explicitly chose to have to deal with someone who barely speaks English when I have a query with my bank account or phone bill, but that’s what I ended up with - what choice did I have, really?

You have the ultimate choice of not giving your business to that company. Of course, you probably choose to put up with some inconvenience (the call center) to obtain something you desire (service from that company). And you probably like that company’s prices, which were obtained in part from outsourcing their call center work. It’s about trade-offs.

Yes, but I do think it’s also true that large corporate entities act to reduce the range of choice available. I don’t think they do it on purpose - I don’t think they can even help doing it.

How so? Companies want to sell goods and services to people. If they can do so by widening consumer options, of course they will do it. Look at the variety of choices you see for soda, potato chips, soup, meat, etc., in any grocery store. Look at the variety of cable channels. How do corporations reduce choices?

I’m still not sure I’m happy with that definition (but I’m aware I can’t win the argument here). I think it’s actually possible for people to unwittingly dig themselves into a miserable hole where nothing actually resembles their preferences at all; but rather the result of the decisions they were pretty much forced to make.

Again, how are people forced to make these decisions? They want a certain good or service and they must weigh the cost of obtaining that service. Yes, some people may resent that they have to pay money to obtain some things, but obviously the alternative (going without) is a worse choice for them. No one is forced to do anything in the market (without government interference, that is).

I will agree that some choices aren’t necessarily appealing, but that’s life. Yes, it sucks to have to buy groceries and spend my money on food, but I don’t want to starve. I’m not being forced to buy food, though, except by necessity. How are companies to blame for that?

[smiling_bandit]

@Mangetout

I suppose what I’m trying to say is that it seems plausible that in a free market, monstrous entities might arise that are no longer entirely subject to the control of their creators (the punters), but are to some extent capable of exerting (as a gestalt corporate entity, not through the conscious action of their management) control in the other direction - driving, directing and shaping the market so as to perpetuate and favour their own existence and diminish or suppress their competitors - overriding or subverting the control notionally held by the paying customers.

Ahm, no?

Look, people in groups do behave in somewhat odd ways they don’t on their own. But factors check this.

First, the groups have no will. The organizaiton doesn’t want anything at all, only its owners do.

Second, the groups as a whole have no goal, but essential stumble about blindly. Each individual does his or her job, and without a manager around to push it in one direction the whole thing goes nowehere and does nothing.

Third, it has no intelligence beyond whatever the individuals happen to possess. The less they care the less they produce.

In short, nothing really happens without the direction of some management, although senior management tries to push things lower if possible (so they don’t have to specifically order all maintenance, etc.). While corporations (and any other large group) do sometimes do things without any reason to it, that’s because communication breaks down along the line, or somebody doesn’t do his or her job, or whatever. Companies will try and attract customers and beat competitors however they can, because they want money.

They can’t shape the market except in two ways: to produce one style of good and not another, or to produce varying amounts of product. In all cases they do only what nets them the most money. Even monopolies do not always screw the end purchaser - it just depends on where their optimum price point comes in. And in any other possible case, they will produce as many styles and as much product as they can profitably sell.

[Mangetout]

@Renob

You have the ultimate choice of not giving your business to that company. Of course, you probably choose to put up with some inconvenience (the call center) to obtain something you desire (service from that company). And you probably like that company’s prices, which were obtained in part from outsourcing their call center work. It’s about trade-offs.

It is, yes, but if everything that happens is because the consumer chooses it, how do all the bad things happen?

How so? Companies want to sell goods and services to people. If they can do so by widening consumer options, of course they will do it. Look at the variety of choices you see for soda, potato chips, soup, meat, etc., in any grocery store. Look at the variety of cable channels. How do corporations reduce choices?

That’s great if you like soda and potato chips.
They tend to reduce the choice to those things that are most profitable for them - it’s not that the other things are un profitable, it’s just that, given the fact I’m going to eat some kind of animal protein, it makes economic sense to offer me the items they can produce with the largest profit margin - and I’m steered towards choosing those items that are profitable for the store by the withdrawal of the alternatives that are less profitable for them. (Or a hike in their price, to put them on a level margin footing with the other product, but driving them beyond my reach to purchase - it isn’t that they’re inherently expensive, just slightly less obscenely profitable for the retailer, and therefore not what they’d prefer I buy).

[Mangetout]

@smiling bandit

Ahm, no?

Look, people in groups do behave in somewhat odd ways they don’t on their own. But factors check this.

First, the groups have no will. The organizaiton doesn’t want anything at all, only its owners do.

Second, the groups as a whole have no goal, but essential stumble about blindly. Each individual does his or her job, and without a manager around to push it in one direction the whole thing goes nowehere and does nothing.

Third, it has no intelligence beyond whatever the individuals happen to possess. The less they care the less they produce.

I disagree with pretty much all of these statements. Although they don’t necessarily have intelligence and will in the same way as individual humans do, emergent behaviour can have attributes that resemble intelligence and volition. Management don’t have absolute control over the corporation - they’re driven by the corporation’s needs and demands themselves.

[smiling_bandit]

@Mangetout

I disagree with pretty much all of these statements. Although they don’t necessarily have intelligence and will in the same way as individual humans do, emergent behaviour can have attributes that resemble intelligence and volition. Management don’t have absolute control over the corporation - they’re driven by the corporation’s needs and demands themselves.

Emergent behavior isn’t caused randomly. A middle manager might undertake something which hurts the organization because it’s good for him. An underling might fail to file reports because he doesn’t care. Both of these coudl cause strange effects seen from the “outside.” Managers might not say what they think because they are embarassed or shy or want to be seen as being smarter than they are. But none of these events is inexplicable.

And none fo these possibilities gives the corporation any control AT ALL over the consumers. It never has any power over them. It can entice, not control. Only the government can do that. Some corporations will seek such power and and some governments will oblige. Unless you’re one of those people who thinks that advertising mesmerizes people into buying thigns against their will.

If the company did have such power, it wouldn’t be a corporation any more. If it has the power to force people to give them money in exchange for products, why would it sell the products? They’d just take the money and forget the products. The IRS doesn’t give you anything back and you’re not entitled to anything back.

[Renob]

@Mangetout

It is, yes, but if everything that happens is because the consumer chooses it, how do all the bad things happen?

Well, I’m not sure that having a call center in India is a bad thing, but I get what you are saying. As I’ve described above, it’s because the preference of most people is to maximize the amount (or quality) of goods they receive for the amount of money they are paying. That leads companies to seek ways to find efficiency so they can compete against rivals for your dollar. That may lead to “bad” things like sending work overseas. Consumers may deplore these things but, when it comes time to act on their beliefs, we find that they really want a good deal, so they continue to patronize these companies. In essence, consumers are saying they care more about the bottom line than about the “bad” things companies did to produce those products.

They tend to reduce the choice to those things that are most profitable for them - it’s not that the other things are un profitable, it’s just that, given the fact I’m going to eat some kind of animal protein, it makes economic sense to offer me the items they can produce with the largest profit margin - and I’m steered towards choosing those items that are profitable for the store by the withdrawal of the alternatives that are less profitable for them. (Or a hike in their price, to put them on a level margin footing with the other product, but driving them beyond my reach to purchase - it isn’t that they’re inherently expensive, just slightly less obscenely profitable for the retailer, and therefore not what they’d prefer I buy).

If your economic theory were true, then it would mean that when I go into a grocery store I would have one choice of every item and every store would do the same. Clearly that’s not the case. Your description of how companies work is wildly off the mark and can be seen pretty clearly by any trip to any store. Even when I go into Wal-Mart I am confronted with a variety of “animal protein” to meet my various desires. And when I go into Whole Foods I am confronted with an even wider variety of such products. How is this possible under your theory?

[Mangetout]

@smiling bandit

Emergent behavior isn’t caused randomly.

Did I say it is?

A middle manager might undertake something which hurts the organization because it’s good for him. An underling might fail to file reports because he doesn’t care. Both of these coudl cause strange effects seen from the “outside.” Managers might not say what they think because they are embarassed or shy or want to be seen as being smarter than they are. But none of these events is inexplicable.

I’m not talking about managment, I’m talking about the dynamics of large, complex arrangements of organisations that bring about necessities that nobody - not the management, not the customers - actually set out to choose. I think you must probably acknowledge that these emergent systems can exist - after all, we’re talking about one that we keep calling ‘the market’.

And none fo these possibilities gives the corporation any control AT ALL over the consumers. It never has any power over them. It can entice, not control. Only the government can do that. Some corporations will seek such power and and some governments will oblige. Unless you’re one of those people who thinks that advertising mesmerizes people into buying thigns against their will.

No I’m not, and I think if you even imagine I’m saying that, you haven’t understood me at all.

We can choose from what’s available - who or what dictates what’s on offer? It’s not me. So my actions can be controlled by restricting the choices - I’m not saying that there’s some guy in a leather chair, stroking a persian cat and laughing about controlling my choices - I’m suggesting that large corporations can evolve into something subtly aggressive and predatory.

And as I said above - I don’t have a better Idea - in fact I think whatever we tried to do, it would just change back to something resembling what it is now, because it’s a gestalt entity emerging from basic human behaviour, not something created on purpose.

[Mangetout]

@Renob

Well, I’m not sure that having a call center in India is a bad thing, but I get what you are saying. As I’ve described above, it’s because the preference of most people is to maximize the amount (or quality) of goods they receive for the amount of money they are paying. That leads companies to seek ways to find efficiency so they can compete against rivals for your dollar. That may lead to “bad” things like sending work overseas. Consumers may deplore these things but, when it comes time to act on their beliefs, we find that they really want a good deal, so they continue to patronize these companies. In essence, consumers are saying they care more about the bottom line than about the “bad” things companies did to produce those products.

But none of these individual attributes - the call centre in India, the investment in unethical funds - any other thing that might be good or bad about the corporate entity - they don’t exist in isolation; so I can’t just dissect out the bits I don’t like and reject them. I have to choose a package.

If your economic theory were true, then it would mean that when I go into a grocery store I would have one choice of every item and every store would do the same. Clearly that’s not the case. Your description of how companies work is wildly off the mark and can be seen pretty clearly by any trip to any store. Even when I go into Wal-Mart I am confronted with a variety of “animal protein” to meet my various desires. And when I go into Whole Foods I am confronted with an even wider variety of such products. How is this possible under your theory?

I don’t know. I’m seeing what I believe to be a flattening of choice in the shops here. I just can’t get, or can’t afford, some of the things I would like, and I’m confronted with a lot of things that are very bland and uniform, that I don’t even want. Wanting something doesn’t make it available. Yes, the market responds to demands, in a general sense. But my demands are a meaningless drop in the ocean - so what we actually get is some sort of common denominator.

It was a mistake my getting into this debate again though.

[Triskadecamus]

It “General” Electric, and “Colonel” Sanders, and all those “Private” businesses, and Major brand names, man. Sounds like and invading army to me.

Tris

[even_sven]

On one hand, globalized culture is something that can’t be fought.

On the other hand, sometimes it can be pretty sad. I live in an area that is a rich patchwork of ethnicities. I can ride my bike to the hometowns of at least ten different tribes, each one has it’s own orgins, arts, dances, language and traditions. If Wikipedia is to believed, some of these tribes have been in the area since Neolithic times.

A couple hundred years ago, a chunk of that culture was lost when an invading tribe brought their own leaders and their brand of Islam to the region. Their mark is still everywhere- the way people dress, the language they speak, their names, their social structures, etc. Some groups fled to the mountains and the older traditions still live on in remote areas, but people practicing them are subject to scorn and discrimination. Anyone wanting to do anything with their lives would have to renounce them. Most the rest of the people live in a sort of West African monoculture, to the point that I was more comfortable in Mali- thousands of miles away- than I am just a few hundred miles to the south of me, where the Islamic invaders never reached. Huge swathes of cultures have been erased.

Seems a little sadder when it’s not about McDonalds, doesn’t it?

Of course nowdays, it’s all Hindi movies, Cote D’Ivoirian pop music, cheap Chinese goods, and knock off European luxery clothes. On traditional village holidays, the young people are more likely to be dancing to Shakira than the dances their grandparents danced.

Is there anything wrong with Shakira? No. But the world is losing something that it will never get back. We are losing religions, languages, artforms and cultures and once they are gone, they will be gone. It’s inevitable, but the death of anything- especially something as profound as a culture- is sad.

It only borders into evil when people try to graft inappropriate parts of one culture on to another. For example, we have a French school system here. And it’s a wreck, because it doesn’t account for the fact that the kids are required to farm certain weeks of the year, usually miss a year here and there because they can’t pay, often married and raising children, and generally just have a different life than your average French Lycee student. And it is a huge disservice. I can imagine a hundred different school systems that would be better for this culture. But people will keep imitating the French system because it is associated with prestige. People often actually believe that anything European is better than anything African. And time and time again this leads to bad stuff.

Anyway, nothing can be done. And often cultures manage to find a way to survive in their new form.

[Sitnam]

There is something valid in valuing your distinct minority culture, but blaming the dominant one is ridiculous.