Under the trend of globalization, businesses and organizations put increasing emphasis on their competitiveness overseas and international trade flourishes as a result. Some realize that the expansion of western dominance over the global market brings the constant import of western culture and ideas, changing the local culture. Scholars disagree with each other on the impact of globalization on cultural diversity. Some scholars looked into the response of people around the world to the dominant Western cultural influence and discovered both the rise of rather extreme resistive forces like the Jihad and the excellent growth of local, grass root counterparts that coexist with international franchises (Cowen, 4). Generally, the critics see the trend of globalization a menace from the west, altering the lifestyle of the global community to become clones of it and stirring up violent pushbacks among the locals. The supporters of globalization look on the bright side of this culture diffusion and point out that while cultures of different nations accept the spread of western civilization, their own culture is introduced to the rest of the world and allowed to flourish, contributing to the diversity in other places.
In this essay, I will examine the different viewpoints on the impact of globalization has on cultural diversity. I will conduct my argument by first differentiating the cultural diversity in significance to the global community and individuals. Then, I will base my argument on the proposing side by explaining the opinion that globalization could cause cultural homogenization, marginalizing the unique local cultures while the chain corporations make huge economic profits, undermining cultural diversity. Although globalization is associated with positives about the mixture of cultures across the globe, the related homogenization results to the lessening of cultural diversity based on diffusion and popularization of a comprehensive series of cultural symbols.
The term “cultural diversity” is linked to multiple definitions based on the perspectives and findings of scholars. While some scholars adopt a broad perspective and discuss cultural diversity as the number of distinct cultures in the world, others are concerned with the number of cultures an individual in a particular environment might be introduced to (Ritzer). The effect of globalization differs depending on the form of cultural diversion discussed. Despite the differences, both camps consider not only quantity but also the quality of cultures as an essential factor in their arguments. The advantages of modern technology also facilitate the spread of indigenous culture.
Barber and Ritzer both criticize the spread of a monopolistic and commercialized culture under globalization. This phenomenon is perhaps best understood with the international success of the chain fast-food restaurant McDonald. In “An Introduction to McDonaldization," George Ritzer expresses his concern for the overwhelming homogenization effect of globalization, “McDonaldization affects not only the restaurant business but also … virtually every other aspect of society” (Ritzer). He seems to recognize the lack of quality and creativeness in the service provided by McDonald and many businesses alike, because of their focus on “efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control” (Ritzer). Barber also acknowledges Ritzer’s point. He writes that the “McWorld” is “Pressing nations into one homogenous global theme park” (Barber). On top of this notion, he also describes the clash of the globalization and the resistive force of indigenous cultures when viewing themselves as threatened by the dominant culture, creating “a threatened balkanization of nation-states in which culture is pitted against culture, people against people, tribe against tribe”(Barber). While under movement like the Jihad, the culture of a particular group is faithfully protected, the experiences of individuals are not diversified in any way. Barber expresses his concern that the conflict between the two interferes with political stability around the world and how it undermines the democratic world. Since “McWorld not only imperils but recreates and reinforces Jihad” (Barber), he believes that the globalization directly causes hostility among different cultures and cultural diversity suffers as a result. Indeed, Barber and Ritzer effectively identify that globalization leads to cultural homogenization, which influences cultural diversity by reducing it.
Although some scholars argue that the contemporary culture is the lasting result of constant cultural diffusion, it is evident that this threatens cultural diversity, as people would adopt different practices and values from other cultural groups, therefore losing the meaning of local culture. According to Anthony Appiah, globalization, or, “cosmopolitan contamination," because the hybridization of different cultures is not only a natural trend through time but also the reason that new cultures evolve and morphe into being. “Cultures are made of continuities and changes, and the identity of society can survive through these changes" (Appiah). However, through the interaction of people from different cultural groups, this leads to the reduction of cultural identities, especially the moment the world adopts a mixture of different cultures.
Cultural homogenization resulting from globalization makes cultural practices to diffuse; hence, lacking meaning. Bryant Simon thinks that cultural diffusion inevitably accompanies economic and political interactions between places, “The notion of a cultural “level playing field” is a myth and will never be seen in practice”(Simon). However, the loss of culture purity would continue being a threat of cultural diversity, as cultural groups would be forced to adopt cultural practices and views of other groups. Besides, in Simon’s “Global Brands Contend with Appreciation for the Local” he points out that the invasion of international chain franchises encourages the counter-movement which creates locally owned, diversified businesses. "Everywhere multinternationals go, they generate a grassroots pushback” (Simon). His argument is not valid given that the moment local businesses engage in competition with international firms, local businesses suffer losses. Despite Simon’s argument that; “The global had generated so much demand for the local that a global chain needed to look local to survive globally,” the fact remains that the competition between local and international businesses destroys the local cultural diversity.
Some scholars fail to focus on the experience of the global culture, as they emphasize the experience of individuals. For instance, Tyler Cowen points out in his article that while the world might becoming homogeneous in some sense under the trend of globalization, some areas in the world are becoming more heterogeneous, as less dominant cultures are also introduced into the western world. This is not the case because, the so formed less dominant cultures, do not have unique values, ideas, and customs but adopt those of a mixture of cultures. Appiah also recognizes that the significance of cultural diversity is to provide more choices and freedom to each person,
“If we want to preserve a wide range of human conditions because it allows free people the best chance to make their own lives, there is no place for the enforcement of diversity by trapping people within a kind of difference they long to escape”(Appiah).
Given that individuals have the freedom to choose, there is no need for the intentional enforcement of diversity; whereby people are forced to adopt the cultural practices, values, and views of other cultural groups through globalization. While isolation does protect groups from cultural contamination and guard their traditions successfully, their own culture is prohibited from being introduced to the rest of the world, and the beneficial knowledge of the outside world cannot be learned or adapt for their improvement. Therefore, globalization negatively influences cultural diversity by breaking the bond formed by members of a cultural group based on their engagement in common cultural practices, language, values, views, and norms.
In conclusion, globalization negatively affects cultural diversity. The dominant cultures like Western culture tend to influence the local cultures, therefore causing the diffusion and popularization of a broad set of cultural symbols like values, ideas, and customers. It is evident that globalization caused cultural homogenization, whereby some cultures adapt, change shape to become more appealing and market themselves to gain more followers. Although the modern world is increasingly connected, the rising interaction of cultural groups in the global market makes there to be the reduction of cultural diversity. While globalization is closely associated with the advancement of technology and the interactions between cultures that come with it, it is fatal to the local cultures because of Westernization of cultural diffusion which will finally lead to the loss of meaning of different cultures, as the world will be characterized with cultural homogenization.
Works Cited
Appiah, Anthony. “Cosmopolitan Contamination.” Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. New York: Norton, 2006. 101-103.
Barber, Benjamin. “Jihad vs. McWorld.” The Globalization Reader. Maleden, MA: Blackwell, 2004. 29-35.
Bryant, Simon. “Global Brands Contend with Appreciation for the Local.” YaleGlobal. 6 July 2010. Web. http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/global-brands-contend-appreciation-local
Cowen, Tyler. “Trade between Cultures.” Creative Destruction: How Globalization is Changing the World’s Cultures. Princeton, NJ; Woodstock: Princeton UP, 2004. 1-18.
Ritzer, George. “An Introduction to McDonaldization.” The McDonaldization of Society 5. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi: Pine Forge, 2008. 1-24.
