misunderstanding globalization

After having read “Does Globalization Threaten or Nurture Local Markets?” by Randall Frost and On cosmopolitanism by Marco Hewitt, I’m realizing there is an important argument that must be made. But first I should probably provide a quick summary of these articles.

Randall Frost writes on brandchannel.com, which is produced by Interbrand, a global corporation providing advertising services. I mention this not to create some bias, but to provide everyone with the context necessary to interpret the contents of the article. In itself, there is nothing more than a good collection of quotes from various writers, experts and other intellectuals supporting a single argument: globalization is only guilty of creating a renewed interest in local cultures by forcing people to balance their crazy consumption habits with more healthy trends based on ethnic products. Since the article is full of quotes, I guess I would have to double quote everything I use from it:

In Shopping for Identity: The Marketing of Ethnicity, Boston University’s Marilyn Halter looked at renewed interest in ethnicity in the US (Schocken, 2000). Halter notes, for example, that in their attempt to recapture traditional values, Americans have begun consuming large quantities of ethnic products, such as foods and music. She traces these trends to a reaction against mass consumerism.

“Localization is a clear countermovement to globalization,‚Äù [Marieke de Mooij] tells us. ‚ÄúPeople’s behavior is stable‚Äîbasically people don’t like change, and much of consumer behavior is habitual. This implies that people for some time will embrace new things, but in the end they like more what fits, what they are used to.‚Äù

It is not surprising that arguments like these are sponsored by global brands. In a way, they are reacting against the countless attacks on globalization (and their products) by mitigating the effect they are having on culture. While I’m sure all the examples they use are real, they oversimplify a complex problem.

By contrast, Marco Hewitt provides a raw essay on what he considers are the flaws of a system that assumes very easily that globalization is all about western brands spreading throughout the world. He reveals a much more complex reality: cosmopolitanism. He does this mostly with his own arguments, which are validated by his own experience, being a Filipino-Australian studying cultural-anthropology. His essay is intense and should be read entirely, but here is an appetizer:

Cosmopolitanism is about embracing and creating a pluralist future, in which Western cultural and ideological hegemony is decentred [...] in Salman Rushdie’s words, opposes the absolutism of “The Pure”. It rejoices in ‘mongrel-ness’, ‘mestizo-ness’, hybridity, and third spaces.

The flow of global culture is NOT simply a matter of a flow from “the west to the rest”. This view is short-sighted for it neglects two things: 1) the flow of culture in the reverse direction (ie: “from the rest to the west”), and 2) circuits of culture which bypass the west altogether

the South has set itself up in the very heart of the North! In these countries, Western cultural hegemony is being decentred as cosmopolitanised individuals opt for nonwestern preferences in food, music, day-to-day practices, religion, etc.

The process of globalization is far too complex and involves too many agents to assume that the only aspect deserving some discussion is the influence of global brands on foreign countries and their cultures. There are clearly many paths of influence that don’t even include these global brands. I’ve suggested before that these paths have more to do with migration, but what matters is that all of them have an important part on what will be our global culture in the future. Documenting this is an important step to understand it and is one of the objectives of this project.