Another line of criticism of the media imperialism thesis suggests that the resistance to the US domination is being overlooked. The theory originally regarded the media experience as a homogeneous phenomenon, with the US as “ the single centre of a process of media-centric capitalist influence, which flowed outward to the rest of the world in the form of television programmes”, while audiences on the periphery were passive and helpless (Rantanen, 2005, p.78-9).Reception studies of television programmes such as “Dallas” (Liebes and Katz,1990) and “Dynasty” (Gripsrud,1995) have underlined that the interpretation of cultural texts depends on local cultural and political contexts. These studies have also shown that individuals are able to negotiate
…show more content…
However, as highlighted by Tomlinson (1999), one the reasons in favour of cultural imperialism thesis is the fact that its critical stance allows one to understand the expansionist feature of capitalism and the real character of global culture. Globalisation scholars like Giddens noted that in the emerging, decentralised, flexible and open global communication system, the top-down power is weakened. Technological developments seem to challenge the established economic and political control by allowing less established organisations as well as individuals to defy the dominance of well established global organisations (Williams, 2003).“Despite technology's awesome reach,” he writes, “we have not, and will not, become one people” (Lull, 2000,p.233). Lull (2000) pointed out that globalisation would not mean the creation of a universal, technology-based super society that takes over the planet and destroys the local social cultures and systems. Rather than wiping out diverse cultural identities, globalisation has enabled to produce, galvanise and transform them. Stuart Hall argues that “modern nations are all cultural hybrids” (1992, p.297). Therefore, one could see globalisation as a process of …show more content…
He has contrasted this paradigm of hybridity to other two popular views of the cultural impact of globalisation. The first one would be cultural diversity, or differentialism, which is strongly elaborated in Samuel Huntington's (1996) theory of the clash of civilizations, which has further gained importance after the 9/11 terrorist attack in America. Another view of the cultural impact of globalisation is cultural convergence and homogenization, or popularly called McDonaldization. “Hybridization is an antidote to the cultural differentialism of racial and nationalist doctrines because it takes as its point of departure precisely those experiences that have been banished, marginalized, tabooed in cultural differentialism. It subverts nationalism because it privileges border-crossing. It subverts identity politics such as ethnic or other claims to purity and authenticity because it starts out from the fuzziness of boundaries. If modernity stands for ethos of order and neat separation by tight boundaries, hybridization reflects a postmodern sensibility of cut’n’mix transgression, subversion” (Pieterse , 2004, p.22).One could argue that globalisation does not create a global culture in terms of the predominance of western values, but respects cultural "niches" and local features. Global
However, as highlighted by Tomlinson (1999), one the reasons in favour of cultural imperialism thesis is the fact that its critical stance allows one to understand the expansionist feature of capitalism and the real character of global culture. Globalisation scholars like Giddens noted that in the emerging, decentralised, flexible and open global communication system, the top-down power is weakened. Technological developments seem to challenge the established economic and political control by allowing less established organisations as well as individuals to defy the dominance of well established global organisations (Williams, 2003).“Despite technology's awesome reach,” he writes, “we have not, and will not, become one people” (Lull, 2000,p.233). Lull (2000) pointed out that globalisation would not mean the creation of a universal, technology-based super society that takes over the planet and destroys the local social cultures and systems. Rather than wiping out diverse cultural identities, globalisation has enabled to produce, galvanise and transform them. Stuart Hall argues that “modern nations are all cultural hybrids” (1992, p.297). Therefore, one could see globalisation as a process of …show more content…
He has contrasted this paradigm of hybridity to other two popular views of the cultural impact of globalisation. The first one would be cultural diversity, or differentialism, which is strongly elaborated in Samuel Huntington's (1996) theory of the clash of civilizations, which has further gained importance after the 9/11 terrorist attack in America. Another view of the cultural impact of globalisation is cultural convergence and homogenization, or popularly called McDonaldization. “Hybridization is an antidote to the cultural differentialism of racial and nationalist doctrines because it takes as its point of departure precisely those experiences that have been banished, marginalized, tabooed in cultural differentialism. It subverts nationalism because it privileges border-crossing. It subverts identity politics such as ethnic or other claims to purity and authenticity because it starts out from the fuzziness of boundaries. If modernity stands for ethos of order and neat separation by tight boundaries, hybridization reflects a postmodern sensibility of cut’n’mix transgression, subversion” (Pieterse , 2004, p.22).One could argue that globalisation does not create a global culture in terms of the predominance of western values, but respects cultural "niches" and local features. Global