Review of literature in relation to whether cultures are eroded by foreign

cultural influences including media

Along with the development of technology, especially the internet and media,
globalization has risen rapidly throughout the world. The impacts of globalization
have been the focus of a number of recent academic studies on global cultural
influence. Some scholars argue that the foreign cultural influences, especially
imported media, may erode local culture. Others claim that pure culture has not
existed or cultural interaction has always happened, so the foreign culture does not
damage traditional culture. Therefore, this review will examine the literature on
foreign cultural influences, in particular media effects.

An increasing number of studies (the UN, 2003; Arnett, 2002; Morris, 2002) have
examined the integration of global and local cultures based on conflicting views of
cultural imperialism theory. This term refers to the domination of one culture over
other cultures, and it is often associated with the dominance of American values and
ideologies in recent years. The UN perspective agrees with the proponents of this
theory, which asserts that globalization process has led to homogenization of culture
and eroded local culture. In contrast, Arnett and Morris point out that hybridization
between local and foreign cultures is a result of global cultural flows, which produces
more diversity of culture. Furthermore, Morris uses the ‘deep structure’ of culture to
explain how cultures preserve and retain traditional values, so the culture cannot be
homogenized by global flows. Although these perspectives belong to different fields
of global culture or media and could conflict in some ways, their contribution to
research is significant.

Based on the thesis that the foreign culture erodes local culture, the UN claims

1
cultural homogenization seems to be a result of globalization or one- way flow of
global culture from developed to developing countries. They argue that this global
flow is the movement of technology and cultural products from West to East, which
erodes the local values by the dominance of western values such as commodification
and individualism. This flow is mainly promoted by America. The UN refers to the
example of African countries where the French media dominates the local media and
a main proportion of the global media which is dominated by the western media,
specifically the American media. This indicates that global cultural influences lead to
weaken local culture as a problem of homogenization. In other words, the foreign
influences erode the distinctiveness of local culture and national identities.
Furthermore, this undermines cultural diversity. The research of the UN is a warning
for many countries due to a threat of global cultural homogenization.

Nevertheless, the UN does not analyze the resiliency of local culture in order to adopt
and adapt some elements of foreign culture into their culture. Both Arnett and Morris
agree that culture has ability to accept, integrate the external values of culture. This
leads to increase of cultural diversity. Arnett asserts that cultural hybridization is a
result of globalization. He argues that the integration of local and global culture
increases local cultural diversity. Such diversity does not damage to traditional
culture. He uses the example of young I.T workers in India, who simultaneously use
global and local culture as they form their bicultural identity. This means they not only
continue to develop global culture’s values in their work, but they also retain their
local culture, such as marriage custom and their family values as caring for their
parent in old age. Therefore, global culture may increase local cultural diversity,
rather than eroding the local culture thesis. Nevertheless, some people cannot form
their bicultural identity, so they choose self- selected identity formation. The self-
selected identity refers to enthusiastic about participation in global culture and
carefully choosing values of global culture to construct the own identity.

In addition, Morris not only agrees with the Arnett’s idea of cultural hybridization, but
she also has a detailed analysis of the hybridization. She claims that global culture is

2
not a one- way flow but multidirectional influence of cultural hybridization. The African
and Latin American influences of music on American music’s culture are an example
of multidirectional influence. The process of integrating African and Latin American
elements of music into American music refers to cultural glocalisation. Furthermore,
she argues that cultures have never been pure, that they have always been
influenced by notions from other cultures, but resiliency of culture mainly prevents its
own values being contaminated be extrinsic influences. Therefore, although there is
a little evidence entailing the damage to local culture or homogenization of traditional
cultural identity, local cultures are not eroded by foreign cultural effects. However,
Morris’ agreement that modern technology does not cause homogenization of culture
or eroded local cultures seems to be weak. The accelerated pace of technology in
the 20th and 21st centuries is different or the speed of technological change today is
quicker than before, so the changed speed of technology leads to a different way for
cultures to adapt. Hence, this leads to some cultures being at risk of being
overwhelmed or unable to resist foreign cultural influences. Whereas, in the historical
example of influence given by Morris, the movement of influence was slower and
interaction between cultures developed over long period of time, which caused
adaption of local cultures from absorption of foreign ideas perhaps more gradual and
thus less threatening as compared to today.

Such analyses are significant for further research; however they have neglected the
power difference between the influencing culture and the receiving culture. They
greatly ignore which cultures are the influencing and receiving, and why they have
strong fundamental values to survive and therefore resist the homogenizing influence
or being erosion from another culture. This is particularly relevant to the relationship
of economic strength and cultural strength or popularity that are not accounted for.

3
Reference list:

Arnett, J.J. (2002), 'The Psychology of Globalization', in American Psychologist,

Vol.57, No.10, American Psychologist Association, October p.p. 774-783.

United Nations (2003), 'Young People in a Globalization World', Chapter 11 in World

Youth Report, 2003, United Nations, New York.

Morris, N. (2002), ‘the myth of unadulterated culture meets the threat of imported
media’ in Media, Culture & Society (London, thousand Oaks and New Delhi).