The World Today - A Global Village or an American Village?
I remember driving from one city to another and spotting a bright, yellow M almost every 20 minutes. McDonald's — the world's #1 fast-food chain- seemed to be everywhere. Except, I was driving in the interiors of India, and where local food joints were nowhere to be seen, the popular American food joint just existed. McDonaldization — as the term goes — is used to portray American cultural imperialism on the rest of the world however this is just the tip of the iceberg. Food is a commercial commodity, catering to not really the “mind” however what happens when cultural commodities — products of media including movies, television, radio, music, etc., which are experiential in nature are treated the same? Traded freely without any government restrictions or quotas imposed — accessible to all irrespective of their nationality or region of residence?
Media products, I believe, are unique and need special protection — they should not be sold and traded freely like other commercial products and this article aims to tell you why.
What makes media products special?
My first argument strives to explain that free trade of media products is problematic simply because media products are exceptionally unique and different from commercial commodities. While the latter are universal and serve the sole purpose of practicality, the former refers to products of the print and audiovisual industry which are the vehicles for the transmission of values, lifestyles, and ideologies. They shape one’s views, mindset, and also behavior to a certain extent. However, this very trait of media products makes them potentially corrosive to the receiver culture. The primary reason being- the unfulfilled promise of media globalization. While today’s technology without a doubt facilitates impeccable communication and distribution of cultural products, McLuhan’s notion of a global village is far from reality.
Clear-cut economic gaps imply that although there is availability to media content, the majority of the world’s population lacks access to it.
Additionally, the power is concentrated with a handful of major media conglomerates who influence what the people are exposed to. This can be seen in the example of Netflix. Data collected in 2016 showed that over half of the content was of US origin hence supporting the fact that conglomerates such as Netflix promote their own western culture and the fact that certain media conglomerates choose what we watch is exactly why media products must not be traded freely.
Media- a new form of colonialism?
This brings me to my second point of cultural imperialism — in other words, a new form of colonialism. The term refers to the worldwide spread and dominance of consumer culture and media products of the West, particularly of America, which nations believe is wiping out their native cultural traditions and values by imposing their western culture on the local population. McDonaldisation just being the most obvious example. Today, we see this in music for example where American artists dominate the charts worldwide and local artists struggle to compete in their local own market. American media companies are well-developed and well-financed infrastructures and therefore have the resources to produce high-quality media content such as films. Majority of the nation’s lack these basic infrastructural resources to produce such expensive content giving America the upper hand. Thus begins the vicious cycle of America getting richer with each export while many local media industries’ get undermined. Therefore, imposition of certain regulations or quotas such as that of the EU to produce 51% of the content in Europe, helps promote local artists and the local culture and benefits the economy of the country rather than of America and media products should thus, not be traded freely.
Global village or American Village?
Due to cultural imperialism, the individual diversity of countries is getting lost in the sea of westernization. This can be seen in Emily in Paris for instance, the American TV show about a girl who moves to Paris. Not only is the French culture depicted inaccurately in the fashion but also in the language usage by her French colleagues (who speak predominantly in English rather than French, something that wouldn’t be the case in France). The result? The French culture itself was Americanised and lost. Therefore, if media products such as films and television shows become globally mass products and homogenized, cultures lose their distinctive elements, and diversity isn’t promoted but rather lost. Thus, imposing certain regulations to counter free trade not only in exchange but also in production is necessary for the preservation of diversity.
However, a counterargument for the discussion at hand is that of the neo-liberal approach. Neo-liberals believe that media corporations must have the right to free trade of media products and their success or failure in the market must be determined by supply, demand, and market competition. Free trade of media products could promote innovation, improve quality and decrease prices for consumers. Additionally, consumers would not be curbed by the media diet fed to them by the government but would rather be free to choose.
While this idea does seem appealing, it, unfortunately, is not reality. Having a free market would not lead to the fall of powerful public broadcasters and replace them with competitive independent corporations. Rather, these powerful, transnational conglomerates would further dominate the industry because of the head-start they have in terms of infrastructure and pre-existing popularity built over the ages. Thus, although from an individualistic perspective, neo-liberalists may argue by saying the consumer must get what the consumer wants, the society as a whole will suffer. This can be seen in the case of teenagers in Romania who state that easy and recurrent exposure to western media has made them “lose connect” with their own Romanian culture thus reinforcing my stance.
In conclusion, while most may believe that “free trade” of media products has a positive result attached to it, the arguments stated of cultural imperialism, preservation of diversity, and media products being unique and experiential in nature explain why culture needs to be protected, especially in today’s era of prevalent westernization. Also, while neo-liberalism is an important point to consider, its utopian nature makes it a flawed counterargument.
To sum up, media products are in fact unique and need special protection, unlike other commercial products. And if the appropriate measures are taken to protect the culture of every nation, hopefully in the not-so-far future, local food joints will replace McDonald’s bright yellow M.
