INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the course paper is to describe the phenomenon of globalization (especially in cultural sphere), to analyze the effects produced by globalization and call attention both to its negative and positive impacts. The understanding of globalization’s negative effects on culture can help us preserve our values and cultural identity, while the knowledge of its positive influences will allow us to derive benefits from it.

For most of human history, people’s picture of the world was determined by their immediate surroundings. There was no way of knowing what was happening on the other side of the planet. The 20^th century has seen a profound change. Technology has brought people together. Television programs showing life in New York or Paris are watched in Argentina, Botswana and Indonesia. Books written in Germany or Canada are routinely printed Spain, Hong Kong or China. Wearing jeans, eating burgers and listening to rock or rap have become the habits of hundreds of millions of people across the globe. All these are results of the phenomenon called globalization. The first writer to use “globalization” in its modern sense was an American academic Theodore Levitt.  In 1983 he observed that all around the world people’s tastes seemed to be converging. Globalization has become such an important and pervasive word in our current vocabulary that it has almost become the flavor of the day. Despite its wide use, it remains a confusing concept in many ways.

Globalization has been one of the most hotly-debated topics in international economics over the past few years. Many social scientists have devoted much time and effort to analyzing the complex processes that characterize international activities today, but they have not formulated conceptual models that adequately explain current global events. Contemporary processes of globalisation have several dimensions or faces: technological, cultural, religious, economic and political. In this work I concentrate on the cultural aspect of globalization because it has a direct influence on our everyday life. Cultural globalization refers to the notion that people around the world are conforming in their habits (such as watching the same television shows and eating the same food) and their attitudes (such as beliefs about democracy and human rights).

For me the concept of globalization is of great interest, because it has become an integral part of our everyday life and as a future specialist of “Intercultural Communications” and “Area Studies” I am keen on understanding the process in which cultures and societies connect and interact.

So, in this work I am trying to give both the general characteristics of globalization and the main problems that come forth in the process of cultural globalization. The structure of the paper is as follows:

Chapter 1 describes the process of globalization, gives its brief history bringing forward two contradictory views concerning the starting data of globalization. It also highlights present factors active in the spread of globalization and speaks about the tensions that result from it.

In the second chapter first of all the concept of culture is discussed, as only after having  a basic notion of  it we can understand the phenomenon of cultural globalization. Afterwards, general characteristics of cultural globalization are given. In this chapter we also come across with idea that cultural globalization represents the “Americanization” of world culture, together with which the concept of “McDonaldization” is described as a synonym to globalization. The next point discussed in this chapter is the impacts of cultural globalization (both positive and negative).

The work ends with a conclusion and a bibliography.

CHAPTER 1

GLOBALIZATION: HISTORY, FACTORS, TENSIONS

   In the last twenty-five years the term “globalization” has come to the forefront of political discussions. The implications of globalization have always existed, but it has not been until more recent times that the full affects and the conditioning of globalization have been more apparent. Globalization is mainly a socio-economic term which is nowadays synonymous with the economic development of a country. In simple terms, it is a continuous process through which different societies, economies, traditions and culture integrate with each other on a global scale through the means of communication and interchange of ideas. Globalization in its literal sense is the process of transformation of local or regional phenomena into global ones. It can be described as a process by which the people of the world are unified into a single society and function together.¹ This process is a combination of economic, technological, sociocultural and political forces. Globalization is often used to refer to economic globalization, that is, integration of national economies into the international economy through trade, foreign direct investment, capital flows, migration, and the spread of technology. It personifies an intensification of worldwide relations and interactions with local environment and way of life being affected by what is happening elsewhere in the world. The intensification of these relations can be grouped into in the following categories: ecological (worldwide recognition of problems, such as climate change), economics (an evolving awareness of wages for instance connected with the goods purchased, the working conditions and prices), strategic (implications of global weaponry) and ethical issues (democracy, human rights, poverty and recognizing the value of the cultural mosaic).²

1.1. HISTORY OF GLOBALIZATION

  According to most scholars and researchers, it is the modern age which led to the origin of globalization. In this age, wide spread development took place in the field of infrastructure and connectivity. This led to more interaction between the nations and sharing of ideas, culture and tradition took place. All these put a direct impact on the process of globalization. In the economic scenario, more trade links started taking place between countries on a global scale which influenced global as well as domestic economies to a great extent. However, there are some scholars who point out that the origins of the history of globalization can be traced back to the ancient times. According to them globalization began when the first humans, who originated in what we now call East Africa, traveled north first, and then into Asia and Europe in the one direction, and to Siberia and then into the Americas in the other direction. Migration was thus the first human experience in globalization, one that placed the whole world on a single stage. In this particular time period, we can see the mix of cultural and religious ideas.³

   Globalization in the medieval age: The Islamic period in the medieval era is an important epoch in the history of globalization. This was when the Jewish and the Muslim traders started going to various parts of the world to sell various items. This led to a blend of ideas, traditions and customs. Then came the age of travel, when courageous individuals like Marco Polo and Columbus, started expanding the parameters of the European experience by traveling and exploring, driven partly by curiosity, partly by a search for spices and silks, and partly by a simple desire to find out whether the earth was flat or round. They established trade routes, which contributed to heightened communication channels between countries, and more importantly, continents. Following this era of travel came trade, when people became aware of how much you could gain by exchanging goods, or even by exchanging ideas and cultures. All these factors were a major cause for the development of the pre-globalization era. It was in this period that Africa and Eurasia engaged in cultural and economic exchange between them. Gradually, this led to the growth of colonies in various parts of Africa, Asia and Latin America. The colonial experience included the colonizing power that forcefully ruled over many people, which cost human lives and suffering in terms of human and natural ecology. Included within this wave of globalization was the cultural implantation of knowledge, values and beliefs. The colonizers determined what was in the best interests of a people who inhabited the African and Asian continents for generations. As a result, there was constant blend of the ideas, languages, rituals and customs between the natives and the foreign inhabitants. In fact, this system of colonization put a deep impact on agriculture, trade, ecology and culture on a global scale.

  Globalization between the pre modern periods to modern period: The industrial revolution in the 19th century was one of the major periods in the history of globalization. Due to the industrial revolution, there was a significant increase in the quantity and quality of the products. This led to higher exports and better trade and business relations. Due to better products and colonization, lots of countries across the world became the consumers of the European market. As advanced countries in the West quickly rose to power, weaker countries began to adopt their ideas, and eventually the entire world went through the globalization process called westernization. The ideas that came from this westernization, such as steam powered locomotives, helped globalization snowball by allowing for faster transportation of goods over longer distances. The period from the end of World War I to 1950 experienced some elements of the present globalization as new technology joined expansion in finance, trade, investment, and culture throughout the world. Yet in a major sense this was an era of deglobalization: first, the international economic system malfunctioned or broke down; then, during the Cold War, the world divided along ideological fissures. World War I accelerated the expansion of U.S. business overseas. American firms were especially successful in replacing dominant British firms in Western Hemisphere and Asian markets. In addition, war requirements created a soaring U.S. demand for raw materials, especially copper, iron, and other key mineral products. Soon American firms, with the help of their government, began scouring the world for essential raw materials.  The phase of pre globalization perhaps came to an end after the First World War was fought. The war put a significant adverse effect on the economic scenario and it led to the Great Depression and gold standard crisis in the later part of the 1920s and early 1930s.⁴

  Globalization in the modern era: Globalization, in the modern sense of the term, came into existence after the Second World War. One of the main factors for this was the plan by the world leaders to break down the borders for fostering trade relations between nations. It was also in this period that major countries like India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and some countries in South America gained independence. As a result, these countries too started having their own economic systems and made established trade relations with the rest of the world. The establishment of the United Nations Organization (UNO) was also a major step in this regard. Gradually, the economic scenario of the world strengthened and it led to better trade relations and communication. Some other factors which have put a positive impact on globalization are:

• Promotion of free commerce and trade
• Abolition of various double taxes, tariffs, and capital controls
• Reduction of transport cost and development of infrastructure
• Creation of global corporations
• Blend of culture and tradition across the countries

Another milestone in the history of globalization is the creation of the World Trade Organization which led to the growth of a uniform platform to settle trade and commercial disputes. According to economic surveys, the world exports improved significantly from 8.5% to around 16.2% due to globalization. As the twenty-first century opened, the globalization revolution continued to roll forward. Jet airplanes, the internet, satellites, e-mail and other marvels of our modern world have all made significant contributions to globalization.  These inventions have allowed for faster transportation of goods and information, which allows for more efficient outsourcing, global collaboration, and immigration. While the global spread of information, the integration of markets, and the erasure of borders have the potential to promote global peace, prosperity, and the convergence of basic values, there is also a dark dimension. With all happy talk of globalization of opportunities, the gap between rich and poor is growing. If we compare the average income-per-head of the top 25% in the developed states with that of the bottom 25% in the developing states the ratio between these two is currently around 90:1, increasingly, if you go back 30 years you will find that it was only 40:1. So, this gap is not just unacceptable in absolute terms, it is also doubling and getting worse. It is inevitable to conclude that globalization has widened the gap between peoples in the world. Globalization can benefit organized criminals as well as corporations. The turnover of the criminal economy is estimated at about $1 trillion annually. Narcotics account for about half, but a trade in people is also lucrative. Gangs move from four to five million people annually and earn some $7 billion in profits. In the health area, globalization presents a number of challenges. Public health officials worry that increased human mobility enhances opportunities for microbes. The risks range from trade in illegal products and contaminated foodstuffs, divergent safety standards, indiscriminate spread of medical technologies and experimentation, and the sale of prescription drugs without approval of national authorities. With some two million people crossing borders daily, industrialized nations may face threats from emerging infectious diseases, exposure to dangerous substances, and violence such as chemical and bioterrorist attack.⁵

1.2. THE FOUR GLOBALIZING FACTORS

     Firstly, human rights and migration. A respect for human rights is of course a vital part of all spiritual underpinnings of society. However, this principle has assumed for greater importance over the past few years. It is this increased focus on eliminating serious human rights violations that underlies the progressive erosion of the erstwhile inviolate principle of  
”sovereignty” and “exclusive domestic jurisdiction”, which was once seen as entitling a nation state to act as it liked within its borders. Nowadays, this “chastity belt” of Article 2.7 of the United Nations Charter has lost much of its sanctity, and countries and rulers that violate human rights can no longer claim that their actions are nobody else’s business. In other words, the walls that enabled countries to seal themselves off have fallen down before the onslaught of human rights concerns, and clearly this is a most positive development.

   Unfortunately, this erosion of hermetic walls of sovereignty works in one direction only. If respect for human rights implies a respect for the desire of peoples for a better and more decent life, and an elimination of obstacles, then people from poorer countries should also be able to cross those walls in the other direction also in their search for a better life. Alas, they cannot do so. In fact, in many ways, there are barriers to free immigration. So we have a fundamental inequality  here-one part of the world can criticize the other with impunity for human rights violations, but people from the countries that are most often criticized cannot migrate towards the richer countries  in their search for a better life. So while we talk of an open world of opportunity, we are actually doing our utmost to prevent this world from really opening up. This is a sad one-way street indeed.

   Secondly, trade. Trade has visibly emerged as a major engine of growth. The assumption of the open and competitive market then was that barriers of all types would be progressively dismantled, for the general benefit of all. Only the “competitive edge” would rule. Yet protectionism is threatening, particularly in relation to the exports of poorer countries, which stand lower down on the scale of industrial sophistication. The tariffs on textiles, for example, are a full ten times higher than the tariffs on industrial goods. In general, while we may talk about a level playing field in trade at the world level, it is nevertheless a field in which the “weight” of the richer countries is so heavily skewed in their own favor, that the results are foregone for the developing countries. Efforts to insert respect for the principle of Special and Differential Treatment in favor of developing countries have lost ground with the establishment of the World Trade Organization.

   Thirdly, the environment. The environment is the perfect globalizer, as it has no respect for nationalities and passports and borders. We see its impact every day, as environmental events in one part of the world produce effects in other parts of the world, frequently with devastating results.⁶ Once again, these effects are unevenly distributed. Some see no evil in their overexploitation of finite fossil fuels and inordinate pollution of atmosphere, while others in far corners of the world suffer consequences in health and economic well being. One-forth of the total gashouse emissions that we pour into the atmosphere come from a single country alone.

     Fourthly, the Internet. Of course, the Internet offers great opportunities for those who can use it, allowing anyone with access to it to draw upon as much of the data-base of the universal knowledge as the richest or the most powerful. In that, it is one of the major milestones in human history, ranking with moveable type, or the mass-produced paper back, as a great and democratic equalizer. But just as a sizeable part of the world has neither access to safe drinking water nor to electricity, a lot of people in the world do not, and will not, have access to the Internet in any foreseeable future. Just to take one example, in sub-Saharan Africa, 90% of the connections to the Internet are in just one country, a former bastion of colonialism of the worst type. So, the tool exists, but it cannot be used by those who need it most. And yet, in it lies perhaps the only chance for the future. Where an effort has been made, the internet and cell phones have helped rural villages get connected to the rest of the world, helped women in developing nations become entrepreneurs. A major problem with the Internet arises from the predominance of English as a language of choice. Language is not just a neutral tool for communication; it also embodies culture, and defines the parameters of our thinking processes. It would be a very sad day indeed if one single culture were to spread and dominate all others. Homogenization may be good for milk, but it is not necessarily good for the rich diversity of cultures in the world, many of which are an endangered species now.⁷

1.3. THE THREE TENSIONS OF GLOBALIZATION

   Three inherent tensions reveal the conflicting values at stake in the process of globalization.

The first tension is between individual choice versus  societal choice: A conflict occurs when a person, exercising her right to choose a particular lifestyle, to buy a particular product, or to think a particular thought, is at odds with what society at a whole views is most preferable for all citizens at large. For example, some people may prefer to smoke or to drive without wearing a seatbelt. Society, however, may believe that there are costs to society as a whole that require laws to restrict private choice. In the arena of globalization, such a tension is evident in debates over the spread of American culture. France, for example, objects to the spread of American popular culture in the form of films and television. In fact, France has laws about non-European content on French television and radio stations. France even insisted that there be a "cultural exception" to world trade rules on services agreed to in 1994 to allow the French government to limit imports of American popular culture products. Such positions, however, ignore the fact that no one forces an individual French person to watch an American film or television show or buy a CD by an American recording artist. French consumers buy those products because they choose to do so for reasons of personal preference. Some people and societies may value social choices above individual choices, some people and societies may believe that in areas of culture, preservation of a local culture, because of history, tradition, and a desire to pass along heritage to succeeding generations.

    The second tension is between free market versus government intervention: This tension is something of an aggregate of the first, because the free market is the aggregation of lots of individual choices—Adam Smith’s famous "invisible hand"—while government intervention is the practical way that societies decide on and implement the choices they make about their values. Thus, a free market determines what goods are produced and how money is invested in order to satisfy consumer demand (that is, the sum of all the individual choices). The free market also plays the crucial role in creating an efficient response to changes in the economy, when consumer demand increases or decreases for certain products, or when factors such as a decline in investment or damage to the environment changes the supply of money or products. Nevertheless, the free market may sometimes fail to provide crucial goods, especially at reasonable prices, necessary for overall social order. The government, for example, is often required to provide key services, such as water, electricity, sewage, and garbage pick-up, not to mention police, fire, and defense forces.⁸

    In the international arena, one of the most burning issues is the failure of the free market to provide affordable drugs to combat the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Such drugs are available in the Europe and the United States to allow people with HIV/AIDS to have productive lives for about $10,000 per year, an affordable sum in the developed world. Such a price, however, is far beyond the ability to pay of people in Africa, where the vast majority of the population afflicted with HIV/AIDS lives. In fact, the disease is a scourge in Africa and the rest of the developing world, where whole societies are on the brink of collapse because of the social chaos and economic impact of infection rates that are as high as 25 percent in some countries. Governments therefore, prodded by international non-governmental organizations involved in promoting public health, agreed at a meeting of the World Trade Organization in 2001 to allow poor countries to make generic copies of drugs needed for pubic health emergencies. Thus there is a tension between two equally important values. How can the international system balance the need to promote an efficient free market system that rewards innovation and the development of new medicines, while also ensuring that the poor and needy are taken care of?⁹

    The third tension of globalization is that between local authority versus extra- or supra-local authority: That is the tension between decisions made at the level most close to individual citizens and decisions made at higher levels of authority distant from the people they may affect. As with the other tensions, we see this in our daily lives as well, but the tension takes on special characteristics in the global arena. Many Americans believe that the federal government in Washington is a distant, separate culture, unfamiliar with their daily problems and concerns and captive to special interests. Local and state governments, on the other hand, are often more trusted to deal with practical, everyday issues. In the globalized world, many Americans and citizens in other countries feel that international organizations outside their democratic control are making decisions without any input from the people who are most affected by them.¹⁰

CHAPTER 2

CULTURAL GLOBALIZATION AND ITS IMPACTS

2.1. INTERPRETING CULTURE

   To understand cultural globalization, we need to be clear, or as clear as we possibly be about what we mean by culture. If we assume that culture is more than just the creative arts and learning, we are immediately confronted with the problem of trying to define a concept that is notoriously slippery and contested. Culture can be conceptualized in a very basic sense as “a way of life”, but such a broad approach struggles to encapsulate the individual experiences of people inhabiting particular cultures. Within any cultural groups there will be different ideas and attitudes reflecting people’s individual positions, lifestyles and outlooks, as a result of factors, such as age, gender and class. The idea of culture as “a way of life” underplays the different types of culture- national, regional, popular, local, business, elite, Western, as well as subcultures. There are also different dimensions to culture, notably political, social, institutional, economic and historical. The complex nature of   culture has led many writers to work with other analytical   categories when theorizing about the concept. In this regard Pierre Bourdieu has articulated his conception of “habitus”, a system in which groups of individuals learn and develop over time cultural attitudes and dispositions, which are not uniformly pursued but are instead exercised uniquely in relation to particular contexts or fields. However this “system of acquired dispositions” does not take account of the ways in which cultures are permeated by the flows and processes of globalization. In fact the very notion is problematic under contemporary conditions of circulation and mobility.¹¹ Culture has always been a dynamic and protean process in the sense that its meaning has changed over time and it assumes different forms. Nowadays it is increasingly viewed as a process rather than an entity, a verb rather than a noun, especially within anthropology and cultural studies. As the anthropologist Roy Wagner (1986) has argued, cultures are continuously changing and being re-created as part of an ongoing process. In particular, cultures are informed by numeral internal pressures and influences, ensuring that they are neither static, nor stable. They are also shaped by external forces and hence are not homogeneous, discrete and bounded entities; rather, they overlap and draw from other traditions. For instance, patterns of global migration, and more specifically immigration into the United Kingdom since the 1950’s, have led Britain to become a more visibly multicultural society, which in turn has influenced its national culture. At the same time there have been internal pressures working upon this culture. Developments within British society, such as the decline in deference, the changing position of women, improved levels of education and devolution reforms, have all in varying ways impacted upon British national culture. Cultures are, therefore, continuously evolving, and contemporary globalizing processes certainly increase this tendency, and doing so, arguably widen awareness of the essential changeability of culture.¹²

   James Clifford is the writer most associated with making association between culture and travel or movement. Clifford contends that culture can no longer simply be understood in relation to location or place, but should be seen as something that is mobile and traveling. Travelers, tourists and migrants are physically moving around the world, taking their cultures with them and interacting with other cultures and peoples, reproducing, negotiating and defining themselves as well as helping to ensure that cultures transmogrify into new cultural forms. Of course, not everyone is traveling, but even if we choose to stay at home, we still encounter travelers. Moreover, for Clifford the conception of culture as travel applies not only to people, but also to the flows of images, ideas, sounds, symbols and objects that circulate the globe, criss-crossing national borders in the process.¹³ Cultures are therefore not motionless; they move, adapt and change. For this reason, the idea of “cultures in motion” has been advanced as a useful way of thinking about this subject.

    All the above has implications for identity and identity- formation, because, if cultures are continuously evolving and moving, how is it possible to have stable identities? But we must not overstate the extent and the pace of the change that take place at any one moment. This is because if cultures were simply fluid and ever changing, then it would make it very difficult for people either to identify with or inhabit them. Therefore, there must be moments of stability: periods of time when networks and clusters of people come to identify with such things as set of ideas, values, symbols, as well as associated artifacts, texts and objects, and are able to internalize these elements of the culture. In other words, even in a world of motion, cultures are still being reproduced within a myriad of social contexts, providing us with interpretative frameworks, value-systems and sources of identity.¹⁴

2.2. CULTURAL GLOBALIZATION

    The cultural focus of globalization is a worldwide phenomenon that includes the interconnections and interchanges of people, images and commodities, which transcend the nation-state. As a result, societies are moving away from a national consciousness to a global consciousness. A global consciousness involves changes to perceptions, beliefs and ideas.                  Contained within the globalization of culture are three main cultural flows happening in the world today. The movement of ideas (e.g., democracy and human rights) crossing over national boundaries is one such cultural flow, the movement of images (e.g., the increasing appearance of global occasions captured through what some have called the CNN factor) is another. The other cultural flow would be the movement of people (e.g., exiles, tourists and immigrants) moving across national boundaries. In addition to these three main cultural flows, the formation of the European Union (EU) is another example of globalization of culture at work. Since 1979 there has been a European Parliament with elected members. In more recent times a European culture has been widespread, as opposed to individual national identities in Europe. The European Union has its cultural identity that is distinct from its member countries. The EU now has a flag, anthem and passport, political symbols, forms of identity and even electoral participation that go beyond and transcend national boundaries on the European continent.

     As the world gets increasingly interconnected through globalization, a sundry of changes are taking place, some of which evade our attention mainly because we are more concerned about the economic and political impacts of the phenomenon. Life as we know it is changing.  Changes enter our lives through technology, consumer products, new thoughts, lifestyles and visions of others.¹⁵

     Globalization is a social and cultural process in which individuals of different cultural backgrounds interact with each other in all spheres of life more intensively than before. One of the most interesting phenomena of globalization is the shaping of online communities. This process has led to the evolution of new identities for people around the world while disregarding where they live and what their nationality is. This is a new phase of acculturation. New ideas, new methods of work and good life and governance are being shared worldwide even in the most secluded places of the globe.

2.3. THE INFLUENCE OF U.S. CORPORATIONS ON LOCAL MORES

  One of the principal concerns about the new globalization of culture that is supposedly taking place is that it not only leads to a homogenization of world culture, but also that it largely represents the "Americanization" of world cultures. The spread of American corporations abroad has various consequences on local cultures, some very visible, and others less obvious. For example, the influence of American companies on other countries' cultural identity can be seen with regard to food, which matters on two levels. First, food itself is in many countries an integral aspect of the culture. Second, food restaurants can influence the mores and habits in societies where they operate. American companies in foreign countries can have unexpected consequences. Fittingly enough, the sociologist George Ritzer coined the term McDonaldization. In his book The McDonaldization of Society, Ritzer states that “the principles of the fast-food restaurant are coming to dominate more and more sectors of American society as well as of the rest of the world.” Statistics show that within the last fifty years, McDonalds has expanded to over 31,000 restaurants worldwide. McDonaldization not only standardizes the production of fast food, but controls the behavior of workers and customers alike and ensures that products and services will be the same in all locations and at all times. Ritzer points out that the success of the McDonald's formula is being widely replicated internationally, with the result that many more commercial activities have become "McDonaldized." All over the world, hotels, supermarkets, cinemas, department stores and other commercial enterprises are adopting the McDonald's approach. Ultimately, Ritzer believes that many more organizations, and even society itself will be permeated by McDonaldization.¹⁶ To further develop these ideas, Benjamin Barber coined the term "McWorld" to signify the way culture converges around market capitalism, secular beliefs and values throughout many parts of the world. Many social science accounts have stressed the role of media and entertainment images in promoting cultural convergence.  McDonaldization is a result of globalization and, ultimately, leads to global uniformity, influencing local habits and traditions.¹⁷

    Although the United States may play a dominant role within the phenomenon of cultural globalization, it is important to keep in mind that this is not an entirely one way street. Many other countries also contribute to global culture, including American culture itself. Just as American popular culture influences foreign countries, other national cultures are influential within the United States and also increase their presence worldwide. Hollywood is a good example of an industry that integrates elements from more than one culture. Most people would think of Hollywood as something entirely American. However, while Hollywood dominates world cinema, American movies are subject to foreign influence. Many film-making companies, producers, and actors in Hollywood are not even American, many of Hollywood's most famous actors are not Americans. From this perspective, one may argue that Hollywood is a typically global institution.

2.4. THE IMPACTS OF CULTURAL GLOBALIZATION

  Typically, globalization has been associated with destruction of cultural identities. Before the era of globalization, there were well-defined boundaries between geographical places and cultures. It was easy to define a geographical place thanks to its culture, because the transnational or the transcultural power of globalization did not exist. The differences and gaps between cultures enabled people to define what a “cultural identity” was. Indeed, it was easy to refer to the values of a precise location to be able to define an autonomous, local and unique cultural entity-which could be a community, a nation or any group. 

     In such cases, identity was considered as a “gift”, as something built through traditions, and time, as a treasure to preserve. People who refer to their own cultural identity had no idea of the linkages with the other cultures, because they only considered their cultural identity. Culture, like language, was not only a description of the community, or the group, but also an entire process of recognition.¹⁸ Gurvitch defines culture as a “multi-layer entity”, composed with four elements: the physical layer, the social organization layer, the habits and values layer, and the forth layer, which includes values and ideas, including religion and notions like patriotism. The forth layer represents what was considered, before globalization, as an inherent and unique cluster of culture within a community or a group.¹⁹

     Then approximately in the middle of the 1980s, globalization and its “transcommunity”  went through all the barriers, and  cultural identities burst. Globalization, taken as a cultural idea, destroyed quiet equilibrium of isolated cultural identities and generated a market-driven power for culture mixing and development. Thus, globalization has been seen as a general process, a top-bottom trend of loss of cultural identity. Some scholars believe that globalization is inexorably changing people's identities and creating what Roland Robertson calls a "global consciousness." Pointing out that people have historically perceived and interpreted reality through the experiential frames of local cultures, he believes that globalization's time-space compression and de-territorialization is creating a new and shared perception of the world. The world is increasingly being viewed as a "single place." Since people's lives will be lived and experienced at the global rather than the local or national levels, a shared consciousness of the global is emerging. Like the small cosmopolitan elite that has transcended indigenous cultural affiliations, personal identities previously shaped by local and national cultures will be replaced by a new, universal identity based on Western cultural values and beliefs.²⁰ The main side effect of globalization impact on cultural identity is considered to be the spread of multinational corporations. This encourages consumer culture and standardizes products and values. Culture has almost become a one-way operating manner of business. Cultural goods and services produced by rich and powerful countries have invaded all of worlds markets, and left with difficulties undeveloped countries which are not able to stand up the competition. The natural result is that these countries are unable to enter areas of influence occupied by multinational companies of developed ones and local products are replaced by mass products. Far from destroying cultural identity globalization also has the most significant force in creating and proliferating cultural identity. Identity is seen here as the strong power of local culture that offers resistance to the centrifugal force of capitalist globalization. Cultural flows occur differently and may originate in many places. Diversity has itself become a global value, promoted through the international organizations and movements.²¹ Another good impact of globalization on cultural identity is that human rights are universal and guaranteed by law. For example Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations. It is the aggregation of lots of individual choices. Thanks to the global spread of law and declarations with human rights societies can decide about their values and choices. The idea of free market and democracy provides a wide variety of perspectives, encourages students to think and learn more deeply in order to live better lives.

      Globalization effects cultural identity in a good way because of spread of technology and Internet. The internet breaks down cultural boundaries across the world by enabling easy, near-instantaneous communication between people anywhere in a variety of digital forms and media. The Internet is associated with the process of cultural globalization because it allows interaction and communication between people with very different lifestyles and from very different cultures. These two factors promote local culture. What helps these processes is the global dominance of English. This factor has a big importance in the issue of cultural identity and globalization. Knowledge of English gives people the chance to communicate with other human beings around the world. It gives the opportunity to broaden one's horizons and to get to know other cultures. This language expansion produces plethora of interactions between nations in the form of similar policy making and influences cultural identity.

Globalization has substantial impact on people’s way of thinking, cultural values and   on the family because the family is the strategic social unit where division of labor, social role play, collective decisions for members and their future, their movements and development are decided on. Such decisions define the identities of family members and their interaction with the larger society. Moreover, all of these decisions may change, be debated, be renegotiated and their conflicts resolved. In other words, not only societal but intra-familial issues are affected by globalization, now more than ever. Needless to say, the impact of globalization on families is differential, depending on many factors, but specifically depending on where the family lives and the social class it belongs to.²² Because adult family members in Western countries are today preoccupied with work and material achievement, Arlie Hochschild's believes that they do not have time to meet the obligations of family life and instead purchase care on the market to meet the needs of their children and elderly family members. This involves a complex set of interactions with market based institutions such as day care centers, private schools and nursing homes which are staffed by aides, paid carers and nannies. Nannies are now regularly imported from developing countries to provide the care and affection that Western, middle class, and high income families are unable to provide.²³ Jeremy Seabrook makes a similar point in his account of women migrant workers from the developing world who leave their families and children behind to work as servants and nannies in the rich countries. Although remittances may well raise the incomes of their family members back home, they have to deal with the "broken webs of connectedness, the bitterest separations and reluctant partings, and the loss of loved ones in places where they are most needed". The negative moral consequences of migrant labor should, he argues, be widely condemned, particularly since young women migrant workers are vulnerable to sexual exploitation. Women may get out of the family circle to join the workforce in traditional-conservative environments. But to denote that they belong to a cultural environment that is morally different, they may dress differently and cover their heads. Hence two culturally different worlds meet to be permanently changed.²⁴

    Some social scientists believe that globalization is producing widespread international chaos and destroying the world's traditional cultures. Scholars who emphasize globalization's destructive effect on culture do not believe that new cultural institutions that promote organized patterns of social interaction and maintain social stability are being recreated in ways that have positive consequences for economic development. Instead, they contend, globalization has generated enduring conditions of chaos and social disorganization. 

Some observers claim that globalization is gradually transforming local cultures and superseding them with a new, universal culture rooted in the values and practices of modernity. This global culture, they believe, is essentially Western in character, extolling individualism, rationalism, secularism and other values coming from the Western nations. As these values and institutions are being diffused and absorbed locally, they believe that the world's cultures are becoming increasingly similar. However, while cultures are converging and forming a new "world culture," this is not a sudden process. Indeed, many features of the local, traditional culture endure for many years.²⁵

    The idea that globalization is fostering greater cultural homogeneity includes ideas expressed in the 1950s and 1960s by American modernization theorists. Long before the term globalization was invented, scholars such as Daniel Lerner stressed the role of industrialization in social and cultural change, predicting that the drive for industrial development would be accompanied by the spread of modern beliefs and practices. Wherever industrialization took root, he argued, traditional social and cultural institutions would be transformed and diverse cultures would increasingly exhibit greater similarities. In addition, he claimed that people affected by the spread of industrialization and modernity would become more individualistic, competitive and achievement-oriented. Under the influence of industrialization, attitudes and values everywhere would converge.²⁶

   Contemporary globalization theorists have reached similar conclusions, but instead of identifying industrialization as the agent of change, they stress the role of capitalism, communications, migration, and even Western imperialism in shaping cultural convergence. The diffusion of capitalism and its market values and behaviors is resulting in the emergence of individualism, self-reliance, responsibility, and competition in all cultures. It is also promoting the adoption of liberal political beliefs and democratic values.

Other scholars claim that globalization is causing a powerful cultural backlash. In an attempt to resist and preserve their culture, people vigorously reassert traditional values and beliefs. The result is the consolidation and strengthening of indigenous culture, and increasing cultural polarization. Samuel Huntington is perhaps the best-known exponent of the cultural polarization thesis. He claims that the modern global system involves a "clash of civilizations" between the culture of the West and the cultural orientations embodied in the world's major religious traditions, or, as he famously put it, between the "West and the rest." Huntington pays particular attention to Islamic fundamentalism, suggesting that it offers a powerful alternative "civilizational" force to the Western liberal tradition.²⁷ The clash of global and local can also give rise to new, unique cultural identities or serve to reinforce and intensify existing or historical ones. For instance, when the Roman's left Britain they left behind a cultural legacy that included, for example, Christianity. Argentine and Brazilian cultures cannot be said to be truly Iberian, neither do they belong to the indigenous races that populated the lands before the arrival of the colonists. One culture does not steamroller another - cultures clash, interact, fracture, breed and ultimately form new cultures distinct from the ingredients from which they were formed. However, this account does not explain the resurgence of traditionalism in recent years, and interpretations that stress the notion of cultural consolidation and intensification in the face of exogenous cultural influence have become more popular. Within the context of immigration in the Western countries, explanations of this kind suggest that traditionalism provides a haven for ethnic minorities living in alien cultures. Surrounded by a host culture that undermines traditional values, ethnic minorities come together to reassert their identity. In addition, the assertion of identity may be seen as a reaction to discrimination and racism. In this situation, ethnic minorities respond by affirming their cultural values and beliefs in order to find solace and protection in the face of hostility.²⁸ Another explanation regards cultural polarization as a logical reaction to the uncertainty and confusion created by modernity. This interpretation echoes earlier work on the dynamics of nationalism by Ernest Gellner who took the view that nationalism emerged as a response to the destabilizing effects of industrialization and provided a sense of common identity and security in a rapidly changing world. Similarly, many contemporary scholars regard the rise of religious fundamentalism as a predictable response to the corrosive effects of globalization which subverts long established beliefs and shared meanings, and creates confusion and uncertainty.²⁹

  Media and technologies are an integral part of globalization. Many years ago, Marshall Mac Luhan coined the phrase "global village" to refer to the way media and communication technologies were facilitating greater international integration. His views have been extended by many subsequent analyses of the global diffusion of media and entertainment images. In recent years, American movies, music, and TV shows have consistently gained more and more audiences worldwide. For the United States, the entertainment industry is one of the most important spheres of economic activity. In fact, the U.S. entertainment industry generates more revenue from overseas sales than any other industry other than the commercial aerospace industry. CNN exemplifies the global news network. After starting as a cable news network for U.S. viewers only, CNN now reaches over 200 million households in over 212 countries and territories. However, television remains a more local cultural form than movies, music, or publications. For example, in 1998, no U.S. TV series broke into Europe's top ten.³⁰

    In addition to the diffusion of media images through communications technologies, international population movements are also facilitating the spread of Western beliefs and values. Migration has long been recognized as an important factor in cultural exchange. However, contemporary migration trends predominantly involve the movement of people from the developing to the industrial world and do not, therefore, promote the diffusion of Western culture to the Global South on a significant scale. Nevertheless, migration from the South does involve acculturation, particularly among the children of immigrants. This often creates tensions between those who wish to preserve cultural traditions and those who wish to adopt the culture of the new host society.³¹

     Increased international contacts are also promoting cultural homogenization among elites drawn from the business, political, media, professional and artistic communities of different countries. Arjun Addapurai believes that these "cosmopolitan elites," as he calls them, now share many cultural preferences. They travel frequently and gather at international conferences, celebrity events and vacation sites. Despite their very different cultural backgrounds, they engage in common activities and share common cultural tastes and habits that are heavily influenced by Western beliefs and values.³² Harvard University Professor Samuel Huntington has characterized this group of global professionals as the "Davos culture," named after the Swiss luxury resort locale of an annual, informal meeting of very select and elite businessmen, financiers, and heads of states. (Although the participants at the meeting do not represent governments in any official capacity, make policy decisions, or negotiate any agreements, they do share ideas and put forth proposals pertaining to global economic concerns). Huntington sees these individuals as drivers of global economic processes and as a force for pursuing the business agenda of further globalization. The members of this group around the world are largely proficient in English, and from their offices in their native countries they are immersed in a shared world of computers, cell phones, and flight schedules.³³

    Robert Reich, who served as Secretary of Labor under President Clinton also noted the existence of this group. However, Reich draws a broader definition of its membership, including a wide segment of professionals within the United States. However, others argue that globalization offers the potential to enrich the world culturally. To these people, the notion that the opportunities for cultural exchange brought about by globalization can help promote tolerance and diversity is very attractive. For Reich, this new class of globalized professionals accounts for perhaps 15 to 25 percent of the U.S. population. He observes that the members of this group:

• think in cosmopolitan rather than national terms;
• have high skill and education levels, and, as such, benefit the most economically from globalization;
• speak foreign languages;
• travel internationally;
• are much less likely to lose their jobs, or to work in industries with falling wages, due to globalizing economics;
• are unlikely to have served—or even have family members who have served—in the military.