ENGLISH STUDIES MOHAMED I UNIVERSITY

SEMESTER 3 FACULTY OF LETTERS AND HUMANITIES

One of the challenges facing intercultural scholars is a shifting understanding of cultural boundaries in societies characterized
by emerging forms of economic and cultural globalization. The ‘global village’ described by McLuhan in the 1960s represents
only a partial social reality of the world we inhabit today. As [J. Michael] Adams and [Angelo] Carfagna write: ‘Globalization
is making the world truly round because it is bringing all of humanity into a single eco-system of embedded, overlapping
networks. Borders, boundaries, delineations, and walls of any kind are slowly giving way to the compelling force of integration
and interdependence.’ Indeed, our global village is becoming increasingly interconnected at political, economic, cultural, social,
and even personal levels.
Yet, as [Loubna H.] Skalli points out, all these interconnections are embedded in a system of inherent differences. At one
end of the economic scale, cosmopolitan elites work and study in several different countries, mastering multiple languages and
moving seamlessly between cultural contexts. At the other end, ethnic minorities and refugees are trying to find ways to
preserve elements of their own cultural practices while adjusting to the cultures of their host countries. In the internet era, media
content, once subject to limits imposed by both legal regimes and transportation technology, now circulates around the globe at
the speed of light. […] Social media everywhere are transforming professional journalism by providing a platform for
audiences to publish their views on the internet. And the speed of the realtime revolution raises significant challenges and
opportunities for journalists and their publishers. Global trends of homogenization and local processes of fragmentation suggest
multiple ways in which global and the local cultural realms are connected.
Global employment of media technologies has enormous potential to facilitate cultural, social, and political
communication and understanding. […] Furthermore, many aspects of everyday life, particularly food and food products, stay
linked to local identities and sentiments. Even the products of highly standardized global brands, such as McDonald’s, are being
adjusted to local demands. Thus, the globalization of the current era does not mean that cultural differences are being eradicated
and that the whole world is being subsumed into one global culture. On the other hand, they do mean that cultures circulate in
new and different ways, and that people are likely to reflect more and more about their similarities to and differences from one
another. This is a time in which cultural hybridization, a new cultural form that combines elements of other cultures to one’s
own, is proliferating. It is also a time when an understanding of intercultural communication is even more important, but is
becoming increasingly complicated. […]
HOMOGENIZATION AND FRAGMENTATION
There are two countervailing tendencies associated with globalization: the overcoming of cultural or economic differences,
known as homogenization, and new forms of cultural fragmentation and innovation. The dialectic between them is reflected by
cultures themselves, as well as by people living in culturally diverse societies.
Homogenization and fragmentation of cultures
Globalization generally refers to an accelerated interconnectivity in the economic, social, political, cultural, and even personal
aspects of life. Today, almost everywhere we see familiar signs of an interdependent economy. It is hard to avoid products from
international locations. However, the suggestion that the spread of Western globalization means we need to be less attuned to
cultural differences is misguided. On the one hand, the forms of isolation and insulation that once nurtured cultural uniqueness
are being eroded, thanks to increasing economic and political interdependence and the spread of transport and communication
technologies that shrink space and transmit culture. On the other hand, these same tendencies generate unique and culturally
distinctive responses and enhanced opportunities for the expression and circulation of culture-specific products. Satellite
television, for example, enables people around the world to remain in instantaneous contact, so that viewers in one hemisphere
can watch real-time events unfolding in the other. At the same time, new information and communication technologies (ICTs)
make it possible for indigenous cultures to create their own media outlets and products, to circulate them widely, and to create
connections with other Indigenous peoples who may share the same political and social concerns. These same ICTs also make
it possible for diasporic communities to maintain close ties with their countries of origin, even if they are living at the heart of
their new cultures.
The dialectic of homogenization and fragmentation can be described as engagement versus isolationism, or globalism
versus nationalism. Economic interdependence sustains engagement and globalism. For example, in almost every country, we
can find signs of McDonald’s, KFC, Pizza Hut, Toyota, Sony, Nestlé, and Coca-Cola, all contributing to globalism and the
homogenization of cultures. Nevertheless, the desire to preserve cultural uniqueness promotes isolationism and nationalism.
Nations take measures to protect their local economies from foreign products. […]
Homogenization and fragmentation of people
We find ourselves living in a world of increasing cultural mobility. Modern means of transportation and technology make travel
faster and easier. As [Richard] Edwards and [Robin] Usher note: ‘What in the past would have taken months to move around
the globe now takes hours or even seconds.’ Moreover, thanks to the internet, people find themselves moving among different
cultures without leaving home, or staying immersed in their home cultures even after they have geographically located
elsewhere. At the same time, the uneven diffusion of technology and the uneven characteristics of Western globalization may
create new forms of social and cultural stratification between those who participate in an increasingly transnational economy
and those who still live and work under more traditional conditions. Mutual cultural exposure does not necessarily imply
mutual benefits, acceptance, or harmony. Cultural exposure can highlight and exacerbate differences between groups or
nations. Just as those living in traditional communities may feel shocked and threatened by the products of contemporary
consumer culture, those living in the capitals of consumerism may find their own values and practices challenged by more
traditional cultures. […]
GLOBALIZATION AND LOCALIZATION
In the twentieth century, Jimmy Carter, the 39th President of the United States, commented: ‘We become not a melting pot but
a beautiful mosaic. Different people, different beliefs, different yearnings, different hopes, different dreams.’ In the twenty-first
century, however, the world can no longer be viewed as a mosaic with distinct parts. With each contact between cultures, we
leave some traces of our ‘village’ culture behind and add some new traits to it from other cultures. Albeit slowly, cultures are
changing, and to some extent merging into one another. It is crucial to understand the dynamic interplay between localities and
globalities around the world.
Cultural diffusion and convergence
Through interaction between cultures, one culture may learn and adopt certain practices from another. Cultural diffusion
happens when a culture learns or adopts a new idea or practice from another culture or cultures. Products can carry cultural
values; many products represent a particular national identity and hence become cultural icons. An icon is a symbol that is
idolized in a culture or is employed to represent it. For example, McDonald’s represents the value placed on standardization,
efficiency, and control in American culture; Japanese gardens reflect the value of harmony in Japanese culture; koalas and
kangaroos represent Australia to many as a friendly, carefree, and relaxed country. It is believed that the receiving culture can
unconsciously or uncritically absorb the values being transmitted via iconic products. […]
The increased sharing of information and agreement on mixing West with East leads to cultural convergence. Convergence is
defined by [D. Lawrence] Kincaid as ‘movement toward one point, toward another communicator, toward a common interest, and
toward greater uniformity, never quite reaching that point’. Kincaid’s convergence model was originally meant to address the
shortcomings of the transmission model of communication, advancing the view that no two people can ever reach the same
meaning for information; it is just a matter of a greater or lesser degree of similarity. Over the years, the term ‘convergence’ has
been expanded to the economy, media, and culture. In cultural convergence, we can consider convergence to be more like the
salad-bowl metaphor (a larger culture made up of different cultures, with each maintaining its own characteristics) as compared to
the melting-pot metaphor (separate cultures all blended together into one larger culture). While the diffusion model focuses on
what one culture does to another, the convergence model focuses on the relationship between individuals or groups of people who
share information and converge over time towards a greater degree of mutual agreement. […]
Cultural hegemony and colonialism
Some nations perceive the increasing popularity of culturally iconic products, particularly those from the West, as a form of
cultural hegemony, or the structurally-enabled predominant influence of one culture over another. Cultural hegemony is faced
not only by developing countries. For example, the French resistance to any linguistic influence of English is well documented
in the literature, as are Japan’s resistance to American movies and India’s resistance to Coca-Cola. When products travel from
one culture to another, they transmit cultural values to the receiving culture and change people’s lives. […]
Contact between cultures may also lead to cultural colonialism. At the core of cultural colonialism is the concept of
‘othering’, predominantly used to refer to stereotypical images of non-white populations. Cultural colonialism has a long
history. […] Mass media are not value-free, but carry important cultural values. They shape our perceptions of events and
groups of people by providing a staple diet of news and entertainment to people in dispersed locations. The negative portrayal
of the Muslim community in newspapers, for example, plays an important role in shaping our perception of that group,
reinforcing stereotypes and sharpening the lines between ‘us’ and ‘them’.
Cultural hybridization and branding
Local customs and traditions do not just fade away when global cultural products flow across borders. The transmission of
cultural values and transformation of the lives of people via cultural products depend on how well the global products are
received by the local cultures. Cultural hybridization refers to a new cultural form that combines elements of other cultures. For
years, business people and corporations have devoted huge amounts of resources to adapt global products to local needs. […]
The localization of global products therefore plays an important role in their acceptance and sustainability in receiving cultures.
An important aspect of localizing the global is called ‘branding’, whereby business entities and nations position themselves
and their products as globally recognizable. A brand is usually understood as the association of a product or service with a
symbolic image that confers recognition, as well as additional value (or added value) to a product. International brands
competing in a global marketplace, such as Nestlé, have to differentiate themselves from one another. Brand is something in the
mind of consumers that motivates them to choose one product over another or to pay more for a product than they otherwise
would. Brands are also capable of evoking beliefs and emotions, and prompting behaviours. […]
Along with the changes brought about by globalization is the need for us to redefine personal and cultural identities. At the
same time people see themselves as ‘global citizens’, they identify themselves by a nation or a local community. The
conceptualization of identity as multiple and fluid and changing according to situational characteristics, rather than a fixed
product, gives people more freedom to define themselves along narrower categories. Similarly, while global cultural icons
invoke Western cultural homogenization, these symbols at the same time may trigger a stronger desire for local cultures to form
into distinctive communities and maintain their local traditions. The balance between global and local, when we view it through
a cultural prism, occurs along a continuum rather than as an all-or-none phenomenon. Therefore, we cannot escape building up
our cultural knowledge repertoire if we are to function effectively in both global and local contexts.

Shuang Liu, Zala Volčič and Cindy Gallois, Introducing