Objections To Cultural Globalization Answered

Why stop people from living a global life in the name of national identity?

Throughout history cultures have influenced each other, as people encountered others who were living their life differently. This process happened on an ever-greater scale with the advancement of humanity, reaching a stage at which there are cultural flows all across the world—globalization.

In modern times the nature of culture itself is undergoing change. Regional cultures, though still central, are becoming delocalized as the world becomes more cosmopolitan. At the same time, cultures are increasingly becoming associated with particular groups of people, such as generations or movements, brought together by proximity of thinking rather than geography or identity. In this shift away from localized cultures it is futile to hold onto them rigidly.

For that matter, the evolution of new regional cultures has largely ground to a halt. In today’s world no region is developing its own new language, cuisine, religion, or folklore. When old cultures die out (as they have done throughout history) and new ones are not formed, cultural loss is going to happen regardless of globalization.

In fact globalization does not always involve a loss of culture. Sometimes influences from other parts of the world greatly enhance it as well. Perhaps European literature would never have flourished without the advent of paper from East Asia. South Asian cuisine would lose much of its essence without the vegetables from North America.

Individuals also benefit from the increased choices made available by globalization. A person is no longer restricted to whatever is part of their group’s way of life but can choose from whatever is available in the world. In the past, culture came in an ‘all-in-one’ package: either one could adopt all of its elements or none. Now individuals have the liberty to incorporate parts of various cultures and create their own unique way of life.

Globalization also gives new perspectives to societies. Exposure to other cultures shows people that theirs is not the only way life can be lived. Influences from other societies are usually positive in nature, because why would anyone adopt something that makes them worse off? So many cruel and oppressive traditions have been brought to an end after people realized that others were doing the right thing. But without globalization so many more people would have become victims of such practices. Cultural globalization is therefore essential to improving the well-being of humanity.

Cultural globalization is rarely a one-way process, contrary to the common belief that it is an imposition of a dominant culture on the world. There is typically a bidirectional flow which affects both societies. For example, even under colonialism, the imperial states adopted many elements of the colonies’ culture.

In this two-way flow the nationalists object when people adopt elements of other cultures, urging them to conserve ‘their own’ heritage and follow ‘their own’ practices. But the nationalists also support it and feel proud when their culture influences the rest of the world. These attitudes clearly indicate a preference for their culture over others.

And a preference for one culture over another implies cultural supremacism. If people did not believe in the superiority of their beliefs and traditions, why would they worry about cultural changes in society? There is no reason to favour a particular culture unless it is better in some way.

It may well be the case that many people truly consider all cultures to be equal, and they would not oppose globalization. Others may believe that although all cultures are equal, theirs is the one best suited to their group’s conditions. Even if they could prove such a claim, they still cannot compel an individual to adopt those ways.

For that matter, no one has any business telling an individual what to do in their self-regarding domain. It is every person’s right to choose their way of life. If someone decides to adopt another culture’s elements, anyone else like the nationalists should not and must not interfere with their choices. Every person can choose for themselves and only themselves.

Nationalists oppose the adoption of other cultures by people as they believe people should follow ‘their own’ culture. Here ‘their own’ culture means that of their identity group. No person is born into a culture, but is assumed to have the culture of their identity group. It only becomes theirs when they adopt and internalize it. And if they adopt some other way of life hen that would become theirs, rather than the one they were assumed to have by society. A person’s culture is not fixed but can be changed, even if society does not accept it.

In fact no person lives their life entirely by one culture, but brings together various elements in their unique manner. Although most of the influences might have come from the culture they were brought up in, individuals cannot be said to be wholly part of a single culture.

Sometimes there is opposition to certain cultural influences on the grounds that it violates moral standards. Here a distinction is to be made between morals, which are universal for humanity, and cultural values, which differ from group to group. If an element of culture is unacceptable to one group but completely acceptable to another, it cannot be said to be immoral but is just against their group values. And since values that differ across groups are not absolute like morals, individuals are free to choose between them.

Resistance or opposition to cultural globalization is a position that has counterproductive consequences for individuals. First, it creates a conflict in the individual’s mind about their preferences. Even for everyday choices people will have to keep in mind cultural acceptability. Why should one be placed under this burden?

Second, opposing globalization and its associated cultural changes may make people more set in their ways and culturally rigid. It would be limiting one’s perspective to one set of beliefs and taking a narrower view of the world.

Third, a refusal to accept globalization makes interaction across cultures difficult. It also creates tensions between those who embrace new ideas or influences from other cultures and those who believe in following and conserving the culture of their own society.

Despite opposition to the cultural changes caused by globalization, they look to be here to stay. The increased choices, new freedom, and global perspectives that have become available are far more valuable than national identity. With a world union the process of globalization can be consummated and people can have access to the entire world’s cultural wealth.