Impact of Cultural Imperialism

If we want to understand the absence of revolutionary transformation, despite the maturing of revolutionary
conditions, we must reconsider the profound psychological impact of state violence, political terror and the deep
penetration of cultural/ideological values propagated by the imperial countries and internalized by the oppressed
peoples. The state violence of the 1970's and early 1980's created long term, large scale psychic damage -- fear of
radical initiatives, distrust of collectivities, a sense of impotence before established authorities -- even as the same
authorities are hated. Terror turned "people inward" toward private domains.

Subsequently, neo-liberal policies, a form of "economic terrorism", resulted in the closing of factories, the abolition
of legal protection of labor, the growth of temporary work, the multiplication of low paid individual enterprises.
These policies further fragmented working class and urban communities. In this context of fragmentation, distrust
and privatization, the cultural message of imperialism found fertile fields to exploit vulnerable peoples' sensibilities,
encouraging and deepening personal alienation, self-centered pursuits and individual competition over ever scarce
resources.

Cultural imperialism and the values it promotes has played a major role in preventing exploited individuals from
responding collectively to their deteriorating conditions. The symbols, images and ideologies that have spread to the
Third World are major obstacles to the conversion of class exploitation and growing immiseration into class
conscious bases for collective action. The great victory of imperialism is not only the material profits, but its
conquest of the inner space of consciousness of the oppressed directly through the mass media and indirectly
through the capture (or surrender) of its intellectual and political class. Insofar as a revival of mass revolutionary
politics is possible, it must begin with open warfare not only with the conditions of exploitation but with culture that
subjects its victims.

https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/154/25597.html
Cultural Imperialism in the Late 20th Century

By James Petras
Rebelión
February 2000
Introduction
--
The term cultural imperialism refers most broadly to the exercise of domination in cultural relationships in which the
values, practices, and meanings of a powerful foreign culture are imposed upon one or more native cultures. In this
broad sense cultural imperialism could be used to describe examples of the enforced adoption of the cultural habits
and customs of actual imperial occupying powers from antiquity down to nineteenth and twentieth century European
colonialism. In practice, however, the term is nearly always applied to relations between sovereign nation‐states
from the mid twentieth century onwards. There is, however, a significant connection between the context of colonial
occupation and these contemporary relations, insofar as the term has commonly (though not exclusively) been used
to criticize the continuing exercise of Western cultural power in the context of postcolonialism.
--
The term cultural imperialism has often been used when describing certain aspects of the media industry. Cultural
imperialism can be seen as the imbalance of culture, power and representation, favouring the socially dominant and
influential. The cultural hegemony of these powerful industrialised or economically influential countries is thought to
be able to both determine general cultural values and homogenise different societies globally. Although not restricted to
media, cultural imperialism is in theory aided by the media’s ability to express culture. Many would argue, however,
that this term in many ways no longer applies to contemporary media culture. Although media power structures from
the past still have a certain amount of influence, recent trends suggest that relationships between different global media
producers and consumers is more complex than what is implied by the term cultural imperialism. Media does not
simply flow in a single direction in the present-day, but is often a complex ocean of inter-related currents and counter-
currents. Thus, while the balance between cultures is not entirely equal, the term cultural imperialism is not an entirely
adequate word to describe today’s media cultures. Historically, global media flows have moved in a singular direction
from the developed west to other less developed nations. This unidirectional and unbalanced flow of media could be
seen as a form of cultural imperialism. The use of organisations like Reuters, which
--
A Critical Examination of Cultural Imperialism and its Impact on Global Communication Today
Published on January 28, 2016

Elin A. DrysénFollow

It is possible to define Cultural Imperialism as “the extension of influence or dominance of one nation’s culture over
others, (…) through the exportation of cultural commodities” (OED, 2008). However, to wholly understand what
Cultural Imperialism is, one must first define “culture” and “imperialism” separately. Culture is difficult to define,
but if one looks to the dictionary definition it is defined as “the distinctive ideas, customs, social behaviour, or way
of life of a particular nation, society, people or period” (OED, 2008). Essentially, culture is something that is shared,
learned or acquired, and constantly evolving and non-static. Imperialism stems from the word “empire”, and is the
extending of a country’s power and influence through colonisation, use of military force, or other means (OED,
2014). It is the unequal human and territorial relationship based on ideas of superiority and dominance. Cultural
Imperialism is also closely related to global communication, which can be defined as the communication practice
occurring across national borders, social, political, and cultural divides (Thussu, 2010). The need for global
communication has increased due to the expanse of globalisation, which will be discussed in this essay. This essay
aims to contextualise and critically examine Cultural Imperialism theory and look at the different impacts it has had
on global communication, both historically and currently.

Similarly to culture, Cultural Imperialism has multiple definitions. Ultimately, it is the cultural aspect of
Imperialism, i.e. imposing a culture of a ‘superior’ country over less potent societies. It is one-sided, where a
dominating culture is imposed by force. In postcolonial discourse, Cultural Imperialism is seen as the cultural legacy
of colonialism and is often attributed to Western hegemony (Saïd, 1994). The OED states that the term was first
used in 1921 in relation to Russian Cultural Imperialism, but Tomlinson argues that it first emerged in the 1960s and
has been more commonly used since the 1970s (2001). In 1976, Schiller defined Cultural Imperialism as “the sum of
the processes by which a society is brought into the modern world system and how its dominating stratum is
attracted, pressured, forced, and sometimes bribed into shaping social institutions to correspond to the values and
structures of the dominating centre of the system” (1976, pp. 9-10). He argued that media is instrumental in this
penetrative process, and referred to the idea of the USA exerting cultural influence over the rest of the world,
particularly over developing countries (Schiller, 1976). This type of Cultural Imperialism could be seen in US brand
name products, like McDonalds, and media, like Hollywood and Disney. Ogan describes this as the process whereby
the West produces the majority of media products, makes the most profit from them, and then markets these
products to developing countries at lower costs than those the countries would have been able to produce
domestically (1988). Thereby creating a dependence and imbalance.

McPhail, another theorist, relates Cultural Imperialism to the theory of Electronic Colonialism – the dependency
relationship established by the importation of communication hardware, foreign-produced software, and engineers,
establishing a set of foreign norms and values, which may alter the domestic cultures (2014). Both Cultural
Imperialism and Electronic Colonialism are closely related to mass media and can be seen as a continuation of
imperialism, but rather than exerting military power it is the power of the mind and the ability to influence minds,
values, and languages globally. Saïd’s definition of Cultural Imperialism looks at Post-colonialism, and criticises the
Western ‘knowledge’ of the East and what is “oriental” (1994). He claimed that this knowledge has led to tendencies
of binary opposition between the Oriental and the Occidental culture, creating an “other” where one is superior and
one is inferior, a notion that is essential to Cultural Imperialism (Saïd, 1994). Furthermore, he argued that this
dichotomy remained after the end of the age of empires and is now manifested in the cultural legacy of the colonised
people (Saïd, 1994). However, one must note that although Cultural Imperialism is mostly used in a pejorative
sense, there are positive effects of it – like the exportation of women’s rights values and other values like racial
equality.

It is possible to relate Cultural Imperialism to the World Systems Theory, in which there is an inter-regional and
transnational division of labour with core, periphery, and semi-periphery countries. Core countries focus on high
skill and capital-intensive production, whilst periphery countries focus on low-skill, labour-intensive production, and
extraction of raw materials, which reinforces the dominance of the core countries (Wallerstein, 1974). In Cultural
Imperialism theory, it is the core countries that impose their culture on the periphery (and sometimes semi-
periphery) countries.

One could argue that the Ancient Roman Empire is an early example of Cultural Imperialism. In its conquest of
Italy, the Roman Empire imposed Latin on the people of Etruria, replacing the Etruscan language, which ultimately
led to the demise of the language and other aspects of the Etruscan culture (Goldhill, 2006). Language is an essential
aspect of Cultural Imperialism; then, Latin was the lingua franca and today English is the lingua franca of global
communication. The Roman culture was also imposed on Greece where the Romans altered the Greek culture to
conform to their ideals. This was done inter alia by eliminating the Greek habit of exercising naked in public, which
was looked upon negatively by the Romans (Goldhill, 2006). The expansion of the British Empire during the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries is another example; it was not only economic and political form of imperialism,
but also a cultural one (Bell, 1995). This was carried out, inter alia, through religious proselytising, i.e. the
imposition of Christianity on cultures with other religions. The British Empire also exerted its cultural power
through imposing educational material on the colonies, promoting the empire through books and syllabuses, serving
the interest of colonialism (Bell, 1995).

In global communication today, Cultural Imperialism manifests itself mainly through media, especially mainstream
and mass media. Media is one of the most prominent and visible forms of global communication. Although Cultural
Imperialism theory also focuses on governmental and economic systems, it is more concerned with the assimilation
of media, like literature, film, television, Internet, and music, today. As mentioned earlier, this is one-sided, meaning
that the affected culture’s media is not exported to the influencing culture. Most global media firms are owned by
the same advanced core countries, which dominate the production of global media (McPhail, 2014). One could
argue that both Cultural Imperialism and global communication are closely linked to globalisation – the worldwide
movement towards an interconnected world where corporations operate on an international scale (OED, 2009).
Globalisation facilitates global communication and the spread of cultural perspectives through new media and
technological advancements, and some argue that globalisation is therefore a tool of Cultural Imperialism
(Tomlinson, 2001).

One of the main examples of medial Cultural Imperialism today (20th – 21st century) is that of the USA. It is
considered a core country and, partially, extends its dominance through media flows. Thussu argues that media
flows are closely related to economic power; the freer markets are the more able companies from economic powers
are to dominate global markets (2010). Consequently, US media and entertainment industries, like Hollywood and
Disney, are able to penetrate the global market and export US-American cultural products and values. Studios like
Warner Brothers and Disney use local production facilities in Europe, Latin America, and Asia, creating country-
specific programming there, whilst keeping the US-American culture (Thussu, 2010). One can see this influence in
Brazilian soap operas, for example, where a glamourous US-American lifestyle is portrayed, but with a
Brazilianised face and touch, replicating the success of US-American soaps in selling products through sponsors
(Schiller, 2010).

Hollywood films have dominated most global media markets since the 1920s and studies show that around 55%-
90% of all films shown in cinemas in Europe are from the US (Croteau, Hoynes, & Milan, 2011). In contrast,
European films only make up 3% of films shown in the US (European Audiovisual Observatory, 2010). The same
study showed that in countries like Malaysia, Colombia, Venezuela, and Indonesia the percentage of Hollywood
films is above 80% (EAO, 2010). Many Hollywood films portray typical US-American values and culture,
especially White Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture, and this is visible in the portrayal of the USA in historical films
and films about war (Croteau, Hoynes, & Milan, 2011). These films tend to paint US-Americans as leaders or heroes
and can be revisionist, potentially exerting negative effects on viewers’ perceptions of their own countries. Films
can be used to identify roles – which individuals, groups, and countries are the heroes, villains, and victims – and
they have the ability to shape the perceptions of the general public (Schiller, 1992). Hollywood often vilifies Iran,
Russia, China, and North Korea, whilst lionising the US and exaggerating the role of the US in history (Petras,
2014). One example of a film where the US’ role is exaggerated is Argo (2012); a highly awarded film that claims to
be a true story. It is about the Iran hostage crisis in 1979 at the US Embassy in Tehran, but contains some historical
errors. Many Canadians, like the former Ambassador to Iran, were skeptical to the film’s portrayal of Canada as a
minor player in the escape, and argue that Argo portrays the US CIA agent, Tony Mendez, as the sole hero (Coyle,
2012). Some Hollywood films, like Iron Man (2008) and Lone Survivor (2013), portray the US as having military
presence in countries where it does not. This portrays the US as a country that has mandate to act anywhere in the
world, disregarding any sovereignty of other nations.

Hollywood does not only lionise the US, but also exports other US-American cultural values. One such value is that
of Individualism, which Hofstede claims is highly regarded in the US (The Hofstede Centre). Saving Private
Ryan (1998) shows a group of soldiers attempting to rescue one individual life. Similarly, in Air Force One (1997)
the mission of saving the entire world is placed on one individual – the fictional president Tim Marshall. Even US-
American films that claim to be based on folklore from other cultures still export the US-American culture. One
example of this is the Disney movie Mulan (1998), which was adapted from a Chinese folktale (Idema & Kwa,
2010). Mulan protects her family’s reputation, which relates to the Chinese values of loyalty, but in the film she
wants to confirm her own self-worth and achieve gender equality, which does not align with the original Chinese
convention (Idema & Kwa, 2010). She also strives for individual happiness and freedom, which could reflect US-
American individualism rather than traditional Chinese values. Cultural Imperialism theorists argue that this plays a
major role in dissociating people from their cultures and traditions, and alienating people from their traditional
communities (Petras, 2014). Because it is cheaper for countries to buy Western productions rather than producing
their own, developing countries watch media filled with Western values and beliefs, leading them to want the same
things and ‘destroying’ their own culture (Schiller, 1976).

However, there are many critics of this, especially those that argue that Cultural Imperialism underestimates the free
will, choice, and agency of the target audience (Tomlinson, 2001). It does not acknowledge a person’s ability to
process information and interpret that information differently based on their individual background and personal
frame of reference (Ogan, 1988). Thus, it also assumes that culture is static and non-fluid, though cultural identity is
arguably multidimensional and highly internalised. It also disregards the idea of cultural resistance, where culture
can be used to challenge oppressive systems and power holders (Western culture in this case). In the late 20th
century, CNN, and other Western media outlets, dominated the news narrative and only reflected Western views on
world events (Seib, 2011). As a consequence, news outlets around the world were created, like Al Jazeera, which
offered a different perspective from the Western one, and gave a voice to previously voiceless cultures (Seib, 2011).
This is called the Al Jazeera Effect, and one could argue that this proves the agency and cultural resistance of those
typically subjected to Cultural Imperialism.

Another instance where the audience is underestimated is in the US foreign policy of promoting gay rights globally.
The US government has spent over $350 million since 2012 on supporting gay rights in sub-Saharan Africa, but has
been less than successful (NYT, 2015). One could argue that this is Cultural Imperialism as the US government
attempts to export their cultural values to countries with very different values and beliefs. In July 2015, Obama
ignored advice of not pushing a ‘gay agenda’, angering Kenyan leaders, who told him that gay rights were a ‘non-
issue’ in Kenya (NYT, 2015). Many also regard the passage of strict anti-gay laws in Nigeria in 2014 as a reaction to
US-American pressure on Nigeria to embrace gay rights (NYT, 2015). This proves that Cultural Imperialism can
have negative effects on global communication and relations between countries, as well as that there is free will and
cultural resistance in countries where Cultural Imperialism is attempted. The Nigerian people and government were
not convinced by the US-American values and therefore reacted strongly against them.

Tomlinson also challenges the degree to which US television and films in developing countries actually succeed in
exporting cultural values (2001). Cultural Imperialism assumes that the distribution of cultural products is equal to
cultural dominance, but there are many examples where domestic media networks have been able to dominate the
domestic markets and ratings (Tomlinson, 2001). In countries like India, China, Japan, and Egypt, locally produced
films are more popular than US-American films (EAO, 2010). Furthermore, Cultural Imperialism ignores the fact
that cultures of non-core countries can also spread and have an impact on core cultures. Today, partially due to
globalisation, there is the possibility for a two-way cultural exchange, rather than an imposition. The exportation of
Bollywood films is, inter alia, an example of this. Bollywood films are popular around the globe and partially due to
the amount of diaspora Indians around the world this popularity continues to grow (Inda & Rosaldo, 2002). Diaspora
Indian movies like Monsoon Wedding (2001) and Bend it Like Beckham (2002) have English names, but do not
share the style of Hollywood films, instead they have their own style of representation – more Indian than US-
American. It can be argued that these films are a cultural mix of the Anglo-Saxon and the Indian, meaning that
Indian norms and values are not sacrificed in order to attract a wide audience (Inda & Rosaldo, 2002). This shows
that Cultural Imperialism theory is fallible as it only takes into consideration a one-way flow of cultural values,
whilst one could argue that globalisation allows for mutual, although uneven, infiltration and cultural exchange. It
also neglects that some cultural products can be exported between peripheral and semi-peripheral countries,
circumventing the core countries (Inda & Rosaldo, 2002). Bollywood exemplifies this as well. Studies have shown
that Hollywood films are not as attractive to the Bangladeshi audience as Bollywood films, even though Bengali and
Hindi are two distinct cultures and languages (Rahman, 2011). The Indian culture is far from homogenous, but
studies have found that Bollywood films are attractive to all types of Indian audiences, meaning that they transcend
cultural and linguistic boundaries (Rahman, 2011). One could argue that one of the reasons behind the popularity of
Bollywood films in Bangladesh is because both countries are developing, or semi-periphery and periphery, and
therefore share certain traits and values, whilst the US-American, or core, values differ more.

In conclusion, Cultural Imperialism can have both positive and negative effects on global communication. It can
promote generally positive agendas, like equal rights, and improve the quality of life for many people where
successful. However, it can also prove detrimental to ‘inferior’ cultures and cultural values when a dominant culture
takes over. It has the possibility of creating one homogenous culture throughout the world, and distorting foreign
cultures. Furthermore, it can be argued that Cultural Imperialism is prevalent in today’s media climate, where core
countries own the majority of global media and export their cultural values. Nonetheless, Cultural Imperialism
theory has received criticism for not considering the agency and free will of the target audience, and ignoring the
idea of cultural resistance, visible in some examples used in this essay. This also proves that attempting Cultural
Imperialism can have very negative effects on global communication as it weakens the relations between different
heads of state – like in the case of Obama and Kenyan and Nigerian leaders. Today, one could argue that instead of
looking at and using Cultural Imperialism theory, one should look at globalisation. Cultural Imperialism implies that
it is solely a one-sided cultural imposition, where the dominant culture, defined as the Western culture, is imposed
on other inferior cultures. However, as exemplified in this essay, one can see that this is not always the case and due
to globalisation and technological advancements it is possible for other cultural perspectives and values to be
exported and spread as well. It is important to note that the Western culture is still dominant in this, but the concept
of globalisation takes into consideration that culture is neither static nor homogenous. Globalisation allows for the
idea that the audience is not apathetic and it does not deprive them of their agency, which Cultural Imperialism does.
At the genesis of Cultural Imperialism theory, theorists focused on nation-states, but today the nation-state is no
longer the dominant player. Transnational transactions occur on subnational, national, and supranational levels and
globalisation arguably captures this complexity better than Cultural Imperialism.