CULTURAL IMPERIALISM THEORY

THEORIST: HERB SCHILLER

DATE THEORY WAS FOUNDED: 1973

Cultural imperialism is a process by which one country dominates other countries’

media consumption and consequently dominates their values and ideologies.
Cultural imperialism is also the practice of promoting a more powerful culture over
a least known or desirable culture. Is the case whereby the West belongs to large,
economically or militarily powerful nations and the Third World nations belong to
smaller, less powerful ones.
The theory states that Western nations dominate the media around the world which
in return has a powerful effect on the third world cultures by making them to
imbibe Western views and as a result destroying their native cultures.
Better still, Western world produces the majority of the media including news,
films, and comics because they have the money to do so. The Third World
countries, including Nigeria purchase these media items because they are cheap
and affordable for them rather than to produce their own.
The developing countries are filled with the Western ways of life, beliefs and
ideologies because they watch the media materials and then they start to want to
and do the same thing in their countries of origin and destroy their own cultures.
As long as the Third world nations are exposed to or air western civilization
programmes, they will always believe they should act, feel, think and live as the
West does. In which context, there is a metaphor of colonialism in that the cultural
products or brands of the first world invade the third world and conquer the local
culture.
Ordinarily, where physical strength inform of military might could have been used
in the colonial era to enforce compliance to colonial rules, exportation of cultures
in form of media materials are being used to indirectly enforce compliance to
Western ways of life. For instance, the portrayal of gay or homosexuality in Tyler
Perry’s Haves and Have Nots as normal and legal is directly or indirectly telling us
that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.
GLOBALISATION AND CULTURAL IMPERIALISM
Globalization refers to the way in which, in contemporary society, distant countries
are inter-related and connected by trade communication and cultural experiences.
The global sales of film, TV and media products, along with the internet bring
people in developing countries into direct contact with western media products.
Consider the global reach of organizations such as Disney, and News Corporations.
Their products can be seen globally facilitated by satellite and the internet. It has
been argued that in an increasingly globalized world there is a danger that local
cultures become eroded and replaced with a single, standard culture- this is known
as cultural homogenization.
We need to consider the number of television programmes and films produced in
the USA that are shown throughout the world.
The USA dominates the world media with 85% of the global film market and 68%
of the film market. A cultural imperialism therefore argues that American values
and ideologies are imposed upon the rest of the world through media texts.

CRITICISMS
There is no doubt that the United States of America (and to a lesser degree the
United Kingdom) export a large amount of film and television programming:
however, many critics of cultural imperialism questions whether this really have a
homogenizing effect in other countries. India, Japan, Nigeria to name a few- all
have thriving movie industries of their own.
Other critics also point out that audiences are not just passive observers and they
are capable of making their own judgement and attaching their own meaning to
media contents ( the perception theory). Audience responses to globalized media
are highly differentiated depending on which country they are.
Critics of this theory claim that non-Western cultures, particularly from the Third
World countries, will forsake their traditional values and lose their cultural
identities when they are exposed only to the Western media. They believe that by
gaining adherents for this theory, it would create overseas market and political
environment favourable to Western (United States in particular) interests thereby
leading to Americanisation of the media and killing the culture, values, identity
and autonomy of the receiving countries.

Salwen (1991) in Critical Studies in Mass Communication claims that Western

media can distort images of foreign cultures and provoke personal and social
conflicts to developing nations in some cases. He also asserts that people in
developing nations resist foreign media and preserve their culture. Also, he admits
that the outward manifestations of Western culture may be adopted; the
fundamental values and behaviours remain still.

In his book, Cultural Imperialism: A Critical Introduction, John Tomlinson

challenged the cultural imperialism argument, conveying his doubts about the
degree to which U.S. shows in developing countries actually carry U. S. values and
improve the profits of U. S. companies. He suggests that cultural imperialism is
growing in some respects, but local transformation and interpretations of imported
media products propose that cultural diversification is not at an end in the global
society.

References
Esimoka, G.A. (2014) Communication Theories Analysis and Application, Lagos:
Agumbay

Salwen M. b., (1991): cultural imperialism: A media effect approach, cultural

studies in mass communication vol 8. No 1:29 retrieved 20th march, 2015
 STRUCTURAL IMPERIALISM

THEORIST: JOHAN GALTUNG

DATE THEORY WAS FOUNDED: 1971

The structural imperialism theory was propounded by Johan Galtung in the

year 1971/1979. It was advanced in the year 1971 and accepted as a theoretical
perspective in the year 1979. Johan Galtung uses these two glaring fact about the
world as the basic assumption for the structural imperialism theory
A. The tremendous inequality within and between nations in almost all aspect
of human living including the power to decide over those living condition.
B. The resistance of this inequality to change.
C. There is a two-nation the Center and the Periphery

According to Livingston (2000), structural imperialism is one of the various

phrases among others coined by critical theorist in referring to the notion of
cultural imperialism, which is concerned with the imbalance in international
communication flow. Other phrases used by critical theorist include media
imperialism (Boyd-Barrett 1977), cultural dependency and domination (Link 1984;
Mohammedi 1999), communication imperialism (Sui-Nam Lee 1988) electronics
colonialism (Mcphil).
The structural imperialism theory therefore concerns itself to explain the
mechanism that is underlying this discrepancy particularly between the Center and
the Periphery. Galtung structural imperialism theory is a combination of two
words- structure and imperialism.
The concept of imperialism according to Galtung can either be a relation of
harmony or a relation of disharmony or conflict of interest. The concept of relation
of harmony refers to a sophisticated type of dominance relation which cut across
nations basing itself on a bridgehead which the center in the Center nations
establishes relations with the center of the Periphery nation for joint benefit of
both.
Therefore, Galtung concept of relation of harmony imperialism here is not
that general perceived imperialism in which the center of the Center nation
establishes relation with the center of the Periphery of the in the sense of
exercising power over it hence the imperialism of relation of disharmony or
conflict of interest.
The imperialism of relation of disharmony or conflict of interest is that
form of imperialism where parties are pursuing incompatible goals. The goals are
usually set by outsiders as the “true” interest of the parties, disregarding
completely what the parties considers as the value they pursue.
Meanwhile, Galtung in structural imperialism defines imperialism as a
structure in our two-nation world, where the Centre nation has power over the
Periphery nation, so as to bring about a condition of disharmony of interest among
them.

Imperialism is a relation between a Centre and a Periphery nation so that:

1. There is harmony of interest between the center in the Centre nation and
the center of the Periphery nation.
2. There is disharmony of interest within the Periphery nation than within
the Centre nation.
3. There is disharmony of interest between the Periphery in the Centre
nation and the periphery in the Periphery nation.

According to Galtung structure exist to cause the imperialism of disharmony

of interest to occur hence structural imperialism.

centre

Center
periphery
 centre

Periphery
Periphery

Harmony of
Interest

Disharmony of
interest
The structure of imperialism
According to Galtung there are five types of imperialism depending on the type of
exchange between the Center and Periphery nation:
a. Economic
b. Political
c. Communication
d. Military
e. Cultural

Galtung take on Communication perspective in structural imperialism is

mostly adopted in media studies and communication discourse, in the area of
imbalance in international flow of communication (information).
More so, since this theory concern itself with trying to explain the
mechanism of imperialism, Galtung identifies two mechanism of imperialism; the
first mechanism which is the principle of Vertical Interaction Relation concern
itself with the interaction relation itself while the second which is the principle of
feudal interaction structure explains how these relation are put together in a large
interaction structure.
1. That is the first mechanism (vertical interaction relations) is the
major factor behind inequality,
2. then the second mechanism (the feudal interaction structure) is the
factor that maintains and re-inforces this inequality by protecting it.

The communication structural imperialism, most times the

emphasis of analysis is usually turned towards the second mechanism i.e. the
feudal interaction structure. This is to mean that communication is one of the
structures that helps maintain and reinforce the inequality in the two-nation world
system.
Perhaps most importantly is the vertical nature of the division of
labor in the field of communication. Division of labor in the sense that;
1. The Center has the high level of industrial capacity to develop the latest
communication technology and can be sold sometimes to the Periphery
nations.
2. Very importantly is that when the Periphery finally catches up, the Center
will already for long times have dominated the field of communication
satellite.
3. Also one interesting version of this type of imperialism is the
combination of cultural and communication exchange; news
communication, a situation where the Center has the major agencies.
4. The Center news takes up a larger proportion of Periphery news media
than vice versa.
5. The Periphery nations do not write or read much about each other
especially not across bloc-borders.
6. The Periphery also produces event that the Center turns into news.
7. Journalists are trained to see events with Center eyes and by setting up a
chain of communication that filters and processes events so that they fit
the general pattern.

In summary, the structural imperialism recognizes the imbalance in the

flow of information between what it calls the Center (North; West) and the
Periphery (South) more so, communication (the media) is one of the structures that
help to maintain and reinforce the imperialism.

Strength of the Structural Imperialism

The Galtung Structural Imperialism theory, successfully explained the
structure and mechanism in the world that is responsible for the imbalance in the
system, the theory also however also aptly created the picture of the imbalance.

Weakness of the Structural Imperialism

 The major weakness raised against this theory is that the theorist isolates the
media and fails to consider the media as a part of the system and not a structure
maintaining the imbalance and overlooks the fact. Also the structural imperialism
theory is criticized of attaching exploitative motive for every action from the center
and dislodging the possibility of a relation of harmony and conclusively opining
that the inequality has refused to change.