See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/318178285

Globalization and Culture

Chapter · June 2017

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_1319-1

CITATIONS READS

3 13,263

1 author:

Chantal Crozet
RMIT University
37 PUBLICATIONS 849 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Chantal Crozet on 06 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 'Crozet, C. (2017) Globalisation and Culture. In Ali Farazmand (ed) Global
Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. New York:
Springer International Publishing, 1-8. DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5.
Globalization and Culture
Chantal Crozet
School of Global, Urban and Social Studies,
RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
Introduction
Given the wide interest in both globalization and
culture from diverse academic fields · such as
anthropology, sociology, communication and
media, cultural and language studies, colonial
and indigenous studies, and political science and
international. relations, it is not surprising to find
little consensus in the literature on the definitions
of these two concepts, let alone consensus on how
they relate to each other and on their role and
impact on individuals and societies.
This entry provides insights into the links
between globalization and culture, based on a
selective review of the literature, aiming to offer
some reference points for :further reflection to pro­
fessionals, researchers, · and students in public
ad1ninistration and public policy. It reflects first
on the concepts of culture and of globalization,
what characterizes both and how they relate to
each other. It then focuses on the links between
culture, globalization, and language, followed by
concluding remarks.
© Springer International Publishing AG 2017
A Farazmand (ed.), Global Encyclopedia ofPublic Administration, Public Policy, and Governance,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_1319-1
Culture and Globalization
The cultural dimension of globalization, or
"cultural globalization", refers to the circulation
and sharing of ideas, meanings and values
across countries; with the effect of increasing
social contacts (Paul 2006), this presumably
leads to more positive human interconnected-
ness across cultures. Reflecting on how culture
has been understood and used so far helps in
tum to understand issues associated with its
global circulation and sharing.
Culture
As humans, we produce culture to make and
share meaning in everything we do, feel,
think, and believe in. In this sense culture is an
intrinsic part of human nature (Geertz 1973).
Without culture, Geertz (1973, p. 49) :further
argues, men (and women) would be "unworkable
monstrosities" and "mental basket cases"
incapable of making sense of themselves, others
and the world they live in. Culture helps
identify distinct collectivities (Grillo 2003). It
can be thought of as a blue­print left to
individuals to share and to adopt, or not. In any
case, as pointed out by Heam (2006):
. . . culture is not a private affair-it is by definition
shared, however imperfectly, with other people.
(Heam 2006, p. 170)
 2 Globalization and Culture
Traditionally a differentiation has been made
between high and low culture. High culture refers
to the dominant elitist form of a culture (e.g., its
literature and its fiine arts), dominant in the sense
that it tends to be shared by a minority of people
with the highest socioeconomic power.By
contrast, low culture refers to the way of life shared
by the majority of a given people of all social
back-grounds, for instance, national cuisines and
their variations, preferred national sports, popular
festivities, popular music, and fashion. However,
democratic and global processes have watered
down the divide between high and low culture
by valuing all forms of cultural expression.
Nonetheless, it is still a useful distinction to
capture power in culture dynamics in particular
contexts.
French sociologist Bourdieu (1986) introduced
the concept of "cultural capital," in the context of
his work on class inequalities in education. It is
however a useful concept in many other contexts.
Cultural capital, according toBourdieu, is acquired
from one's particular socioeconomic background
and degree of formal education and would deter-
mine one's place in social hierarchies. It includes
three dimensions of culture: embodied, objectified,
and institutionalized. For example, one's accent in
speaking a national language is embodied culture
(with all its possible social variables), the owner-
ship of goods such as real estate is objectified
culture, and educational qualifications represent
institutionalized culture. Critics of Boµrdieu have
pointed out a lack of consideration given to
individual agency in his theo1y of culture reprod-
uction, as well as of consideration of the impact
of the growth of the middle class on class in-
equalities (see Goldthorpe 2007; King 2000). For
both praise and criticism of Bourdieu's key theor-
etical concepts, see Coulangeon and Duval (2013.)
The concepts of high and low culture, of
identifiable collectivities on the basis of culture,
and of cultural capital, however useful they may
be in understanding the plays of culture in
societies and individuals, must take account of
further characteristics of the nature of culture.
Academics, in particular anthropologists for
whom culture is central to their discipline, have
fought wars over this matter, trying to determine
whether culture is a static/objective or a dynamic/
subjective phenomena (see Grillo 2003; Matera
2016, for instance, for accounts of these "culture
wars"). An essentialist interpretation of culture,
also called cultural essentialism, refers to an
understanding and use of culture as static and
bounded. It does not recognize the fact that all
cultures have many variables, are diverse,
dynamic, and changeable within themselves.
Nationalist political movements commonly seek
to promote essentialist perspectives on culture.
The static/objective, also called modernist, view
of culture represents a scientific and descriptive
interpretation of culture, articulated first by the
British anthropologist Edward Burnett Tylor, for
whom culture was a complex whole of fixed,
clearly identifiable attributes, such as: lmowledge,
belief, aiis, morals, law, and custom (Tylor
1871). The later, more dynamic/subjective, also
called postmodernist, view of culture is embed-
ded in Gee1iz's (1973) early work. It focuses
on the search for meaning in culture, rather
than mere desc1iption and categorization, in his
words:
Man is an animal suspended in webs of significance
he himself has spun. I take culture to be those webs
and the analysis of it to be therefore not an experi­
ential science in search of law but an interpretive
one in search ofmeaning. (Geertz 1973, p. 6)
Since the 1970s, postmodern views on culture
have been dominant in academia, aware of the
unreliability of fixed metanarratives on what con­
stitutes culture (see Lyotard 1979). Some aca-
demics, concerned that cultural disc1imination is
fed by modernist hence essentialist interpretations
of culture, go as far as suggesting abandonning
the concept altogether. Wikan (1999), for
instance, proposes to consider instead only
individuals and their rights. Wagener (2015)
proposes to replace the culture concept with
new theories capable of explaining better the
complexities of daily life, which implies
considering the role of power in the working of
culture in social, ethnic, and political tensions.
The notion of "intersectionality" captures suc­
cinctly the interplay between power, culture,
class, ethnicity, and gender. Intersectionality
(or intersectional theo1y), as a concept, was first
Globalization and Culture
coined by Crenshaw (1991), in the context
of discrimination and violence against women.
It is now widely applied in other contexts
requiring an understanding of the dynamics
between power and cultural variables.
One way out of the controversy over the
nature of culture and its complexity is to go
back to Williams' (1977) concept of culture as
dynamic and contradictory interactions be­
tween dominant, residual, and emergent f01ms
of culture, with the caveat that those three
fonns or" culture can be both tangible and
intangible. Tangible culture refers to visible
aspects of culture such as traditional French
cuisine, Japanese manga, or the practical
di­mensions of religious rituals. Intangible culture
refers to the less visible aspects of culture
in the domain of beliefs, myth, ideologies
(religious, political, and other), as well as
aspirations and projections – what Appadurai
(1996) called "imaginary work" (see further
discussion on this topic in the next section).
Intangible culture in this sense operates on a
more subjective and also unconscious level, hence
it is harder to capture.
The notion of dominant culture in Williams
(1977) can help explain how dominant social
structures are maintained but also how they
can be subverted by dissident individuals or
groups of individuals. Residual culture is the
influence of old cultural patterns: archaic, out­
dated, but still influencing the current culture –
and can be dominant, or not. Emerging culture
represents new cultural ideas and practices,
including those produced by minority groups,
potentially from all strata of society, and which
can become mainstream. The hippie culture of
the 1960s in Western countries is a good
example of what amounted to emerging culture
at the time. Some may consider that the hippie
culture has now become residual, as it is
outdated, but is still influencing current Western
culture. Jihadism as new forms of Islamist
militant movements in the twenty-first century,
or ecosustainability as an environmental move­
ment, are other examples of new emerging
ideological forms of culture, both with their
varying national and local overtones.
3
In understanding varying approaches to con­
ceptualizing culture, it is also important to ack­
nowledge the significant gap between popular/
public versus academic discourses on culture
(see Grillo 2003; Steger 2014). In Grillo's words:
...the disjunction between vernacular, common
sense and essentialist conceptions of cultures
which dominate public discourses and theorized
and intellectualized accounts of academics and
functionaries (postmodernist or modernist) with
their very different social and political agenda has
never been greater.Grillo (2003, p. 163)
Grillo makes this argument in the context of
his call for a better understanding of why
cultural essentialism is still so popular in current
times. Even though essentialist interpretations
of culture are commonly dismissed in
academic discourse to be no more than a "figment
of the mind" (Wikan 1999 quoted in Grillo
2003, p. 158), they are nonetheless real under-
currents which can undennine or make any
political agenda. Brexit and President Trnmp's
election testify to the existence of popular
essentialjst sentiments toward British and
American culture which are real and pervasive –
and which neither a politically nor academically
correct agenda could predict.
The renowned Franco-Lebanese essayist
Amin Maalouf (2009), greatly concerned about
the "imaginary certitudes" promoted by cultural
essentialists, advocates a new role for culture
which he equates to lmowledge of cultural diver­
sity for all, with no value distinction between high
and low culture. He believes education urgently
needs to promote this kind of inclusive global
culture as "intellectual and moral tools" for global
survival in the twenty-first centmy, in his words:
Today the role of culture is to provide our
contemporaries the intellectual and moral tools
which will allow them to survive - nothing less.
(Malouf 2009, p.203)
(Translation from the author of the French original:
'Aujourd'hui, le role de la culture est. de fournir
a nos contemporains les outils intellectuels et
moraux qui leur pennettront de survivre - rien de
moins.' Malouf 2009 p. 203)
Having discussed some different ways of
approaching an understanding of culture and
its uses, consideration is given next to the impact
of globalization on culture.
 4 Globalization and Culture
Globalization and Culture
Globalization, like culture, is very much a dis-
puted and slippe1y concept, too complex, Steger
(2014, p. 52) argues, to force "into a
single analytical framework.'' It is not the
privileged study of any discipline. It concerns
and challenges all disciplines.
However, there is consensus, at least in the
literature, over the fact that cultural global­
ization (if not other global processes) :intensifies
social interactions across cultures, and that
current forms of global cultural interactions are
of a new order.
This new order is the result of the :increased
global flow of populations, :involuntary (i.e.,
forced migration) or voluntary (e.g., :international
trade and tomism), ofgreater access to mass media
and of new technologies of communication.
Appadmai (1996, p. 28) qualifies this new order
as being "filled with ironies and resistances,"
meaning that the impact of globalization on cul-
tare is experienced with hiccups and contradic-
tions by nearly every country on the planet. One
reason for this is that, although globalization has
an undeniable homogenizing effect on culture, it
is always experienced in, and affected by, local
contexts. Thus, it can reinvigorate local cultural
practices rather than replace them, especially
when cultural globalization is perceived as a threat
or produces form.s of cultural hybridization, two
different processes Robertson (1997) calls pro-
cesses of "glocalization." For the postcolonial
theorist Homi Bhabha (1994), there is however
always and only cultural hybridity, especially from
a minority perspective. He cautions against reading
representation of difference as "the reflection of.
pre-given ethnic or cultural traits set in the fixed
tablet oftradition" (Bhabha 1994, p. 2).
The tension between the homogeneity versus
heterogeneity/hybridity/diversity ofculture is a
a common concern, particularly in relation to
cultural globalization. At the core of this tension
is the fact that cultural globalization is perceived
to be largely the Westernization, ifnot the Amer-
icanization, of the world's cultures, creating a
palpable hierarchy of cultures, especially in terms
of the economic edge that the production and diff-
usion ofglobal culture can give. Appadmai (1996,
p. 32) notes that cultural globalization should
include not only the Americanization of other
cultures; it should also consider other instances
of dominance of a culture over another, as :in
the case of the Japanization of Korean culture
or the Russianization of the people of Annenia
and of the Baltic Republics.
Mar:in (2010) dates the start of the cultural
Westernization of the world to the Crusades and
the first European discoveries of Africa and
America. More to the po:int, he argues that
these prompted the start of globalization of
the economy, leading over time to the
imposition of the capitalist (neoliberalist) model
as we know it today, worldwide.
Like culture :in a national context, cultural
globalization has tangible and intangible dim-
ensions. The global proliferation of American
fast-food chains like Kentucky Fried Chicken,
McDonald's, or Starbucks, which Rizer (1993)
generalies as the "McDonaldization" of society,
are examples of tangible cultural global impact.
Another example is the :increase of the "migrant
presence'' (Martin 1985), which involves the
increased visible presence of the culturally
different "others'' in people's neighborhoods, at
least in Western countries. This convergence of
cultures as lived reality, or factual multicultural­
ism, can pro111ote more understanding and
appreciation across cultures, as well as more
desire for the supremacy of the dominant culture.
Hage (1998), for example, explored what he
called "fantasies of white supremacy" in an
Australian context, showing the limits of multi­
culturalism when it only tolerates cultural differ­
ence rather than embracing it.
Adding to the concept of "the migrant pres-
ence" is the notion of the "deterritorialization of
culture" as �he disembedding of social relations
(see Giddens 1990; Papastergiadis 2000), that is,
the fact that culture and space (as in countries) are
no longer necessarily linked. The Irish cultural
presence in New York, the Tmkish cultural pres­
ence in Germany, or the Indian cultural presence
in South Africa are examples of the
detenitorialization of culture, that is, of cultural
expression which has moved outside its original
physical environment to new foreign contexts.
 Globalization and Culture
The term "reterritorialization" is used when
the migrant cultural community is d�emed to
have become part of the local culture.
Finally, the roles of international mass media,
satellite television, and other new technologies
of communication ought to be mentioned as they
are c01mnonly considered to be the primary
cause of global mass culture, with the images
and discourses they produce being diffused
worldwide. The label "mass culture" refers to
the behavior, ideas, and values that are prod-
uced from common exposure to the same media.
Scholars disagree over the level of impact
of global mass media on individuals and
societies. Sparks (2000), for instance, argues
that no mass media can ever be so widespread
that it manages to reach a majority of people
on a global scale; even though more and more
people have access to new technologies, such
as the internet, content would have to be
constantly produced in a high number of
languages. Kraidy (2002) argues that there
are many alternatives to "media imperialism" at
local levels, and even when mass media and
new technologies produce cultural hybridity,
this very hybridity can defy structures of power.
This point is reinforced by Magu (2015):
... cultures are not 'victims' of globalisation or the
proliferation of mass media.Cultures actively adopt
and integrate globalization's technological aiie­
facts. Globalization's positive effects are dynamic
and span cultural interactions and pe1meate stmc­
tures of authority at personal, national and global
levels. (Magu 2015, p. 630)
Appadurai (1996, p. 53) suggests that
imagination has acquired a new role and
power in social life, due greatly to the impact
of global mass media on individuals. He argues
that more and more ordinary people are
provided with "a rich, ever­changing store of
possible lives", a choice which can both
empower and disrnpt. Imagination, he further
argues, which in the past was paii of the
creation of mi, myth, and legend, is now part
of the mental work for "the construction of
imagined selves and imagined worlds":
More persons throughout the world see their lives
through the prisms of the possible lives offered by
mass media in all their f01ms.That is, fantasy is now
5
social practice, it enters, in a host of ways, into the
fabrication of social lives for many people in
many societies. (Appadurai 1996, pp. 53-54)
The freeing of individual imaginations intrinsic
to global cultural growth no doubt impacts on the
construction of self and identity. It also increases
the opp01iunity for new collective transcultural
ideologies to develop based on imagined worlds.
A particular target for ideological reconfiguration is
the realm of religious beliefs, beyond the scope of
this entry to conside1; though a key feature in a
deep understanding of global, national, local, and
individual culture making.
The many shapes and turns that cultural
globalization can take are explored :fmiher in
the final section, which focuses on the important
role language plays in relation to culture and
globalization.
Language, Culture, and Globalization
Language, culture, and communication are inti­
mately linked as humans cannot help but catego­
rize and express their experience of the world
through linguistic and cultural filters (Kramsch
1998; Liddicoat 2009). However, the relationship
between language, culture, communication, and
globalization is highly complex.
Firstly, the majority of people on the planet,
roughly 80%, are multilinguals (Blanchet 2016).
Multilinguals use the various linguistic and cul­
tural filters that they have at their disposal to
communicate in variable and creative ways,
constrncting unique subjective realities and iden­
tities in the process (Kramsch 2009). Secondly,
from a global standpoint, the relationship between
language and culture is becoming less one-to-one,
and more a one-too-many correspondence. That is,
one language can express and represent different
cultures, as in the clear cases of world languages
such as English, Arabic, French, and Spanish.
For instance, Mexico and Central and South
American countries share Spanish as their com­
mon dominant language, but they are all inhabited
by different indigenous cultures (and languages)
which have mixed with different versions of His­
panic nationalist histo1y and culture. In a similar
way, though in reverse, migrants to a new country
 6 Globalization and Culture
in time express the culture(s) of their original
country through both their first language(s) and
the new language they learn in their host country.
In the current global era, the increasing number
of individuals with complex linguistic and
cultural biographies will keep intermeshing both.
Beyond the increase of linguistic and cultural
hybrids among individuals, it is also important to
note the impact of globalization on linguistic
diversity on a collective level, that is, to note
how languages are standing and evolving in rela-
tion to each other aud how this in tum affects both
cultural and biodiversity.
Two decades ago, Weber (1999) identified
what he called The World's JO most influential
languages using as criteria: the number of native
speakers, of secondary speakers, countries and
populations using the language, the number of
major fields using the language (science, diplom-
acy, etc.), the economic power of countries using
the language and socio-literary prestige. His
classification, arguably still valid today, ranks
the most influential languages internationally in
the following order: English, French, Spanish,
Russian, Arabic, Chinese, German, Japanese,
Portuguese, Hindi/Urdu.
English is the modern world lingua franca. It is
ahead of all other world languages in terms of
global impact; however only one out of four users
of English in the world is a native speaker of the
language (C1ystal 2903). Englishes, such as
Chinglish or Indian English, have globalized
English by importing into it cultural features orig-
inally foreign to it. English and Englishes as the
dominant lingua :francas contribute greatly to the
reduction of linguistic diversity on the planet, but
have not erased multilingualism as the dominant
feature of the logosphere (Krauss 2007), that is,
the global web of cultural and linguistic diversity.
It is for this very reason that the AU-Party Parlia-
mentary Group on Modern Languages in Britain
warned in 2014, in its Man ifesto for Languages,
· that English is necessaiy but not enough, not only
for the conduct ofinternational trade but for many
other sociocultural and political benefits:
English is an important world language, but the latest
cutting-edge research shows that, in the 21st
Century, speaking only English is as much of a
disadvantage as speaking no English. (APPGML
2014)
The ten global languages mentioned above are
among the only few hundred languages com­
monly taught through education systems, out of
the about 7,000 languages spoken in the world
today (Paul et al. 2016). It is estimated that about
half of these will be extinct by the end of the
twenty-first centu1y, an alarming loss if one con­
siders the coITelation between linguistic diversity
and biocultural diversity. ·
Indigenous languages as smaller languages
tend to struggle the most in surviving the force
of global languages, and of globalization gener­
ally, their loss leading to the loss of biocultural
knowledge of local natural environments
. (Robertson 2014). Evans (2010) further argues
that the loss ofindigenous languages leads to the
loss of invaluable knowledge on how l�nguage
w9rks as a feature ofhmnankind and on its role in
human cognition. However, their relationship to
the dominant and to other languages at a local
level is complex, involving variable sociopolitical
.and historical factors, as well as local communi-
ties',choices.
What can be argued is that language rights for
all language minorities (not only indigenous
minorities) matter. The right to use one's mother
tongue in particular is an existential issue, closely
linked to one's identity and sense of self, hence of
one's well-being. Further and to the point, in the
complex domain of language �ights, especially
when it involves minority groups, Robeiison
(2014, p. 935) warns against "unhelpful dichoto­
mies between modern/ti·aditional and indigenous/
non-indigenous" and further "to privilege cultural
and linguistic 'nativism' and insularity over trans­
cultural contact and exchange."
Tensions between the important gain in
maintaining linguistic diversity and associated
culture(s), for existential reasons and in tenns of
safeguarding world knowledge/heritage: and the
equal need for successful intercultural communi-
catiori, facilitated by the use of English (and other
lingua francas), and the watering down of cultural
difference, are not easily solved.
 Globalization and Culture
Concluding Remarks
To understand the complexities of issues at stake
in cultural globalization, it is useful to first un-
derstand the nature, purpose, and uses of culture,
as proposed in this entry. In summary, the nature
of culture is dynamic, its purpose is to create
meaning and share it, and its uses intermix with
matters of power, hist01y, personal subjectivity,
and collective identities, as well as other variables
such as gender and social categorization. It is hard
to contain culture within clear boundaries, and at
the same time it is hard to dismiss its existence.
Cultural globalization can both increase and
decrease human interconnectedness. This is be-
cause the global unleashing of cultural inform-
ation requires an increased capacity to make and
negotiate meaning out of information about and
across cultures. The negotiation of cultural
meaning is complex; it involves the ability to
communicate successfully across cultures (Wolton
2003). "Cultures" as abstract entities do not
communicate between themselves, people do
(Scollon and Scollon 2000), and people do not
c01mnunicate in a vacuum. In the current global
era, people communicate through increasing com-
plex linguistic and cultural fiilters. When they do,
not only language and culture come alive but also
world, national, and local histo1y as well as per-
sonal histories, with layers of positive outcomes
but also unresolved issues. In order to maximize
the positive impacts it can have, cultural global-
ization calls for the ability to understand how the
big and small pictures interact, connect, or not.
It calls for discernment and the choice of coll-
aboration over power in approaching difference.
The active support of, and engagement with,
linguistic and cultural diversity helps the growth
of positive cultural globalization, but it is not
enough. After all, as noted by Lo Bianco (2001,
p. 458), there are many polyglot and multicultural
fanatics, and conversely there are many "culturally
sophisticated monolinguals."
It is the new work of the imagination
as social act, as posited by Appadurai (1996),
which will keep playing a major role in global
cultural processes. Imagination feeds greatly,
though not exclusively, from electronic resources
7
and opportunities given to it, to access cult-
ures. However, the empowerment of the world
imagination is double edged. It can create new
patterns of connection between individuals and
collectivities, leading to increased positive inter-
national interconnectedness. It can also discon-
nect from the real as cultural globalization tends
to facilitate more virtual than face-to-face contact,
giving free rein to imagined subjectivities.
Globalization and culture will keep interact-
ing in nonlinear and unpredictable ways.
Interactions between both will keep navigating
between universalizing and localizing tendencies.
References
Appadurai A (1996) Modernity at large: cultural dimen­
sions of globalisation. University of Minnesota Press,
Minneapolis
APPGML (2014) Manifesto for languages. Available at
https://www.britishcouncil.org
Bhabha H (1994) The location of culture. Routledge
Blanchet P (2016) Discriminations: combattre la
glottophobie. Editions Textuel, Paris
Bourdieu P (1986) The forms of capital. In: Richardson J
(ed) Handbook of theory and research for the socio­
logy of education. Greenwood, New York, pp 241–258
Coulangeon P, Duval J (2013) Trente ans apres la Distinc­
tion de Pien-e Bourdieu. La Decouverte, Paris
Crenshaw K (1991) Mapping the margins:
intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against
women of color. Stanford Law Rev 43:1241-1299
C1ystal D (2003) English as a global language, 2nd edn.
Camblidge University Press, Cambridge
Evans N (2010) Dying words. Endangered languages and
what they have to tell us. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden
Gee1iz (1973) The interpretation of cultures- selected
essays. Basic books, New York
Giddens A (1990) The consequences of modernity.
Stanford University Press
Goldthorpe JH (2007) 'Cultural capital': some critical
observations. Societa editrice il Mulino, Bologna
Grillo RD (2003) Cultural essentialism and cultural anxi­
ety. Sage, London
Hage G (1998) White nation: fantasies of white supremacy
in a multicultural society. Pluto Press, London
Hearn J (2006) Rethinking nationalism - a critical intro­
duction. Palgrave Macmillan, London
King A (2000) Thinking Bourdieu against Bourdieu: a
'Practical' critique of the habitus. Socio! The01y
18(3):417-433
Kraidy M (2002) Globalisation of culture through the
media. In: Scherment JR (ed) Encyclopaedia of com­
munication and information, vol 2. Macmillan,
New York, pp 359–363
 8 Globalization and Culture
Kramsch C (1998) Language and culture. Oxford Univer­
sity Press, Oxford
Kramsch C (2009) The multilingual subject. Oxford Uni-
versity Press, Oxford
Krauss M (2007) Mass language extinction and documen­
. tation: the race against time. fu: Miyaoka 0,
Sakiyama 0, Krauss (eds) The vanishing languages in
the pacific rim. Oxford University Press, Oxford,
pp 3 2-4
Liddicoat AJ (2009) Communication as culturally
contexted practice: a view from intercultural commu­
nication. Aust J Linguist 29(1):115-133
Lo Bianco J (2001) Talking globally: challenges for
foreign-language education - from new citizenship
and economic globalisation. Fornm Mod Lang Stud
xxxvii(4):457-475
Lyotard (1979).La condition postmoderne: rapport sur le
savoir (the postmodern condition: a repo1t· on knowl-
edge). Editions de Minuit, Paris
Magu S (2015) Reconceptualizing cultural globalisation:
connecting the "cultural global" and the "cultural
local". Soc Sci 4:630-645. doi:10.3390/socsci4030630
Malouf A (2009) , Le dereglement du monde. Editions
Grasset & Fasquelle, Paris. English translation: Miller
G (2011) Disordered world. Bloomsbury, London
Mar.in, J. (2010) Globalisation, Neoliberalisme, Education
et Diversite Culturelle. Gina Thesee, Nicole Carignan
et Paul R. Carr Les faces cachees de l'interculturel - De
la rencontre des porteurs de cultures, 223-240. Paris :
L'harmattan.
Martin J (1985) The migrant presence, Allen & Unwin,
Sydney
Matera V (2016) Under�tanding cultural diversity. Culture,
cultural traits and cultural changes between global and
local scales. In: Panebianco F, Sen-elli E (eds) Under­
standing cultural traits. Springer International Publish-
ing, Switzerland, pp 21-42
Papastergiadis N (2000) The turbulence of migration -
globalization, detenitor.ialization and hybridity. Polity
Press, Cambridge, UK
View publication stats
Paul J (2006) Globalism, nationalism, tribalism. Sage,
London
Paul LM, Simon$ GF, Fennig CD (eds) (2016) Ethnologue:
languages of the world, 19th edn. SIL International.
Online version, Dallas. http://www.ethnologue.com
Rizer G (1993) The McDonaldization of society. Pine
Forge Press, Los Angeles
Robeiison R (1997) _Glocalization: time-space and
homogeneity-heterogeneity. In: Featherstone M,
Lash S, Robertson R (eds) Global modernities. Sage,
London, pp 45-68
Robertson S (2014) Sustaining linguistic diversity:
biocultural approaches to language, nature and com­
munity. In: Steger MB, Battersby P, Siracusa J (eds)
The Sage handbook of globalisation, vol 1. Sage,
London, pp 927-940
Scollon R, Scollon S (2000) Intercultural communication:
a discourse approach. Wiley-Blackwell, London
Sparks C (2000) The global, the local and the public
sphere. In: Wang G, Servaes J, Goonasekera A (eds)
The new communications landscape: demystifying
media globalization. Routledge, London, pp 74-95
Steger M (2014) Approaches to the study of globalization.
In: Steger MB, Battersby P, Siracusa J (eds) The Sage
handbook of globalisation, vol 1. Sage, London,
pp 52-76
Tylor EB (1871) Primitive culture. J.P.Putman's Sons,
New York
Wagener A (2015) L'Echec culturel - Vie et mort d'un
concept en sciences sociales. Europe des cultures,
vol 11. Peter Lang, Brnxelles, Berlin, New York,
Oxford, Wien.
Weber G (1999) The world 10 most influential languages.
AATF Natl Bull 24(3):22-28
Wikan U (1999) Culture: a new concept of race. Soc
Anthropol 7(1):57-64
Williams R (1977) Marxism and literature. Oxford Univer­
sity Press, Oxford
Wolton D (2003) L'autre mondialisation. editions Flamma-
·
rion, Paris