Cultural Globalization

1) summarize in your own words of materials you read
 'Cultural globalization' is very familiar word these days. but i think it is not involved correct understanding that mean. In fact it is hard to understand exact meaning of Cultural globalization. To understand that meaning, we need to understand 'globalization' and 'cultural' separately. 'Globalization is increasing global connectivity in the field of economy, politics, and culture. we are living in a much more globally connected world today. Eating foreign food, connect with foreign friend using SNS etc.. are the examples. but this connection doesn't bring advantage always. One region's economical development can cause global warming. actually we can't avoid the global dominance of the capitalist system. However, we need to try to resist temptation to economic reductionism. Because it operates on an unrealistically narrow conception of the economic and it distorts our understanding of the sphere of culture like 'Cultural imperialism', 'Americanization' or 'Westernization'. Culture seems to be a peculiarly inert category. Though to define more easily, it is generating meaning in life. There are many meaning in the simple action slimming and eating. It can be anorexia nervosa, religious fasting or political hunger strikes. Like this, culture's meaning involves all of things. Global is connecting and culture is all of things for human being. However, increasing global connectivity can't mean cultural globalization in the widest sense. Despite its reach, few would dare to claim that the effects of globalization currently extend in any profound way to every single or place. Typical example is 'Third World" in the economic field. Besides most of global things we also know are not real global these are just western things such as McDonald's, Diseny movies. In fact, this tendency is not to be appeared recently. It has been from thirteenth-century Europe. According to that time's map, Jerusalem(the holy city in Europe) was placed at the centre on the map, whilst the or Oriental Civilization was placed at the east also depicted the Garden of Eden. From these example, we have to think more about globalization. Globalization is rapidly changing our experience of locality and one way of grasping this change is in the idea of deterritorialization. Deterritorialization has fairly radical theoretical implications for traditional ways of understanding culture. Cluture has long held connotations tying it to the idea of a fixed locality. but the 'weakening' of the traditional ties between cultural experience and geographical territory will prove to be the most far-reaching effect of cultural globalization. Anyway we have benefited from deterritorialization. Now days we can choose between eating Italian, Mexican, Thai, Indian or Japanese food. And we settle down in our livingrooms to watch American soap opera or the news coverage of a distant political events. In progressing expansion of globalization, the idea 'cosmopolitan clutural politics' is desrved to be taken seriously. In this situation we can't avoid a dilemma with Universal human rights and cultural difference. So we need to find much more nimble and flexible cultural concepts than we so possess.

  2) mention of any new, interesting, or unusual items learned
I was interested in one of the example. I have never seen historical access to globalization. By using the historical example we can understand more easily about why now days' globalization shows the tendency 'Westernization'. And i think it can be more interesting because not only show positive side of globalization but also negative side.

Syrian Conflict

Prior to class, I got to know about the Syrian conflict through this video on Facebook which I think is very interesting to watch to get a broad view of the involved parties and intervening parties. Some have argued that a few facts in the video are wrong but I guess that the Syrian war is too big and complicated that hardly anybody can get all the facts right anyway. Hope this helps! :)

Syria's war: A 5-minute history
To understand the bloody, convoluted war happening inside and outside of Syria's borders, you need to watch this:
Posted by Ezra Klein on Wednesday, October 14, 2015

Culture Comparison (South Korea & Mexico)

 I compare with two aspect of South Korea and France. There are differences in Individualism, Long Term Orientation and Indulgence and there are similarities in Masculinity. Firstly, South Korea, with a score of 18 is considered a collectivistic society. This is clear in a close long-term commitment to the member 'group', be that a family, extended family, or extended relationships. However, France, with a score of 71, is shown to be an individualist society. Parents make their children emotionally independent with regard to groups in which they belong. This means that  one is only supposed to take care of oneself and one’s family.
 Secondly, South Korea scores 39 on this dimension and is thus considered a Feminine society. In Feminine countries the focus is on “working in order to live". With a score of 43, France has a somewhat Feminine culture. French culture in terms of the model has, however, another unique characteristic. The upper class scores Feminine while the working class scores Masculine. This characteristic has not been found in any other country.
 Lastly, At 100, South Korea scores as one of the most long-term oriented societies. People live their lives guided by virtues and practical good examples. France scores high (63) in this dimension, making it pragmatic. In societies with a pragmatic orientation, people believe that truth depends very much on situation, context and time. They show an ability to adapt traditions easily to changed conditions, a strong propensity to save and invest, thriftiness, and perseverance in achieving results.

Cultural Globalization

1) Summarize in your own words of materials you read

Globalization process has cultural analysts from understating its huge significance. However, we have to resist the temptation to attribute it with causal primacy in the globalization process.

Firstly, because we are not dealing with straightforward empirical judgments about what specific practices drive everything else, but also with questions of the constitution of analytical categories. The second reason is that it distorts our understanding of the sphere of culture. One major reason why it seems natural to speak of globalization’s ‘impact’ on culture is that global market processes are relatively easy to understand as having a potential influence on people’s cultural experience. Cultural signification and interpretation constantly motivate and orient people, individually and collectively, towards particular choices and actions. However, increasing global connectivity necessarily implies that the world is becoming, either economically or politically ‘unified’. What is feared here is the total domination of world cultures through the unopposed advance of iconic brands such as Disney, Coca-Cola, Marlboro, Microsoft, Google, McDonald’s, CNN, Nike and Starbucks..

But Marx combines this vision with a deeply Eurocentric attitude to other cultures. He welcomes the way in which the bourgeois era is sweeping away premodern ‘civilizations’, preparing the way for the coming socialist revolution and the communist era which, he insists, ‘can only have a “world-historical” existence’ But still we can take a lesson from Marx’s example, and it is that the ethnocentric tendency towards universalizing projections of a global culture can coexist with otherwise rational progressive humanistic visions.

The vast majority of us live local lives, but globalization is rapidly changing our experience of this ‘locality’ and one way of grasping this change is in the idea of ‘deterritorialization’. Deterritorialization, then, means that the significance of the geographical location of a culture is eroding. This is not only the physical, environmental and climatic location, but all the self-definitions, ethnic boundaries and delimiting practices that have accrued around this. No longer is culture so ‘tied’ to the constraints of local circumstances.

2) Mention of any new, interesting, or unusual items learned 

 We can take an example from the Marx and this means that I can learn from previous historical culture. To take one’s own culture as the ‘obvious’ model for the one, true, enlightened, rational and good is as common as it is understandable. Also, relativizing these require much more difficult acts of hermeneutic distancing and of intellectual and affective imagination.

Deterritorialization is very interesting thing for me. No more our culture is tied in one space. I agree that what we can call the ‘telemediatization’ of culture is a key distinction in twenty first century life. Our use of media and communications technologies helps to define what it is to exist as a social being in the modern world. The phenomenon of deterritorialization arises from a complex set of economic, political and technological factors. It is not as though localities, and the particularities, nuances and differences they generate, suddenly and entirely disappear. But, having said this, there is one factor which is worth singling out for closer scrutiny, since it opens out on to areas of connectivity that are historically unprecedented and which may justifiably be said to define the tenor of our times. Deterritorialization is not simply the loss of the experience of a local culture.

3) Identify at least one question, concern, or discussion angle 

I agree that these situation need to make ‘global governance’ but, rather it means trying to clarify, and ultimately to reconcile, the attachments and the values of cultural difference with those of an emergent wider global-human ‘community’. This is a dilemma.  Universal human rights or cultural difference? We don’t really know which one to stand beside because it is most side has understandable reason and it can be reasonable.

Cultural Globalization

1. Summarize

  Understanding the meaning and the characteristics of cultural globalization requires understanding on the definition and the characteristics of ‘cultural’ and ‘globalization’. First, globalization is a multi-dimensional process, and co-occurs at the realm of economic, political, and technological development. Simple definition of globalization is a process of integration of global connection through complication and acceleration. Globalization shows the rapid development, interconnection network, and interdependence characterizing the physical, social, economic and cultural life of modern world, and we should understand this is in more abstract and general method. Worldwide connection is apparently shown in our lives, and we may easily encounter such connection. Connection refers to many parts of communication technology we use. Not only it includes communication devices including Internet, computer, and mobile phone, but it also includes aspects of our experiences including living style, food style, music, movie, and TV programs. Moreover, it sometimes creates backgrounds like social custom, and anxiety and embarrassment from the modern life. Currently, we have an unprecedented level of worldwide interdependence, and it is apparent the world is in a connected status. Therefore, understanding globalization as a general process with increased affiliated relationship is helpful for embracing complicated society.

Globalization did not only influenced positively on our society. Cultural analysts have talked about the worldwide control of capitalistic system. We have to be able to resist against the temptation of control after knowing about the cause-and-effect relationship confirmable at the globalization process. There are two reasons for knowing this fact. First, consideration on the negative effects has not been made as there were no positive judgements or transactions due to well-known practice. In other words, poor economic situation was encounter by not knowing about the temptation of economic reductionism.

Second, we were embracing a distorted fact from the realm of culture. A tacit assumption that the globalization is a monopolization process of a single culture is included in a general expressions such as ‘globalization effect of culture’ or ‘cultural result of globalization’.

One things that can be assumed at the process of globalization is a that a single culture will lead the world culture. Especially, in the realm of economics, prediction on the integration effect of connectivity is possible when looking at the model provided by worldwide market which is a firmly integrated system. Worldwide connectivity implies a world unified economically and politically. Frequently mentioned in the realm of development studies, the countries called as ‘The third world’ does not actively participate in becoming a world with globalized economy or communication. Predominant worldwide economic system deeply affects in deciding the destiny of African nations.. This means that Africa is distant from a integrated society with economic prosperity, and social and technological development. Therefore, we may seek for a right telling us that the globalization is an unfair process.

Despite the unfair appearance of globalization, some western cities tend to imagine globalization while strongly suggesting ‘global culture’ embracing everyone. This global culture implies the form of cultural imperialism as mentioned earlier. This can easily be recognized through the fact that symbolic brands including Microsoft, Google, McDonald’s, Nike, Disney, CocaCola, Starbucks and others, and standardized media is controlling the world culture in general.

Marx suggested that eliminating mammonistic era and achieving ‘citizenship’ before the modern era is the method after seeing that the eurocentric attitude is deeply penetrated into the other culture. Global culture and ethnocentric attitude may coexist with rational, progressive, and humane vision. Accomplishing such model is hard, but is essential for avoiding violent disputes of global perspective that currently threatens our world.

 

2. Interesting, unusual items learned

  The main street of South Korea is lined with foreign brands including Starbucks, McDonald’s, and Nike. The blockbuster action films with Hollywood actors and actresses are popular in theaters, and people listen to pop-songs for a hobby. People even follow the apparels of foreign actors and actresses. Moreover, South Korea sometimes embraces American and European systems without concerning the situation in South Korea even in the political or economic sector.

I have acknowledge that I was unconsciously thinking that embracing the advanced culture of western civilization is reasonable after reading an article on cultural globalization. There would be decent cultures and systems of western civilization, but the they should be implemented after considering the situations of each nation as they are not all decent. It felt uncomfortable after thinking that the current culture of South Korea are disappearing by the oppressive power outside power (economic, and political power) and by the Koreans taking advantage of power. I hope globalization to be realized in a form where various cultures coexist and not in a form where a single culture is spreaded.

 

3. Question, discussion angle

  It comes to me that perhaps the economic difficulties of the nations of the third world is from the lack of cultural globalization. Of course, the economic difficulties are not solely from not embracing the culture, or economic or political system of western civilization, but could the countries be in an economically preferable situation if they have embraced the western culture and changed themselves? There were parts lacking understanding as the article itself was difficult. What is non-territorialism? Can the accomplishment of non-territorialism be a solution to the problem of weakening of local distinct characteristics hold by modern culture?

(Extra) Globalization pros and cons

I'm attaching these materials to understand about globalization and pros and cons.

reference : http://www.slideshare.net/aruntheacb/globalization-of-rural-economy-by-local-governance-a-debate-on-pros-and-cons

Cultural Globalization

1.Summarize in your own words of materials you read

 

  Understand the meaning and character of ‘cultural globalization’ we first have to understand globalization and culture.

  Every serious scholar today would say that globalization is a multidimensional process, taking place within the spheres of the economy, of politics, of technological developments –particularly media and communications technologies– of environmental change and of culture. Globalization is a very complex, accelerating, integrating process of global connectivity. The world is changing and developing in many areas(social, economic and cultural life in the modern world. We could simply defined globalization as a ‘flows’ around them of virtually everything that characterizes modern life: flows of capital, commodities, people, knowledge, information and ideas, crime, pollution, diseases, fashions, beliefs, images and so forth.

  But these connectivity is also has side effect such as global warming, terror and so on. The global dominance of the capitalist system is the general world situation.

  In this situation, Our wrong understand or attitude about globalization is that it distorts our understanding of the sphere of culture. For example, Common expressions like ‘the impact of globalization on culture’ or ‘the cultural consequences of globalization’ contain a tacit assumption that globalization is a process which somehow has its sources and its terrain of operation outside of culture. These expressions are accept interpretation of cultural globalization that as ‘cultural imperialism’, ‘Americanization’ or ‘Westernization’. In these ways, culture seems to be a peculiarly inert category. But Culture is not a power and it is to generate meaning in life. Culture is at the deep centre of the human condition, such as shelter and sustenance. Also Cultural signification and interpretation constantly motivate and orient people.

  If the world is increasingly globalized, it may lead to a single global culture. This is only a speculation, but the reason it seems possible is that we can see may parts of unifying spheres. Particularly in the economic sphere. Globalization makes the world in many respects, a single place. But in case of ‘Third World’ (such as Africa), the process of globalization is not quite global and uneven. Globalization pushing us towards an all-encompassing ‘global culture’. The author of this article says that the cultural globalization is a form of cultural imperialism.

  Globalization is rapidly changing our experience of ‘locality’. And we can grasp this change of about ‘locality’ in the idea of ‘deterritorialization’. As Nestor García Canclini describes it, the idea of deterritorialization implies ‘the loss of the “natural” relation of culture to geographical and social territories’. Deterritorialization reduce the significance of the geographical lication of a culture. In this case the geographical location of a culture means that not only the physical, but environmental and climatic location. Deterritorialization is not simply the loss of the experience of local cuture. The difference that deterritorialization makes is that the culture produced by locality is no longer. In our ordinary everyday life, we could felt that ‘deterritorializing’ aspect of globalization. For example, We can get world’s various food or products easily these days. The deterritorialization arises from a complex set of economic, political and technological factors. And it is not a phenomenon which can usefully be tied down to one dimension of analysis. This is our increasing routine dependence on electrinic media and communications technologies and systems. The ‘telemediatization’ of culture is a key distinction in twenty first century life. Because of development of communications technology, we can ‘virtual travel’ by television or internet. It is as a peculiar form of mobility that does not involve actual physical movement. But it also has side effects. These speed and ‘instant access’ means in the longer term for our emotions, our social relations and our cultural values, for example, the value of patience. Deterritorialization disturbs and transforms local experience. It could offers people wider cultural horizons.

  In globalization world, We facing two sets of strong rational principles pulling in different directions. Universal human rights or cultural difference? We don’t really know which flag to stand beside because in most cases there seem good reasons to stand beside both. There in not any easy solution to this dilemma. Human rights can be invoked to defend cultural difference in just the same way that they can be used to argue for universal standards of justice, or equality of provision in healthcare, education and so forth. The pluralism of identity positions is also important. We need to come up with much more nimble and flexble cultural concepts than we so far possess.

 

2.Mention of any new, interesting, or unusual items learned

  Before I read this article, I don’t have a right definition of cultural globalization. I think cultural globalization is just process of globalization. But I knew that there are various interrelation between culture and globalization. And, The part of Deterritorialization is the most interesting pare of the article. Because follow the artcle, My daily life is also kind of cultural globalization. Everyday life such as, eating foreign foods, listening Pop song and watching TV is also included in deterritorialization or telemediatization.

  I used to think that globalization has little to do with my life. But cultural globalization is very close to our daily life.

     

      

 

3.Identify at least one question, concern, or discussion angle

 

  After read this article, I thought about oriental culture. This article and first article, there are no mention of the oriental culture. Because, Western world is the most powerful forces in globalization and capitalism. However, Now days many oriental countries are occupy a prominent place in world economy system. And then, What should oriental world do in order to lead the globalization?

 

What is the relation between culture and globalization?

#1

 To begin with, we need to understand some defining features of two basic terms. One is ‘Globalization’ and the other is ‘Culture’. One simple way of defining globalization is to say that it is a complex, accelerating, integrating process of global connectivity. And there is no way to escape the global dominance of the capitalism and there is little to be gained by cultural analysts from understanding its huge significance. But, having said this, we have to resist the temptation to attribute it with casual primacy in the globalization process. There are several reasons for this, but he mentions only two of them. First, because we do not deal with straightforward empirical judgments about what specific practices drive everything else, but also with questions of the constitution of analytical categories: to what extent are economic practices also, intrinsically, cultural ones? Plausible answer to this question range between ‘somewhat’ and entirely. What is not plausible is the assumption that the realm of the economic is that of a machine-like system operating independent of the wishes, desires and aspirations of human agents, and thus entirely outside of the influence of culture. So the first reason to resist the temptation to economic reductionism is that it operates on an unrealistically narrow conception of the economic. And Second reason is that it distorts our understanding of the sphere of culture. Common expressions such as ‘the impact of globalization on culture’ or ‘the cultural consequences of globalization’ contain a tacit assumption that globalization is a process which somehow has its sources and its terrain of operation outside of culture. To clarify this, we have to probe a little more into the peculiarly complicated and often elusive concept of culture. Culture is thus not only ‘a context in which events may be meaningfully interpreted, it is the primordial context in which human agency arises and takes place. Cultural signification and interpretation constantly motivate and orient people, individually and collectively, towards particular choices and actions. One useful way to think about the consequentiality of culture for globalization, then, is to grasp how culturally informed ‘local’ actions can have globalizing consequences. What he has emphasized here is that culture is a dimension in which globalization both has its effects and simultaneously is generated and shaped.

A GLOBAL CULTURE?

 One common speculation about the globalization process is that it will lead to a single global culture. This is only a speculation, but the reason it seems possible is that we can see the ‘unifying’ effects of connectivity in other. And globalization in some of its aspects does have this general unifying character. However, increasing global connectivity by no means necessarily implies that the world is becoming, in the widest sense, either economically or politically ‘unified’. Despite its reach, few would dare to claim that the effects of globalization currently extend in any profound way to every single person or place on the planet, and speculation on its spread must surely be tempered by the many countervailing trends towards social, political and cultural division that we see around us. This is a point that is frequently made in the field of development studies. An overarching global economic system, it is true to say, is deeply influential in determining the fate of countries in Africa. But this is a far cry from saying that Africa is part of a single, unified world of economic prosperity and social and technological development. So we have to qualify the idea of globalization by saying that it is an uneven. To this extent, globalization, it seems, is not quite global.

 Despite all this, there persists, at least amongst some Western critics, a tendency to imagine globalization pushing us towards an all-encompassing ‘global culture’. The most common way in which this is conceived is in the assumption that I mentioned earlier, that cultural globalization implies a form of cultural imperialism: the spread of Western capitalist culture to every part of the globe, and the consequent threat of a loss of distinct non-Western cultural traditions. What is feared here is the total domination of world cultures through the unopposed advance of iconic brands such as Disney, Coca-Cola, Marlboro, Microsoft, Google, McDonald’s, CNN, Nike and Starbucks.

 What is at stake for cultural analysis is not the (undoubted) capacity of Western corporations to command wide markets for their products around the world, but rather, the deeper cultural implications of this capacity. We have to be careful not to confuse mere cultural goods with the practice of culture itself.  Eating McDonald’s hamburgers, smoking Marlboro cigarettes, drinking Coke and playing computer games may be bad for you in all sorts of ways. But they do not in themselves provide much solid evidence of a capitulation to deeper Western cultural values.

Indeed, one of the inescapable implications of the current wave of anti-Western feeling in large parts of the Muslim world is precisely the demonstration of the resilience of cultural opposition to these values. What the connectivity of globalization is doing is bringing quite disparate cultures into closer contact but certainly involving contending definitions of what the good, the virtuous and the dignified life involves. What globalization is clearly not doing, however, if it is doing this, is effortlessly installing Western culture as global culture.

 A different way of approaching these issues is to view contemporary globalization in the context of a much longer historical context in which societies and cultures have imagined the world as a single place, with their own culture at the center of it.

 Marx and Engels write in a way that seems to anticipate some defining features of the current globalization process. Marx combines this vision with a deeply Eurocentric attitude to other cultures. He welcomes the way in which the bourgeois era is sweeping away pre-modern ‘civilizations’, preparing the way for the coming socialist revolution and the communist era which, he insists, ‘can only have a “world-historical” existence’. To achieve this radically cosmopolitan end, Marx is quite happy to see the destruction of non-European cultures. Marx’s universalizing modernism was, in a curious way, as blind to cultural difference as the universalizing Christianity of the medieval mapmaker. Marx’s views remain relevant today which he argues ‘must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere’. By contrast with contemporary neo-Marxists, who, in the main, tend towards the pessimistic, Marx appears as cheerfully optimistic about the prospects for globally. Still we can take a lesson from Marx’s example, and it is that the ethnocentric tendency towards universalizing projections of a global culture can coexist with otherwise rational progressive humanistic visions. This certainly remains true today. To take one’s own culture as the ‘obvious’ model for the one, true, enlightened, rational and good is as common as it is understandable. Relativizing this model requires much more difficult acts of hermeneutic distancing and of intellectual and affective imagination. But this is precisely what we need to do if we are to avoid the sort of violent contestation of worldviews that looks so threatening in our present world. Making cosmopolitanism work in a way that does not impose any one particular, culturally inflected model is perhaps the most immediate cultural challenge that globalization faces us with. We can turn to another aspect of globalization.

DETERRITORIALIZATION

 There is another, more promising, way of approaching cultural globalization. This is not via the macro analysis of ‘globality’, but precisely in the opposite way, by understanding the effects of globalization as they are felt within particular localities.

The vast majority of us live local lives, but globalization is rapidly changing our experience of this ‘locality’ and one way of grasping this change is in the idea of ‘deterritorialization’. The idea of deterritorialization implies ‘the loss of the “natural” relation of culture to geographical and social territories. Deterritorialization, then, means that the significance of the geographical location of a culture is eroding. No longer is culture so ‘tied’ to the constraints of local circumstances. In fact, the idea of deterritorialization has fairly radical theoretical implications for traditional ways of understanding culture. Culture has long held connotations tying it to the idea of a fixed locality. The idea of ‘a culture’ implicitly connects meaning construction with particularity and location: with ‘territory’. The complex connectivity of globalization threatens to undermine such conceptualizations, not only because the multiform penetration of localities disrupts this binding of meanings to place, but also because it challenges the rather insular thinking through which culture and fixity of location are originally paired.

 If globalization, in its rawest description, is the spread of complex social economic connections across distance, then deterritorialization refers to the reach of this connectivity into the localities in which everyday life is conducted and experienced.

It may well be that, in the long run, this ‘weakening’ of the traditional ties between cultural experience and geographical territory will prove to be the most far-reaching effect of cultural globalization. Deterritorialization is not simply the loss of the experience of a local culture: it is not as though localities, and the particularities, nuances and differences they generate, suddenly and entirely disappear. Localities, on the contrary, thrive in globalization – this is the source of that often noted paradox that globalization tends to produce intensities in ethnic identification – even to the point of the violent contesting of local territory along ethnic lines.

 The difference that deterritorialization makes is that the culture produced by locality is no longer the single most important factor in our lived reality.  Deterritorialization refers to the integration of distant events, processes and relationships into our everyday lives and it is this added dimension of experience that accounts for the attenuation of the hold that local particularities have on modern cultures.

 This ‘deterritorializing’ aspect of globalization is felt in very ordinary everyday practices. It is through such changes that globalization reaches deep into our individual cultural ‘worlds’, the implicit sense we all have of our relevant environment, our understanding of what counts as home and abroad, our horizon of cultural and moral relevance, even our sense of cultural and national identity.

 The phenomenon of deterritorialization arises from a complex set of economic, political and technological factors and in fact, like globalization itself, it is not a phenomenon which can usefully be tied down to one dimension of analysis. But, having said this, there is one factor which is worth singling out for closer scrutiny, since it opens out on to areas of connectivity that are historically unprecedented and which may justifiably be said to define the tenor of our times. This is our increasing routine dependence on electronic media and communications technologies and systems.

 The agenda of global cultural analysis, then, certainly includes understanding the ‘runaway’ speed of modern media technologies and systems. But returning to the general theme of deterritorialization, he wants to suggest that there is at least the germ of optimism in this process for the broader cultural-political challenges that global connectivity poses. Deterritorialization not only disturbs and transforms local experience, it potentially offers people wider cultural horizons. In various ways people effortlessly integrate local and ‘global’ cultural data in their consciousness. Thus, what happens in distant parts of the world, though still perhaps not so vivid as events in our neighbourhood, nonetheless has an increasing significance in our lives. The positive potential of deterritorialization is that it may promote a new sensibility of cultural openness, human mutuality and global ethical responsibility.

COSMOPOLITANISM AND CULTURAL IDENTITY

 Cosmopolitan cultural politics deserves to be taken seriously. This does not necessarily mean endorsing grand projects for ‘global governance’; rather it means trying to clarify, and ultimately to reconcile, the attachments and the values of cultural difference with those of an emergent wider global-human ‘community’. This is a dilemma. On the one hand there are the attractions of what we might think of as a ‘benign’ form of universalism, preserving some key ideas of human mutuality and underlying the broad discourse of human rights and the hope of wider horizons of global solidarity. But on the other, the equally attractive principles of respect for the integrity of local context and practices, cultural autonomy, cultural identity and ‘sovereignty’. I do not suppose there is any easy solution to this dilemma, but in the short space available I want to suggest that we may get some way along the road by addressing another rather vexed issue in cultural politics, that is, the question of the formation of ‘cultural identity’.

 Cultural identities are specifically modern entities – ways of categorizing, organizing and regulating the cultural practices, representations and imaginings by which we grasp our existential condition, our personal relations and our attachment to a place or a community.

This essentially modern, ‘regulatory’ category of cultural identity, then, consists in self and communal definitions based around specific, usually politically inflected, differentiations: gender, sexuality, class, religion, race and ethnicity, nationality. Some of these differentiations of course existed before the coming of modernity, some are more or less modern imaginings. But the relevance of modernity here is not so much in the nature and substance of identifications, as in the fact they are formally and publicly recognized, named and regulated.

 As globalization distributes the institutional features of modernity across all cultures, it therefore generates institutionalized forms of cultural belonging.

 One rather interesting interpretation of the impact of globalization to flow from this is that, far from destroying it globalization has been perhaps the most significant force in creating and proliferating cultural identity. Those who regard globalization as a threat to cultural identity tend to imagine identity quite differently. Identity, according to this common view, is more than just a description of the experience of cultural belonging, it is a sort of collective treasure of local communities. More over, whilst long ensuring the culturally sustaining connections between geographical place and human experience, identity, according to this view, is suddenly discovered to be fragile, in need of protection and preservation, a treasure that can be lost. This is the story which implicates globalization in the destruction of local identities.

 However, the crucial mistake of those who regard globalization as a threat to cultural identity is to confuse this Western-modern form of cultural imagination with a universal of human experience. All cultures construct meaning via practices of collective symbolization. But by no means all historical cultures have ‘constructed’ identity in the regulated institutional forms that are now dominant in the modern West.

 Let us now try to connect these thoughts about the institutionalization of identity with the issue of cosmopolitanism. The way we can do this is to understand the cosmopolitan disposition as belonging to a specific identity position.

 Whatever the composition, or the historical/territorial origins of the discourse of human rights it owes most to its modern institutional form. ‘Humanity’ is, in effect, a specific modern identity position which is universal by definition, but which remains compatible with a huge range of cultural variation, by dint of its precise context of invocation. Human rights can be invoked to defend cultural difference in just the same way that they can be used to argue for universal standards of justice, or equality of provision in healthcare, education and so forth.

 To be, without contradiction, ‘human’ in its rich pluralist acceptation of preserving cultural difference, and ‘human’ in juridical-universalizing terms, is a trick brought off precisely by the institutionalized framing of repertoires of identity typical of modernity. The key here is the pluralism of identity positions. In the midst of the proliferation of localisms and sharpened identity discriminations, globalization also generates a flexible category of cosmopolitan belonging.

 But how does this understanding help with the dilemma of whether to endorse universalism or the politics of difference? Well let’s not pretend that it magics away all of the conceptual tensions, or the real political problems around putative regimes of global governance predicated on universal human rights. What we put inside the box labelled ‘human rights’ will be a matter of contention. However, thinking about these issues in terms of identity positions does, perhaps, soften some of the starker intractabilities. Just as it is possible, without contradiction, to hold a repertoire of identities, so it is possible to hold rights which are, as it were, transferable across different contexts. To this extent, the appeal to human universalism is itself dependent on context: it can be invoked in situations where more particular local communal attachments can be reasonably judged to be repressive. But it does not need to be considered as the card which trumps all ‘lesser’ rights and duties. Identities we know are constructs not possessions. Despite the historical tendency for cultures and nations to claim universality as their possession, the appeal to the universal can perhaps be made to work in a cosmopolitan world order as a construct. What is clear, finally, is that, faced with a future world of pressed-together dissimilarities variously arranged, rather than all-of-a-piece nationstates grouped into blocs and super blocs, we urgently need to come up with much more nimble and flexible cultural concepts than we so far possess.

#2, #3

 I learned new two terms in this article. One is 'cultural globalization' that I also learned in the class and the other is 'deterritorialization'. The second one is all brand new to me. As far as I know, it is good perspective to view the globalization critically. Common people tend to regard globalization as something good. And I want to suggest that they get this meaning, so they can know about that local thing has been being extinguished constantly. By doing this, we can protect our things from globalization like global cooperation(McDonald, Starbucks, and so on). Recently, I see so many things in the street that is coming from overseas countries. There is no Korean things anymore except Korean food restaurant. It shows cultural globalization. Even foreign food restaurants has been increased as time goes by. It means that we have been losing our things and, in cultural section, we easily assimilating into the new culture. This is what I do not want to be. I hope that we are not occupied by them.

Cultural Globalization

1>Summarize in your own words of materials you read.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GLOBALIZATION AND CULTURE

According to John Tomlinson, Globalization is a complex, accelerating, integrating, process of global connectivity. It causes ‘flows’ around us. These flows are jump over the borders. However connectivity also accompanies international problems such as global warming, influenza security and so on. In Globalization, we can’t avoid the global dominance of the capitalist system, but we have to resist the temptation to economic reductionism because it operates on unrealistically narrow concept of economy and it distorts our understanding of the sphere of culture. ‘The cultural consequence of globalization’ contains a tacit assumption which is based on ‘cultural imperialism’. Culture seems to be a powerless category which is associated with cultural assimilation. However Clifford Geertz said ‘Culture is not a power, something to which social events can be casually attributed’. His comment extends to question for the purpose of culture. Culture generates meaning in life. The need for ‘meaning’ is at the deep centre of the human condition for shelter and sustenance. Moreover, culture inspires individual or collective actions which are themselves consequential. In short, cultural signification orients ‘people’.

A GLOBAL CULTURE

In globalization, Africa is fated by global economic system. Also globalization forced us to toward an all-encompassing ‘global culture’. By spread of Western capitalist culture, non-Western cultural tradition is threatened of a loss. Furthermore, cultural goods are not a culture itself. When people consume cultural goods, they get symbols or meanings. In thirteenth-century Europe, globalization was occurred by maps. In the past, people consider maps or something visible are more important than invisible things. In the process of making maps, cartographer applies a religious view through the whole world. Karl Marx said ‘Communist society is a world with a universal language and cosmopolitan cultural tastes’, but his vision is a deeply Eurocentric attitude to other cultures. His view of culture firmly rooted in a European tradition. Nonetheless we can take a lesson from Marx that global culture can coexist with otherwise rational progressive humanistic vision. ‘World citizenship’ works in a way that does not impose any one particular, culturally inflected model.

DETERRITORIALIZATION AND COSMOPOLITANISM

Globalization is rapidly changing our experience of locality. Culture has long held connotations tying it to the idea of a fixed locality. Locality is ethnic identification or cultural distinctiveness. Because of globalization, however, No longer is culture so tied to the constraints of local circumstances. Deterritorialization implies the loss of the natural relation of culture to geographical and social territories. From the optimistic perspective of deterritorialization, it makes is that the culture produced by locality is no longer the single important factor in our everyday lives. Telemediatization promotes deterritorialization and culture of telemediatization is taken for granted aspect of everyday life. In technological development, speed or immediacy is more emphasized. Deterritorialization not only disturbs and transforms local experience, but also potentially offers people wider cultural horizons. But we could faced with two sets of strong rational principles which are Universal human rights and cultural differences. Human rights can be invoked to defend cultural difference in just the same way that they can be used to argue for universal standards of justice. Also pluralism of identity position is important. But identities are constructs, not possessions. The appeal to human universalism is itself dependent on context. Clifford Geertz said ’pressed-together dissimilarities variously arranged, rather than all-of-a-piece nation states grouped into blocs and super blocs’. We need to come up with flexible cultural concept than we so far possess.

2>Mention of any new, interesting, or unusual items learned.

I used to come up with ‘Americanization’ when I heard the globalization. Most countries adopt capitalistic system, so it may be a natural result that the country which has strong capital power becomes a centre of globalization. Also I used to think about the globalization and localization can’t compatible. But I read this article, I expended my view of globalization. Globalization is not just destruct local’s culture or tradition. It could be added dimension of important factor in our lived reality.

In addition, I impressed Clifford Geertz said ’pressed-together dissimilarities variously arranged, rather than all-of-a-piece nation states grouped into blocs and super blocs’.

When I read ‘Third World’ part, I thought of Africa’s mono-culture. In third world, every country has one main item to grow. But this is not their choice. They are forced to grow such as cacao. To expand this situation in Korea, Korea was forced to grow rice by Japanese needs. In some aspects, Globalization has colonialist character.

3>Identify at least one question, concern, or discussion angle that is either problematic in some respect or could have been elaborated more.

I concerned about Globalization which exclude ‘Third World’. Can we call Globalization in the true sense? I concerned about the exploitation of the third world countries are justified in the name of globalization.

My second concern is about ‘flexible cultural concept’. I think, in morality, there are no objective truth except for extreme case like opposed to human rights. Right and wrong are just a matter of perspective in some cases. The perspective is different from various cultures. For example, How to say hello courteously varies in different cultures. Also taboo foods vary by country. In this situation, is ‘flexible cultural concept’ possible?

Cultural Globalization

Cultural Globalization

1) Summarize in your own words of materials you read

 Many People Know ‘globalization’ word , but don’t understand mean of globalization. And we don’t understand how different culture and globalization, and what different aspect between two categories? This document show us the relationship between globalization and culture.

Globalization and culture have similar character , that is deep connectivity. High lated connection make many people more uniformed. So aspect of culture help more connection in worldwide.

Good globalization is harmony of diversity culture. But major and popular culture seemed to dominate

Other aspects of culture. this situation have released various field. Economic or politics or culture.

For example , Micro Soft and Mcdonald , or Google, this King of their own field, Keep the their Throne everytime. Seeing unidimensional side, globalization and culture have awesome senergy effect, but this combination is result in unification of many culture.

In this situation, culture and globalization is not always good asepect. Because this combination is so complicated and sensitive relationship between human life and society of world.

Increasing global connectivity is imply that the world is becoming more widest range but unified. Because effects of cultural globalization extend in any progound way to all person or place in worldwide. We have to qualify the idea of cultural globalization is not quite this way, and global.

In this situation, there are many anti-activity of major dominated culture. for example anti-western feeling.

in addition modern society have deterritorialization. This mean more widen and no limited connection about topographic or parish-pump problems. So we contact variety of other culture fruits. For example , we choice type of meal, Korean food or Chinese food or American food … and we agonize music for example K-POP or Old Pop song or metalica.. we have many time to choice one of the worldwide aspect because of deterritorialization and appearance of information society. Processing more unified system , it bring about badside of cosmopolitanism. this modern concept based on universal combination. Merging cosmopolitanism, modern regulatory definition is based on specific, politically inflected differeces. For example gender,sexuality,religion,race,class.. in these differce existed before the emerging of modernithy. Cosmopolitanism may threat to cultural identity , so fade away many other culture, finally there is only one

culture that based on concept or consciousness of dominated sides. There is not truly globalization.

In conclusion, We always consider and compare with two aspect of combination of cultural globalization.

Effective conclusion depend on us, so knowing and more understanding current envirnmont and flow of worldwide term.

2) Mention of any new, interesting, or unusual items learned 

I Think deterritoralization is the best cause of cultural globalization and development of market of worldplace. We have many limited aspect without apearence of Computer and development of thecnology. We live in vast of us local lives, there are many culture and chage in the worild. Deterritorialization means that the sighnificance of the geographical culture. on the other hand, physical, environmental and climatic aspect. In current society, local and culture not tied people.

This character show very ordinary everday practices. We push our trolleys around the aisles of world foods in local supermarkets. That is one of many examples. This phenomenon of deterritorialization arise mature of our awareness and activity.  

3) Identify at least one question, concern, or discussion angle 

Reading this document, I more consider function of globalization and aspect of many cultures. At first more widening and more globalization is the best side of development of world wide. But the world that we living in from now is always not equal, because we have mainly focused on system of capitalism. Capitalism is based on effort of personal and competiotion of other people. This system is contribute development of nation. But more widely seeing based on capitalism, every side of based on competiton is resulted in appearance of unification of world. Dominated side more develop but not dominated, minor side usually straggle in worldwide system.

So I wonder and think question is what is the best globalization and what is more goodness method of globalization ? I think globalization is should not based on capitalism , it have to based on equal concept. Because globalization mean that every worldwide people have more harmony in many sides for example economic side or cultureal side or political side.. So good globalization is that more respect other culture character and compromise problem of each other side. There is no relation of top and bottom. So I think globalization need to association of globalization. This system have many representatives but only one person per nations. And dealing with item of globalization or problems, they have a vote based on decide by a majority rule. In this system, there is no discrimination by major or dominated nation, and more have right of equality for each others. 

Cultural Globalization

1) Summarize in your own words of materials you read

  We have to understand definition of culture and globalization in order to know the meaning and character of ‘cultural globalization’.

   Today, every scholar would accept the general proposition that globalization is a multidimensional flow. Globalization is a complex, accelerating, integrating process of global connectivity. The world is rapidly developing and connecting each other in material, social, economic and cultural life.  Globalization would be defined a description of the ‘flows’ around them of everything that characterizes modern life. Dimensions of the ‘flows’ are capital, commodities, people, knowledge, information and ideas, crime, pollution, diseases, fashions and so forth.

   The world has been developed in many dimensions such as technologies but it was bad effect on our modern life. Even though, the world became more globalized.

   Variable dimensions of globalization, ‘culture’ is a significant constituent relatively. In a capitalistic society, global market is increasing rapidly. Global market processes are influenced by people’s cultural experience. So ‘the impact of globalization on culture’ or ‘the cultural consequences of globalization’ mean that globalization is a process which related to culture. Anthony Giddens said that cultural globalization involves the increasing ‘reflexivity’ of modern life: the systemic integration of myriad small individual actions into the workings of the social institutions which appear autonomously to govern our lives.

   The globalization process may lead to a single global culture in future. In fact, we can see the unifying world in the economic sphere recently. In the past, social and economic processes and practices are the ‘independent’ phenomena. But now, the world is considered a ‘single place’. This make many problems. The ‘Third World’ does not partake of the globalized economy or of globalized communications in the same way as the developed world. We have to review the true meaning of globalization by saying that it is an unfair process. We will concern about the exclusive western culture in our world. Making cosmopolitanism work that does not impose any one particular, culturally inflected model is the most immediate challenge that globalization confronts us by.

   ‘Deterritorialization’ is an idea that explains the change of our local life. These days, globalization is changing our experience of locality. Deterritorialization means that the significance of the geographical location of a culture is eroding. According to functionalist tradition, culture is an entity to integrate the ‘society’. But the complex connectivity of globalization undermines such conceptualizations because the multiform interference of localities disrupts this binding of meanings to place.

   The point that deterritorialization gives us to is that the culture produced by locality is no longer the one most important factor in our life. Nowadays, we can choose ‘global foods’ and log on to Google for information.

   ‘Telemediatization’ of culture is a key distinction in twenty first century life. We can use the Internet and watch television without actual physical movement. Telemediatized practices such as watching television or typing, scrolling, clicking and browsing at the computer screen or talking, texting or sending and receiving pictures on a mobile phone should be regarded as unique modes of cultural activity and perception. If technological developments were added more, there emerges a sense of what we could call the increasing ‘immediacy’ of modern global culture. This phenomenon occurs the change in consumption practices, entertainment of the possibility of immediate access to other people.

   But now, we have to concern about the bad effects such as the value of patience. And we think about what all this speed and ‘instant access’ means in the longer term for our emotions, our social relations and our cultural values. Even though, deterritorialization not only disturbs and transforms local experience, it potentially offers people wider cultural horizons.

   Maybe a global culture will be influenced by cosmopolitan cultural politics. this means not endorsing grand projects for ‘global governance’ but trying to clarify, and ultimately to reconcile, the attachments and the values of cultural difference with those of an emergent wider global-human ‘community’. this is a dilemma. On the one hand, they say universalism, human mutuality, human rights and global solidarity. But the others say integrity of local context and practices, cultural autonomy, cultural identity and ‘sovereignty’. We need to know the ‘cultural identity’ to solve this dilemma.

   Globalization and specifically deterritorialization is the destruction of local identities. However, the crucial mistake of those who regard globalization as a threat to cultural identity is to confuse this Western-modern form of cultural imagination with a universal of human experience.

   Humanity is a specific modern identity position which is universal by definition, but which remains compatible with a huge range of cultural variation. The pluralism of identity positions is the key.

Identities we know are constructs not possessions. We need to come up with much more nimble and flexible cultural concepts than we so far possess.

   

2) Mention of any new, interesting, or unusual items learned 

  I learned the concept ‘telemediatization’ this time. In fact, I didn't know the deterritorialization also. After read this article, I thought the culture is the significant factor for globalization. I was surprised that ‘telemediatization’ of culture is a key distinction in twenty first century life. I also use the Internet, watch TV and eat global foods. But I didn't know that this daily life was explained by the concept ‘deterritorialization’. I agreed the concern about the larger cultural question in this article. The question is ‘what all this speed and instant access means in the longer term for our emotions, our social relations and our cultural values, for example, the value of patience’. In my opinion, maybe korean people are relevant to the question.

 

3) Identify at least one question, concern, or discussion angle 

  After read the first article, I wondered ‘Is it possible that the complete cultural globalization exists in the world?’ And now, I realized something. I sympathized with problem about ‘Third World’ in this article. I thought our society need the cultural globalization. We can develop our technology so economy is going well. But I doubt this circumstances is the ‘cultural imperialism’ for developed nations.

   And I wonder ‘how protect and maintain the culture identity in this world?’ I thought the Globalization and especially Cosmopolitanism may become the risk element. I concerned about the unification of variable cultures.