The question of whether or not we’re all becoming the same by listening to pop music, eating from popular food chains and having similar ethical values is one that’s more relevant than ever in today’s increasingly interconnected world. The concept of globalisation, in the broadest sense, is the process of having increasing worldwide connectivity and the awareness of these global relations. The concept related to becoming the same can be named as homogenization, the gradual reduction of cultural diversity among societies resulting from globalisation. Thus, the question we are really asking is: Does globalisation homogenize? A response to this question requires us to grasp how globalisation, these connections and exchanges between cultures, and the cultures themselves co-operate, interdependently. In order to do so, in this assignment, we will make use of Ritzer, Canclini and Pieterse’s articles to understand how these two concepts really function: We will see how the simultaneous evolution of all cultures shape the globalisation process; how the interconnectedness of diverse cultures, the dynamics in-between shape one culture. By doing so, we will be able to see whether or not the increasing interconnectedness, the globalisation can take over the cultures and blend them.
In order to explore globalisation and culture’s relationship, we will first study Ritzer’s (2015) cultural perspectives on globalisation as work field for our argument. Ritzer’s article proposes three distinctive kind of approaches to how cultures stand in relation to global cultural flows: differentialism, hybridisation, and convergence (p.206). While differentialism, argues that cultures are fundamentally exclusive and closed to exchanges with others; hybiridisation emphasizes on how local cultures interact with globalisation in order to create a distinctive, entangled hybrid. Convergence, the third and last perspective, relates to the idea of our thesis, as it assumes that globalisation imposes some kind of sameness (homogeneity) on our cultures, thus creating a one big global culture, possibly in relation to the current power dynamics of the world. He argues that the more powerful societies can spread their culture more easily, while the weaker ones would struggle; additionally, the inequalities and differences in access to global culture (possibly resulting from geographic exclusion, digital divide…) result in unevenness of globalisation around the world.
After this summary, with Pieterse and Canclini’s contributions, we will examine whether or not globalisation leads to the homogeneity, by reevaluating Ritzer’s concepts through these researchers’ findings.Firstly, Canclini’s (2005) article rejects the idea that there is an essential distinction between cultures with a linguistic example. He ridicules the questioning of Spanglish being accepted as a language by arguing that the once more homogeneous, local languages of Spanish and English were themselves derived of ‘’Latin, Arabic and pre-Columbian languages’’ (p. xxv). This goes to prove that there is no distinctive ‘’purity’’ in local cultures; as no set of practices, beliefs or thoughts can occur without two different entities interacting. At this point, Canclini introduces Brian Stross’ formula of ‘’cycles of hybridisation’’, on how our cultures oscillate in a spectrum with two ends of seemingly ‘’pure’’ and homogeneous forms and heterogeneous forms. (p. xxv)
Additionally, Ritzer’s (2015) views on how convergence happens is based on the current power dynamics of cultures in contact. Pieterse’s (2009) article agrees with this view of unevenness by summarizing how the contemporary perception of globalisation a North American and European based connectedness is being challenged ‘’by the rise of China and East Asian economies’’ (p. 13) while the ‘’Third World’’ countries cannot keep up with the development although they are not excluded from this exchange. However, his views might be used to criticise Ritzer’s determinist approach to convergence. Taking current power relations into account, we see that the modern, Western world plays the most dominant, imperialist role in globalisation. Pieterse’s take on this Westernization suggests that such approach is a narrow way of observing our whole civilisation. He argues that a distinction between Eurocentrism and globalisation must be made, as relating the development of a whole world culture to the dominance of a few currently strong societies might be deceiving. Globalisation is a multi-dimensional, multi-cultural process, whose main players might as well change in time. Pieterse’s argument on how technological determinism, the proposed source of globalisation, is a deceiving concept as it is the changing, reacting humans that shape it further proves that globalisation is not an absolute, ‘’one-directional’’ process (p. 66).
After reviewing how the articles contributed to these concepts, I was able to fully grasp which parts of Ritzer’s categorisation worked and which didn’t. In a world with digital divide and varying levels of access to globalising, the homogenization is obviously impossible as the more excluded and weaker societies can’t learn the new, common practices, beliefs and thoughts. Furthermore, in an imaginary world where all cultures have access to this accumulation of diverse cultures, ‘’becoming the same’’ seems to be a long shot, too. Given the inherently impure nature of culture, there is never a way of having a concrete understanding of what exactly one culture is, where it comes from or what unchanging characteristics define it . Instead, there are constant interactions and new, unique combinations on how to live, how to eat and talk that are born out of this interconnectedness. Given this we can argue that culture is an always evolving process with no barriers or rooted rules or definitions. This intangible and inimitable aspect of cultures render them unique, in the sense that no two people from previously separate cultures can grow up in the exact same circumstances to become similar individuals as culture is not a method to be applied in a setting, but an organic development of combinations including language, food, rituals, outlooks on life that can never be the same. If culture could be a closed, pure entity, it’s replication and spread would technically be much easier; yet it’s the constant cycle of hybridisation Brian Stross talks about that makes culture a living, breathing being and not a simple archetype.
To sum up this part, the observation of an individual living in the highly-globalised multi-cultural city of Rotterdam will be sufficient. My anonymous Venezuelan housemate, a 28 years-old accountant who immigrated here 3 years ago, enjoys a fully integrated satisfactory life in the Netherlands. He works in an international company; he can easily socialise, build networks, eat out in restaurants from diverse backgrounds. His favourite activity is to come home to listen to either Latin or Dutch rap music and watch the chaos of the city from the window of our house with a burrito in his hands. This realisation led me into thinking that no matter how well one can adapt; their preferences in the core pleasures in life, their time management and planning of a day and, relatively, their core identity always stays while the new company of lyrics from different languages or, in a broader sense, a new lifestyle in another town cause some alterations. In the end, my housemate lives in one of the most globalised regions with a very conservative, essential cultural background and he doesn’t choose or isn’t coerced to let go of his old parts.
The intangibility of the culture is one side of the story that illustrates us homogenizing isn’t possible. However, it is also possible to argue that even the broadest take on culture, the reduction of it to how we greet people, how we eat and how we dress, wouldn’t change the aforementioned question’s answer to no. In other words, even if cultures are seen as ever-changing in themselves yet basic, differentiated entities from the outside, it is not possible for one culture to coerce all the others into leaving their heritage behind in order to become whole.
At this point, the very fact that a culture is always changing, leads us right back to Pieterse’s (2009) counterarguments for Ritzer’s (2015) categorisation concerning the current prominent actors of history, culture and economy not being the determined leaders and imperialists of globalisation. I believe that, if every culture is destined to be in a constant mood of evolution; there is no way the sum of the connections and relations between these cultures’ development can point in and turn out to be one, determined standard in the end. Numerous cases in history repeatedly prove how the most prominent culture in the bunch always changes with time. It’s evident in the Ottoman Empire’s prioritising of the French language, instead of today’s global language English, in attempts of modernisation. We can also see it in Caliphate of Córdoba, an Islamic Iberia state, becoming the center of university education and attracting even Christian students from around the Europe in the 10th and 11th century. What societies look up and get closer to is not an always dominant nation, culture or society.
To conclude, our interconnectedness cannot lead to a society with homogeny, simply because culture and the relations, power dynamics between cultures are ever-changing processes. The way we came up with this conclusion has been a step by step examining of Ritzer’s prototypes of cultures’ reactions. We eliminated the cultural differentialism category, as it contradicted with the Canclini’s idea that no culture is pure in itself; and, then, the convergence category, as there is not one society and culture that can only be the most prominent and dominant in our civilisation. The last category we ended up with, which is the cultural hybridisation, seems to be the critically least problematic one, while being the most probable process in a world with equal access to global cultural flows. We can now say that globalisation is not a process we can stay out of. It is but a constant change just like the interacting cultures that give birth to it. Thus, in such way of existing also cannot homogenize our cultures and society.