Cultural Globalisation - Mimts.org

CULTURAL GLOBALISATION 

THE ROLE OF SOUTH, EAST AND SOUTHEAST ASIA 

www.IndianJournals.com 

Members Copy, Not for Commercial Sale 

Downloaded From IP - 115.248.73.67 on dated 27-Dec-2010 

Globalisation has become an inevitable part of our lives. Although it is usually 

regarded as an economic–political process, it has made a huge cultural impact 

on the lives of most people. Debates revolve around its merits and demerits 

and the theme of cultural globalisation is often relegated to the background. 

This paper evaluates Asia’s role and contribution in general and South, East 

and Southeast Asia’s role and contribution in particular to cultural globalisation. 

It illustrates how many ideas and individuals have outgrown nationalism in 

the age of integration, assimilation, multiculturalism and multiple identities 

at the international level. 

K SYAMALAMMA AND P KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 

GLOBALISATION 

The process of globalisation is complex and therefore scholars have difficulty 

in defining it. Globalisation is concerned with international economy and 

political relations and thus is closely linked to the concept of geopolitics. 

Globalisation also broadly refers to the expansion of global linkages, the organisation 

of social life on a global scale, the growth of a global consciousness and hence to 

the consolidation of world society. Such an ecumenical definition captures most of 

what the term commonly denotes but its meaning is still disputed. It encompasses 

several large processes and definitions differ according to what they emphasise. 

14 

WORLD AFFAIRS WINTER 2009 VOL 13 NO 4

CULTURAL GLOBALISATION: THE ROLE OF SOUTH, EAST AND SOUTHEAST ASIA 




Globalisation is historically complex and its connotations vary in the particular 

driving force they identify. The meaning of the term itself is a topic of discussion. 

It may refer to “real” processes, to ideas that justify them or to a way of thinking 

about them. The term is not neutral and its definitions express different assessments 

of global change (available at, http://www.sociology.emory.edu). Some definitions, 

related to cultural globalisation are given below. 

• “The compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the 

world as a whole … concrete global interdependence and consciousness of the 

global whole in the twentieth century” (Roland Robertson, Globalization Social 

Theory and Culture, London: Sage Publications, 1992, p 8). 

• “A social process in which the constraints of geography on social and cultural 

arrangements recede and in which people become increasingly aware that they 

are receding” (Malcolm Waters, Globalization, London: Routledge, 1995, p3). 

• “The historical transformation constituted by the sum of particular forms and 

instances of … (m)aking or being made global (i) by the active dissemination 

of practices, values, technology and other human products throughout the 

globe (ii) when global practices and so on exercise an increasing influence over 

people’s lives (iii) when the globe serves as a focus for, or a premise in, shaping 

human activities” (Martin Albrow, The Global Age State and Society Beyond 

Modernity, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996, p 88). 

• “As experienced from below, the dominant form of globalisation means a 

historical transformation: in the economy, of livelihoods and modes of 

existence; in politics, a loss in the degree of control exercised locally … and in 

culture, a devaluation of a collectivity’s achievements … Globalisation is 

emerging as a political response to the expansion of market power … (It) is a 

domain of knowledge” (James H Mittelman, The Globalization Syndrome: 

Transformation and Resistance, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000, p 6). 

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 

Nayan Chanda (Bound Together: How Traders, Preachers, Adventurers and 

Warriors Shaped Globalisation, New Delhi: Penguin-Viking, 2008) moving 

back and forth through space and time points out the global nature of human 

VOL 13 NO 4 WINTER 2009 WORLD AFFAIRS 15





interaction since time immemorial. According to him, from cotton and spices to 

sugar and slaves, Buddhism and Christianity to Islam and human rights, the 

movement of goods and humans across lands and seas also led to the migration of 

culture, ideas, religion and technology. In every historical period, some forces 

contested this movement or benefited from it but the inevitability of human 

Globalisation is concerned with 

international economy and 

political relations and thus is 

closely linked to the concept of 

geopolitics. Globalisation also 

broadly refers to the expansion 

of global linkages, the 

organisation of social life on a 

global scale, the growth of a 

global consciousness and hence 

to the consolidation of world 

society. 

interaction triumphed over all attempts 

to close off societies from outside 

influence. Chanda traces the process of 

globalisation from the eighth 

millennium BC. In his analysis, 

throughout history four broad agents— 

traders, preachers, adventurers and 

warriors—have played important roles 

in globalisation. Throughout the early 

medieval period, trade between 

countries of the East and West 

engendered the idea to slowly globalise 

the world. Geographical discoveries, the 

consequential European trade and the 

process of colonisation paved the way for vigorous globalisation, while the Industrial 

Revolution accelerated its pace. Between 1800 and 1913, international trade grew 

rapidly from 29 to 64 per cent. The 1990s were a crucial period in the stages of 

globalisation, as the collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern European communism 

and the end of the Cold War coincided with “free trade, liberalisation (and) the 

opening up of economies” in almost all parts of the globe. 

CULTURAL GLOBALISATION 

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines culture as the “total pattern 

of human behaviour and its products embodied in speech, action and 

artefacts and dependent upon man’s capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge 

to succeeding generations”. Moreover, culture is not static, it grows out of a 

systematically encouraged reverence for select customs and habits. Language, political 

16 






and legal systems, religion and social customs are the legacies of victors and marketers 

and reflect the judgment of the marketplace of ideas throughout popular history. 

“They might also rightly be seen as living artefacts, bits and pieces carried forward 

through the years on currents of indoctrination, popular acceptance and unthinking 

adherence to old ways. Culture is used by the organisers of society—academics, 

families, politicians and theologians—to impose and ensure order, the rudiments 

of which change over time as need dictates”. Britannica Online defines cultural 

globalisation as “a phenomenon by which the experience of everyday life, as 

influenced by the diffusion of commodities and ideas, reflects a standardisation of 

cultural expressions around the world. Propelled by the efficiency and appeal of 

wireless communications, electronic commerce, popular culture and international 

travel, globalisation has been seen as a trend toward homogeneity that will eventually 

make human experience everywhere essentially the same. This appears, however, to 

be an overstatement of the 

phenomenon. Although homogenising 

influences do indeed exist, they are far 

from creating anything akin to a single 

world culture”. 

In 1997, David Rothkopf (“In Praise 

of Cultural Imperialism? Effects of 

Globalization on Culture”, available at, 

http://www.globalpolicy.org) noted 

that while globalisation has economic 

roots and political consequences, it also 

brings into focus the power of culture 

Culture grows out of a 

systematically encouraged 

reverence for select customs and 

habits. Language, political and 

legal systems, religion and social 

customs are the legacies of 

victors and marketeers and reflect 

the judgment of the marketplace 

of ideas throughout popular 

history. 

in the global environment. “The homogenising influences of globalisation that are 

most often condemned by the new nationalists and by cultural romanticists are 

actually positive; globalisation promotes integration and the removal not only of 

cultural barriers but of many of the negative dimensions of culture”. Critics of 

globalisation argue the process will strip away identity and lead to a blandly uniform, 

Orwellian world. This, however, is an impossibility on a planet of over six billion 

people. More importantly, the decline of cultural distinctions may be a measure of 

the progress of civilisation, a tangible sign of enhanced communications and 






understanding. Successful multicultural societies, be they nations, federations or 

other conglomerations of closely interrelated states, discern those aspects of culture 

that do not threaten prosperity, stability or union (such as food, holidays, music 

and rituals) and allow them to flourish. Nevertheless, they do counteract or eradicate 

the more subversive elements of culture (exclusionary aspects of language, political– 

ideological beliefs and religion). Rothkopf added that history has shown that to 

bridge cultural gaps successfully and serve as a home to diverse people, society 

requires certain social institutions, laws and structures that transcend culture. 

Furthermore, the history of a number of ongoing experiments in multiculturalism, 

such as in the European Union, India, South Africa and the United States (US), 

suggests that workable, if not perfected, integrative models do exist. 

Current trends that fall under the broad definitional umbrella of globalisation 

are accelerating a process that has taken place throughout history as discrete groups 

become familiar with one another, ally and commingle—ultimately becoming more 

alike. The drivers of today’s rapid globalisation are improving methods and systems 

of international transportation, revolutionary and innovative information 

Successful multicultural societies 

discern those aspects of culture 

that do not threaten prosperity, 

stability or union (such as food, 

holidays, music and rituals) and 

allow them to flourish. 

Nevertheless, they do counteract 

or eradicate the more subversive 

elements of culture (exclusionary 

aspects of language, political– 

ideological beliefs and religion). 

technologies and services and 

dominating international commerce in 

services and ideas. Their impacts affect 

language, lifestyles, religion and almost 

every other component of culture. 

Technology today is not only 

transforming the world, it is creating its 

own metaphors as well. Satellites 

carrying television signals expose people 

on opposite sides of the globe to a wide 

range of cultural stimuli (ibid). The US 

is seen as dominating this global traffic 

in ideas and information—American 

movies, music, software and television are so dominant, so sought after and so 

visible that they are now available literally everywhere on the Earth. They influence 

the aspirations, lives and tastes of virtually every nation, although in some, they are 

viewed as corrupting (ibid). It is however, difficult to agree with this viewpoint, 

18 






because as technology creates its own metaphors and transforms the world, people 

are exposed to a wide range of cultural stimuli. It would thus be incorrect to say 

that only the US influence is dominating international culture. Much water has 

flown since 1997 and the globalisation now taking shape, sends and receives 

influences from both the East and West. 

It is interesting to note American reaction to this issue. When it comes to 

globalisation bringing greater cultural influences into the US, Americans express a 

positive attitude. When asked in a January 2004 Program on International Policy 

Attitudes (PIPA) poll, to think about “how globalisation has resulted in new ideas 

and cultural influences coming into the US from other countries”, 68 per cent 

regarded this as a positive development 

and only 25 per cent felt the influences 

were negative. In May 1999, a Pew poll 

found that 71 per cent of Americans 

agreed that cultural diversity was a main 

reason for America’s success. In a 1998 

Yankelovich poll, a near unanimous 

majority (91 per cent) agreed, “the 

global economy makes it more 

important than ever for all of us to 

understand people who are different 

than ourselves” (available at, http:// 

www.americans-world.org). There are 

strong indications that American values 

The drivers of today’s rapid 

globalisation are improving 

methods and systems of 

international transportation, 

revolutionary and innovative 

information technologies and 

services and dominating 

international commerce in 

services and ideas. Their impacts 

affect language, lifestyles, 

religion and almost every other 

component of culture. 

operate in a global context and that the sphere of concern extends beyond national 

boundaries. In a PIPA October 1999 poll, 73 per cent agreed (44 per cent strongly) 

with the statement, “I regard myself as a citizen of the world as well as a citizen of 

the United States” (available at, ibid). 

Central to many of the sociological interpretations of globalisation is the notion 

of culture and indeed much of the original theorising about globalisation developed 

in this quarter (Ian Clark, Globalisation and Fragmentation, International Relations 

in the Twentieth Century, New York: Oxford University Press, 1997). Robertson 

(ibid, p 135) states that globalisation involves “the development of something like 






a global culture”. His perspective emphasises a newfound consciousness as well as 

physical compression of the world (ibid, p 8). This of course does not necessarily 

mean a uniform and homogenous culture worldwide, as any such claim would be 

impossible to sustain (Clark, ibid, p 23). In a more modest version, it implies that 

cultures become “relativised” to each other but are not “unified or centralised” 

(Waters, ibid, pp 125–6). Thus, cultural globalisation may be regarded as “unity in 

The expansion of Europe 

brought about the economic and 

technological unification of the 

globe and European-dominated 

international society of the 

nineteenth and early twentieth 

centuries first expressed its 

political unification. During the 

world wars however, a deeper 

and more widespread process of 

cultural Americanization was 

accelerated. 

diversity”. Clark also points to the 

diversity of views and perceptions of 

globalisation, differentiates five 

interpretations of globalisation (Waters, 

ibid, p 24) and his first school partly 

focuses on cultural globalisation. 

According to him, globalisation has 

been shaped by the major international 

trend of the past several centuries namely 

Westernisation. That is, Europe’s 

economic and military incorporation of 

the world created the precondition of 

an integrated global system. Hedley Bull 

and Adam Watson (Eds, The Expansion 

of International Society, New York: Oxford University Press, 1984) opine that “it 

was the expansion of Europe that first brought about the economic and 

technological unification of the globe (and) it was the European dominated 

international society of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that first expressed 

its political unification”. Historically, this had been true since the era of 

industrialisation and colonisation, as the rest of the world was influenced by 

European culture. 

During the world wars however, a deeper and more widespread process of cultural 

Americanization was accelerated. As Akira Iriye (“The Globalizing of America 1913– 

1945”, The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations, Vol III, Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press, 1993, p 113) points out, “America … was more than 

ever before the symbol of the new material and popular culture”. The automobile, 

the motion picture and the radio were the instruments of this process. As a result 

20 






of their spread during this period, there was “a cultural Americanization of the 

world during the 1920s … (the beginnings of a) … global cultural order” (ibid, p 

115). Clark (ibid, p 91) however, states, “… there is a superficial validity to this 

picture but it is much overdrawn. Whatever impact all this might have had in 

metropolitan Europe, segments of Latin America and pockets of Asia, it is to be 

doubted that the vast majority of (the) world’s population was even aware of these 

new developments, let alone culturally assimilated by them”. This paper, however, 

does not deal with the sociology of globalisation (Dominique Martin, Jean-Luc 

Metzger and Philippe Pierre, “The Sociology of Globalization: Theoretical and 

Methodological Reflections”, International Sociology, Vol 21, No 4, 2006, pp 499– 

521) or the globalisation of the visual arts as dealt with by Alain Quemin 

(“Globalization and Mixing in the Visual Arts: An Empirical Survey of ‘High 

Culture’ and Globalization”, International Sociology, ibid, pp 522–50). Though 

some scholars believe the world has become unipolar, others think it is multipolar 

in terms of trade, defence, etc (James Leigh, “Post-Globalisation: The Asian 

Superpower in the Making”, World Affairs, Vol 10, No 2, 2006, pp 14–35). The 

principle of multipolarity can also be applied to cultural globalisation in the sense 

that the US is not alone in culturally globalising the world. The “Americanization” 

of culture throughout the globe, as believed by a majority of people, is true only to 

an extent, as shown by an in-depth analysis. 

The history of civilisation reveals that the phenomenon of the globalisation of 

civilisation has existed for long. In most cases it developed independently, unlike in 

the modern age where some centres have influenced civilisations all over. For example, 

during the Stone Age, Palaeolithic, Mesolithic or Neolithic cultures were present 

all over the world and though they were uniform, they rarely influenced each other. 

Some scholars believe that ideas “fly”. As such, initially civilisations like the Chinese, 

Egyptian, Indus and Sumerian flourished in select pockets, while parts of Africa 

and America remained Stone Age cultures. However later, many ideas from pottery 

to bricks, etc were globalised, that too without an organisation like the World 

Trade Organization (WTO). Therefore, the phenomenon of globalisation in nature 

and civilisation is not new. Moreover, globalisation had already occurred on the 

level of “lifestyles”. The hypothesis is that industrialisation and colonisation made 

people’s lifestyles all over the globe similar, if not the same. From agriculture, 



cooking, electricity, fuel, the production of food grains and transport to household 

and kitchen articles, that is, almost all articles used by people around the world 

were introduced by Europe. In essence, this may be called “Europeanization”, though 

it is truly globalisation. Today, in almost every city, town or even village in Africa, 

Asia or South America, in most homes, offices or even agricultural fields, little is 

left in terms of lifestyles, which is not European or Western. Most forget that 

though the US today is steering globalisation and the process of globalising, it 

obtained most of its lifestyle goods from Europe. In this sense, Europe has already 

globalised the entire world, including the US. 




Cultural Globalisation and Asia 

Globalisation is generally understood in terms of the movement of goods and 

services that is, in terms of trade. In the last two decades as various agreements have 

been signed in world trading organisations, a genuine globalisation has taken place. 

However, this process of globalisation started and has been sustained in a few “nuclear 

centres” of the world. Former Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee 

(The Hindu, March 18, 2007) described this feature as the “centre of gravity” in 

After the advent of colonisation, 

Africa and Asia were made to 

serve the interests of European 

colonial powers, either as 

suppliers of raw materials and 

finished goods or as markets for 

European products. The 

Industrial Revolution globalised 

world production and trade. 

the global economy. He said that the 

global economy was undergoing a shift 

in its centre of gravity from Europe and 

North America to Asia for the first time 

in 350 years. Historically speaking this 

feature has been present since the times 

of the Egyptian and Indus civilisations. 

Around 500 BC for instance, the centres 

of gravity were parts of Africa and 

Europe and the whole of Asia. The 

former two were dependent on the latter 

for certain goods like spices, silk, etc and in turn served as its markets. This trend 

continued until the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. After the advent of 

colonisation, Africa and Asia were made to serve the interests of European colonial 

powers, either as suppliers of raw materials and finished goods or as markets for 

22 






European products. The Industrial Revolution globalised world production and 

trade. During this phase, the centres of gravity played significant and dominating 

roles in production, distribution and as markets and paved the way for globalisation. 

For example, although France and Germany did produce certain goods, England 

accounted for the bulk of mechanised 

and industrial goods and dominated as 

the single nuclear centre. This in turn 

affected and shaped, directly or 

indirectly, world trade throughout 

Africa, Asia, Europe and North America. 

Later, especially after the world wars and 

increasingly since the 1970s, the US has 

become the nuclear centre of 

Asian business powers have been 

taking over Western businesses. 

This is a turning point in current 

world history and these 

takeovers have become symbols 

of Asia’s participation in “reverse” 

globalisation including culture. 

globalisation. As both a producer and market for almost all goods, the US has 

played a dominant role in globalisation. As the dominance of England, France and 

Germany faded, they ceased to be nuclear centres. 

In the last two decades, Asia in general and India and China in particular have 

become nuclear centres, as they develop into both primary production centres as 

well as markets for world goods. The Ambanis, Birlas, Mittals, Tatas and 

information technology (IT) company moghuls have bought, collaborated or taken 

over Western business empires ranging from oil to steel to IT industries. Other 

Asian business powers like China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, have been taking over 

Western businesses as well. This is indeed a turning point in current world history 

and these takeovers have become symbols of Asia’s participation in “reverse” 

globalisation including culture as denoted by not only the products but also in the 

names of companies like ArcelorMittal Steel. Today, China boasts a world-class 

stadium—the Bird’s Nest—an architectural marvel that hosted the 2008 Olympic 

Games. This stadium is comparable to any in the West (perhaps it is even better) 

and stands as a new symbol of the East in Western minds. 

In such a scenario, cultural globalisation is often ignored even as elements like 

art, film, food, literature, media, music, painting, sports, are spread throughout 

the globe and popularised as global culture. In this process, nuclear centres change, 

as “receivers” become “senders”. Yoshitaka Miike (“Cultural Asia in the Age of 






Globalization”, Jen Hu Chang, Guo-Ming Chen, D Ray Heisey, Yoshitaka Miike, 

Todd Nesbitt, Carmen de la Peza, Jan Servaes and Xu Shi, “Intercultural Symposium 

on Cultural Globalization”, China Media Research, Vol 2, No 3, 2006) explains 

that “Globalisation is often perceived in the Asian context as an inevitable process 

of adjustment and accommodation. It usually implies the existence of certain global 

trends that we need to cope with for survival and success. And such global forces, 

Cultural globalisation should be 

seen as the continual 

development of multiple 

modernities on a global scale. 

Transculturation should develop 

so that different cultures can be 

true to their own indigenous 

strengths and not be swept into 

a similar pattern of only one 

type of transformation. 

or waves of change, come largely from 

the West, notably from the United 

States. ... We ought to dispel the 

misconception of globalisation as 

intercultural adaptation to the West. We 

should realise that the significance of 

globalisation, cultural globalisation in 

particular, lies not in the power of 

dominance and imposition but in the 

possibility of creativity and interaction. 

In the Asian milieu, then, is it 

conceivable that we will actively fashion 

the globalisation of Asian cultures in quest of Asian collective identities and common 

values? … Ceaseless dialogue about the commonality and diversity of Asia will 

yield profound insights into the politics of Asian identities, the complexities of 

Asianness and the beauty of humanity. The time is ripe for us to rekindle our 

interest in the distinct cultural traditions of Asia, re-educate ourselves on Asian 

cumulative wisdom, explore the common values of Cultural Asia and articulate an 

Asian vision of the global village”. 

According to D Ray Heisey (“The Meaning and Impact of Cultural 

Globalization”, Chang, et al, ibid) “One of the ways of looking at the problem of 

‘critical’ perspective. The ‘liberal’ perspective views cultural globalisation as ‘the 

triumph of the market economy’ and the ‘critical’ perspective views it as ‘the 

domination by Western or American culture’. Instead, Chan and Ma argue that 

cultural globalisation should be seen as ‘the continual development of multiple 

modernities on a global scale’. They think that transculturation should develop 

around the globe so that different cultures can be true to their own indigenous 

24 






strengths and not be swept into a similar pattern of only one type of transformation. 

This requires interaction between cultures so that the dialectical processes creatively 

combine what is good from other cultures with what is preferred from their own 

cultures. Cultures and cultural/political leaders should engage in dialogue so that 

creative approaches can be negotiated and cultural identities maintained”. 

Historically, Asians have been fascinated by Roman wine and Europeans by 

Indian and Chinese clothes. Evidently, art, music, painting, sculpture, were quite 

different during the second and third centuries AD. After the Europeans and 

especially the British began colonising the world, the first “cultural item” to be 

globalised was men’s hairstyle. The European “military haircut” spread all over the 

colonies and by the 1950s most traditional men’s hairstyles had disappeared. In the 

past two decades, India and China have begun competing with the West in fashion 

as a number of their designers have become popular globally and introduced exciting 

“East–West” hybrid designs. Indian attires like churidars and Chinese and Southeast 

Asian dresses and styles are being blended 

with Western styles and designs. This 

has resulted in the hybridisation of 

fashion and fashion design and a new 

wave of “Asian consciousness and 

confidence” is sweeping across the West. 

Fashion events, exhibitions and shows 

of reputed Western clothing companies 

have been organised and celebrated in 

Asian cities like Hong Kong, Mumbai, 

Singapore and Tokyo. In addition, as 

After the Europeans and 

especially the British began 

colonising the world, the first 

“cultural item” to be globalised 

was men’s hairstyle. The 

European “military haircut” 

spread all over the colonies and 

by the 1950s most traditional 

men’s hairstyles had disappeared. 

Asian fashion and dress designers have become popular in the West through their 

shows and designs, many multinationals have hired them to design “international” 

clothes. India and China also already had in place the necessary factories, machinery, 

etc. Thus, through this process, the nuclear centres of fashion design, which were 

exclusively in the West, have spread to the East and in turn Eastern nuclear centres 

have started influencing the West and become global. 

Over the past fifteen years, due to the agreements of different trading 

organisations, most of the goods that were once produced in Europe or North 



America are now produced in Asia for the world market. Through the promotion 

of cultural globalism, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, have become 

popular as the clothes bought in Europe and North America are produced in these 

countries. Thus, through this process, directly or indirectly, Asia is promoting its 

own traditional designs and culture. 

Cars, Curries and Books 




During the 1970s and 80s, in Europe and North America the “Japanisation” of 

cars, music systems, televisions, watches and a whole range of electronic goods 

took place. Honda, Sanyo, Seiko, Sony, Suzuki, Toshiba, Toyota, became household 

names. Until this period, Europe and the US were the chief producers of automobiles 

and electronic goods. However, during that phase, Japan became the nuclear centre 

of production and distribution. Since the 1990s India, China and Southeast Asia 

As Asian fashion and dress 

designers have become popular 

in the West through their shows 

and designs, many multinationals 

have hired them to design 

“international” clothes. Thus, 

the nuclear centres of fashion 

design, which were exclusively in 

the West, have spread to the East 

and in turn Eastern nuclear 

centres have started influencing 

the West and become global. 

have become nuclear centres of 

production for almost all goods 

distributed globally. As a result, Europe 

and North America have witnessed a 

new awareness of “Asian culture” from 

electronic goods to clothes and perfumes 

and even relatively small countries like 

Bangladesh and Thailand have entered 

Western minds culturally. Today, apart 

from Hondas and Toyotas, even the 

Korean Hyundai or Chinese Kia cars and 

other Asian goods have become global. 

The West is keenly awaiting the Indian 

Nano car, which has become a “global 

product” even before its release in foreign markets. Most Westerners are conscious 

of the fact that many of the products they buy are “Asian” and have accepted them 

as a part of their lives. 

While McDonalds and Kentucky Fried Chicken have become increasingly 

common in Asian cities, Asian cuisine—Chinese flavours, Indian food and Thai 

26 






dishes—has become immensely popular in Europe and North America. For the 

past two decades, Asian participation in the food culture of the West has been 

increasing. Unlike in the past, Asian restaurants—Cambodian, Chinese, Indian, 

Lebanese, Thai,—can be seen today in almost all major cities. This process of reverse 

globalisation of food culture during the 1980s has now become permanent due to 

the health and nutritional values of Asian 

pickles and spices. As Shonali Muthalaly 

(“Posh Curry”, The Hindu, March 18, 

2007) puts it, from Aberdeen to 

Brighton, Indian restaurants have 

become popular and made Indian food 

a part of the British menu. 

In fiction, writers like V S Naipaul 

have made remarkable contributions. 

Since the 1980s, others like Vikram 

Chandra, Shobhaa De, Amitav Ghosh, 

Arundhati Roy, Salman Rushdie, 

Vikram Seth, Tarun Tejpal, Shashi 

Tharoor, Altaf Tyrewala, et al though 

Since the 1990s India, China 

and Southeast Asia have become 

nuclear centres of production for 

almost all goods distributed 

globally. As a result, Europe and 

North America have witnessed a 

new awareness of “Asian 

culture”. Most Westerners are 

conscious of the fact that many 

of the products they buy are 

“Asian” and have accepted them 

as a part of their lives. 

Asian, have become global writers. Asian poets have also become global and Bengali, 

Chinese, Indonesian and Tamil poetry and fiction are being translated into English, 

French, Spanish, and distributed worldwide. 

Movies, Masti, Magic 

Bollywood has become truly global in the sense that Hindi movies (and even 

Tamil and Telugu movies) are being simultaneously released in Africa, Asia, Europe 

and North America. Asian actors from Jackie Chan to Jet Lee and Aishwarya Rai 

to Sushmita Sen, (the former having become the “queen” of computer screens 

throughout the world) have all become global. A R Rahman has become a global 

music director and singer with his “English” albums becoming popular in the West. 

Reverse globalisation started when Shekhar Kapoor directed the Western movie 

Elizabeth in 1998. Although Japanese and other Asian directors were already popular 






and had directed Hollywood movies, Kapoor was a relative unknown in the West 

and Elizabeth became a turning point in the history of global cinema. M Night 

Shyamalan, an American of Indian origin has become a new symbol of cultural 

globalisation, directing stars like Mel Gibson and Bruce Willis in shockingly 

unexpected roles. Hollywood actors like Will Smith are eager to have Asian heroines 

McDonalds and Kentucky Fried 

Chicken have become increasingly 

common in Asian cities, 

Asian cuisine has become 

immensely popular in Europe 

and North America. From 

Aberdeen to Brighton, Indian 

restaurants have become popular 

and made Indian food a part of 

the British menu. 

like Rai in their movies. Another 

example of reverse globalisation is the 

recent Swiss movie Tandoori Love by 

Swiss director Oliver Paulus. It is the 

story of an Indian chef falling in love 

with a Swiss Miss. Although the film 

has an Indian name and songs and dances 

à la Bollywood, it is still a Swiss film 

(Ziya us Salam, “A Taste of Fondue 

Masaala” The Hindu, December 5, 

2008). Incidentally, the term tandoori 

itself has become globalised as this movie 

indicates. Paulus has said he wanted to take all the wonderful elements of music, 

song and dance from Bollywood and transport them onto a Swiss ambience. He 

added, “India is becoming important in the international market … not just 

economically but also culturally, India is huge. More and more people are attracted 

to India” (ibid). 

The year 2009 was indeed a turning point for world cinema in general and 

Asian cinema in particular as British director Danny Boyle’s Slumdog Millionaire 

received four Golden Globe awards and eight Academy Awards. It was the first 

Bollywood style movie to achieve this feat. Of particular significance was Rahman’s 

music score, which won at both awards. The movie is a remarkable example of 

cultural globalisation—a South Asian story line, a British director, a South Asian 

British hero, a Hollywood ambience and promotion and a world cinema. Thus, 

Asian movies and music have slowly become global in terms of world cinema and 

will certainly play important roles in future cultural globalisation. As George 

Abraham (“A Billion Stories Now”, The Hindu, January 25, 2009) aptly puts it, 

“Bollywood movies have their global following, thanks to the countless members 

28 






of the diaspora who have carried their love for kitschy, formulae thrillers to wherever 

they have gone. It is, however, unusual for a movie to marry the realism of 

Hollywood and the fantasy of Bollywood into one of international box office 

phenomenon”. Several Asian films are being made in English with Asian–Western 

appeal and storyline but global in business and audiences and are paving the way 

for cultural globalisation. 

In Hollywood, directors like Akira Kurosawa and Hayao Miyazaki (Japan), 

Wong Kar-wai (Hong Kong), Tsai Ming-liang (Taipei) have made a mark, as has 

Ang Lee (Taiwanese born) with his world renowned movies like Brokeback Mountain, 

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, The Hulk, Sense and Sensibility and The Wedding 

Banquet. These directors are as much Hollywood directors as they are Asian. 

American audiences may not have boned up on Asian film history but after The 

Ring raked in $120 million, Hollywood got a crash course. Studios are now falling 

all over themselves to cash in—several Asian hits are being remade with big stars 

like Sarah Michelle Gellar and Jennifer Connelly. Mainstream America, if it has 

not already, is about to learn that when 

it comes to horror movies, Asian 

filmmakers are amongst the best. Unlike 

the recent wave of slasher and zombie 

flicks spooking American audiences, 

Asian imports—from filmmakers like 

Hideo Nakata (Dark Water and Ringu, 

the precursor to The Ring), Takashi 

Shimizu (the Ju-On series), Kiyoshi 

Reverse globalisation started 

when Shekhar Kapoor directed 

the Western movie Elizabeth in 

1998, though Japanese and 

other Asian directors were 

already popular and had directed 

Hollywood movies. 

Kurosawa (Kaïro, about the strange happenings that follow a suicide) and the Pang 

brothers (Jian Gui, also known as The Eye, about a blind girl who sees ghosts after 

eye surgery)—go for chills over scares, stacking up supernatural themes, haunting 

visuals and creepy atmosphere. Films like The Eye and The Ring combine a cultural 

background filled with ghosts and the supernatural with themes of revenge, 

reincarnation and familial ties (available at, http://www.mtv.com). 

A panel of the Association for Asian Studies (AAS) Annual Meeting March 

22–25, 2007, examined “the concept of ‘transnational’ and its usage in the studies 

of East Asian cinema. ‘Transnational cinema’ or, more specifically the unified ‘East 






Asian cinema’ stands as a convenient example of a shared cultural sphere in the age 

of globalisation. Both terms, however, have escaped qualification in terms of their 

actual meanings and causalities. Does the expansion in the multinational and multiethnic 

production, distribution and consumption of films automatically guarantee 

the cinema as transnational?” (Organiser and Chair, Mitsuyo Wada-Marciano, 

Carleton University, Canada, “Scrutinizing the Transnational in East Asian Cinema”, 

Interarea Session 89, (AAS) Annual Meeting, ibid, available at, http:// 

www.aasianst.org). It must be noted that the transfer—not only of films but also 

in other fields—which so far had almost always been from West to East, has now 

begun to go in the opposite direction. 

European playing cards revolutionised the nature of gambling all over the world 

long before modern globalisation. Casinos in Europe and North America have 

been the main gambling centres with Las Vegas in the US leading in terms of 

revenue. In 2006, the Wynn casino in downtown Macau “outstripped the Vegas 

strip itself in gambling revenue” (Pallavi Aiyar, “Postcard from Macau – Neon 

Glow”, The Hindu, March 18, 2007). 

The concept of tourism until now had been from West to East, with visitors 

wanting to see ancient monuments. However, Westerners are now visiting Shanghai 

and Singapore more for shopping than for sightseeing, while Easterners with their 

growing incomes and self-assuring pride are visiting Europe and North America 

for “pleasure travel”. In the coming decade, medical tourism is poised to boom in 

Asia, especially in India, as thousands of Americans and Europeans visit every year. 

All these trends have started “reverse” tourism. Travel writing had so far been a forte 

of Westerners but an increasing number of Asian travel writers and journalists now 

have their reviews and reports published in leading Asian newspapers. 

Reading and Talking 

In the education sector, as thousands of Asian students, especially Indians are 

spread all over Europe and North America, a new enthusiasm for “Asian culture” 

has begun to compete and blend with “Western culture” resulting in an interesting 

“global culture”. As youngsters travel widely between the West and their home 

countries, they act as ambassadors and promoters of this global culture. Even former 

30 






Indian Cabinet Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav has given lectures to management students 

in North America including at Harvard, about the success story of the Indian 

Railways. Reverse globalisation indeed! 

One reaction to the conventional idea of globalisation, as pointed out by Anne 

Pakir, an associate professor at the National University of Singapore, is that English 

is “going glocal that is, going global while maintaining local roots”. She sees “glocal 

English” as a language with an international status but which also expresses local 

identities (Asia Times Online, July 31, 2003). Already, more Asians speak English 

than anyone and “Asian English” words multiply every year. For the many who see 

this as an intrusion, a destructive force, there may be some solace to be found in the 

old Malay saying, “your mouth is your tiger” (ibid). The English language now 

accommodates “Indian English”, even Hinglish words in its dictionaries. Asian 

immigrants in Europe and North America have also begun to influence “Western 

English”, akin to the “colonisation” of English in Asia. South Asian English, Chinese, 

Japanese, Korean and Malaysian English can be heard in both usage and accent. 

The English language is no longer the 

“Whiteman’s language”, especially after 

the introduction of internet, chat and 

blog English. “As the result of low-cost 

airfares, the internet, the hegemony of 

the English language and the rise of the 

transnational corporation, we’re 

increasingly sharing social, cultural, 

identity-forming experiences. David 

Beckham is no longer British, Nicole 

Westerners are now visiting 

Shanghai and Singapore more for 

shopping than for sightseeing, 

while Easterners with their 

growing incomes and selfassuring 

pride are visiting Europe 

and North America for “pleasure 

travel”. 

Kidman is no longer Australian, McDonalds and Microsoft are no longer American. 

The searing memory of the collapse of the twin towers is common to us all” 

(available at, http://thetyee.ca). 

So far, Westerners including East Europeans and especially Russians had 

dominated sports like chess, golf, squash and tennis. However, in the last two 

decades Asians like tennis players Leander Paes and Sania Mirza, the Indian chess 

grand master Vishwanath Anand, the squash playing Khans of Pakistan, et al have 

become global players. An Asian presence is thus being felt in these sports worldwide, 



while China and Southeast Asia continue to dominate as nuclear centres of 

badminton and table tennis. 




MULTICULTURALISM AND MODERNITY 

The ideas of integration and assimilation are being challenged by immigrants 

in countries like Australia, Canada and England. The West is slowly coming 

to grips with concepts like the multiple identities of immigrants and the transnational 

identities of individuals in the global age. These have consequently contributed to 

cultural globalisation. In the present day world, the integration perspective has 

weakened and that of the subject or individual has become more dominant. Nations 

are no longer the sole or even main sources of identification of individuals who are 

increasingly associated with multiple identities extending beyond the framework 

of countries. Between the local and the supranational, the national level is only one 

level amongst others (Michel Wieviorka, “Can the Concept of Integration still 

Help Us? State and Civil Society in a Global World”, Sociological Bulletin – Journal 

of the Indian Sociological Society, Vol 57, No 1, January–April 2008, pp 30–40). 

For example, Singapore, the leading entrepôt of Southeast Asia, is a hub for a 

global network of business centres in which the lives of the elites are virtually 

identical. Business leaders from Buenos Aires to Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Istanbul, 

Johannesburg, Los Angeles, Mexico 

One reaction to the conventional City, Moscow, New Delhi, New York, 

idea of globalisation, is that Paris, Rome, Santiago, Seoul, 

English is going glocal that is, Singapore, Tel Aviv and Tokyo all read 

going global while maintaining the same newspapers, wear the same 

local roots. Already, more Asians suits, drive the same cars, eat the same 

speak English than anyone and food, fly the same airlines, stay in the 

“Asian English” words multiply same hotels and listen to the same 

every year. 

music. While people of divergent 

origins remain divided by culture, they 

have realised that to compete in the global marketplace they must conform to the 

culture of that marketplace. The community of nations has increasingly accepted 

that such supranational entities are demanded by the exigencies of the times and 

32 






with that acceptance comes the recognition that the principal symbol of national 

identity—namely sovereignty—must be partially ceded to those entities. Joana 

Breidenbach and Ina Zukrigl (“The Dynamics of Cultural Globalisation”, The Myths 

of Cultural Globalisation, available at, http://www.inst.at) have given a breathtaking 

analysis of multiculturalism in relation to globalisation, identity and nation. 

An increasing number of individuals stress their multicultural biographies, from 

writers like Salman Rushdie to the golfer Tiger Woods, who calls himself 

Cablinasian to point out his ancestry of Black, Indian and Asian cultures. Writers 

with a multicultural biography were among the first to express changes called 

“creolisation”. Authors like Hanif 

Kureishi, Keri Hulme and Emine Sevgi 

Özdamar mix languages and express in 

their writings the diversity and richness 

of their cultural influences as well as the 

conflicts that form part of the 

creolisation process. In view of this, 

“locality” loses its importance as new 

transnational communities come into 

being. These are bound together by 

common interests, professions or social 

and cultural similarities rather than by 

Nations are no longer the sole or 

even main sources of 

identification of individuals who 

are increasingly associated with 

multiple identities extending 

beyond the framework of 

countries. Between the local and 

the supranational, the national 

level is only one level amongst 

others. 

origin or geographical closeness. The more privileged among them are businessmen 

and scientists, while the majority are exile communities, migrants and refugees, 

who set up long distance communication and economic links and send self-recorded 

tapes and commodities back and forth. Both processes, the creolisation of local 

societies and the formation of transnational communities, demonstrate the 

inadequacy of the concept that sees cultures as bound and static units. Cultural 

change is often conceived of as a “loss” but “culture is not an attribute to be gained 

or lost but a process or struggle by which all peoples of the world attempt to make 

sense of the world”. The image of the world as a mosaic, consisting of clearly 

defined and separated single stones (the cultures) has to give way to the idea of 

culture as a flow. The metaphor of cultural flow allows for acknowledging cultural 

similarities and differences irrespective of origin and geographical place. 






THE EMERGING GLOBAL CULTURE: ORGANISING CULTURAL DIVERSITY 

WORLDWIDE 

The emerging global culture consists of universal categories and standards by 

which cultural differences become mutually intelligible and compatible. 

Societies all over the world are on the one hand becoming more similar to one 

another and on the other more disparate. Anthropologist Richard Wilk has termed 

this new reference system “structures of common difference”. By this, he is referring 

to a new global hegemony, which is the hegemony of structure and not of content. 

Global structures organise diversity. While different cultures continue to be distinct 

and varied—they are becoming different in uniform ways. Most of the global 

categories and standards circulating today originate in the West but spread because 

people everywhere appropriate them and use them to express themselves and fight 

for their own ends. In the process, the hegemonic structures themselves are 

transformed. 

Certain ideas, histories and stories (including such diverse ones such as the death 

of Lady Diana, the demise of the apartheid regime in South Africa or the 

institutionalisation of human rights) are available to an increasing number of people 

in most parts of the world. They are distributed mainly through the media and the 

millions of people on the move, like businessmen, migrants, refugees and tourists. 

People are thus forced to reflect on their 

While people of divergent own way of life in the mirror of other 

origins remain divided by ways of life. Consequently, many people 

culture, they have realised that develop a “comparative consciousness”. 

to compete in the global This has the potential of creating a 

marketplace they must conform common ground, a kind of lingua franca 

to the culture of that for different people all over the world. 

marketplace. 

It is important to keep in mind that 

global culture does not exist in a power 

vacuum. Most of the structures and standards circulating today originate in the 

West, which makes a sustained effort to assure their survival. However not only are 

people from other countries challenging this dominance (like Southeast Asian 

intellectuals and politicians) but the diffusion of many Western ideas and institutions, 

34 






after successful appropriation, makes the origin of concepts and ideas increasingly 

irrelevant. A dialogue on cultural differences and similarities has been forced upon 

Western societies as they themselves undergo an immense internal process of 

pluralisation and become increasingly multicultural. Identity politics and cultural 

differences are no longer problems somewhere else but in one’s own neighbourhood. 

Cultural differences have to be confronted head on and as such, dialogue and new 

forms of conflict resolution are inevitable. It is unlikely that the structures of the 

global culture will remain unchanged after sustained dialogue (Breidenbach and 

Zukrigl, ibid). 

Thus, the phenomenon of globalisation has long been present in nature and 

civilisation. The current trend points to the formation and acceptance of cultural 

diversity on a global scale, which had hitherto been on a national scale. Hence, the 

broad Asian and Western cultures are on the one hand meeting and combining to 

create a hybrid global culture and on the 

other, in the process are losing some 

features while adding others on both 

sides. The global and local are mixing 

and remixing and have led to the 

creation of glocal, which is in essence, 

cultural globalisation. Therefore, global 

culture has become simultaneously more 

diverse and more alike. While some 

features fall into natural globalisation 

with no conscious or deliberate attempts 

by groups of people, nations or 

organisations, others, like treaties and 

Both the creolisation of local 

societies and the formation of 

transnational communities, 

demonstrate the inadequacy of 

the concept that sees cultures as 

bound and static units. The 

image of the world as a mosaic, 

consisting of clearly defined and 

separated single stones has to 

give way to the idea of culture as 

a flow. 

organisations like the WTO, World Bank and International Monetary Fund fall 

into the category of “artificial” globalisation agents. Lifestyle, a part of culture, has 

become global without notice, awareness or even attempt and Asia has started 

playing a significant role in cultural globalisation.

Cultural Globalisation - Mimts.org

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?