globo & culture
[Lizardo’s paper is at globcultsoc.pdf>.] New York Times - February 22, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/22/business/22scene.html Some Countries Remain Resistant to American Cultural Exports
By TYLER COWEN American movies and music have done very well in some countries like = Sweden and less well in others like India. This may sound like a = simple difference in human tastes, but decisions to consume culture = have an economic aspect. Loyalties to cultural goods and services =97 be it heavy metal music or = the opera =97 are about social networking and choosing an identity and = an aspiration. That is, we use culture to connect with other people = and to define ourselves; both are, to some extent, economic = decisions. The continuing and indeed growing relevance of local = economic connections suggests that cultural imperialism will not = prove to be the dominant trend. Local culture commands loyalty when people are involved in networks = of status and caste, and they pursue religious and communal markers = of identity. Those individuals use local cultural products to signal = their place in hierarchies. An Indian Muslim might listen to religious Qawwali music to set = himself apart from local Hindus, or a native of Calcutta might favor = songs from Bengali cinema. The Indian music market is 96 percent = domestic in origin, in part because India is such a large and = multifaceted society. Omar Lizardo, an assistant professor of = sociology at the University of Notre Dame, explains this logic in his = recent paper “Globalization and Culture: A Sociological Perspective.” Today, economic growth is booming in countries where American popular = culture does not dominate, namely India and China. Population growth = is strong in many Islamic countries, which typically prefer local = music and get their news from sources like the satellite broadcaster = Al Jazeera. The combination of these trends means that American entertainment, = for largely economic reasons, will lose relative standing in the = global marketplace. In fact, Western culture often creates its own = rivals by bringing creative technologies like the recording studio or = the printing press to foreign lands. American popular culture tends to be popular when people interact = with others from around the world and seek markers of global = identity. My stepdaughter spent last summer studying French in Nice, = with students from many other countries. They ate and hung out at = McDonald’s, a name and symbol they all share, even though it was not = everyone’s favorite meal. Globalization is most likely to damage local culture in regions like = Scandinavia that are lightly populated, not very hierarchical and = looking for new global cultural symbols. But the rest of the world’s = population is in countries =97 China and India, of course, but also = Brazil, Mexico, Egypt and Indonesia =97 that do not fit that description. “American” cultural products rely increasing on non-American talent = and international symbols and settings. “Babel,” which won this = year’s Golden Globe for best drama, has a Mexican director, and is = set in Morocco, Japan and Mexico, mostly with non-English dialogue. Hollywood movies are popular in Europe in part because of the = successes of European welfare states and of European economic = integration. Western Europe has become more equal in its treatment of = citizens, it has moved away from an aristocratic class society, and = it has strong global connections. All those factors favor an interest = in American and global popular culture; Hollywood movies often = capture 70 percent or more of a typical European cinematic market. = Social democracy, which the Europeans often hold up in opposition to = the American model, in fact aided this cultural invasion by making = Europe more egalitarian. Many smaller countries have been less welcoming of cultural imports. = It is common in Central America for domestically produced music to = command up to 70 percent of market share. In Ghana, domestic music = has captured 71 percent of the market, according to Unesco figures. = Critics of cultural imperialism charge that rich cultures dominate = poor ones. But the data supplied by Professor Lizardo show that the = poorer a country, the more likely it will buy and listen to its own = domestic music. This makes sense given that music is a form of social = networking and the relevant networks are primarily local. That said, the poorest countries don’t produce many of the films they = watch. Making a movie costs much more than cutting an album. So as = the world becomes richer, the relative market share of Hollywood = movies will probably fall more than the relative market share of = American popular music. Furthermore, moviegoers are starting to look = to Bollywood films, or other Asian productions, rather than = Hollywood, for their markers of global identity. The complaint of “cultural imperialism” is looking increasingly = implausible. As I argued in “Creative Destruction: How Globalization = Is Changing the World’s Cultures,” the funk of James Brown helped = shape the music of West Africa; Indian authors draw upon Charles = Dickens; and Arabic pop is centered in France and Belgium. Western = cultural exports are as likely to refresh foreign art forms as to = destroy them. Western technologies =97 from the metal carving knife to = acrylic paint to digital filmmaking =97 have spurred creativity worldwide. Culture is not a zero-sum game, so the greater reach of one culture = does not necessarily mean diminished stature for others. In the broad = sweep of history, many different traditions have grown together and = flourished. American popular culture will continue to make money, but = the 21st century will bring a broad m=E9lange of influences, with no = clear world cultural leader. Tyler Cowen is a professor of economics at George Mason University = and co-author of a blog at www.marginalrevolution.com.