The end of culture in a global economy

With the advent of the global economy and the information age (free trade, the Internet, modern communications technology), information and ideas are rapidly spreading across borders as never before. Never before in history have we had greater opportunities for cultural exchanges.

Unfortunately, certain left-leaning intellectuals oppose such free cultural exchanges. They oppose it on the grounds that local, indigenous and third world cultures may be tainted, perverted and distorted by the subversive demands of a transnational, global capitalism that allegedly puts profit way above worthwhile artistic expression or cultural considerations. They believe that the free flow of uncensored ideas represents a danger–that it will cause some cultures to eventually become extinct.

These cultural protectionists often cast a wary eye toward so-called “Western cultural imperialism.” They routinely condemn what they regard as Western “spiritual pollution.”

To be sure, the charges of Western cultural imperialism do seem rather far-fetched and reactionary. After all, no one is forcing overseas consumers to view Western films, listen to Western music, or read Western books. No one–no corporation (not even Sony)–is putting a gun to any “foreign” consumer’s head, insisting that they see the latest American blockbuster. Imperialism certainly implies force, yet there is no element of coercion in a free media market, where the product is dictated by consumer tastes. In this context, how can one possibly be forced to be free?

For cultural consumers, the choice should not be between so-called Western cultural imperialism, which may not actually exist, on the one hand, and cultural protectionism (cultural tyranny) on the other. For when any government refuses to allow consumers to voluntarily purchase cultural products overseas, they are essentially depriving them of choice, which inherently involves a form of coercive power–namely, censorship.

But it is not only the governments that are responsible for forcing native peoples into a collectivist herd conformity. Private citizens in third world nations are concerned about maintaining their “national identity” in the face of such formidable threats as McDonald’s and Kentucky Fried Chicken.

Such notions imply that the individual is not defined by himself–is not self-made. Instead, he is defined by his culture. Instead, his identity is formed by others, perhaps even before he was ever born, while he was still in the womb.

But men should not be defined by their nation state or culture. Individuals should not be limited by their culture; and for the first time in history, in this borderless, transnational, globalized information age, when increasingly free markets facilitate the free flow of goods, services, capital, technology, people, culture and ideas across borders, national identities are increasingly at risk. The cultural protectionists are losing their battle for the future in much the same way that their economic counterparts are losing their protectionist fight against the global proliferation of free trade.

Strictly a personal view. Charles Reyes Jr. is a regular columnist of Saipan Tribune. Mr. Reyes may be reached at charlesraves@hotmail.com