Local Cultures and Globalization

The inability of some countries to resist the avalanche of culture-laden products that necessarily trail behind international corporations from developed countries, or should I say more specifically from one particular super-power, the United States, will mean that the North American culture (arrogantly labeled by some as a “sub-culture”) will eventually reign supreme, casting a blanket of uniformity over the world and suffocating the rich panoply of other existing cultures.

In this way all peoples, not only the weak and defenseless, will lose their identity, really meaning their soul and will be occupied becoming the colonized nations of the 21^st Century, clones or automatons caricaturing the cultural model of the new imperialism which as well as using the power of money, technology, military might and scientific know-how to reign over the planet, will also impose their language, their beliefs, their creeds, their lifestyle and their dreams, on all of us.

This quasi-Orwellian nightmare of a neutered world devoid of its cultural and linguistic diversity, homogenized by the United States is not, as some would have it, the exclusive domain of extreme-left political minorities still dreaming of Marxism, Maoism or third-world Guevarism, nor is it the result of a persecution complex sparked by jealous hatred towards the American colossus. It is also found in developed countries with a high degree of culture sharing this attitude with left wing, center and right wing political groups. The most evident case is that of France where the Government carries out regular campaigns each with different ideological labels to safeguard French “cultural identity” which they imagine to be threatened by globalization. There is a wide range of intellectuals and politicians who become very alarmed at the possibility of the land that produced Montaigne, Descartes, Racine, Baudelaire, and was creator and arbiter of fashion, of thought, of art, of gastronomy and in all realms of the mind and the soul could be conquered by the McDonald’s, Pizzahut, Kentucky Fried Chicken, rock and roll, Hollywood films, blue jeans, sneakers and T-shirts. This fear has meant, for example, that, in France, the local film industry has been heavily subsidized and that there are frequent campaigns demanding a quota system to force cinemas to show a certain number of French films and to limit the number imported from the United States. Indeed, this explains why the municipal authorities have passed stern resolutions (though, weakly enforced, judging from what one can see on the streets of Paris) carrying stiff fines for those advertisements that corrupt Molière’s language with anglicisms. Let us not forget that José Bové, the farmer turned “la malbouffe” (anti-fast-food) crusader, who destroyed a McDonald’s restaurant has become almost a popular hero in France.

Even though I don’t think that this cultural argument against globalization is valid, we must accept that at the bottom of it there is an unquestionable truth. The world during the next century will be less colorful and picturesque than the one we have left behind. Local fêtes, dress, customs, ceremonies, rites and beliefs that in the past have contributed to the rich panoply of human folkloric and ethnological variety, are fading away or becoming the preserve of minority and isolated groups, whilst, the bulk of society abandons them, adopting more practical habits better suited to our times. This is a process that to a greater or a lesser degree is experienced by all countries of the globe, not due to globalization but to the modernization that eventually causes globalization. This phenomenon can be regretted and we can feel nostalgia for the eclipse of tradition and past ways of life that appear, in our eyes from the comfort of our present situation, attractive, original and colorful. This erosion is, nevertheless, in my view, unavoidable. Even countries which have reason to dread these winds of change that could uproot their totalitarian regimes like Cuba and North Korea, in vain barricade themselves against modernity using censorship and prohibitions. Nothing seems to be able to stop these currents of change from filtering through the cracks and little by little eroding a country’s “cultural identity.” In theory perhaps a country could maintain its cultural identity intact as some remote African or Amazonian tribes have done, if it is determined to live, self-sufficient, in total isolation, cutting off all ties to the rest of the world. The cultural identity thus preserved would return that society to a pre-historic lifestyle.

It is very true that progress does away with very many traditional forms of life, but, at the same time, paves the way for new opportunities. This explains why, contrary to the wishes of governments and intellectuals, the people, given the chance, choose change and freedom.

The arguments in favor of “cultural identity” and against globalization betray a stagnant attitude towards culture that is not borne out by historical fact. Do we know of any cultures that have remained unchanged through time? To find any of them one has to travel to the small primitive, magico-religious communities made up of people living in caves worshiping the gods of thunder or wild animals and who, due to their primitive condition, become progressively more vulnerable to exploitation and extermination. All others, particularly those with the right to call themselves modern or alive, have evolved into a barely recognizable image of what they were only two or three generations back. This is precisely the case of France, Spain or England where changes in the last half century have been so profound as to make it almost impossible that Proust, García Lorca or Virginia Wolff could have recognized the societies into which they were born and whose conditions they helped to renew.

The notion of “cultural identity” is dangerous because from a social point of view it represents an artifice of doubtful conceptual consistency, and from a political point of view it is a threat to the most cherished of all human prizes, freedom. I do not deny, however, that a group of people who speak the same language, have been born and live in the same territory are faced with the same problems and practice the same religion and follow the same customs have many characteristics in common. However, these common denominators cannot be used to define each one of the individuals and relegate their unique characteristics to second place. The concept of identity, when it does not refer to individuals but is used to represent a whole, is debasing and dehumanizing, it becomes an all-encompassing magic word that groups individuals under one heading and deprives the unique human being of all originality and creativity, all that is not indelibly impressed in his genes, imposed by his geographical environment or social pressure but is the result of his ability to resist all those influences and balance them with acts of free will and personal invention.

In truth, the notion of collective identity, the foundation of nationalism, is an ideological fiction that for more than one ethnologist and anthropologist does not accurately reflect reality, not even in the remotest of primitive communities. No matter how important customs and beliefs may be when practiced in common for the defense of a group, the margin of individual initiative and creativity amongst its members with the objective of achieving emancipation is always wide and the individual differences prevail over the collective characteristics when individuals are examined on their own terms and not as epiphenomena of the collectivity. Indeed, one of the great advantages of globalization is that it radically broadens the possibilities that each and every citizen of this interconnected planet (homeland to us all) has of building its own personal cultural identity, according to his or her most intimate preferences and motivations and through voluntarily decisions. The fact is that no longer is the citizen forced, as he was in the past and still is in many lands, to accept without question the identity imposed upon her or him by language, nation, religion, etc. and of his native surroundings as if her were born in a cultural concentration camp. In this sense, we must welcome globalization because it notably extends the horizon of human freedom.

The fear felt by many of seeing this planet Americanized is due more to ideological paranoia than to a sense of reality. No one doubts, of course, that with globalization the importance of the English language that is now, as Latin was in the Middle Ages, the standard language of our times, will increase as an indispensable tool for international communications and transactions. does this mean that the development of English as a common language will be at the expense of other well established languages and cultures? I do not think so. The truth is quite the opposite. The removal of boarders and lure of the open world has become an incentive for the new generation to learn and absorb other cultures (now a possibility within their reach), be it for pleasure or as a necessity, given that the knowledge of several languages and the possibility of being comfortable in different cultures is a very valuable credential for professional success in our times. I would like to use, as an example of what I have saying, the Spanish case. Half a century ago, the Spanish-speaking community on both sides of the Atlantic had hardly any links with the outside world and a very limited influence outside our traditional linguistic frontiers. Today the reverse is the case. Our language shows a growing impulse and vitality and is daily breaking new ground in five Continents. This explains why we now have about twenty-five or thirty million Spanish-speaking individuals in the United States, and it also explains why at least two presidential candidates, Governor Bush and the Vice President Gore campaign, not only in English, but also in Spanish.

How many million young people of both sexes thc world over, thanks to globalization have started to learn Japanese, German, Mandarin, Cantonese, Arabic, Russian or French? Very many, to be sure. This is a tendency of our times which, fortunately, will only grow with the passage of time. The best policy for the defense of one’s own culture and language is to spread them to the ends of the Earth, instead of naively attempting to inoculate them against the English infection. Those who promote this inoculation, much as they might wax lyrical on culture, are normally pretty ignorant people who behind this attitude hide their true obsession: nationalism. Human culture of whatever shape is by its nature universal and clashes with this parochial, muddled and discriminatory vision with which nationalism tinges all cultural activities. The most admirable lesson we can learn from all cultures is that in order to remain fresh and alive they do not require protection from bureaucrats or commissioners, nor do they need to be confined behind bars or isolated by frontier police. To do this would make them wither into folklore. Cultures need freedom to stay alive. They need to be constantly exposed to other cultures that enrich and renew and inject them with renewed vigor. In ancient times Latin didn’t kill off Greek, on the contrary, the artistic originality and the intellectual depth of the Hellenic culture permeated Roman civilization and thus Homer’s poems, Plato and Aristotle’s philosophy became known in the civilized world. Globalization will not destroy local cultures, quite the opposite; everything that is worth preserving in them will be rescued and will flourish in the new world.

In T.S. Eliot’s famous essay “Notes Towards the Definition of Culture,” he predicted that humanity would, in the future, see a renaissance of local and regional cultures, which, at the time, seemed improbable. Nevertheless, globalization will almost certainly prove him right in the 21^st Century. For this we must rejoice. The resurgence of small local cultures will restore to humanity a rich multiplicity of behavior and expression which during, the 18^th and 19^th century were destroyed, sometimes more literally than metaphorically, by the nation state, to create what was called national cultural identities. This is often forgotten or deliberately swept under the carpet due to its serious and uncomfortable ethical ramifications. These distinct cultural identities were forcibly imposed, the teaching and publication of vernacular languages were forbidden, as was the practice of any customs or religions inconsistent with that imposed by the nation state. The result was that in the majority of countries in the World, the nation state came to represent a dominant culture imposed upon other weaker cultures that were repressed or suppressed from official life. Contrary to what those fearing globalization seem to think, it is not easy to erase any trace of a culture no matter how small, if it is backed by a rich tradition and by people who keep the customs alive even in secret. We have witnessed, lately, how, thanks to the weakening of the iron grip that used to characterize the nation state, the forgotten or silent cultures have begun to re-emerge sometimes in a very dynamic shape, in this new globalized planet.

It is happening everywhere in Europe. It might be worth noting the Spanish case and the vigor with which its cultural regions are reappearing. For forty years General Franco repressed them, denied them any opportunity to express themselves and forced them underground. However, with the advent of democracy the varied cultures of Spain were once more allowed to spread their wings. The new system of Autonomies has given local culture a new boost, not only in Catalonia, Galicia and the Basque country but also in the rest of the country. It is true that we must not mistake this resurgence of local cultures, positive and enriching as it is, with the ugly face of nationalism which, even in Spain, is a source of endless problems and a serious threat to the freedom of culture.

There is no doubt that globalization presents many problems of a political, judicial and administrative nature and should it not come hand in hand with the spread of a healthy democratic system, it can wreak havoc with our liberties, paving the way for international terrorism and crime. Nevertheless, compared with the advantages and opportunities that it brings, cultural and otherwise, and above all for poor and backward societies searching for the fast track to decent standards of living, those problems, I repeat, instead of depressing our spirits should encourage us to face them with enthusiasm and imagination. The conviction should further encourage us, that never before in the long history of human civilization have we had the intellectual, scientific and economic resources that we now enjoy, to fight against the four evils that have been the scourge of humanity: hunger, war, prejudice and oppression.