Yes, Logo: The Upside of Globalization

Yes Logo: The Upside of Globalization
Globalization is the odd duck of American politics. Over the years, opposition to it has drawn the likes of Pat Buchanan and Noam Chomsky into an improbable consensus, while support for it has fallen to George Bush (both of them) and Bill Clinton alike. All this has happened, despite many people being unable to pin down what, exactly, globalization is. Is it corporations taking over the planet? Is it freeing people from the tyranny of rampant nationalism? Is it being able to watch a French movie on a Japanese DVD player in America? Perhaps it’s all of the above, in divided quantities. However, the one thing globalization is not is a force that can, and should, be stopped.
There are various economic arguments in favor and in opposition to the practices associated with globalization. Trade, immigration and labor flow are weighty issues that are given their due and proper by financial gurus with lengthy résumés. But globalization also entails a cultural aspect that, for many, is probably easier to grasp.
Opponents to cultural globalization – that is, the unimpeded flow of media, language, entertainment and other commercial goods – tend to come in two flavors. Social conservatives tend to object to this practice on the grounds that it will erode the American cultural identity and produce a sort of destruction from within. Multicultural naysayers, such as Suzanne Fields, have long forecasted the demolition of cherished values and a freefall into relativism.
This view, however, neglects the historical truth that ours is, by its very nature, an assimilationist culture. We are not drawn wholecloth from the remnants of any one group of people, but instead we absorb the best of what many groups have to offer. For all the endless carping about “Western values,” it’s worth noting that we use Arabic numerals and that Chinese restaurants have become mainstays even in small towns in the reddest of states.
Rather than keep up the pretense of innate superiority and try to protect ourselves from some unlikely hostile takeover, we should recognize that other cultures have things of value to offer us. Besides, cultural protectionism will only result in sharper national divides and increased animosity along national lines. If every nation is concerned with preserving its own national identity, than little constructive cooperation can be achieved.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, social progressives tend to concern themselves with the export end of things. They see globalization as a form of global imperialism, with Western cultural uprooting, destroying and replacing homespun institutions. In the estimation of people like Benjamin Barber, the result of successful globalization will be a homogenous, flavorless McWorld.
Personally, I find this view to be subtly racist, inasmuch as it does not acknowledge the Third World’s capacity for ingenuity. Often, the result is not the Western product replacing the native culture, but the two being blended together to form a new product entirely.
The economist Tyler Cowen once gave a lecture in which he demonstrated this principle by tracing the history of Jamaican music. Starting in the 1950s or so, Jamaicans began receiving radio signals that introduced them to American doo-wop. They then took this newfound curiosity and married it to their native music (itself derived from Africa), thus creating ska in the process. Ska eventually evolved into reggae, the success of which allowed Jamaica to have its own music industry. Reggae was then imported to the U.S., where it became an influence for early rap….and so the cycle goes.
Under this scenario, the implementation of American culture was the motivation for positive cultural change. Had Jamaicans found American music not to their liking, they wouldn’t have listened to it. And had the leftist “cultural imperialism” argument been applied here, nobody today would be listening to Bob Marley.
Ironically, the opposition to globalization has achieved a sort of unintended cultural exchange of its own. Not only have Buchanan, Chomsky and Ralph Nader reached agreement on this issue, but economic nationalists of many backgrounds and denominations have, under the auspices of anti-globalization, formed a quasi-socialist globalized movement of their own. Plus, the 1999 anti-WTO protests in Seattle were enough to draw ex-Nirvana bassist Krist Novoselic out of retirement, where he teamed with Jello Biafra and Soundgarden’s Kim Thayil to form the one-off No WTO Combo.
So, in the name of Novoselic, subtitled Jet Li films and being able to eat Big Macs in Kazakhstan, I say to Naomi Klein and other cultural pessimists: yes, logo.