Sociology 2:Class 17: Globalization, Culture, Identity

Copyright © 2014 by Evan Schofer

Do not copy or distribute without permission

Announcements• Minor changes in week 10 readings

• Updates on current events in Ukraine– Other readings cut…

• See course website…

• Final exam coming up• Review sheet will be out soon• Final exam review during section next week

• Today’s Class: Globalization & Culture• What is culture, and how does globalization affect it?• Is culture/identity a source of conflict?

In the news:Russia invades Ukraine• The Guardian: The Russian military presence in Crimea continued to build, with

troops massing outside Ukrainian military facilities and Russian forces establishing control of both sides of the Kerch channel separating Crimea from Russia.

• US vice president Joe Biden urged Russia to pull back its forces. Medvedev said it was necessary to protect all Russians including those in Ukraine.

• Russia has requested a third emergency meeting of the UN security council over the crisis in Ukraine.

• The French foreign minister said European leaders could meet as early as Thursday to initiate targeted sanctions against Russian officials “If there is not in the coming hours a very quick de-escalation.”

• Russian market indexes plummeted and the central bank sold $10bn in an effort to stop a slide of the rouble.

• German chancellor Angela Merkel told US president Barack Obama in a phone call that after speaking with Russian president Vladimir Putin, she feared he may be “in another world.”

• The Obama administration came under fire from Washington hawks including Senator John McCain for not displaying what they said would be a stronger posture.

Ukraine conflict: Background• a

Ukraine conflict: Background• Ukraine historically sat between Ottoman

Empire, Poland, and Russia• Often ruled by Russia; site of several wars

• 1945-1991: Ukraine part of Soviet Union• Russia’s socialist empire

• 1991-present: Ukraine independent• Internal political split: Ties to Russia vs. Europe• 2006-10: pro-European leaders• 2010-present: pro-Russian leader elected

• 2014: Protest by pro-European groups• Pro-Russian leader deposed; Russia invades.

Ukraine conflict: ethnic groups• a

Ukraine conflict: political divisions• a

Issues for this class• 1. Hard vs. soft power

• People focused on “hard power” see Putin as bold– And, evidence that US has not been aggressive enough

• People focused on soft power see Putin as totally foolish, desperate

– US needs to take “high ground” and keep Putin isolated

• 2. The nature of ethnic identity in Ukraine• Some foresee conflict: ethnic Ukrainians vs. Russians• Others see the conflict as mainly political

– Ethnic conflict not “inevitable”

• 3. Does economic globalization make war obsolete?

In the news: Ukraine• Ukraine crisis sends Russian stock market

tumbling• £34bn wiped off shares listed in Moscow as investors respond to Russia's

intervention in Crimea• Russia's financial system punished Vladimir Putin far more swiftly than western

diplomacy on Monday, as the Moscow stock market suffered one of its biggest one-day falls in recent years and the rouble tumbled sharply in a first nervous reaction to the Kremlin's gambit in Crimea.

• Some £34bn was wiped off the value of companies on the Moscow stock exchange on Monday and the central bank burned through an estimated £10bn of its reserves propping up its currency as investors took fright at the most serious standoff between Russia and Ukraine since the fall of the Soviet Union.

• The bank was also forced to raise its main interest rate from 5.5% to 7% – the largest hike since financial crisis ruined Russia in 1998.

More on war/conflict next week…

New Topic: Cultural Globalization• “Culture” refers to many things:

– 1. Popular culture: movies, music, clothing– 2. Group culture/identity: Shared beliefs,

traditions, world-views, way of life• Example: An indigenous that shares a particular

religion, language, cuisine, etc.• Example: National groups (e.g., the French)

– 3. World Society Theory: Culture = common norms, cognitive models, scripts.

Globalization and Culture• One obvious trend:

– “Western” (i.e., American & European) culture is increasingly dominant around the globe• Ex: English is arguably the primary global language

– And, many local languages are dying out

• Ex: Western music, clothing are popular everywhere

– Other examples from readings? Personal experiences?

Perspectives: Globalization & Culture

• 1. Modernization theory– Dominant view in 1950s and 1960s, now criticized

• Prediction: Traditional “cultures” would die out, as everyone became “modern” and “rational”

– Modernization theorists thought this was good• “Primitive” cultures were replaced by “advanced” ones• Local identities were replaced by modern social &

political identities• “Superstition” replaced by rationality, science,

“enlightenment”.

Perspectives: Globalization & Culture

• 2. Marxism / World-System Theory• Argues that power & culture are intertwined• Marx: Ideas of a society are the ideas of the ruling class

– Western economic domination is accompanied by cultural domination• Often called “Cultural Imperialism” • Westerners can effectively spread their culture via

colonialism, and later via media, advertising– This helps maintain economic dominance– Example: Marketing Coke to supplant traditional drinks…

• Non-Western people may reject their own culture, prefer to wear Western clothes, listen to Lady Gaga, and eat at McDonalds.

Perspectives: Globalization & Culture• 3. World Society Theory

• Argues that a key facet of globalization is the emergence of a “world culture”

– Embodied, in part, in international associations• Global culture provides norms, scripts, and models that

shape the behavior of governments• Consequence: Governments, laws, societies are

becoming increasingly “isomorphic”– Contrast w/ World System Theory: World culture

may relate to historical dominance of West….• But, culture is not principally a mechanism of furthering

the dominance of the West– Rather, it now evolves somewhat independently of the interests

of powerful countries» Ex: Environmentalism, human rights…

Perspectives: Globalization & Culture

• 4. Homogenization vs. Hybridization: A view from anthropology

• Martell: “Is Globalization Homogenous or Hybrid?”

– Homogenization: Becoming similar or uniform throughout• Latin: Homo = same; gen = make• Homogenized milk = mixed up really well so that the fat

doesn’t separate out from the liquid

– Hybrid: A new breed created by joining two or more varieties (e.g., of plant)• Refers to the mixing or blending of cultures.

Homogenization vs. Hybridization• Martell: “Is Globalization Homogenous or

Hybrid?”– Issue: “The homogenization thesis”

• Also called the “McDonaldization Thesis” (Ritzer)• The idea that global information flows and capitalism will

result in cultural uniformity• We all eat at McDonalds, watch the same TV shows• Ex: 1.1 billion viewers of Baywatch in 1990s (p. 91)

– Fits with theories we discussed:• Modernization: Everyone modernizes• Marx / World-system Theory: Everyone dominated by

global capitalists, Western media• World Society Theory: Spread of global norms/models.

Homogenization vs. Hybridization• Criticisms of the Homogenization view

– 1. Observed exceptions to a single dominant culture• Example: India has a vibrant film industry “Bollywood”• Hasn’t been wiped out by American films

– 2. Media & consumption are only a part of culture• Watching similar TV or movies doesn’t erase many

other cultural differences (beliefs, religious views, etc)

– 3. Global culture can be seen as increasingly fragmented• More and more cable TV stations• Shift from mass consumerism to niche consumption.

Homogenization vs. Hybridization• Criticisms of the Homogenization view

– 4. Homogenization view treats receivers of culture as very passive• Argument: People don’t just passive absorb culture• Instead: they play an active role…

– Accepting some ideas and rejecting others

• Example: Even McDonalds, supposedly the source of uniformity, has to adapt to local demands/customs…

– 5. The dominant culture isn’t “pure”… it reflects influences from other cultures• Asian, Latin American, African cultures influence

Western music, media, food, etc.

Homogenization vs. Hybridization• Hybridization. Culture & consumption reflect

hybridization – mixing and recombining• Also called “creolization”… a new language created by

mixing others.

– Issue studied by Anthropologists• Locals are influenced by global culture, but also re-

interpret it and adapt it to their lives.• “Local cultural entrepreneurs have gradually mastered

the alien forms which reach them through the transnational commodity flows and in other ways, taking them apart, tampering and tinkering with them in such a way that the resulting new forms are more responsive to, and at the same time in part outgrowths of, local everyday life…” (Ulf Hannerz). Examples???

McDonalds: Homogenous or Hybrid?

• McDonalds in Japan & Taiwan– Fried shrimp burger; Chicken rice-cake burger

McDonalds: Homogenous or Hybrid?

• McArabia!

• The idea of hybridization was originally about how local people transformed global culture

• But, examples from the West also illustrate the process.

Homogenization vs. Hybridization• (If time allows)• Example: Indian film industry

• Bollywood – Mumbai• Tamil film industry – Chennai

– Clearly reflects local tradition…• Video\Bollywood_Trailer.mp4

– But also absorption of Western ideas… but is it homogenization or hybridization?• Video\Endhiran_-_Official_Trailer_-_HQ.flv• Video\Best_action_scene_ever._ever._ever._--_Endhira

n_Robot.flv

Homogenization vs. Hybridization• Martell’s conclusion:

– Homogenization thesis is too simple… but it needs to be “revised rather than rejected” (p. 90)• Hybridization is an important cultural process• But, global homogenizing forces (like cultural

imperialism) do exist… • It isn’t “either”/”or”, but “both”…

Culture, Identity, & Conflict• Issue: Is conflict inevitable when globalization

brings cultures into contact with each other?– Does globalization of Western/American culture generate

conflict?

• Huntington: Clash of Civilizations

– And, more generally: Can ideas like culture, ethnicity, and “identity” explain conflict• Ex: Genocide in Balkans, Rwanda• Ex: Conflict between radical Islamic groups and

Western/Christian/capitalist societies

– Answer: It depend on what you think ethnicity / identity is…

Perspectives on identity/culture• Two views of identity/ethnicity/culture:• 1. Primordial view

• Culture/ethnicity/identity is “primordial.” It is deeply rooted, fundamental, and enduring

• Consequently, cultural differences are difficult to overcome

– Conflict often results

• This view is common in media, popular culture.

Perspectives on identity/culture• 2. The “social constructionist” view:

Culture/ethnicity/identity are malleable: They change over time and with social context

• People exhibit different identities in different contexts• Identities disappear and return (or are “re-invented”)

– Ex: Quebecois in Canada

• Political processes and social circumstances shape and alter identities.

Perspectives on identity/culture• Empirical evidence: Strongly supports the

social constructionist perspective• 1. Culture/identity is not innate and

unchanging• Example: Balkan conflict between Serbs and Croats• Primordialist claim: Hatred is centuries old: “There will

always be blood on the Balkan soil”• Evidence: Surveys suggest that trust and intermarriage

were very high in 1980s, before political conflict began.

Perspectives on identity/culture• 2. Culture/identity is often the product (not

cause) of political struggle• Example: Balkan political leaders strategically invoked

ethnicity, stoked hatreds to gain support– Inflammatory speech about external threat = a powerful frame

to garner social/political support

• Elites & social movement groups frame selectively, thereby “constructing” the conflict along certain lines

– Is fight against Al Qaeda a fight against an Islamic group? A bunch of Saudis? A bunch of oil-rich bourgeoisie?

Culture and Conflict• Question: Do cultural differences lead to

conflict?• Samuel Huntington: Clash of Civilizations

• An argument related to the primordial view

– A. There are distinct “civilizations” in the world, with different histories, beliefs, and cultures• Ex: Western, “Confucian”, Islamic, Hindu, Latin

American

– B. These will become the main “fault lines” of conflict in the future• Replacing the “Cold War” battles over ideologies.

Culture and Conflict• Why will there be conflict among civilizations?• 1. Differences in civilizations are

fundamental• Different language, history, religion, beliefs about

individuals, families, and groups• “These differences are more fundamental than beliefs

about political ideologies and political regimes.” (Reader, p. 28)

• 2. Globalization: The world gets smaller• Globalization increases and intensifies interactions

among “civilizations”.

Culture and Conflict• 3. Economic modernization is “separating

people from local identities” (p. 28)• Local identities are dying out, allowing groups to

organize under broad “civilizations”– For him, civilizations are primordial… more so than local

identities…

• Example: There are many Islamic sects (often in conflict with each other); If those sects unite under “Islam”, the potential for conflict increases

• Result: There is greater “civilization consciousness”.

Culture and Conflict• Huntington’s prediction: These cultural

differences will lead to greater global conflict: A clash of civilizations

• Either among civilizations… or “the West versus the rest”

• Issue: Sociologists have been very critical of this view:

• Sociologists criticize the general idea of coherent “civilizations”… no such thing.

• And, they criticize the primordial view of culture…

Perspectives on identity/culture• Bowen: “The Myth of Global Ethnic Conflict”

• Argues against Huntington (But focuses on civil war, not global conflict)

• Issue: There are many bloody conflicts raging in developing countries

• Westerners often attribute them to enduring ethnic hatreds

• Treat them as sad but inevitable• And, many fear Huntington-like conflict of “West vs. the

Rest”…

Culture and Conflict• Bowen: “The Myth of Global Ethnic Conflict”

– “The very phrase “ethnic conflict” misguides us. It has become a shorthand way to speak about any and all violent confrontations between groups of people living in the same country. Some of these conflicts involve ethnicity or cultural identity, but most are about getting more power, land, or other resources.

Culture and Conflict• Bowen: 3 mistaken assumptions:• 1. Ethnic identities are ancient and

unchanging• The is the primordial view of ethnicity… it is widely

refuted by sociological research

– Instead “ethnicity is the product of modern politics”• Example: Serbs and Croats in the Balkans• Example: Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda.

Culture and Conflict• Bowen: 3 mistaken assumptions:• 2. Ethnic identities motivate people to

persecute and kill• Answer: “Less than we usually think, and when they

do, it is only after long periods of being prepared, pushed, and threatened by leaders who control the army and the airwaves. It is fear and hate generated from the top, and not ethnic differences, that finally push people to commit acts of violence.”

Culture and Conflict• Bowen: 3 mistaken assumptions:• 3. Ethnic diversity inevitably leads to violence

• In fact, most extremely diverse societies peaceful• And, huge conflicts result across groups that are

culturally quite similar– Somalia

• Rather, the issue is often the relationship between ethnic groups and those in power…

Identity Construction and Conflict• “Ethnic Cleansing” in the Balkans/Yugoslavia

– Conflict between Serbs and Croats• Primordialist claim: Hatred is centuries old: “There will

always be blood on the Balkan soil”– BUT: Surveys suggest that trust and intermarriage were very

high in 1980s, before political conflict began– People lived peacefully in same neighborhoods for decades

– Balkan political leaders strategically invoked ethnicity, stoked hatreds to gain support

– Inflammatory speech about external threat = a powerful frame to garner social/political support

– Invoking hatreds and committing atrocities helps consolidate allies and eliminate political rivals

– Several leaders stood trial for war crimes at the Hague…

Identity Construction and Conflict• The Rwandan Genocide (1994)

• Approx. 800,000 people killed• Primordialist claim: Ethnic hatreds led to conflict

– Hutus vs. Tutsis

– Evidence: Killings were politically motivated• Very complex situation. In a nutshell:• Ethnic identities were first polarized by colonial policies• Recently, one of the Hutu political parties attempted to

consolidate power by attacking and demonizing opponents

– While it was supposedly an “ethnic” conflict, many victims were Hutus (political enemies of the attackers)…

Identity Construction and Conflict• Example: Katangan revolt in the Congo

• Typical account: war is result of “tribalism and ethnicity” (p. 131, citing Young)

• Actually, Katangans aren’t an ethnic group!• Katanga a province (like a US state) filled with many

different ethnic groups– Often, the provincial borders split ethnic groups… which fought

on opposite sides

• Rather, the war was rooted in economics and politics– For instance: Katanga was wealthy; they wanted to stop

people from migrating, taking jobs.

Identity Construction and Conflict• Issue: Katangan war did help solidify the

“Katangan” cultural identity• People began to be willing to “die for Katanga”• But, it would be a mistake to assume that conflict was

caused by strong cultural identities• Even strong identities can dissolve quickly; Or, be

replaced by others.

Construction of ethnic polarization• Example: Polarized identities in US after 9/11

• Issue: Who attacked us?– Saudis? (Most attackers were from Saudi Arabia)– A rich oil baron? (Bin Laden)– Muslim extremists?– An isolated nutcase?

– Questions:• Did US leaders seek to polarize identities after 9/11?

– Either to consolidate support in US or to build momentum for war?

• Could leaders have channeled animosity in a different direction? Or not invoked ethnic/religious identity at all?

– Why “muslim extremists” rather than other options?

Local Reactions to Globalization• So, if globalization doesn’t inevitably lead to

ethnic conflict… what’s up with Al Qaeda?– The general issue: How can we understand

reactions against the West?

Local Responses to Globalization• Local reactions against Western culture,

imperialism:• 1. Opt out. Ignore or shun the external culture

– Examples: Many indigenous groups, the Amish

• Historically most common. Arguably the most “authentically” traditional response to outsiders

• Typical outcome: children abandon traditional culture; traditional groups shrink or disintegrate

– Many traditional societies do not have strong institutions of social control… can’t compete with Western education, media, labor market.

Local Responses to Globalization• Reactions against Western culture:• 2. “Reactionary movements”: Social

movements that attack the system, offer an alternative

• Examples: French social movement against American food, popular culture; Some Islamic fundamentalists.

– Note: Some movements attack a specific (or symbolic) part of the dominant culture. Others are total rejections of it.

• Examples from readings, personal experience?

Local Responses to Globalization• Kurzman reading: “Bin Laden and other

Thoroughly Modern Muslims”• Argument: There are two kinds of reactionary

movements: “Traditional” and “Modern”

– Traditional Reactionary Movements:• Ex: The Taliban in Afghanistan

– Mostly fight to get outsiders to leave• Usually organized by actual indigenous people

– Participants are usually local

• Not very common…

Local Responses to Globalization• Kurzman reading: (cont’d)

– “Modern” Reactionary Movements:• Ex: Bin Laden & Al Qaeda

– Typically organized by highly educated people• More like a social movement

– Sophisticated use of media, etc…

• Not really a very “local” response at all…• Argument: These are modern social movements.

“Modern” Anti-Western Movements• “Modern” anti-Western movements are just

like other social movements. • “Grievances” aren’t sufficient to explain them

• They rely on:• Resource mobilization: resources, organizational

capacity• Political opportunity structure: allies, lapses in

repression• Framing: Use of symbols, imagery (often religious).

Anti-Western Movements• Example: Radical Islamic fundamentalist

groups• Resource mobilization:

• Leaders are highly educated– Some even have degrees from American universities

• Weapons & resources from US & USSR (cold war) were critical to the formation of many groups

– Al Qaeda, for example

• Oil rich countries have tremendous resources– It is easy to find donors for any pro-Islamic cause.

Anti-Western Movements• Ex: Radical Islamic fundamentalist groups• Political opportunity structure

• Radical groups clearly took advantage of friendly regimes (e.g., the Taliban) to train, build capacity

• Relative lack of repression in US is an opportunity– Note: Increased security after 9/11 means fewer opportunities

for protest/attacks– Note: These groups also attack pro-US regimes like Egypt…

but repression is much greater.

• Weak unstable countries provide opportunities– Currently: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq.

Anti-Western Movements• Ex: Radical Islamic fundamentalist groups• Framing: Use of symbols, imagery

• Religion provides a powerful set of images– Enemy isn’t just bad, but “evil” & “satanic”

• Another frame: attacking “imperialism”, the “system”– Standing up for the “little guy”, fighting the “bully”

• Reactionary movements always claim to authentically represent locals; that they aren’t part of the “system”

– Ex: Leaders don’t emphasize educational degrees or wealth; They emphasize the small village they came from.

Anti-Western Movements• Issue for reflection: How would strategies for

dealing with Al Qaeda differ if we think of it as a modern social movement?

• Rather than a “traditional” reactionary movement…