Discusssion Essay
Policy for cultural imperialism?
by Doresa Banning
October 16, 2001
Question: Should the United States address the issue of cultural imperialism with policy or not? If so, how?
Cultural imperialism or Americanization is a heated topic, with strong support for both sides of the debate on whether Americans' influence on other countries is positive or negative. A corollary that's addressed seemingly less in the literature is the issue of whether or not the U.S. should implement and follow a policy with respect to what has come to be known as cultural imperialism. The issue seems to boil down to what Stefano Hatfield describes as the two ways of marketing in a foreign country: Sell Americana and impose yourself on a local culture, or ignore Americana in the interests of fitting into the local culture" (14). Some opine the government and multinational corporations are responsible for acting in concert with the interests of cultures abroad before the interests of capitalism. Others argue it's the countries on the receiving end that are responsible for dealing with the infiltration of American products and culture.
Proponents for a policy
In the article "Cultural Imperialism is No Joke," Jeffrey Garten, dean of the Yale School of Management, argues that Americans should be concerned with "dominating foreign lifestyles and values" and the U.S. government and multinationals should take action to limit the potential damage resulting from the infiltration of American products and ideals abroad rebellion borne out of America's promoting the idea that individual freedom has more value than government authority, and destabilization of other countries (26).
Garten says strong cultures abroad are in America's best interest. To facilitate stronger cultures, he suggests that multinationals such as Time Warner Inc. and PepsiCo Inc. could fund native entrepreneurs looking to create local cultural industries. He says, "They could showcase regional film and theatrical productions and finance university research and teaching in the region's history, art and literature (26).
He argues that the U.S. government could reverse trade policy to allow temporary quotas and subsidies abroad to preserve local cultural industries such as television and movies. It could encourage the World Bank to beef up tourism infrastructure in foreign countries and help the United Nations in its efforts to restore damaged or destroyed national monuments.
Garten says that U.S.' sensitivity to foreign concerns should include a readjustment in the way its leaders talk about free enterprise and its legal system. He says, "The Treasury and State Departments could lower their volume on their rhetoric about the magic of the free marketplace. And when so much of U.S. society is fed up with inordinate litigation, officials could be more modest about the glories of America's legal system" (26).
Acting on these suggestions would result in fewer backlashes from other countries, and perhaps even improve American's ability to export its ideas and ideals long term. "The U.S. should at least try," Garten says.
Garten's arguments raise some interesting questions: Who should decide what the limits on exports should be? Should the limits vary depending on the importing country and/or the exporting company? How will these limits be enforced?
Kevin Mulcahy, in his article, "Cultural Imperialism and Cultural Sovereignty: U.S.-Canadian Cultural Relations," describes how Canada and the U.S. engage in a number of bilateral and multilateral activities that promote international understanding and good will. These efforts include exchanges of professors, students, professionals, performing arts tours, visual art exhibits and informational services print and broadcast. Perhaps more of these programs coordinated with various countries should be in place to effect cultural cooperation.
Natasha Wimmer, in her article, "The U.S. Translation Blues," hints that American citizens themselves can make a difference (74). She explains how American publishing houses have only 6% of foreign books translated into English for U.S. consumer consumption. Demand from readers for more translations could potentially change publishers' current practices.
Couldn't Wimmer's suggestion extend as well toward other cultural forms, such as movies, music, television and magazines? Were Americans to demand more foreign titles, wouldn't it help bolster those industries in countries in which they originate?
Dalya Alberge, in the article "Puttnam Declares War on U.S. Cultural Imperialism," interviews British movie producer, Sir David Puttnam who says he fears the U.S. will eclipse Europe if American films continue to dominate box offices worldwide. Puttnam says Great Britain and America should work together to increase Britain's share of box office from the 7-8% it was in 1997 to about 15 percent by 2007. Alberge explains, "(Puttnam) called on the American studios to become good global citizens, contributing to the fabric of different nations rather than purely imposing their culture on them." Puttnam, however, doesn't explain exactly how American studios should help. Should the government devise laws that regulate the number of foreign films and other media being imported and/or assign how much foreign content is produced in America?
Another proponent of the U.S. making conscious efforts to control its influence is Frank Riepe, member of the American Institute of Architects Sudbury. In his article, "Culture as Commodity" he suggests there are perhaps times and circumstances in which America should just keep out of other countries (20). His example is the Guggenheim Bilbao Museum, a Basque art museum that was built by a high-profile American architect and features non-Basque art. Riepe asks, "Why should I go to Spain today? I would love to be planning a trip to Bilbao so that I could visit a museum designed by a young Basque architect whose work would express his ethnic culture and would be an essential part of the urban design of its city. Such a work would have true meaning."
Another idea for dealing with cultural imperialism is expressed by Peter Sutherland, the former director-general of the World Trade Organization, via David Crane's column entitled "Summit on Trade's Impact Needed." Sutherland proposes a global economic summit to be attended by about 24 world leaders to address the challenges of globalization, including Americanization. Sutherland says issues on the agenda should include: ensuring the poorest countries are not marginalized, addressing the fear that economic growth due to globalization is destabilizing and dealing with fears that globalization will lead to lower living standards.
In a milieu in which the U.S. government and multinationals are being accused of and criticized for not being considerate of other cultures, some corporations insist their actions prove they are.
Reader's Digest, for example, is one. Thomas Ryder, chief executive officer of The Readers Digest Association Inc. in a letter responding to Garten's article "Cultural Imperialism is No Joke," argues that Reader's Digest respects local cultures. He says it's evident by the company's publishing in 19 languages and following a policy where each magazine edition contains "as much as 30% of the editorial content researched and written by local writers and edited by local editors" (15). In addition, the magazine "routinely imports overseas content for the U.S. edition," Ryder says.
Opponents of a policy
A number of people disagree with Garten's arguments that the U.S. and American companies should take a proactive stance with respect to cultural imperialism. Brian L. Black from Chennai, India is one example. In a letter to Business Week in response to Garten's article "Cultural Imperialism is No Joke," he emphatically states culture and import reduction are the responsibility of the host countries (5). He adds, "To press the Clinton administration to place quotas on cultural exports is impractical and ludicrous."
In fact several countries have taken steps to control American influence on their culture. Canada, for example, in efforts to protect its cultural sovereignty, has "long maintained some curbs on sales of American publications and textbooks and on the reach of American radio" (Weber, 37). In April of 1998, Canadian regulators mandated that at least 35% of music played on local radio stations must be Canadian, with a goal of raising the content percentage to 40% over ensuing five years (Weber, 37). France and Canada have passed laws prohibiting satellite dissemination of American content into their citizens' homes (Rothkopf, 41). Islamic states, including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt and Iran, have banned the import and use of satellite dishes or decoders (Media, 127). David Rothkopf, in his article "In Praise of Cultural Imperialism," argues that the U.S. should proceed aggressively to ensure its position as the leader in the foreseeable global information infrastructure. He says America cannot get swept up in the backlash against globalization and Americanization. Rather, the country should ensure that if the world is moving toward a common language, it be English; if it's moving toward common telecommunications, safety and quality standards, they be American; if it's becoming linked by television, radio and music, the programming be American; and if common values are being developed, they be values with which Americans are comfortable. He argues, "The choice is between leading a more peaceful world or being held hostage to events in a more volatile and violent one." Suggestions for the United States range from taking a do-nothing stance to being a fosterer of foreign culture. Proponents of the latter don't clearly work out the logistics to their suggestions. One wonders how feasible and realistic their recommendations are. If one aspect surrounding the issue of an American policy towards cultural imperialism is clear, it's that there are no easy answers.
WORKS CITED
Alberge, Alya. "Puttnam declares war on U.S. Cultural Imperialism." The Times 17 May 1997, Home News.
Black, Brian L. Letter. Business Week 15 Feb. 1999: int'l ed.: 5.
Crane, David. "Summit on Trade's Impact Needed." The Toronto Star 3 Feb. 1998, metro ed., sec. D: 2.
Garten, Jeffrey E. "Cultural Imperialism is No Joke." Business Week 30 Nov. 1998: 26.
Hatfield, Stefano. "Life of U.S. Multinationals Must Go On Despite Obstacles." Advertising Age 17 Sept. 2001: 14.
Media and Cultural Regulation. Ed. Kenneth Thompson. London: SAGE Publications, 1997.
Mulcahy, Kevin V. "Cultural Imperialism and Cultural Sovereignty: U.S.-Canadian Cultural Relations." American Review of Canadian Studies Summer 2000: 181-206.
Rea, Michael. Letter. Business Week 28 Dec. 1998: 15.
Riepe, Frank W. "Culture as Commodity." The Boston Globe 22 March 1998, city ed., arts & film: 20.
Rothkopf, David J. "In Praise of Cultural Imperialism?" Foreign Policy Summer 1997: 38-53.
Ryder, Thomas O. Letter. Business Week 28 Dec. 1998: 15.
Taylor, Robert. "Inside Track: Company Before Nation: McDonald's Operations." The Financial Times [London] 13 Dec. 2000: 14.
Weber, Joseph. "Does Canadian Culture Need This Much Protection?" Business Week 8 June 1998: 37.
Wimmer, Natasha. "The U.S. Translation Blues." Publishers Weekly 21 May 2001: 71-74.