2005 Speeches
"Globalization and Culture": Remarks by Ambassador Frank Lavin at the Eisenhower Fellowship Conference in Singapore
June 28, 2005
Thank you, Dr. Maliki, for that kind introduction.
International cultural movement dates from ancient times. It is as old as merchants, missionaries, and travelers. But this phenomenon has exploded in recent decades due to the decreased costs of travel and commerce, and the increased availability of technology such as the Internet and satellite broadcasting.
This phenomenon is frequently perceived - or misperceived - as American and leads to criticisms we have all heard . . .
Globalization means American culture domination. MTV will take over the world.
Globalization homogenizes culture and destroys local customs. Starbucks will take over the world.
Globalization lowers standards by spreading a mass consumer pop culture. “Baywatch” will take over the world.
A poem a few years back in The Economist summed up these concerns:
"Rejoice, my friends or weep with sorrow; what California is today, the world will be tomorrow."
To my mind, there is a lot of validity to those criticisms, but as I indicated, they also stem from a misperception. In many people’s minds, American culture is equated with American mass culture, because that is the aspect that has the greatest commercial appeal.
The United States has the largest mass market in the world, giving it the largest market for mass culture in the world. This is exacerbated by the increased use of English as the lingua franca. I would not argue that America is a cultural super-power, but I don’t think anyone would challenge my assertion that we are most certainly a marketing super-power.
All of this means that American mass culture, or middle-brow culture, is much more likely to be exported. What is performed at Lincoln Center or the Kennedy Center or Carnegie Hall is much less likely to be seen overseas than what is performed at Disneyworld or in the WWF Arena.
Interestingly, the complaints that many non-Americans advance against what they perceive as American culture are points that many Americans themselves would endorse: that mass culture focuses excessively on sex and violence, or that it is mediocre, if not shallow.
All of these criticisms might well be true, at least insofar as mass culture is concerned, but I think there might be some more complicated points lurking below the surface that we should bare in mind.
First, U.S. culture is international. America is a nation of immigrants and home to visitors who want to harness our marketing power. Ben Wattenberg called the United States “the first universal nation.” There is no national academy of languages, no language police. When Mel Gibson or Jackie Chan come to the United States to produce a movie, whose culture is being exported? When Jascha Heifetz or Yo-yo Ma produce a concert in the United States, whose culture is being exported?
So globalization isn't a one-way street. It's more like a bazaar, giving us choices from all over the world, and letting us pick what we want to take home with us, while keeping our national identities.
Consider the global popularity of the Harry Potter books (by a Scottish author), or Japanese manga, anime, and Pokemon, or Hispanic music and telenovelas (soap operas), and Thai food.
The number one theatrical hit in Singapore last year was a musical written in Britain, performed by an Australian troupe, based on pop songs written in Sweden: Mama Mia!
Globalization encourages creativity and the arts by offering new ideas and inspiration, and more choices of physical materials, techniques, and markets.
Globalization helps people understand more remote cultures.
If cultures are kept hermetically sealed and unchanging they risk becoming museum pieces.
I think we have to be mature enough in our discussions of culture for some occasional introspection. There is a simple solution we advise American parents to undertake when they complain about popular culture: turn the channel. At least part of the criticism of foreign popular culture seems a bit of an alibi for parents who are not as effective in dealing with their children as they should be. Blaming American television for your children’s viewing habits might be a little bit like blaming Hagen Daaz if you are overweight.
Let me end with a word of caution. I think we have to be very careful about various government measures on content and subsidies. Perhaps well intentioned, they can be a form of censorship.
Let the international cultural environment stabilize. Many will seek mass culture, but some will occasionally want something better. The best way to respond to the competition of mass culture is for the local culture leadership to get their own game up. Look for mechanisms to improve participation and connection. In other words, compete. Bollywood makes seven times the number of films annually as Hollywood, but only a few have competed effectively in the U.S. market.
Indeed, like other forms of protection, cultural intervention can become self-defeating, because it does not allow the culture to evolve or to incorporate outside ideas.
To my mind, our challenge is not to tilt for or against any particular culture, but to encourage people to expose themselves to all higher forms of culture, to aspects of life that are more challenging and less accessible, but ultimately more rewarding.
The central cultural paradox of our age is that the quantity of culture to which we are exposed is increasing rapidly, but the quality of the culture to which we are exposed improves only unevenly, and at times even deteriorates. It is the sheer volume of material that floods our lives that makes it difficult to find the cultural gems we occasionally cherish.
To conclude, I'd like to quote T. S. Eliot's "Choruses from the Rock."
Where is the Life we have lost in living?
Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?