Communication theory just like the field of International Relations hosts a wide spectrum of different views and ideas of the world and how it is structured. I would argue that many of these theories are somewhat static and it is important to recognize that when doing an analysis within the ever-changing field of communication.
I have a hard time deciding on one theory or philosophy when it comes to communication, more so I tend to look at the relations between them and the lack of will to view new aspects within the field, something I find very important in this rapidly shifting world.
Modernization is one of those theories that I have a hard time to agree with, to expect that the rest of the world would just get on the same discourse as the West or more so an “Americanization” discourse seems impossible when culture play such an important role worldwide. [Thussu p.45] I would argue that it is more likely that other Western nations take after the American way of life than other less developed states with a strong cultural bond around the world. Also to state that the flow of communication would be from the Western world to the less developed would be a false statement. Today information comes from many different directions and from many different levels, state-state, individual-group, corporation-individual, group-state, institution-state etc.
Galtung also touches on the subject of the dependency, talking about the less developed world being dependent on the rich world. Focusing his theory on the centre and periphery where the “core” in the centre states communicates and connects with the “core” (which would be the rich and powerful within the periphery-states) in the periphery-states. By doing so the rich world/rich states would both control the periphery stated and make the “core” of their own state more powerful to its own periphery. [p.50 Thussu]. I would say that Galtung has some interesting points in his analysis and we could definitely see example of this existing in the world today. One example would be when Egypt signed the documents recognizing Israel as a sovereign state(with pressure from the US). The United States has since then supported Egypt financially without demanding too much of a report what the money has gone to. Still many Egyptians live under harsh conditions and are not at all benefiting from all of this so called US-aid . The “core” in both of these countries certainly benefit from this relations.
What I think is very interesting to look at is the public sphere. I would also like to state that the main thought and reason for its upbringing is on its way back. To have a spaces/sphere where people can discuss the common good and also use that to put pressure on the state. Even though there was a change when people stated to lobby for economic interest instead of just the common good I would like to say that its core meaning is coming back into the “global public sphere”. [Thussu p.55-56]
The public sphere together with Robertson’ philosophy (among others) of the cosmopolitan system of the world is something I could relate to. Our interconnectedness could be seen as a “global civil society”. [Thussu p.60-61]My critic on the other hand would be that this theory focuses too much of market and economy which takes away some of the light that I think should be put on the role of the civil society or the public sphere. Our possibility to be global citizens in a way that has not been possible before, we can connect, exchange and learn from each other all over the world due to these tools of communication, where the internet would be the most important one.
So what does this do to the world, are we back to the discussion about modernization and are these tools of communication making the world more homogeneous!?
I would argue that it is not, we use these tools differently because we have different cultural background and we integrate them into our society differently. For example, there in the US the social network Facebook might be integrated in our everyday life and it might even have changed the way that we act in our normal life because this visual world is so close and present. In other cultures Facebook might be used as a hobby, a way of staying in touch with friends, more like a tool of communication, like sending a letter. Although it’s a part of the life it’s not integrated in the everyday life as it is here.
Will this change over time, well it might, although I do not think it’s going to change into one global hegemonic culture. As we go on in life we will always find new interests, find people that have common dreams and goals and I view these communication tools as a way of making it easier to find these people around the world, I maybe even find some new interests in something I didn’t even know existed. Does this mean that I’ll lose my culture, I don’t think so.
I definitely agree with what you have to say about the world not turning into one global hegemonic culture.
ReplyDeleteWeaver said something similar that I connected with in his keynote address to The 2005 Aoyama Symposium on International Communication in 2005. He stated, "If you ask me about the future, I would say the future of international communication will continue to grow as there is greater interaction between people. Increasingly we will become more aware of other cultures and our own. As a result, our own culture will become more important to us" (p.11).
I have traveled a great deal in my life. I started traveling around my high school years and have since become somewhat addicted to learning about the world. I studied abroad twice in college in two countries that often fall on opposite sides of international opinion (Israel and Morocco), and have consistently pushed for opportunities to challenge myself culturally. Today I find myself in an MA program taking courses such as International Communication and Cross-Cultural Communication.
Have I lost my culture? Definitely not. I feel that more than ever I am connected to my roots. I have a passion to learn about other cultures so that I can expand my knowledge of my own. How can you fully understand something if you don't know what it could be instead?
I'm sure that you too have not forgotten what it means to be Swedish just because you are living in DC. I bet that from living elsewhere you see new things about your home that you never noticed before just because you saw that not all people live the way people in Sweden do.
I have a quote from the movie Juno that I always keep in mind. As Juno comes home from a rattling experience with her unborn child's adoptive family, she says, "I never realized how much I liked being home unless I've been somewhere really different for awhile."
I think the same holds true as for the future of world cultures. Yes we can be influenced by the increasing exposure to other cultures from various corners of the world, but throughout time cultures have evolved and many have stayed intact and strengthened. If anything, the knowledge of world cultures will bring us closer to our own. The more interconnected the world becomes, the more important culture becomes to maintain a sense of home.