Globalization is an interdependency and an interconnectivity[1] that permeates all spheres of life. Globalization does not only expand economic structures and political realms. Communication structures as well as mediated topics become inter-reliant as well.[2]
Curran/Park state in De-Westernizing Media Studies a janiform clash of connotation(s)[3] within globalization(s):
Cultural theorists write with infectious enthusiasm about globalization as a process that is increasing international dialogue, empowering minorities, and building progressive society. Political economists, on the other hand, write about globalization as a capitalist victory that is dispossessing democracies, imposing policy homogenization, and weakening progressive movement rooted in working class and popular political organization.[4]
Focussing on the precise core of terms, I limit the definition of globalization in that I do not regard globalization as synonymous to Westernization and/or Americanization.[5]
[1] Thussu, Daya Kishan: International Communication. Continuity and Change. London: Arnold 2000, p. 76.
[2] Taylor, Philip M.: Global Communications, International Affairs and the Media since 1945. New York: Routledge 1997, p. 98.
[3] Stieglitz, Joseph E.: Globalization and its Discontents. New York: Norton 2002.
[4] Curran, James/Park, Myung-Jin (eds.): De-Westernizing Media Studies. London, New York: Routledge 2000, p. 11.
[5] During my analysis, however, it becomes apparent that some readings are more prone to become the paradigm, and “The Global” is still understood as “The Western”.
No comments:
Post a Comment