Communications Technology & Globalisation

What is the relationship between rapidly advancing communications technology and the progression towards globalised culture?

Introduction

The term ‘global village’, in the way it is understood today, was coined by Marshall McLuhan (1962) to describe the way in which advancements in technology have made it far easier and far quicker for communication to take place between remote locations, thereby making the world seem ‘smaller’. The implications of this advancement, which accelerated rapidly from the industrial revolution and continued throughout the previous century, can be seen everywhere in today’s society. For example, messengers on horseback became replaced by postal vans, which in turn we may see completely replaced by email, each being faster and more convenient than their respective predecessors. The rapidity with which information can now be moved around the globe has to be a primary concern when considering globalisation, which is the phenomenon of social, technological, economic and political homogenisation, hybridisation and/or interconnection occurring on a global scale.

The focus of this essay is the way in which technology relates to globalisation, but more specifically whether it is the key driving force behind cultural change, or whether other factors are as or more important when attempting to determine the reasons for the huge cultural changes that are happening in tandem with rapidly advancing technology, particularly communications technology such as the Internet. Globalisation is most often examined via how it relates to and effects economic or political issues; and much of the concerns raised by those cynical of or opposed to globalisation point out alleged issues such as the exploitation of cheap foreign labour or the political imperialism of the West, however cultural change is also very relevant to globalisation, and this will be the main subject discussed below.

Technology as a First Cause of Globalisation

Technological determinism is a doctrine which holds that technology is the key driving force behind all kinds of social development. Marshall McLuhan was a technological determinist and argued that “the channels of communication are the primary cause of cultural change.” The idea of technological determinism is also implied in his statement that “the medium is the message”. This view asserts that technology has an inherent motion of progression and an almost scientifically discernable and traceable path which is unaffected by social, economic or political factors. It is certain that technology has a place within the causal chain preceding globalisation as an end result, but it is at the very least questionable as to whether it is the first cause.

Opposed to technological determinism is the theory of social constructivism. Advocates of social constructivism argue that human action (including culture, economics and politics) is not shaped by technology, but rather technology is shaped by human action. Wiebe Bijker (1991) highlighted that “Technologies do not, we suggest, evolve under the impetus of some necessary inner technological or scientific logic. They are not possessed of an inherent momentum. If they evolve or change, it is because they have been pressed into that shape.” This perspective would suggest that culture is not changed or determined by technology, but that culture is in fact one of the factors which propel the development and advancement of technology.

Whilst social constructivism has a valid criticism, it does not identify the specific and fundamental cause of technological development, instead putting it down to a complex series of interactions between individuals and society at large. To take their idea further we can look to the Austrian School of Economics. Ludwig von Mises (1949), a leading member of the Austrian School of Economics, argues that all technological development is part of the economic process. Mises, like Bijker and other social constructivists, sees human action as the driving force behind technological advances. However, Mises goes further by suggesting that such advances are a reflection of the values of individuals. The reason for any kind of purposive advancement of technology is to create value, and then trade this value for a greater value (i.e. profit). Value implies a ‘valuer’: It implies the questions ‘value to whom?’ and ‘value for what?’ Individuals (or the businesses which they are a part of) develop and produce technologies (the value) in the hope that consumer (the ‘valuer’) will purchase them (due to seeing them as being of value). This individualistic, free-market model is directly opposed to McLuhan’s technological deterministic model because it places human beings at the start and end of any economic process, and sees the economic process as being the very reason why technology is developed.

This economics based model of technology ties in with wider philosophical perspectives and theories of human action which place the focus on individuals and values, and see many features of human society as resting upon the way in which individuals select and pursue their values, including culture. The way in which technology has advanced, therefore, is a result of the constant pursuit of values, specifically things which make life easier, more convenient or more comfortable in some way. Referring back to the example of the predecessors of email, we can see that the technology of automobiles (or perhaps steam power and railways before that) had the knock-on effect of making the transportation of written messages much faster. The Internet has since made this transportation even faster, to the point where it is almost instantaneous. Mobile and wireless technologies are now making the restrictions of email even less apparent, so that people no longer have to access a PC to check their email, but can check it anywhere at any time from mobile devices.

Culture as a Value

Information and ideas, just like physical goods, are values, and the speed at which information and ideas can be transmitted thanks to technological advances means that they are being spread and are evolving at an ever increasing rate. Culture, as the cumulative intellectual achievements, traditions, norms, habits, languages, skills and ways of life (which are passed on through discourse, experience and learning) of a particular group or society, is no less subject to this rapid transmission.

Culture includes a long list of different kinds of values, including both purely aesthetic elements such as music, art and literature, as well as more fundamental ideas such as democracy and capitalism. Whilst culture is by nature a collective noun, it is fully dependent on an individual's choice, at least to the extent that they have access to various cultural elements. In this way, the concept of the free-market is relevant. Culture could be viewed as the intellectual wealth of the human race, and is distributed via channels of communications rather than by physically being transported around as with tangible products of wealth. A market approach to culture also helps us to understand why particular cultural elements grow and become popular whilst others do not – it is down to personal choice; a personal selection of a particular cultural value. This perspective is proposed by Tyler Cowen (2002) in his book Creative Destruction, which takes a very libertarian approach to culture. The Internet, as well as the general increase in speed and pervasiveness of channels of communication globally, means that the cultural “market” is vastly more accessible than ever before.

Technology as a Means of Transmitting Cultural Values

Lawrence Grossberg (2005) commented: “As a matter of lived experience, globalisation is about the changing power of geography over people's lives. For example, some commentators have talked about the decreasing power of geography, pointing to those people for whom new communication technologies have meant the apparent collapse of distance into copresence.” This is an important point. Previously, geography was not only a key factor for communications, but for culture. This is because culture is entirely dependent upon communication, since it is in fact a result of discourse amongst individuals. Thus, as communications technology have effectively made geography almost irrelevant for communications; due to technology now allowing instantaneous communication across the globe, culture is now subject to the same independence from geography. National boundaries still play a big role in preventing an entirely free diffusion of culture, as national culture is not something that has been formed only because of geographic isolation but also because of the political separation of nation-states. However, since communications technologies, the Internet in particular (since other mass-media such as television are largely limited by their localised nature – e.g. the residents of South Korea do not receive British television channels – though this is less the case since internationally distributed digital television such as Sky) are almost completely pervasive, they are playing in a large part in allowing the evolution of a truly global culture.

The distribution of film, particularly Hollywood, had already shown that the technology of the mass-media can lead to global changes in culture. Hollywood movies are not only popular in America, but across the globe. The Internet breaks this cultural transmission to a new level, where it is not just the cultural products of a centralised minority such as Hollywood behind the cultural content, but it is any individual who wishes to produce their own content who can now influence culture on a large scale.

A Means to Cultural Diversification and Creation

The term ‘prosumer’ was devised by Alvin Toffler (1980) as a description of those who both produce and consume content, and is particularly relevant to the Internet where every user has the potential to create their own content for the entire world to see, whilst at the same time being able to browse and consume the content created by others. This shows that, whilst the Internet obviously has the potential to simply transmit already existing culture to a global audience, it has also spawned entirely new cultures which often exist solely online. Online gaming is perhaps one poignant example of this, where huge communities of gamers exist, often in virtual worlds such as those of MMORPGS (massively multiplayer online role-playing games), even developing new forms of language such as “leetspeek”. Similarly, certain things can become part of ‘Internet lore’, where particular things become so well-known amongst Internet users, or particular groups of Internet users, that it almost becomes a culture in itself. One example of this which relates to online gaming is ‘Leeroy Jenkins’. Leeroy Jenkins is a World of Wacraft player who has become infamous for his role in a short video showing him running his character into a room-full of enemies and getting his entire group of team-mates killed in the game after they had meticulously planned their strategy. Many people now even refer to acts of foolhardiness like this as ‘Leeroying’ or ‘doing a Leeroy’. There have even been references to this outside of the Internet, including in a Toyota advertisement and on the US game-show Jeopardy.

YouTube is an excellent contemporary example of ‘prosuming’ in action. YouTube is home to an enormous community which includes many who create their own videos for others to see. It could be argued that YouTube is a place where the culture creating potential of the Internet can be clearly seen. This is not to say that the Internet itself creates culture, but rather it provides a means for individuals to create ‘pieces of culture’, as well as for culture to be transferred in a completely new virtual realm. YouTube is one of a vast sea of cultural phenomena which have arisen thanks to the Internet.

Negative Effects of Cultural Diffusion

Lawrence Grossberg (2005) noted that there is significant opposition to globalisation as it is seen to be causing the erosion of local cultures or the blending of local cultures into one undifferentiated whole and also because it is seen as primarily being Western culture which is being globalised at the expense of marginalised local cultures. This is often called ‘McDonalidisation’ because McDonalds is an epitome of Western capitalist, corporate culture. The result, as argued by some, is a loss of cultural distinctiveness and uniqueness, aided by the massive influence of the Western broadcast media. Harry Redner (2004, p.196) is equally cynical of globalised culture, suggesting that it is “not one of ideas, ideals, beliefs or great aspirations, but one of daily habits of living and quotidian practices.”

Tyler Cowen contests this view and suggests that whilst it is making particular countries or regions less culturally distinct (for example Starbucks branches opening in Japan will make Japan less ‘distinct’) it is also making culture more diverse within those places, thus giving the people there more choice. Grossberg makes a similar observation: “Many critics argue that globalisation cannot be understood as a simple process of homogenisation in which everything becomes the same”. He goes on to describe how there is an active response from recipient cultures, rather than a passive acceptance, so that “the results are unique, composed out of the encounter between the global and the local.” An example of this could be Hip-Hop music in China. Rather than the typical ‘gangster’ subject matter associated with American Hip-Hop, the Chinese infuse their own culturally relevant subject matter into the music.

Benjamin Barber also contends that cultural diffusion creates ‘inauthentic’ copies of culture, for example the food found in Chinese takeaways in the West is rarely the same as ‘authentic’ Chinese food in China. However, Tyler Cowen argues that there is no such thing as ‘authentic’ culture, as all cultures are a blend resulting from the interaction of people over time.

A final criticism may be that this newfound choice destroys communities. Through individuals having such a wide choice of culture through the use of communications technology, previously cohesive communities held together by common culture become fragmented. However, this again relates to the role geography. Whilst traditional communities are perhaps becoming less cohesive, entirely new virtual and global communities are emerging through the use of the same technologies.

Conclusions

It is clear that technology and culture have a close relationship, and the nature of this relationship can be explained in terms of economics (in a fundamental sense). Technology and culture are both values, and the former is a means to acquiring or consuming the latter. The development of technology is caused by the pursuit of values. The advancement communications technology for the acquisition of culture and information is somewhat analogous to the advancement of transportation technologies for the acquisition of physical goods. Communications technology itself does not drive cultural change or the globalisation of culture, but rather it provides the means to accessing culture. This access creates an environment of greater ‘free-trade’ of culture, making the range of options much wider for all those with access. However, as with all economic activity, human action and individual values are what drive change and consumption. If particular cultural characteristics are of value to a greater number of people, then these cultural characteristics are going to spread and be adopted by more people. Communications technologies such as the Internet simply make this process much, much easier and far less restricted by geographical barriers. Of course, marketing has a significant role to play, and may assist in the spread of particular cultural elements, but this does not negate the reality of personal choice.

The Internet in particular has given rise to whole new cultural phenomena such as social networking sites, the blogosphere and online gaming communities, and many of these things are truly global with millions of participants worldwide. In general, the Internet and communication technologies are more a force for creation and hybridisation of culture rather than the destruction of erosion of culture as suggested by some anti-globalisation advocates. Both the freedom of choice and the freedom to innovate and be creative should be encouraged to allow a global culture which is rich, diverse and interesting.

It is true that some local cultures may be fading away, but it is not an act of coercion. Culture naturally evolves and changes over time, and old culture has always given way to new culture, it is just that the rapidity of this process due to new technologies has sparked concern where it is perhaps not necessary.