Globalisation and local identities

Identity is a hard enough concept to understand in relation to a singular person let alone a whole group of people belonging to one area. The Oxford Dictionary defines 'identity' as “the characteristics determining who or what a person or thing is.” That leaves room for many different ideals, customs and people to create an identity of a place. However, there are 'local identities' and they may be threatened by global media, the effect of diaspora and the global village. Whether it is intentional or not, the small local identities are being combined and shaped into one large identity. From some perspectives it might seem like these changes are happening rapidly. Perhaps some of them are. But as cultural identity is an ever-changing concept, it is hard to say how long these changes have taken and how dramatic the effects are because they are always happening within each other.

Barack Obama speaking about globalisation.



Of course there is the idea that one global media identity will override any local identities and they will all become the same. This assumption is fair enough but Richard Wilk offers the view that "we are not all becoming the same, but we are portraying, dramatizing, and communicating our differences to each other in ways that are more widely intelligible." (Wilk 1995, p. 118). So following this train of thought, it is healthy for us to be exposed to other identities as a way of becoming cultured. Although, it is possible that one of these identities will have the most influence over global media so one identity might have more impact shaping the rest. A post on The Glaring Facts http://www.theglaringfacts.com/communications/local-global/ discusses this impact in relation to the idea of Americanization and a new combination of words that makes up the super word “Glocalization”. The fact that someone has thought it necessary to come up with such a word could be a sign that conjoining ideas has gone far enough.

Here is a video that uses the word 'McDomination':


But Wilk could be right. Global media across all identities is a way to share cultures and ideals with other people. It is a way for us to learn about the rest of the world. It keeps our minds open to other ways of life and ways of communicating. There are many different meanings attached to the word 'culture' as summarised here. Culture doesn't just stay in the one place when we move around. We take our culture with us which is why having the local identities converse with each other through global media seems like an ideal situation in terms of allowing cultures to continue developing. Local identities can still exist like this as long as global media is not favouring one 'identity' over others. Having knowledge of other cultures is a way of promoting tolerance to create a peaceful coexistence. Though this can be done without sacrificing an original identity to welcome another, blended cultures are probably more open to changes in society.

Information, physical and cultural flows link together as a cycle in that they enable each other. As long as these flows continue, local identities as we know them will become fewer. The idea of hybrid cultures is interesting to think about in relation to globalisation. It is a term that could be used as an accurate description of a large area – perhaps whole countries. That may even turn into groups of countries that come together. The use of these kinds of terms is a sign that local identities could become a thing of the past. The focus has now moved to creating and defining identity on a larger scale. This idea is perhaps more frightening to traditionalists than anyone else. Nederveen Pieterse (2004, p. 7) says “globalisation crosses boundaries of government and business, media and social movements, general and academic interest.” Boundaries generally allow traditions to remain as they are, but if boundaries are being crossed to combine cultures then this might mean having to accommodate someone else's traditions. This can lead to all kinds of controversy because it involves various sets of politics. An example of this controversy is the suggestion of banning the burqa in Australia. Virginia Haussegger shared her opinion on this matter with readers of The Age here in 2010. While it is understandable (in some cases) that people can be uneasy about welcoming new lifestyles, widening the gaps between cultures does more harm than good.


You only have to look into the global village to see how global this village really isn't. New technology drives division between developing countries and the rest of the world. Hatchen and Scotton (2002 p. 3) describe technological advances as “a nervous system for our world today.” They go on to acknowledge that “the popular culture of the West... have been increasingly flowing about the world.” There is this idea that Western civilisation is somehow the pinnacle of living and that developing countries can't be at their full potential until they're living just like us. While their lives would certainly be easier if they had the same privileges, this shouldn't mean that they have to adopt a whole new readymade way of life just to catch up. The global village would ideally provide everyone with the chance to communicate on an equal level. Language barrier is one problem. Literacy is another. In theory, technological advances would mean that the global village could grow. More countries and cultures would be connected to each other and communication could happen at the touch of a button. But for this to be able to work, everyone in the global village would have to have the same capabilities. Developing technology even further and then introducing it to countries who were already behind to begin with will only create a greater divide.

It may seem like the typical observation of an idealist to say that the world would work better if we could all feel welcome in new places and have the same opportunities in life. It is idealistic and this scenario is unlikely to eventuate, but there is a difference between globalisation and showing tolerance and acceptance of other cultures. A balance needs to be found here so that local identities don't feel threatened and larger identities don't feel the need to claim others as their own.




References

Hatchen, WA & Scotton, JF 2002, The world news prism: global media in an era of terrorism, 6^th edn, low a State Press, pp. 3-4

Haussegger, V 2010, 'Time To Ban The Burqa', The Age, 21^st May, <http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-burqa-is-a-war-on-women-20100520-vnp3.html>
Nederveen Pieterse, J 2004, ‘Globalization: consensus and controversies’, Globalization and culture: global mélange, Rowan & Littlefield, Lanham, Md., pp. 7

"identity", Oxford Dictionary, <http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/identity>


Wilk, R 1995, ‘Learning to be local in Belize: global systems of common difference’, in D Miller (ed.), Worlds apart: modernity through the prism of the local, Routledge, London.

CNN - Obama on globalization 2008, YouTube, retrieved October 4 2012, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7owMXrLu2d8>

World Without Walls - Stop Motion - Globalization 2011, YouTube, retrieved October 4 2012, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As3pWXoq_as>

Does the celebrity culture come before the celebrity?

Questions of this ilk are some of the hardest to answer. If you ask what makes celebrity culture, one of the answers must surely be 'celebrities'. But if you ask what makes a celebrity, you could rightly assume they are made by the culture they are thrown into.

Perhaps it is the relationship between the paparazzi and consumers of media that creates celebrity culture. We are bombarded with photos and “news” about celebrities and therefore we have no choice but to know who these people are. Without all of this, fame wouldn't really be a thing. The lifestyles of celebrities would certainly be a lot different.

 Lindsay Lohan fends off photographers

'Paparazzi' got their name after the release of the 1960 film La Dolce Vita which is said to be based on one of the original opportunistic photographers, Felice Quinto. According to his obituary posted here in 2010, “he pioneered some of the aggressive tactics that celebrity photographers use to this day.” It also includes a quote of his from 1997: "People are human, they want to see these pictures, and there is too much money to be made." 

Felice Quinto

Celebrities already existed but the idea of celebrity culture did not. Paparazzi are most likely responsible for the shift in culture and so are we for buying into it. They came to realise that there was money to be made from exploiting any candid moments had by these Hollywood stars. Lo and behold, a culture was created.

References

Felice Quinto Obituary, 16 January, 2010, Retrieved 31 August, 2012 <http://www.legacy.com/ns/obituary.aspx?n=felice-quinto&pid=139629237>

Lindsay Lohan image source: <http://www.celebritysmackblog.com/2008/09/15/lindsay-lohan-punches-paparazzi/>

Global media & local identities

Identity is a hard enough concept to understand in relation to a singular person let alone a whole group of people belonging to one area. However, there are 'local identities' and they may be threatened by global media.

Of course there is the idea that one global media identity will override any local identities and they will all become the same. This assumption is fair enough but Richard Wilk offers the view that "we are not all becoming the same, but we are portraying, dramatizing, and communication our differences to each other in ways that are more widely intelligible." (Wilk 1995, p. 118). So following this train of thought, it is healthy for us to be exposed to other identities. Although, it is possible that one of these identities will have the most influence over global media so one identity might have more impact shaping the rest. 

Wilk could be right. Global media across all identities is a way to share cultures and ideals with other people. It is a way for us to learn about the rest of the world. It keeps our minds open to other ways of life and ways of communicating. Having the local identities converse with each other through global media seems like an ideal situation in terms of allowing cultures to continue developing. Local identities can still exist like this as long as global media is not favouring one 'identity' over others.



References

Wilk, R 1995, ‘Learning to be local in Belize: global systems of common difference’, in D Miller (ed.), Worlds apart: modernity through the prism of the local, Routledge, London.

image source: theglaringfacts.com

Twittersphere vs Public Sphere

Firstly, the blogsphere and Twittersphere need to be explained because they are in a world of their own. Blogging allows anyone with Internet access to post their opinions or feelings online for anybody to see. Twitter also allows us to do this but in 140 characters or less. However, for your opinions to be seen by anybody you need followers. So in this respect, the blogging world is different to the idea of the public sphere. Gaining followers on Twitter is a competition for some. It is also a competition to post the wittiest tweet. Favstar.fm promotes the growth of a Twitter community where people are in competition to have the tweet of the day. Obviously this is more likely to be awarded to those who have a large number of followers. The more followers someone has, the more impact their blogging/tweeting has. The current Queen of Twitter is Lady Gaga. She has 28,827,745 followers – possibly more by the time you read this. While a lot of people choose to use Twitter to follow celebrities, others use it for breaking news updates. But you can't be the breaker of news if you don't have followers. 

In his piece on Jurgen Habermas, Marshall Soules said this: “For Habermas, the success of the public sphere was founded on rational-critical discourse where everyone has the ability for equal participation and the supreme communication skill is the power of argument.” This doesn't seem to match the way that blogs operate today. It is not always about the power of argument. Sometimes it is all in the power of the blogger.

References

Soules, Marshall 2008, 'Jurgen Habermas and the Public Sphere',

<http://records.viu.ca/~soules/media301/habermas.htm>

Making Cultures

When people talk about culture it can be hard to know exactly what they mean. I have found this to be true of 'Australian culture'. From what I have observed, there are two main ideas of what Australian culture really is and oddly enough they oppose each other. First there is the idea that we must express our pride in our country and maintain our traditions. Then there is the idea that we welcome all different cultures that help to make up a more progressive identity. 

So is that how all cultures were made in the first place? Are they all just a combination of customs and beliefs that have been brought together over time by diaspora? Does this mean that a global culture is inevitable? Or will tradition prevail? All of these questions (among others) come to mind when I try to understand what culture is and where it starts.

O'Neill (2006) says of culture: “It is constantly changing and easily lost because it exists only in our minds. Our written languages, governments, buildings, and other man-made things are merely the products of culture.”

If culture is constantly changing, it would be hard to make a culture that would stick. Although it has been done before, it would be hard to make a completely new culture now because it would be influenced by cultures that have already been established. We can't have new cultures without them being combinations of other cultures.

References:

O'Neill, D 2006, 'Human Culture: What is Culture?', 17 August 2012, <http://anthro.palomar.edu/culture/culture_1.htm>

Image 1 source: <www.experienceoz.com.au>

Image 2 source: <http://www.inc.com/guides/201102/how-to-create-a-unified-corporate-culture.html>

A Global Olympic Village

The Olympics is an event that the various nations of the world get excited for in their own patriotic ways. It is a time for the nations to unite and share a common passion while at the same time planning to defeat each other - even if some athletes have a head start because of where they come from. Nevertheless, it is certainly an event that can capture the world's attention and combine us all to create a global audience.

(Australian hurdler Sally Pearson competing at London, 2012)

We tune in to the opening ceremonies to see the state of the venue and how much money has gone into the production of the evening. The entire Athens Olympics in 2004 cost approximately $11 billion. That is a frighteningly big commitment for a country that was reportedly almost $400 billion in debt (Derek Gatopoulos, Huffington Post 2010).

The money aspect comes into play long before the Olympics actually start. It is obvious that athletes from wealthier countries will be more likely to afford the high level of training that they need to reach Olympic standard. According to BBC sports journalist Matt Slater (2008), the United States Olympic Committee estimated that in 2006, China had 185,184 athletes participating in training at 1782 specialist sports schools. Wealth combined with a large population will surely give a country Olympic domination.

These figures suggest that the Olympics are not truly global, though the event does attract a lot of media attention. As a result, the media have created some kind of global cultural flow meaning that sport is something we can all have in common (even if the aim is to defeat all other competing countries), whether we are from a more modernised part of the world or somewhere that is still developing.



References
Gatopoulos, D 2010, 'Greek Financial Crisis: Did 2004 Athens Olympics Spark Problems In Greece?', Huffington Post, 6th March 2010, retrieved 8th August 2012, <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/03/greek-financial-crisis-olympics_n_598829.html>

Slater, M 2008, 'China vs USA - who will win this blockbuster battle of the superpowers?', BBC Sport Olympics Blog, 6th August 2008, retrieved 8th August 2012, <http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/08/china_v_usa_who_will_win_this.html>

Own your intellect

The first thing that strikes me when learning about how intellectual property works is that there is a time frame in which an idea is recognised as belonging only to you.

Bruce Arnold (2007) wrote "In February 2004 the Australian government announced that protection in Australia would be extended to life plus seventy years, as part of implementation of the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement." I do appreciate that our ideas can be protected after we're no longer here to defend ourselves, but to be honest I thought the original owner of such property would be the owner forever. However, I do understand that having this agreement in place prevents organisations and family members from receiving royalties for something that was made so long ago. I also understand that it is unlikely that someone would wait that long to "revive" an idea. Original projects must come with a lot of pressure and perhaps paranoia, as it can be hard to define and therefore protect a concept.

The Wyoming State Library's website provides a Patent and Trademark Resource Center Intellectual Property Chart that describes different types of intellectual property, exactly what is protected and how long it will remain protected. That entire concept is an interesting one; at some point in time it was decided that some ideas need more protection than others. 

At least we have the comfort of knowing that if we do have a highly valuable idea, it will be protected for some time and that we can apply to have that extended. It is also good to know that nobody will be cashing in on these ideas and names in the near future. 

References: 

Arnold, B 2007, 'Intellectual Property Guide: Duration', Caslon Analytics: intellectual property, retrieved 7th August 2012 <http://www.caslon.com.au/ipguide19.htm>

Copy Cats Ahead image, retrieved 7th August 2012, <http://explainafide.com.au/intellectual-property/>

Kitchens, K 2003, 'Wyoming State Library', retrieved 7th August 2012 <http://www-wsl.state.wy.us/sis/ptdl/IPchart.html>