Blog 2 - Cultural globalization- WU ICHEN

 

1) Summary

Tomlinson defines globalization as a complex, accelerating process of global connectivity and criticizes the common tendency to see it mainly through an economic lens. He argues that phrases like “the impact of globalization on culture” treat culture as a passive category, when culture also shapes globalization. For example, a young person’s choice of which brand to buy is an act of self-representation, and these small choices add up to the global market network.

He also rejects the idea that globalization leads to a single global culture. Cultural goods are not the same as cultural practice: drinking Coke or eating at McDonald’s does not prove that people have accepted Western values. Globalization is also uneven, with some places densely connected and others excluded. Through the medieval Ebstorf map and Marx, he shows that societies have long mistaken “their world” for “the world.”

Instead, he focuses on deterritorialization, the weakening of the natural link between culture and place. This appears in everyday life, such as global food aisles in local supermarkets or using Google instead of a library. Local cultures do not disappear, but they are no longer the single most important factor in our lived reality. Finally, he argues that identity is a modern construct, not an inherited possession, so people can hold multiple identities and universal human rights can coexist with respect for cultural difference.

2) New Insights / Interesting Points

What I found most interesting was seeing Tomlinson’s argument in real life through bubble tea in Korea. Bubble tea began in Taiwan, yet I saw it expanding into Korea through brands such as Deutsh得正. At the Gangnam store and at a pop-up in AK Plaza Hongdae, I noticed that the flavors were slightly different from what Korean customers usually prefer, and the sweetness levels were adjusted more finely. There were also long queues. This shows that culture is not only something that globalization acts upon: a non-Western product can travel, adapt to local taste, and become part of someone’s self-representation. It also reflects glocalization, as the product changes while it spreads. However, I cannot be sure whether the queues reflect long-term acceptance or just the novelty of a pop-up.

This also changed how I think about “cultural blending” in Asia. I used to assume that exchange between Asian countries is roughly equal. In reality, the Korean Wave seems to have a much deeper influence than Taiwanese culture. Yet this does not mean local traditions are replaced. Many people still maintain the traditions of their own region. 

Yet this does not mean local traditions are replaced. Temple culture is still thriving in Taiwan. People still organize bandao (traditional outdoor banquets) for festivals and celebrations, and Mazu pilgrimage processions still draw large crowds. When I traveled to Taitung, I happened to meet a procession on the road. I noticed that convenience stores set aside space for pilgrims to rest, and volunteers along the road offered food and water. What surprised me was that convenience stores are part of global chains, but here they adjusted themselves to serve a local religious practice. This fits Tomlinson’s point that localities “thrive” in globalization, and it also looks like glocalization to me: global businesses adapt to local life, not the other way around. It also shows that the spread of cultural goods, like bubble tea in Korea, is different from changes in cultural practice, since a Taiwanese person can enjoy global products and still take part in a local ritual.This fits Tomlinson’s point that localities “thrive” in globalization and that cultural goods spreading is different from cultural practice changing.

3) Issues / Discussion Topics

Tomlinson shows that every culture tends to take itself as the universal model, and he quotes Eagleton: “One should not be ethnocentric about ethnocentricity.” This made me think about my own experience in Korea. On the subway, I sometimes feel that people who are unwell, even if they are not elderly or pregnant, should also have the right to use priority seats. Yet in Korea, it seems almost taboo for other passengers to sit there, because an unwell person does not always look like someone who needs help. I am not sure whether this comes from Confucian respect for elders, but I suspect it may be related. As an outsider, I wonder whether my view is simply my own cultural standard, shaped in Taiwan, being treated as the universal one.

This leads to my question. Tomlinson says identities are constructs, not possessions, and that a person can hold a repertoire of identities. Can a person hold both values at once, respect for social norms such as giving seats to elders, and the belief that individual needs, including invisible ones, deserve equal consideration? Would that be a sign of cosmopolitanism, or would one value inevitably have to give way in daily life?

In addition, this chapter was written before smartphones and social media became widespread. Tomlinson is optimistic that deterritorialization can create cultural openness and global responsibility. But algorithms now show us mostly what we already like, so more connectivity may narrow our views instead. It is worth discussing whether his optimism still holds in today’s platform era.