Blog 2 - Culture and Globalization – Leo Aubry

 Summary of the reading (What Tomlinson says)

Tomlinson defines globalization as a complex, accelerating & integrating process of global connectivity: flows of people, information, ideas and images across borders. He refuses to give economics the main role. In his view, culture is not something that globalization simply “impacts” from outside. Culture is about producing meaning in life, and it shapes globalization at the same time. Even a young person choosing a brand of jeans or a phone makes a cultural choice about self-image, and these choices feed the global market.

He then questions the idea that the world is heading towards one global culture, often described as “cultural imperialism” or Americanization, with brands like Coca-Cola, McDonald’s or Nike spreading everywhere. His answer is that we must not confuse cultural goods with the practice of culture. A product can be sold worldwide without people adopting the values behind it, because people interpret and use it in their own way. He adds that globalization is uneven, and he uses the Ebstorf map and Marx to show that many visions of a “global culture” are one particular culture presenting itself as universal.

His central idea is deterritorialization: culture is less tied to a place. Local culture does not disappear, since London still feels different from Tokyo, but it is no longer the only main factor in our experience, because distant events and products enter daily life: global food in supermarkets, foreign restaurants, series from other countries, calls across continents. He also discusses the speed of electronic media and the question of cultural identity, and he sees some hope in this: wider cultural horizons and a more open, cosmopolitan sensibility.

New interesting things or unusual things i learned : 

What interested me most is that cultural globalization is not only “everything becomes American”. I come from France and I’m on exchange in Korea, so I see the same logic from the outside. Many things around me are shared across countries, but they are not received in the same way.

My own hobbies are a good example. I practise karate at a high level, and I have a black belt. Karate comes from Japan, but it is practised in France with its own habits, its own clubs and its own way of training. The same sport exists in many countries, but each country makes it a bit its own. The same goes for anime. I like Blue Lock, a Japanese series about football. The sport is global, the story is Japanese, and I watch it as a French person who plays and follows sport. I don’t think I get the exact same thing out of it as a Japanese viewer.

Since I arrived in Korea two months ago, the best example I found is Paris Baguette. It is a bakery chain that presents itself as a French bakery, with a French name and a French image. But as a French person, I can say the products are not the same, and the taste is not the same either. For me, French bread and pastries are way better in France. As far as I know, the brand is Korean, so it doesn’t copy France: it uses the “French bakery” image and adapts it to Korean tastes. Tomlinson says we should not confuse cultural goods with the practice of culture, and Paris Baguette is a good example: the “French” product is sold, but it doesn’t carry the French practice of eating bread. What is sold here is not France itself, it is the idea of France.

This also made me look differently at brands. In another course my team worked on Uniqlo against Zara and H&M. Tomlinson lists mostly Western brands in his argument, but Uniqlo comes from Japan. It shows that global brands don’t all come from the West, and that the same question applies: do people adopt the culture behind the brand, or just buy the product ?

I also learned that I can’t just call this “good” or “bad”. Tomlinson shows that it depends on how people use what they receive, which is more interesting to me than a simple yes or no.

Questions or concerns angle

My concern is that Tomlinson’s argument can make the pressure to adapt look smaller than it is. He says that people interpret and choose what they receive, but he also writes that the speed and immediacy of modern media is “a dimension of cultural power”. So my question is: do cultures adapt because they choose to, or because they are afraid of being left behind if they don’t? And if a few big companies decide which products and media are visible everywhere, how much room do local cultures really have to choose?

A second question comes from my own situation. When I’m in Korea, am I experiencing Korean culture, a version of it made for foreigners, or a global culture that looks Korean? I don’t know yet, and I think this would make a good class discussion: how can we tell a local culture from a global one that has taken on local colours?

PS: I used AI to help me understand the text and to improve my language, but the analysis is mine :)

(Very nice subject to abroad, I had a very nice time reading and answering this subject) AUBRY Léo