Globalization and uniformization

CROS Raphaël

Student number: 425963

MEDIA AND CULTURAL INDUSTRIES

Is the globalization of medias leading to a uniformization of the world’s culture?

The medias, in the large sense, which means the way in which human talks, communicate, share, have always been in our lives. And in the last decades or century, these medias have known big changes, notably the digital revolution. Today, all our lives have entered what we could call a mediatisation era.

Globalization is not new. Already at his time, Fernand Braudel, a historian, showed that what he called “world-economies” were existing. It was geographic areas that had an autonomous economy and prosperity thanks to exchanges and trades in the area. Globalization is a very long term phenomenon that raised Europe as a leader in the world in the international trades and the global market. This phenomenon is characterized by a lot of interdependencies between all the countries that take part in this process. This interdependencies have led to an economic unification. So, the globalization has created a world where more and more people are integrated and it is followed by a uniformization of the consumers’ economic behaviour. At the origin, the globalization is a word that is linked to a geographical, economical, geopolitical concept. But when we face it to the medias and communication, it can refer to a world where the exchanges are fluid, with more intense immaterial flows, and so communication flows, thanks to the satellites, internet… Today, information can cross borders without (almost) any restrictions, and all the analysis in national, regional, or local levels are irrelevant. And this can lead to what has been announced by Marshall McLuhan in 1964 and the concept of “global village” (1964, McLuhan, Understanding Media), which would mean that in a unified world, with information spread by mass medias, the culture would also be unified. He argues that the many different cultures in the world would disappear to leave their place to one common culture, the culture of the Global Village, where everybody would leave in the same time, same rhythm and so, in a same space. The culture, and cultural industries are, according to Hesmondhalgh, moving closer and “closer to the centre of economic actions in many countries”.

And it is in this context that we can witness the speed and the rise of the information spreading, that gather the ideas about medias, a “fourth power”, a concept that Carlyle attributed to Edmund Burke in a debate in 1787. This idea, of the press as a power, became very strong after the Watergate, that forced Nixon to resignation. The medias are very criticized in one hand, and worshiped in the other. Many thinks and hopes that medias are the necessary condition for exchanges and communication between Men, and are necessary for a community to live. But the others hold them responsible for the disinterest and distrust in politics, responsible also for a cultural mediocrity, the appearance of a unique thought. According to some people, the medias tend to be sensational, to simplify complex situations, and sometimes even manipulate the mass. And behind all that, there is a fear that the globalization could provoke a uniformization of the world, and the appearance of a universal and unique world culture. It can be argued that a lot of hopes have been disappointed, as the “global village”, the democratization of the world, a global economic growth without unemployment and inflation, the dream of a peaceful world community, all these ideas have all been contested and destroyed by 9-11 and the resurgence of identity withdrawals, the end of illusions. This new millennium is characterized by the contestation of what was thought as guaranteed by the 20th century, and so, the medias are also contested. From a cultural and social scale, medias are important in a society, indeed, as Freedman argued, they “play a key role in the production and reproduction of social relations” (Freedman, 2008, p6)

So, are there any other options, any alternatives, to the imperialism, the uniformization of behaviour?

1. To uniformization of the world

1. Internationalisation of communication: the birth of big medias groups

The media globalization is old, but became more and more visible since the 1990’s, mainly because of the internationalisation of big groups, implied in diverse communication sectors.

        In the beginning of the 90’s, the big international groups started to invest in the audio-visual sector (TV, Film production and distribution). But the same groups became more interested in telecommunications and computing, which is a sector with a lot of repurchase and alliance because of the deregulation of the audio-visual sector, the end of monopolies (for example in France with the privatisation of TV channels, and liberalisation of radios since the 80s) and the financialization of communication activities. This field, the media market, comes under economic concentration, as multinationals that were born in this context combine control of strong mass medias; book, movie, disc production but also newspapers’ editions or even sometimes mobile telephony. The communication market is now in a situation of oligopoly competition, which is a situation where the market has a few of suppliers and a lot of demanders. It is an imperfect situation, because the suppliers are independent, and they can decide the price without a perfect competition. The convergence dynamic between audio-visual, computing and telecommunication have given birth to an open giant and global market.

        Among the giant multimedia that have been developing thanks to the digital revolution and deregulations, around 10 groups control currently 80 or 90% of the media global market. They have a monopoly on the press, edition, TV, cinema, Internet, and this groups have competition relations, and alliances to enhance their concentration. The most famous are AOL Time Warner, the German Bertelsmann, Vivendi Universal, but also Walt Disney, News Corporation, Viacom… And this can raise the question of ownership, and its danger for democracy. Indeed, as Baker argued, press freedom faces two dangers or threats “from abuse of government power or from power and the dynamics of the market”. And here comes a first paradox, as, at the same time, the press could be threatened by abuses of the government, but also needs the government to protect itself from private forces that could try to control the press. According to Baker, the concentration of ownerships represents a danger. First, because of the possibility of abuses of power over the press, but also because it encourages press performance, and a “distortion of its content”, indeed, the press is dependent on advertising support, and so needs to attract public. And this is because of the private groups that pursue profit. This can lead to an uniformization, because medias would follow tendency, and they will all adopt the same kind of tactics, images, information, to attract more and more public, and when one channel for example will find a new concept that will work, other channels inside and outside the country will copy it, to gain viewers. For example, a French TV show, Touche Pas A Mon Poste, which react to TV news, shows, internet buzzes etc. has been exported to Lebanon, Italy, Belgium, Algeria and Tunisia.

...