Globalisation is seen as having many negative consequences but very few positives. It has taken the blame for farmers’ debts, workplace unemployment, outsourcing of jobs and industrial decline. Globalisation has also resulted in the rise of Americanisation and what could be called the homogenisation of world cultures to a more American set of norms, products or discourses.
These American products and discourse are seen as being severely detrimental towards the maintenance of other cultures, their economic longevity (Meunier 2010, p. 214). It may be true that America is an incredibly powerful media producer and although they dominate most markets, we as consumers make the choice to buy their products, watch their films and TV shows and listen to their music. We can just as easily choose not to do the aforementioned and seek our entertainment and products from elsewhere. Americanisation is a result of the dominant hegemonic position presented by American media and political organisations. We as audiences agree with this position or oppose it and as a result we will decide if we are going to consume this product, TV show, film, etc.
When an audience interprets a message as it was intended by the producers they are adhering to this dominant hegemonic position. However, this assumes that all audiences are passive sponges for information, soaking up everything we hear. Quite the opposite in fact. As suggested by Stuart Hall and his audience reception theory, each different audiences will actively interpret media messages in their own individual way and decide whether they agree or disagree. Americanisation is a result of this dominant hegemonic discourse being accepted by the masses. If something is being so readily accepted by millions of people, it can’t be all bad.
References.
Meunier, S 2010, ‘Globalization, Americanization and Sakozy’s France’. European Poltical Science, Vol. 9, Issue. 2, p. 213-222, retrieved 26 July, <http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=ea00bc49-07fd-439c-98b7-7b77e67dfd52%40sessionmgr112&vid=2&hid=120>
o I haven't actually read another 'Americanisation' post which links to the reception theories yet. I actually hadn't even thought about it, so this links well to unit content. I think we can all agree that this global homogenisation is definitely swayed toward an American set of ideals and ethics, but in arguing that we have choice as to whether we consume, accept or reject these ideals and ethics (presented to us through the media), do you think we necessarily have choice in what we consume, after we’ve made the decision to consume in the first place? What I mean is, say you decide to sit down and watch TV, go on Facebook or Tweet; how much choice is there from thereon in as to whether we consume the American-produced (and therefore American-influenced) content; considering around 75% of the content we receive through media is American? But enough of my nattering. Oh, and your post is engaging, well written and properly referenced and covers the week’s content well.
ReplyDeleteYou use the terms and ideas from the unit well in this post. Maybe a link/reference to the Stuart Hall reading would be nice. Overall it is engaging, easy to read, comedic graphics and ending.
ReplyDeleteHey Lloyd, great post reflecting on globalisation and our attitudes towards the concept. I don't believe that globalisation is inherently bad and I like that you discuss the negatives as well as the positives, or at least the idea that globalisation doesn't have to rule our lives. I especially enjoyed the section that discussed audiences as active consumers of the media with clear opinions and thoughts of their own, rather than simply sponges.
ReplyDelete