CULTURAL IMPERIALISM
The term ‘cultural imperialism’ emerged in scholarly discourse in the late 1960s. Its roots were in critical communication scholarship, which tried to describe the growing worldwide influence of the United States and its commercial media system in the context of the Cold War. Theory built around this term claimed that US culture was being spread to developing nations by the use of specific media products, imagery and messages, as well as by the ever-growing expansion of the private model of the media system.
In essence, the term implied forced acculturation of a given population, which historically served as one of the primary instruments of colonisation. In the new context, however, the expansion of economic domination did not necessarily involve military intervention but represented a kind of de-territorialised imperialism. The theory of cultural imperialism criticised what it described as asymmetrical economic, political, and cultural power relations between the United States and other countries. It argued that developing nations should have the right to develop their own sovereign national media systems.
The basic tenets of the theory of cultural imperialism were challenged on several counts. To begin with, the empirical work of cultural studies and media scholars suggested that the influence of US media was less totalising and homogenising than proclaimed by the theory. The results of reception studies and ethnographic research indicated that commercial imagery and messages experienced local adaptation and/or resistance when travelling around the world. What is more, the studies focused on the national media systems suggested that those outlets served to establish prevalent communication, political and economic modes in different countries. In other words, they could be used as channels of government influence and a basis to develop independent local media production.
The critiques of the theory of cultural imperialism evolved in light of the historical changes brought about by the end of the Cold War period, especially in view of the development and diffusion of the World Wide Web and the ensuing digitalisation of products and services. Instead of discussing cultural imperialism, scholars increasingly embraced the term ‘globalisation’, as better reflecting the emerging dynamics of the truly global media system.
While not dismissing certain elements of cultural imperialism, many scholars concluded that it could not adequately explain the complexity of the new relations in the field. According to them, unilateral strategies of cultural imperialism have been replaced by a general, transnational commercialisation. Others have, however, claimed that ‘globalisation’ equals ‘Americanisation’ and continued to empirically research homogenising influences in global media culture. Some scholars have suggested that the most appropriate way to address cultural imperialism in the new context is to analyse how US copyright works globally in the digital age.
Whichever position one takes in this debate, it is clear that nowadays it revolves primarily around so-called ‘platform imperialism’, intellectual property in the digital context, and the global digital divide. All these issues are also connected with exploitative practices concerning users and the imperative of citizens’ data protection. What should also be considered is a new dynamic developing between nation-states, supranational organisations, and transnationally operating corporations. Cultural policies should find a way to address these emerging issues just as they managed to do with audio-visual products in the previous, non-digital age. (MP, ITK)