One
of the concerns related to the spread of the Internet around the world
is that it carries with it Western (especially U.S.) ideology, both
political and cultural.
This is
potentially a larger and thornier issue than those involving access
to technology or language barriers. Language, in particular, is less
and less of a problem as the Internet becomes more linguistically diverse;
today, only
about one-third
of Web
sites are in English. Concerns
related to the impact of Western cultural values on the rest of the
Internet-using world have to do with issues
of hegemony, meaning the
dominance
of
one thing
(usually,
one
ideology
or one nation) over another.
Issues
of CULTURAL, SOCIAL and POLICAL hegemony are
difficult to address.
The
Web is, many fear, a new and powerful form of cultural imperialism
-- a way for Western values to dominate the world.
It
favors openness and global discourse … but not all info
is universally welcome in other countries.
And
it also favors capitalism, corporatism and consumerism. |
At
the same time, the Internet is inherently EMPOWERING. It challenges
any entity’s ability to control information, thus potentially
changing:
| Who
is able to have their voices heard. |
| What
information enters the discourse about global issues -- and,
in the 21st century, all issues are, at least to some extent,
global as national boundaries become porous. |
| What
we know about each other, both those we see as our “friends” and
those we see as our “enemies.” |
|
|
But
U.S. culture (in particular) is not just democratic. It also is capitalistic.
And as communication
technologies spread, the two seem inseparable -- particularly
because both cultural products and capitalistic values are being
disseminated primarily by the large, multinational corporations we
talked about last week in the context of copyright.
In
other words, your readings suggest, these companies are not
themselves ideological
in the usual sense of that term. They may happen to be purveyors
of a particular culture or a particular
political ideology, but those aspects are somewhat coincidental. The
companies would be just as happy to spread local culture (for instance,
Brazilian or African
music) and to serve local political needs (for instance, reaching
the vast Chinese market by working closely with the Chinese government)
if doing so was profitable (and it is).
Their
primary concern is making money. There is nothing inherently
wrong with that -- we all like money, and money certainly
can be, and often is, put to socially desirable uses.
However,
the paths to maximum profit can be problematic. |
Corporations'
best option for growing the bottom line is to extend
their reach -- for instance, by entering and seeking
to dominate new markets around the world, or by buying
up domestic outlets and creating more effective advertising
and promotional vehicles, as Clear Channel has done.
This
is what drives their decisions -- not the overt messages
that happen to make up the medium's content nor the
more subtle messages conveyed by its open, democratic
nature. |
Deregulation
allows corporations to extend their reach virtually
without any limits other than their own financial ones
...
which in turn spur them to make more money. So they
can extend their reach further. And make more money.
And on it goes.
The
goal of making money too easily pushes out of prominence
(to borrow McLuhan's concept) the goal of being a good
corporate
citizen of the nation or the world. |
|