"It is always with a certain apprehension that the problem of imperialism is approached and especially what is known as cultural imperialism. This generic concept has too often been used with an ill-defined meaning".
Emerging alongside other terms of radical criticism, the concept of cultural imperialism is not a particularly difficult one to grasp. The term itself is a generic concept, rendering it difficult to be confined to a definition with any level of precision. Nonetheless, cultural imperialism can be defined as: the use of political and economic power to exalt and spread the values and habits of a foreign culture at the expense of a native culture (Tomlinson, J. 2001). Along with the general discourse regarding a definition, there is also the issue of the relative positivity and negativity of cultural imperialism and the difficulty of achieving globalisation without some aspects of cultural imperialism being present. It is difficult for any action to be taken or any aspect of globalisation to occur without a corresponding impact that can be considered cultural imperialism.
Considering this, then perhaps it is difficult for any action to be completely free of cultural imperialism - take migration as an example. Globalisation is the driving force behind time-space convergence and the development of new technology that enables travel. For instance, a poor family living in rural India may be able to move migrate this traditional patriarchal society to a more liberal area like the USA. This would not have been possible in the past due to extensive geographical barriers (e.g. oceans) and economic inhibitory factors (that have been overruled by the development of budget airlines, etc.) that can only now be crossed with ease and efficiency due to air transport. These families who move to the USA and out of their traditional society will inevitably be exposed to new ideas, influenced by Western ideals of individualism and liberalism. The advent of the media means that migrants are then able to instigate the spread of these ideas back to their home country, which means that the propagation of cultural ideals are prevalent in society and the media. Eventually, the rapid diffusion of these ideas will reach their home country. This is evident in the rapid 'westernisation' of countries as they move away from tradition and towards Western ideas, creating homogenised societies and clone towns, leaving developing countries at risk of exploitation by TNCs and foreign countries looking for cheap sites for outsourcing.
However, it is imperative to consider that this movement of people and the resultant diffusion of ideas from one culture back to another can be considered a positive form of cultural imperialism if it alters mindsets and promotes gender equality. Promotion of gender equality is a form of cultural imperialism in itself, but its ability to proliferate mindsets, especially of the younger generations, and instigate change make it irrefutably constructive. In India, this can give women the platform they need to challenge cultural norms like bride burning, child marriages, the acceptance of rape and sexual slavery. Likewise, without cultural imperialism and external pressure on South Africa to end Apartheid, it is likely that practices such as this, rampant and deep-rooted discrimination against blacks and slavery, will still be in existence today. This then raises the question as to whether one culture is intrinsically worse than another - the unequivocal breach in human rights (of women in particular) in India is culturally accepted. Does this mean they have a 'worse' culture than that of countries like Switzerland who have achieved gender equality to a greater extent than most (save for the continued difference in pay gap)?
Following this thinking that gender equality is in itself a form of cultural imperialism, this means that people in charge of global organisations like UNICEF or the UN engage equally in promoting cultural imperialism by imposing their views on others. That being said, the entire concept of 'having an open mind' can also then be considered as a form of cultural imperialism. What should be opening up our minds to, really? Again, the advent of the media means that this is mostly decided and based on Western concepts and ideals, putting all traditions, be they 'good' or 'bad', alike in danger of being obliterated by a homogenised Westernised society.
As such, we must then consider whether one rule and one definition of cultural imperialism, as well as a view of whether it is good or bad, applies to all. If it does, what is the extent of change it can undergo before it stops being the same rule? Wishing that the didactic nature of cultural imperialism ceases to exist is both misguided and virtually impossible with the media, technology and global connectivity. To reduce cultural imperialism to an extent that will ensure the maintenance of all native traditions and cultures of a country, you would virtually have to remove the right to free speech and cut ties with other countries, stopping migration and censoring all media to remove the possibility of information, sociocultural or economic flows, all of which inadvertently contribute to cultural imperialism. This means that each country will have to be individually governed, developing in complete isolation of others.
Without cultural imperialism, we would not have many of the developmental structures and schemes that are globally deemed as 'good'. Globalisation and development themselves fundamentally require a level of acceptance that cultural imperialism is inevitable to some extent. The question that should be asked is therefore how far does this extent extend to before our own culture is lost in the depths of development?
Furthermore, we must consider whether the benefits of cultural imperialism outweigh its perpetuation of the concept of one culture being superior to another. In the case of making traditions like female genital mutilation in African regions obsolete, generating international effort in stopping slavery and sex trafficking, as well as in imposing the necessity of gender equality, the argument that cultural imperialism is necessary is infinitely more potent than otherwise. This necessitates questioning whether there are things where it is actually right to impose your ideas over. What kind of culture is 'wrong' and what kind of culture should be preserved? Who should decide this?
Different countries have different forms of tradition. What I deem to be unacceptable could be entirely acceptable to another. This then relies on our individual paradigms and our own world views. For instance, killing people is acceptable in the Dani tribe, a norm even, while eating dogs in China is customary. Both of traditions are accepted in the culture itself but face worldwide criticism. In fact, a growing population of Chinese living in more urbanised areas of China are beginning to deviate from this culturally accepted idea. Since this population is more likely to be educated than the rural populations in areas where eating dog meat is common, the issue of whether it is education that is altering their views should be addressed as well. Therefore, should Western cultures, or even Singapore (which is to a large extent Westernised despite our Chinese roots)'s population, have a right to call the Chinese custom right or wrong?
The Dani Tribe in Indonesia is a different issue though it holds the same basis in cultural imperialism. Within the tribe, going to war and killing members from other tribes is customary and even glorified. This is an infringement of what urbanised societies call 'human rights' because killing someone is in effect murder. Therefore, does this mean that the same rules that apply to our modern societies do not apply to indigenous groups? In the hope of preserving the Dani Tribe's culture, is it right to then condone the active taking of human life? In relation to the previously mentioned example of the Chinese, whether cultural imperialism applies to both indigenous groups and to animals should be addressed as well.
As can be seen from the above, the concept of cultural imperialism is not a particularly difficult one to grasp despite it being applicable differently in various settings. This simply stresses the essentiality of acknowledging the context of each situation and means that a nomothetic approach cannot be taken with geographical concepts. Instead, it is necessary to look at each country's context in particular detail to ensure that we are aware of the applicability of a concept to their culture.