Mohammad, I read the McPhail quote – but to me all that proves is that this a product of capitalism. I understand that capitalism is very hard to fight against, the “little man” vs. the “big man,” but it still gives the consumer power. Again, your example of not buying a movie for the movie’s message but rather for the actors/actresses in the movie still shows a deliberate consumer choice: a preferance for Angelina Jolie over other actresses or over a movie’s message. The consumer does have a choice to 1) not buy the movie at all, or b) purchase a movie with a different message and/or different actors.

Esra’a, you certainly have every right to voice your views about what you see in your country – we are both stating our ideas and viewpoints from our respective positions in our respective countries. But you are right that I am getting defensive over your use of the word rape. I think it’s very insensitive to those who actually have been sexually assaulted, and I don’t think that it’s a fair comparison to a culture disappearing because, as I’ve stated many times, the consumer has a choice in that matter. Rape victims do NOT have a choice.

“I went to Bahrain and Western culture was everywhere. I thought to myself, this could be Cleveland.”

This is a direct quote, by the way.

So instead of getting defensive, you can explore the dangers of this Americanization. It really is all over the place and it’s replacing our local culture with what’s American. And you know, we might use it because we have to, but that doesn’t mean that we like it.

McDonald is the symbol of a ‘rampant’ process aimed at, say, eliminating cultural diversity. How does this process work? Simple: a nation has a superior technology and takes advantage of it so as to spread its culture and values. In this case, McDonald produces a high quality food with a relatively lower price, thus other countries fail to sustain their own traditional recipes. Note that world is somehow at the first stages of the process.

Hollywood is another example of this process.

Let me ask why you think the concept of “the American Dream” is so prevelant and successful in selling movies?

Hollywood products sell because they are of a higher quality (better actors, better directors, better equipment, etc). Ordinary people rarely buy the movie for its message. What I often hear in (underground) CD/DVD markets in Iran is something close to this: “newest movies of Angelina Julie.” Consumer buys Angelina Julie, and meanwhile is unconsciously forced to buy American culture along with it.

You claim that this is the fault of consumer. You are true, but just to a certain extent. Let me refer you again to “Global Communications: Theories, Stakeholders, and Trends” from Prof. Tom McPhail:

In addition, it is important to note that most of the international communication industry is owned and controlled by giant core nations, mainly in the form of European, US, or Japanese transnational communication conglomerates. Good examples are Time Warner, Disney, Viacom, General Electric (NBC), the News Corporation (FOX), Sony, and Bertelsmann. These corporations are tied closely into a subtle and invisible network of core-based political, ideological, and economic elites, and they use the communication industry to perpetuate certain “needs,” tastes, values, and attitudes so as to increase profits. When a peripheral nation imports, either through purchase, loan, or donation, telecommunication technologies (from simple shortwave radio equipment, to printing presses, to ground stations for color television by means of satellite or the internet), plus software, it imports an alternative way of life. Schiller describes this as cultural imperialism and claims that it is becoming steadily more important in the exercise of global economic power:

The marketing system developed to sell industry’s outpouring of (largely inauthentic) consumer goods is now applied as well to globally selling ideas, tastes, preferences, and beliefs. In fact, in advanced capitalism’s present stage, the production and dissemination of what it likes to term “information” become major and indispensable activities, by any measure, in the overall system. Made-in-America messages, imagery, lifestyles, and information techniques are being internationally circulated and, equally important, globally imitated. Multinational media corporations are major players in the world economy. Information and communications are vital components in the system of administration and control. Communication, it needs to be said, includes much more than messages and the recognizable circuits through which the messages flow. It defines social reality and thus influences the organization of work, the character of technology, the curriculum of the educational system, formal and informal, and the use of “free” time – actually, the basic social arrangements of living.!”

A substantial body of literature deals with the central concept of cultural irnperialisrn.l” which usually applies either to specific peripheral nations or to specific communication industries such as feature films, advertising, television sitcoms, or mass circulation magazines. The central finding of the research is that exporting corporations establish ground rules in such a way that the peripheral nations are at a structural disadvantage from the start. Yet this is considered a crucial process in world-system theory. Somehow, this imbalance is supposed to exist in order for core nations to grow and succeed even more. A good example of this process is the global leader in video rentals, the US retailer Blockbuster. In addition to its US stores, Blockbuster has more than 2,600 stores in 28 foreign nations. Many of these stores are in semiperipheral and peripheral nations. One can easily imagine what happens to a small, local, family-owned and -operated video store in peripheral nations such as Thailand, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, or Chile when a Blockbuster store opens in the same community. Finally, as it seeks to become the leading global provider of home video rentals, Blockbuster also brings with it a vast library of Hollywood feature films and US marketing and advertising expertise, with little room or interest for lowvolume video rentals of indigenous productions.

I stand by my opinion that Americanization really is a form of cultural rape. It’s replacing the local with what’s American – instead of just giving us another “foreign” option. It’s becoming our majority. And I’m not blaming America for this, I already said (very clearly, and on several occasions now) that this can be resisted. I even gave the example of Oman. So enough about McDonald’s already, this is about real culture – everything from the mainstream media to music to politics.

I don’t understand where you are getting these claims from. Where and when, in my comment, did I ever make this statement:

Claiming that McDonalds is trying to rape other cultures is not going to get you anywwhere

We are talking about film, music, ideologies. Massive imports of ideas only from America as opposed to other parts of the world. Where did I bring up fast food?

I simply think that in order to defend against what you call Americanization, you need to properly address the cause in order to target and defeat it. Claiming that McDonalds is trying to rape other cultures is not going to get you anywwhere – rather, the consumers need to be targeted and educated on other, better options. The consumer does have power here, and by eliminating the consumer base, companies like McDonald’s will respond.

Mohammad, agreed that many companies practice things that are unethical. There are laws to govern this, but companies (the oil refining companies like Shell and BP come to mind) will certainly exploit workers in those countries where the laws are either a lot softer, non existent, or ignored/not enforced. Sweat shops are an example – when Americans started protesting the conditions in sweatshops that made Nikes and the other brands we love so much, the companies did respond and reform, because they want to keep the consumer as a customer. I’m not saying everything is perfect now, but the consumer movement did promote change. As Homer1 noted, that’s the beauty of capitalism – they consumer does have the power and the choice.

Mohammad, regarding your comparison about Hollywood, let me ask why you think the concept of “the American Dream” is so prevelant and successful in selling movies? I think it is because people really want to have open, free socieites where they can express their opinions and have a chance at social mobility or other success. I can easily see how movies portraying that ideal would be extremely popular in countries where those freedoms don’t exist – it’s a form of escapism for the viewer. Any why, then, is this such a bad thing? I think when it gets confused is when people think that they are somehow living the “American Dream” -and therefore obtaining such freedoms, or a part of that – by buying McDonalds, or Nikes, or whatever. The consumer is blindly eating up the product without any thought to what that product might really be representing or doing. Again, that’s why I blame the consumer – not the company (unless the company is acting illegally or unethically, as previously stated).

Esra’a- I was thinking: It has been noted that China has made some inroads toward democracy, but only after the messiness of capitalism has taken hold, particularly in the south. Is that so? Maybe because free enterprise zones(that involve more than just the elite) has allowed average citizens to have more say.