McDonalds Cultural Imperialism “I’m Lovin’ It”

Many cultures around the world are gradually disappearing due to the overwhelming influence of corporate and cultural America. The common belief by many large American corporations is focused on the concept that cultures are replaceable but the message stays the same witnessed in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OFIKU1h6Q4) 

McDonalds has become the icon of American cultural power and the epitome of the Americanization of the rest of the world. The message of globalized McDonalds is "If you eat like us, you are going to be like us.” When in fact by eating like Americans people around the world are only being inspired to look more like American’s in regards to obesity. But yet, McDonald’s, like many American corporations, have convinced themselves that despite its flaws, American culture is superior and therefore its influence is only beneficial to other, “lesser” cultures.

 Food is an important element in defining culture and can be seen to be the oldest global carrier of culture. According to William Gould’s book McDonalds: Business in Action, “before the introduction of McDonald’s overseas “fast food was almost unknown. McDonald’s was the first company to try to export America’s love of fast food and changes in eating habits of other nations.” When taking a look at food from a cultural perspective, it should be understood how drastic changes on beliefs and consumptions of food could actually diminish some of the traditional beliefs of an entire culture. In fact, the replacement of non-traditional food over traditional food has the most detrimental effects on third-world culture traditions. For example in India, the cow is considered to sacred as part of its religion but the traditionalized staple food of McDonald’s is the Big Mac.

McDonald’s media has been a driving force of this cultural imperialism.

Media imperialism is a theory based upon an over-concentration of mass media from larger nations as a significant variable in negatively affecting smaller nations, in which the national identity of smaller nations is lessened or lost due to media homogeneity inherent in mass media from the larger countries. In relation to McDonald’s media, the commercials and advertising promote the staple “fast food” way of living. However, for most cultures, this is promoting a movement away from a family oriented dining to individual dining.  While American culture focuses on eating as a necessity, most other cultures view dining as a social experience with religion playing an important role in its practice. McDonald’s advertising’s push of American culture pushes individualism and independence upon cultures that traditionally favor harmony and family orientation.

            Large American corporations, like McDonalds, are aware of their impact on changing social conditions of other countries and cultures, but yet still insist that these changes are only improving the culture. The trouble lies deeper than the fact that America thinks they are superior, but rather than American has convince so many countries around the world that American is superior. Many may ask how does this happen?, how does America convince so many other cultures that it is superior? The answer is simple, marketing. Whether attempting to sell an item, a brand, or an entire culture, marketers have always been able to successfully associate American products with modernity and necessity in the minds of consumers worldwide. American marketers unceasingly succeed in convincing the rest of the world that the American way of life is superior life, the happy life, the life that you’ll love. For example, lets take a look at McDonald’s “I’m Lovin It” campaign.  Through the mind of McDonald’s chief marketer, "The 'i'm lovin' it' campaign is a new way of connecting with our customers," said Bill Lamar, senior vice president and chief marketing officer, McDonald's USA. "It will rekindle the emotional bond our customers have with McDonald's through a campaign that depicts how people live, what they love about life and what they love about McDonald's." However, the flaw in attempting to link McDonalds with other cultures is apparent. McDonald’s is not a byproduct of other cultures way of living; it is a byproduct of cultural imperialism. The emotional bond other cultures have with McDonalds is purely imperialized. What many of these cultures love about life has no relation to what they love about McDonalds. 

American Imperialism In Music: A Myth?

    There are scholars out there who argue that the concept of cultural imperialism cannot be properly applied to the realm of popular music.  A lot of their arguments are supposedly supported by economic statistics. For instance, the picture below illustrates the claim that when considering the influence of a particular country in the world music market, their GDP must be taken into account.

    Perhaps it's just me, but there appears to be two big flaws in this line of thinking.
1.)  The factoring in of GDP statistics seems somewhat arbitrary.  Even if we cede that these numbers reflect the degree to which a country's music has been able to penetrate the global market, they still do not tell us anything about the music's cultural transmission unto other countries.
2.)  If we do factor in things such as economics when thinking about imperialism, we simply cannot ignore distribution and consumption powers of the American market.  Just look at the outcome above and then tell me with a straight face that it seems reasonable.  Have elements of Swedish culture truly permeated other societies and become a global influence?  I'll maintain that it's possible, and that my thinking is possibly clouded by an ethnocentric bias/ideology, but I believe I'm justified in maintaining a bit of skepticism.

    Instead of interpreting numbers as proof that cultural imperialism within music does not exist, perhaps we should explore the possibility that such numbers are the actual driving force behind it.

Microtones and Other Stuff

    The usage of microtones is prevalent outside of Western music, particularly within Indian, Asian Islander, and Middle Eastern classical styles.  Take this, for example.  I point this out as merely one key element intrinsic in foreign classical musical styles that is pushed to the wayside globally due in large part to Western ears and corporate wallets.  Our listening habits, and subsequent preferences, stem from our habituation to Western-style music, and the music industry both drives and caters to these desires; it is a never-ending cycle of sorts.  Many of the musical elements in the example above sound exotic to us; it may pique our interest, but it's safe to assume we recognize marketing a product like this to our society would be exceedingly difficult.

    I deduce that the power of the American market, to both consume and distribute in huge amounts, drives cultural imperialism in the realm of music by altering the music itself.  People might argue that talking about a country's pop and classical music are totally different matters, or that pop music has by no means eliminated appreciation for other country's classical musics.  I acknowledge the truth in the latter statement, but my point in regards to the relationship between pop and classical is this: the increasing homogeneity of pop music is almost completely fueled by other countries' musicians conforming to the popular tastes of a typical Western music listener.  Consider that it is not a large leap to jump from listening to American pop music to Western classical music.  However, the gap between other countries' pop music and their own classical music, while it may be decreasing, is still significantly larger in comparison.

    To illustrate this point, I present the Wonder Girls.

  
    The direct result of a Korean version of "Making The Band" (which would also be another case of cultural imperialism) the girl group has gained tremendous commercial success in their native country, and specifically within the U.S.  What is obvious upon hearing their music is that it sounds no different from your typical Western pop fare; it fits completely within mainstream America's cookie cutter listening tastes. In fact, it's practically a textbook example of conformity to Western music standards when considering its instrumentation, Western 12-tonality, chord structuring and progressions, time signature, etc.  Although, I must say, I thoroughly enjoy it.

Conclusion

    To me, the existence of cultural imperialism within music is a pretty apparent truth.  If music is still regarded as culture, then the drastic global shift of other countries' music towards Western musical standards and tastes serves as indisputable evidence of a dominant/submissive relationship inherent within cases of imperialism.  If it isn't imperialism, what would it be?  Coincidence?

  
    The culprit is capitalism (like always).  Capitalist motives and a growing global market combine to create the need for other countries' cultural products to appeal to a large market, and America certainly fits the bill.  So, the issue really is about numbers after all.  The Westernization of pop music is inextricably intertwined with the promotion of a consumer culture.  As the U.S. goes, so goes cultural imperialism.
     

Got Talent?

As the 10^th season on American Idol inches nearer it got me thinking:  “How the heck did we get to 10 seasons of this show anyway!?” American Idol has been praised to allowing the boy or girl next door to become a star and suggests that anyone off the street could have “star quality”.

What has really intrigued me is that Simon Cowell has been at this game far longer than even American Idol has been around. As weird as it may seem to have 9 American Idols running around the US (with the exception of the bozos who couldn’t make it, even after WINNING the show*coughRUBENSTUDDARDcough*; or who now get a thrill out of playing a played-out character in GREASE on Broadway *coughTAYLORHICKScough*), there are far fewer American Idols running around then there are Idols in spin-offs of the popular show (Insert Country Name)’s Got Talent around the world.

Before American Idol came to be, Simon Cowell created the dynasty that is now known as the Got Talent Franchise.

  His company, SYCO, created the show in Britain, than created a spin-off of it here at home.

There are currently 30 countries with their own spin-off of the show.

Here are a few:

• Croatia’s “Super Talent” went live in 2009
• The Philippines’ “Pilipinas Got Talent” has been on-air every Saturday and Sunday since February 20^th, 2010

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueLvcButoEk)

• Luxembourg’s show confusingly translated into: “When You Can Do Something” (yep. I don’t get it either) began in 2009
• “La France a un Incroyable Talent” premiered in France on November 6^th, 2006

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDjtHyFihMg)

•  And the Arab World’s “Arab’s Got Talent” is set to premier in 2011.

The Got Talent franchise is the fastest growing international Franchise. To raise the stakes, Cowell created the show World’s Got Talent in which the winners from each country will compete against each other for a 1 million dollar cash prize. They will be judged by a panel of 6, 4 of whom are from the UK and US.

But why? What is this fascination with Western, average-quality, reality TV!? The Answer: Cultural Imperialism.  Cultural Imperialism is simply when a dominant culture (like the US or UK), imposes its cultural ideals, and beliefs onto subordinate cultures. Essentially, Cultural Imperialism allows us to “Americanize” other cultures, countries, and people.

Some believe that Cultural Imperialism is a good thing. For example, Columbia professor and author of the article “In Praise of Cultural Imperialism” David Rothkopf believes that cultural imperialism is good because it allows for more globalization of our world. It rids our society of the danger of the word “foreign” because we are able to look at other countries and see similarities between us and them. Rothkopf believes that Globalization promotes integration, removes cultural barriers and that globalization is a vital step toward both a more stable world and better lives for the people in it.

Other theorists believe that Cultural Imperialism is robbing less-developed countries of their culture and individualism. Livingston White, author of the article "Reconsidering cultural imperialism theory" believes that European countries colonized southern countries in the name of "spreading" Christian civilization to the "primitive" people in other parts of the world. He believes that we should not forget that the differences in cultures make the world a rich and diverse place and that every individual of each country should have the right to express his or her own culture. He argues that a cultural uniformity would lead to the extinction of cultures and would represent a great loss.

I believe that Livingston says it best in this excerpt:

American culture is intruding on most cultures in the world, in many cases threatening their existence. Superman, Spider-man, and Batman replace local heroes; Pepsi and Coke replace local fruit drinks; and "trick or treat" begin to replace Dia de los Muertos. Perhaps more insidious, to compete with American cultural imports, local varieties and products begin to mimic American products. All the exportation of goods and information from the United States to the entire planet contributes to the exportation of the American culture.

The Cultural Imperialism at play in the Got Talent series is beautiful. Here is a great example of a Western culture completely imposing itself on not 1 but 30 (omg) countries around the world. But how seriously should we take these spin-offs? Yes, they were a Western creation but surely there are people everywhere who sing, dance, juggle, or who have other talents. Is it possible to simply regard programs like this as pure entertainment, meant to give people around the world a release from their everyday lives? Or is Cultural Imperialism really going to be the demise of multiculturalism throughout the globe?

By: Krystle Igbo-Ogbonna

Jersey Shore Invasion: The Risks of Cultural Imperialism

By Matt Duscher

It is common knowledge that the United States is the world leader in production of media content.  With so much content filling America’s glass, it is just a matter of time before it overflows and spills into other countries.  When considering the massive amounts of money profited from international syndication, it seems logical that America doesn’t mind the spill.  The only question is who is supposed to clean up the mess made by it.  It would seem as if the obvious answer is whoever spilled it should clean it up.  The only problem is in the case of international syndication it isn’t so much a spill as it is intentionally pouring it out, and it isn’t spilling on a table or a floor, instead it is being thrown in the faces of the people in other countries.  Since America doesn’t seem to mind making a mess, the only question is can they get out of the way in time to avoid being doused in the liquid that is America’s media content.  The spill I’m referring to is better known as cultural imperialism.  Cultural imperialism is the practice of promoting a more powerful nation’s culture over a weaker culture.  Around the globe, many people believe the United States’ attempt to sell their content to other countries is in fact cultural imperialism, as it causes other cultures to abandon their uniqueness and conform to the value system that has been constructed in America and is reflected by America’s media content .  Although many countries strictly prohibit displaying foreign content on their broadcasts, there are still many other countries that are hungry for American content and the profits to be reaped from it.  So if other countries want to buy American programming and broadcast it what’s the big deal?  They must not mind if they are willing to pay for it.  This is one side of the argument of whether or not cultural imperialism is an issue to worry about.  From America’s perspective, it may be difficult to see the downside of this process when considering the fact that international syndication can be very lucrative and its negative effects occur in places thousands of miles away.  So what is the downside?  Opponents of cultural imperialism claim that it destroys the uniqueness of other cultures and therefore interferes with the diversity of ways that problems can be solved.  Many cultures have different value systems that have been in place for centuries; systems that have defined their way of life and provided a framework of governing norms.  As technology has continued to develop, globalization has become prevalent and different cultures have been exposed to alternate ways of living and behaving.  So when other cultures are exposed to American media content, there is a risk that the American value system that is embedded in its content could be influential to their culture or their view of our culture.  If every show that was internationally syndicated was educational or provided some benefit to its viewer that translated universally it would probably be difficult to find a downside to cultural imperialism.  If this was the case the proponents of cultural imperialism would be correct in their assumption that by sharing content that reflects alternate cultural value systems, different cultures gain a better understanding of each other and promote shared interests to improve relations.  This sounds great, but unfortunately the content that America is selling in some cases has little to no educational value and may have an opposite effect on how it influences different cultures.  An example of this is the MTV reality series The Jersey Shore, which do to its massive popularity, has recently been syndicated in more than 30 foreign countries.  The show has received criticism in the United States for its portrayal of Italian Americans and its use of the derogatory term “guidos” to describe the cast members.  In addition the show has also been criticized by the New York Times for the cast member’s display of behavior that reflects ignorance, narcissism, and predatory sexism.  The debate rages on in America as to whether or not the show’s content is detrimental to the impressionable youth of our nation.  So the question is what the repercussions will be in other countries where the show is viewed.  Will other cultures accept the show the same way Americans have?  Or will they be outraged for the same reasons many Americans are?  Imagine if it does get accepted and it becomes as popular in other countries as it is here. If this is the case, can we expect to see people in other countries with sleeveless shirts and greased hair working out and partying all the time in hopes of a drunken one night stand?   If this is the case it may be difficult to argue that cultural imperialism has any positive effects.  Another important question is how will The Jersey Shore affect the way people view Americans?  Will people in other cultures who are unfamiliar with Americans assume that our culture is obsessed with appearance, partying, and behaving badly to get attention?  Only time will tell what the effects of cultural imperialism will be, but as Americans, it is important that we are aware of the situation that is taking place in other countries around the world and how it affects us all, and by situation, I’m not referring to some guys stomach.