Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Globalization

Globalization... What a difficult thing to define. I suppose the broad definition would be the merging cultures to create one large global culture (which would obviously be detrimental to the diversity of the human race). I found it somewhat funny that the discussion in class today revolving around "globalization" somehow moved directly to ethnocentrism and culture shock, but only within the context of our own culture. Even within the concepts of culture shock and ethnocentrism, which are issues dealt with thin the spectrum of globalization, we did not begin to touch the tip of the proverbial ice-bergh. All that seemed to appear and reappear were differences existing between city life and country life in America. While these could be considered two subcultures within our overlying culture, common threads of culture run through both. For example, personal space issues: whether you live in the city or in the country in America, there exists the same concept of personal space. If someone enters your "bubble" you feel uncomfortable, and usually enough to step back to regain your space. However, what is considered to be an appropriate amount of personal space varies from one country/culture to the next. I visited Portugal this summer (my fiance is stationed in a group of islands called The Azores, which Portugal owns) and the concepts of personal space on the island were different than what I have grown accustomed to. While standing in line at a restaurant, I actually had a man MOVE ME. No "hello", no "excuse me". He just put his hand on my back, and pushed me in the direction that he wanted me to go. As an American, of course, my first reaction was to be offended. This is not the standard of respect that I grew up with. However, to this man, I was simply in his way, and so, to get by me he just repositioned me. Within the context of his culture, this was not offensive.
The point that I am attempting to get at is that, within the context of globalization, THIS is culture shock. Throughout all cultures, subcultures, such as college campuses, country life vs city life, etc., can be found. The merging of cultures within the context of globalization would refer to the merging of primary cultures.
Another important issue, relating to our class this semester, are the differences between cultures regarding the concept of the importance of the individual vs. the importance of the group as a whole. I will just talk briefly about this, since it is such a large issue and not terribly relevant to ethnocentrism or culture shock. It is just something that I happen to find interesting, and something that I believe greatly contributes to ethnocentrism.

When we veiw other cultures, we are veiwing them through eyes that we are not even aware that we have. Certain ideas, such as the importance of individualism, are so ingrained into our being and our ideas of self that we take them to be universal truths. However, the importance of individualism varies. Some societies are more focused on the community as a whole, and less focused on the reality of the individual. When this is true, things that we find to be terrible and autrocious are, in these cultures, more accepted, because the same concept of empathy for the individual is not as strong. This is not to say that empathy is non-existant in these cultures. It is merely to say that it is not present in the same way that it is within our culture.
I bring this up because when dealing with issues of ethnocentrism and culture shock, it is important to critically think about, and then to maintain awareness of, where our ethnocentrism might come from. And if one is going to practice global business, and in particular to us, global PR, one must be prepared to encounter major differences in cultural standards.

Another point that I would like to talk about is the article that was brought up about the child in Africa who was sold into slavery, and is now shoveling water out of a boat all day. While I, as an American, do find this very offensive and inhumane, within the context of globalization, relating to ethnocentrism and culture shock, I want to mention the idea that the attachment that we have to children is a western concept. As Americans, we have been brought up to believe that "the children are our future", and that childhood is precious and that children are to be protected from all "evils". I must again, throw in a precurser to what I am about to say: These are all values that I hold as well. However, these are not universal ideas. Not every culture has the same attachment to children and to childhood that we do in this country. In certain cultures that have very low infant survival rates, mothers do not name their children before they reach six months or a year in age. Simularly, in certain cultures, failure to thrive babies (which are more common obviously in cultures with low infant survival rates) are often stuck in a corner, so to speak, while the mother cares for the children who have a better chance at survival. Resources are alloted to those who will benefit most. Of course in these cultures the practices previously mentioned are formed out of necessity. And as westerners, these practices are appauling to us. They are, however, one example of a difference in philosophy regarding children between cultures.
Anyway, enough rambling. These are simply issues that occured to me as a result of class discussion today.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home