CULTURAL GLOBALISATION

AT THE BEGINNING OF THE 21st CENTURY1

Ph.D. Mădălina Virginia ANTONESCU*

-paper-

Abstract: The global world at the beginning of 21st century is marked by different

phenomena of cosmopolitanism, pluri-culturalism, internationalism, reflecting

different kinds of relations between cultures. They represent various trends of

interconnecting the global world and, moreover, they can be considered to

establish different types of relations between the cultures of the globe, which can

be analysed as linked to a specific process called “cultural globalisation”.

Key-words: trans-culturalism, cosmopolitanism, inter-culturalism, meta-

culturalism, cultural globalisation.

Introduction

Despite the global context at the beginning of the 21st century,

characterised by cosmopolitan, multicultural or internationalist tendencies and

trends, but also despite the proliferation of new technologies used for the

diffusion of cultural elements2 at global level, some authors believe that, over the

1 Paper presented and published at the international conference ”Strategii XXI”, ”Complexitatea si dinamismul mediului de securitate”, Bucharest, Center for Defense and Security Strategic Studies, 25-26.11.2014. * Doctor of European law, scientific researcher.2 Cinema, telegraphy, radio, television, long-distance transport, air transport, the Internet and, more recently, the proliferation of virtual social networks - important including for the political relation governors-governed, for the political and civic debate, the creation of a civil society at all levels (infra-national, national, transnational) with consequences such as the involvement of

1

last two hundred years, the balance of cultural power could not escape the

dominant position (in the international cultural context) that nation states and

national cultures have had. Moreover, they believe the balance has tilted in their

favour3.

In this article we seek to identify the elements that can shape different

forms of global cultures, some of which have old historical roots, before the

Modern Age (for instance, the culture of imperial elites4). These forms of global

cultures fall within the scope of a wider concept, called “cultural globalisation”,

that we also seek to define in the following pages.

1. Cultural globalisation: concept, general characteristics

The beginning of the 21st century is characterised, among other things, by

the proliferation of global cultural trends which, due to their variety, intensity

and degree of dissemination in the most diverse societies across the globe, cannot

be compared to older forms of globalisation. Global cultural flows at the

beginning of the 21st century are generated by the advent and continuous

development of telecommunication technologies, but also by the emergence of

new and very powerful non-state actors (multinational corporations, mass media,

international non-governmental organisations, international intergovernmental

organisations5).

citizens in the act of political governance, the development of a virtual agora, of public initiatives in the civic and political field of a country or region or at global level (Earth – an enormous online agora of people with “a planetary civic identity”).3 David HELD; Anthony McGREW; David GOLDBLATT; Jonathan PERRATON, Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture (Transformări globale. Politică, economie, cultură), translated by Ramona-Elena LUPAȘCU, Adriana ŞTRAUB, Mihaela BORDEA, Alina-Maria TURCU, Polirom, Iaşi, 2004, p. 373.4 David Held et al., op. cit., p.375-376. 5 Jean-Jacques ROCHE, Relations internationales, LGDJ, Paris, 2005, pp. 296-299. Frédéric TEULON, Comerţul internaţional (Le commerce international), translated by Anca-Andreea PAVEL, Ed. Institutul European, Iaşi, 1997, pp. 58-59.

2

As most theoreticians of culture and civilisation notice, there is “a kind of

great cultural entity, of cultural system or civilisation, which lives and acts as a

genuine unit”6. This unitary reality “leads to the elaboration of cultural systems or

super-systems with variable limits”, according to George Uscătescu, quoting

Sorokin, systems which have different names in the literature: “great cultures”

(Berdiaev), “universal cultures” (Northrop), “models of high cultural value”

(Kroeber), “intelligible fields of historical study” (Toynbee), “high cultures

which, in their last stage, become civilisations” (Spengler) or ”historical-cultural

types or civilisations” (Danilewski)7.

1.1. The relation between culture, civilisation and value

In the analysis of the content of cultural globalisation, we should also

mention the incidence of philosophy of values on the scope of the definition of

culture and civilisation, making a distinction between “value-relation” (phrase

used by Max Weber) and “value in itself” or between “personal values”,

“impersonal values” and “values of efficiency”. Culture was intrinsically

associated with the term “value”, being understood as “the essence of the goods

we appreciate for their value” (H. Rickert, Kant als Philosoph der modernen

Kultur, 1924). According to the literature, only cultural values “are eternal, make

possible the existence of history as a science and historical development,

emphasise cultural goods related to cultural values, forming the basic model of

the Rickertian philosophy (History-Culture-Nature-Value)”8.

The notion of “value” is central to any definition of culture, all these

definitions (around 300, identified up to 1952 by Kroeber and Kluckhohn, in

their paper Culture, a Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions and

subsequently reduced to 160 definitions by Pucelle) being based on the following

trichotomy: the relation between man and nature, between man and the man

6 Sorokin, quoted in George USCĂTESCU, Ontologia culturii (The ontology of culture), Ed. Ştiinţifică şi Enciclopedică, Bucureşti, 1987, p. 79.7 Idem, p. 79. 8 According to George USCĂTESCU, op. cit., p. 57.

3

enjoying a high-profile or not, between man and the idea of value9, For others,

the trichotomous relation, resulting from the application of the system of values

to the notion of culture, includes: the subject-object relation, the relation between

subjects and the relation through objects10.

Pucelle believes that the entire human civilisation, including the field of

culture which represents its accomplishment, is the development of the last two

types of relations and that it begins with the first type of relation11. Thus, the

essence of civilisation is man as subject and not the multitude of interposed

objects, Pucelle appreciates. This essence is invariable12, despite the numerous

and diverse forms of civilisations and cultures, which do not have an incidence

on the basic relationship.

According to other authors, civilisation cannot be reduced to its urban

aspects, since it represents “the single largest unit of human organisation, higher

though more amorphous than even an empire”. But civilisations can also be

regarded as forms of “a practical response by human populations to the

environments – the challenges of feeding, watering, sheltering and defend

themselves”, without ignoring the cultural and religious aspect of their substance,

or the linguistic component13. An interesting phenomenon noticed in the literature

regarding the evolution of civilisations over time is that genuine civilisational

spaces “seem to remain consistent with themselves for long periods of time,

despite external influences”.

“Civilisation”, a French term used for the first time in 1752 by the

economist Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot, later printed by Victor Riqueti, Marquis

de Mirabeau, goes beyond aesthetic aspects, being “a highly complex human

organization”, according to the literature in the field14.

9 Idem, p. 58. 10 Ibidem.11 Ibidem, p. 58.12 Ibidem, p. 58.13 Coulborn, Origins of Civilized Societies or Fernandez-Armesto, Civilizations, quoted in Niall FERGUSON, Civilization, The West and the Rest (Civilizaţia. Vestul şi restul), translated by Doris Mironescu, Andreea Mironescu, Polirom, Iaşi, 2011, p. 24.14 Niall FERGUSON, op. cit., p. 24.

4

In an encyclopaedia entry written in 1959, Fernand Braudel said that

“civilisation” is “first of all a space, a cultural area … a locus. With this locus …

you must picture a great variety of «goods», of cultural characteristics, ranging

from the form of its houses, the material of which they are built, their roofing, to

skills like feathering arrows, to a dialect or group of dialects, to tastes in cooking

… and even to the compass, paper, the printing press. It is the regular grouping,

the frequency with which particular characteristics recur, their ubiquity within a

precise area”15.

The representatives of the behaviourist approach16 appreciate and assess

culture depending on the psychological interpretation of human behaviour. A.

White (in the paper Human Behavior) appreciates that culture is “an organisation

of phenomena (acts), patterns of behaviour (objects, i.e. tools, things made with

tools); ideas (i.e. belief, knowledge) and sentiments (i.e. attitudes, values) that is

dependent upon the use of symbols.”17. This behaviourist believes that culture

began to exist when man developed an articulated language, in which symbols

are used18 and thus can be passed on from one person to another.

The phenomenological school of culture interpretation defines culture as “a

set of meanings, values, non-objectified or objectified immaterial rules, together

with all vehicles ensuring its dynamism, but also with all conscious individuals

and groups making up the social and cultural world19”. According to this school

of thought, meaning is essential for the cultural fact going beyond the state of

natural fact, becoming an interpreted and symbolic fact, illustrating man’s

creative action on nature, on himself, on the surrounding world and on others20.

Through behaviour and meaning, culture leads to the concept of personality,

according to Sorokin (in the paper Social and Dynamics. Society, Culture,

15 Idem, p. 18. 16 Sergiu TAMAŞ, Dicţionar politic. Instituţiile democraţiei şi cultură civică (Dictionary of politics. The institutions of democracy and the civic culture), Ed. Academiei Române, Bucureşti, 1993, p. 29. 17 According to George USCĂTESCU, op. cit., p. 65.18 Idem, p. 65. 19 Ibidem, pp. 64-66.20 Ibidem.

5

Personality) and Talcott Parsons (who develops the theory of personality and

cultural vocation), the latter regarding culture as “a product of the mutual

interaction between society and personality (the latter being the result of

culture)”21. Moreover, the literature mentions that any cultural system is based on

a social system, the two systems being inter-connected. Parsons believes that the

cultural system includes a symbolic apparatus that guides and fuels all social

action (in the analysis of the notion of culture, Parsons also introduces the

concepts of “system” and “systems analysis”)22.

1.2. Cosmopolitanism and meta-culturalism

The word cosmopolitanism, which derives from the Greek Kosmopolites

(citizen of the world) is a generic term used to describe a wide variety of views in

moral and socio-political23 philosophy. But despite its ambiguity, this term can be

defined as the idea that all human beings belong to a single community,

regardless of their political affiliation (this being defined differently over time,

some people envision a political community, while others thought that it referred

to a moral community or to inter-human relations and others considered it to be

the division of global markets or forms of cultural expression)24.

In the 18th century, this term was used either to indicate “an open-minded

and impartial person”, or someone who “did not define himself through his

affiliation to a certain religion or a determining political authority, namely a

person who did not have particular loyalties or cultural prejudice”; but the term

also referred to “persons living an urban lifestyle or travelling around the world,

having an international network of contacts, the ones who feel at home anywhere

in the world”25.21 George USCĂTESCU, op. cit., p. 68-69. 22 Idem, p. 69. 23 www.wikipedia.ro 24 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, first published in Feb.23, 2002, revision in Nov. 28, 2006, http://plato.standord.edu/entries/cosmopolitanism, accessed on 15.05.2013. 25 See Mary KALDOR, New and Old Wars. Organised Violence in a Global Era (Războaie vechi şi noi. Violenţa organizată în epoca globală), translated by Mihnea COLUMBEANU, Ed. Antet,

6

According to Kant, a cosmopolitan is any person who has the

characteristics of freedom, equality, independence, humankind forming a unique

moral community, governed by self-imposed moral laws, based on reason.

According to Jeremy Bentham, moral cosmopolitanism regards humans as

brothers, by virtue of morality, lawfulness, human reason, aesthetic imagination.

According to another meaning, political cosmopolitanism is a concept referring

to a type of world where all existing nations and states have been abolished, in

which there is only one state, one universal republic establishing a direct relation

with individuals. Kant is the author of the concept of cosmopolitan law26, which

he considers to be a body of distinct legal rules, in addition to the constitutional

law and international law, referring to states and individuals (as “citizens of the

earth”, here) as being the main subjects of the law27.

Lastly, according to certain opinions, regarding the term “metacultural”,

metacultural approaches reflect a type of unitary, overall approach, of all human

cultures, by using the philosophical concept of “culture”28. Pluriculturalism or

multiculturalism is a perspective of cultural studies reflecting quantitative

distinctions between cultural units, by means of a simultaneous approach of

several cultures29.

1.3. Intercultural, intracultural, transcultural

Oradea, 1999, pp. 101-103, who considers cosmopolitism not as a denial of identity, but rather a celebration of the diversity of global identities, acceptance and enthusiasm for multiple overlapping identities and, at the same time, a commitment to the equality of all human beings and to respect for human dignity. The cosmopolitan is someone who takes pleasure from the presence of other different people, respects their diversity and identity and the fact that people are different (while humanism corresponds to a desire of global homogeneity). 26 Understood in the wider sense by Mary KALDOR, op. cit., pp. 131-132. Thus, cosmopolitanism implies “a positive political vision, embracing tolerance, multiculturalism, civility and a more legalistic respect for certain overriding universal principles which should guide political communities at various levels, including the global level”. 27 Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, first published in Feb.23, 2002, revision in Nov.28, 2006, http://plato.standord.edu/entries/cosmopolitanism, accessed on 15.05.201328 Dumitru ZAIȚ, coord., Management intercultural. Valorizarea diferenţelor culturale (Intercultural management. Capitalising on cultural differences), Ed. Economică, Bucureşti, 2002, p. 81.29 Idem, pp. 80-81.

7

According to authors like Hudson, Baokat and Laforge, intercultural

relations are relatively easy to define, since they provide information on the

specific variations of rules, depending on the cultural differences between two or

more cultural areas (unlike the intracultural approach)30. Intercultural studies

focus on the analysis of cultural units without powerful historical connections

between them, which are located either on different continents, or in different

regions. The comparison between these cultural units according to the

specificities of each one of them results in the identification of different types and

forms of relations between them31.

Unlike the intracultural approach (marked by the thorough study of a

cultural entity considered separately), intercultural studies focus on interactive

processes, different combinations resulted from the meeting of two or more

cultures32; therefore, intercultural approach concerns a dynamic process of

interaction between cultures regarded as “entities capable of evolution,

adaptation and mutual cultural influence33, according to the literature in the field.

Regarding the transcultural dimension of the studies on cultures and

civilisations, it is generally considered to be a vague term, used either to

substitute the term “intercultural”, or to distinguish itself from it34. Despite its

ambiguity (according to some authors), the word transcultural has features

common to several cultures or common characteristics that do not derive from

the nature of cultural systems, but are revealed by the biological level, the human

species (transcultural and intercultural), or are the result of the great religious

revelations (transcultural and supra-cultural)35.

While transcultural studies approach the relations between cultures in the

strict sense, studies that focus on the intercultural perspective envisage the

interaction between cultural units from a synergetic perspective, of their mutual

30 Authors quoted in Dumitru ZAIȚ, op. cit., p. 80.31 Idem, pp. 80-81.32 Dumitru ZAIȚ, op. cit., p. 80.33 Idem, p. 80.34 Ibidem, p. 81.35 Ibidem, p. 81.

8

influence36. But it seems that this is not an explicit enough distinction between

the terms “intercultural” and “transcultural”. In our opinion, the term

transcultural rather reflects a transcendence of mutual interactions between

cultures, emphasising a new cultural phenomenon, born from these various

interactions, but observed in its ways of manifestation and in the forms it takes, at

regional, international or even global level. The term transcultural uses a

dimension of analysis and synthesis of the results of various interactions between

cultural units, being similar, in our opinion, rather to metacultural or

supracultural studies, to those cultural processes and phenomena which can have

a regional or even a global dimension, born from the various interactions of

cultural units (rejection, dialogue, borrowing, openness, response, withdrawal,

etc.) seen as dynamic, reactive units, generating and disseminating cultural

elements.

A characteristic of the global order at the beginning of the 21st century is

the complexity of the actors that can influence it37 (especially the prominence of

those actors or informal groups, such as G8, that can, at some point, develop

forms of economic imperialism, political imperialism or, on a more elaborate

level, cultural imperialism38 - although, in the case of informal groups such as

G8, where participants come from or represent entirely different civilisational

areas or cultures, exercising a cultural collective imperialism is more difficult,

being possible only if it refers to the implementation of global regimes of rules,

norms, practices, symbols, values, general recommendations in the cultural

field-).

Conclusions

36 According to Jürgen Bolten, quoted in Dumitru ZAIȚ, op. cit., pp. 80-81.37 Alvin TOFFLER, op. cit., pp. 193-204.38 Marie-Claude SMOUTS, Dario BATTISTELLA, Pascal VENESSON, Dictionnaire de relations internationales, Dalloz, Paris, 2006, pp. 506-508. Sterian DUMITRESCU, Ana BAL, Economie mondială (World Economy), ed. a II-a, Ed. Economică, Bucureşti, 2002, pp. 53-62.

9

In conclusion, cultural globalisation is not a process dating back to the end

of the 20th century, but, on the contrary, it is based on successive and distinct

historical stages, as we can talk about cultural interferences between distinct

civilisational areas, civilisational borrowings since ancient times (the age of city-

states, the age of empires).

Elements of cultural proto-globalisation, understood as the basis for the

creation of social, cultural, political and religious identities of people, can be

identified ever since the Antiquity, through world religions and what experts have

defined as “the culture of imperial elites” (closed mini-systems of political,

religious and military governance of imperial conglomerates).

With the emergence of nation-states and an international political order,

focusing on the nation-state as the main actor of the international political arena,

but also with the emergence and dissemination at international level of certain

ideologies, such as capitalism, communism or political, administrative and

rationalist ways of thinking on the organisation of the systems of human

communities (technocratism, bureaucracy, scientism, technicism), we can speak

about a new phase of evolution in the history of globalisation as a process of

generating and disseminating cultural flows between different civilisational areas,

but also as an active factor influencing and changing the type and degree of

civilisation within human communities, going up to defining a new supra-

civilisation (moment when the globalisation itself is changing into a form of global

civilisation, through a change in the essence of the great civilisational areas of the

globe).

It should be noted that, although today’s world is composite (the

Westphalian world continuing to resist the pressures from global actors and

globalisation processes – certain authors of the literature in the field even speak

about a resistance of the nation-states to a new type of cultural imperialism, which

would be the essence of the globalisation at the beginning of the 21st century), a

world marked by the increasing influence of global actors (especially multinational

corporations, which, in our opinion, are active factors in the process of de-

10

structuring of the Westphalian world and creating a private global empire, outside

the scope of the democratic political control of citizens and states themselves), we

cannot speak about a disappearance of national identities and national cultures.

Although they are strongly affected by forms of cosmopolitism, by the increasing

interferences between civilisations, as a result of the activities carried out by global

actors (especially the creation of a global mass culture, through the activity of

press organisations with global dissemination), as an effect of the globalisation of

markets, but also of the globalisation of dangers, threats and violence, nation-

states, national cultures and national identities remain the benchmarks of human

communities in their definition as communities of the 21st century world”.

The intensity, diversity and rapidity of today’s global dissemination of

cultural flows, due to the emergence and continuous development of

communication technologies, of the globalisation of markets (under the pressure of

corporations), significantly challenge the world of nation-states, which focuses on

the promotion of national culture and national identity. The new technologies

generated and promoted by corporations as a lifestyle and as a way to relate to the

new values of this type of cultural globalisation (the consumer society, materialism

as a lifestyle, hedonism, the revaluation of the symbols of popular cultures, which

are now bearing the meanings of the market culture, hence the specific phrases

used, such as “McDonaldisation” or “the Coca-Cola culture”) are trying to

transform the Westphalian world into a “global village”.

In our opinion, this tremendous impact of the new global actors on the world

of nation-states (we can even speak about the creation of a “global cultural

market”, where cultural values become mere “cultural products” intended for

consumption and subsequent disposal – a manner of thinking which is harmful to

national identities and cultures based on the idea of nation) cannot be denied.

Nevertheless, we believe that the argument concerning the standardisation of

national cultures cannot be considered to explain an unshakeable reality.

On the contrary, it is difficult to assess the impact of the global production

and distribution of popular cultural products (entertainment, mass cultural

11

consumption) on national cultures and on local and national identities. Alternative

cultural forms have already emerged at local and national level, as a reaction to

the global culture (in this case, as a reaction to the form of Western culture

distributed globally through corporations and other global actors, especially in the

field of the mass media and mass entertainment).

Moreover, it is difficult to estimate whether cultural globalisation (here,

regarded as cultural standardisation in specific fields, such as the global production

and distribution of films, music) also leads automatically to a standardisation of

other local and national traditions and customs. It is also difficult to assess the

actual manner in which global cultural products are consumed at local and national

level, as well as the way in which they are viewed by local populations (which do

not merely play a passive role, as cultural marketing strategists of the great

corporations or great powers would expect, and which can interpret and transform

the meanings of the globally dominating culture in original and surprising ways).

Disclaimer: This scientific communication reflects exclusively the

author’s personal opinion and does not involve any natural or legal person, or any

state or private institution.

Bibliography:

1. DUMITRESCU, Sterian; BAL, Ana, Economie mondială, ed. a II-a, Ed.

Economică, Bucureşti, 2002.

2. FERGUSON, Niall, Civilizaţia. Vestul şi restul, trad. Doris Mironescu,

Andreea Mironescu, Polirom, Iaşi, 2011.

3. HELD, David; McGREW, Anthony; GOLDBLATT, David; PERRATON,

Jonathan, Transformări globale. Politică, economie, cultură, trad. de

Ramona-Elena LUPAŞCU, Adriana ŞTRAUB, Mihaela BORDEA, Alina-

Maria TURCU, Polirom, Iaşi, 2004.

12

4. KALDOR, Mary, Războaie vechi şi noi. Violenţa organizată în epoca

globală, trad. Mihnea COLUMBEANU, Ed. Antet, Oradea, 1999.

5. ROCHE, Jean-Jacques, Relations internationales, LGDJ, Paris, 2005.

6. SMOUTS, Marie-Claude; BATTISTELLA, Dario; VENESSON, Pascal,

Dictionnaire de relations internationales, Dalloz, Paris, 2006.

7. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, first published in Feb.23, 2002,

revision in Nov. 28, 2006, http://plato.standord.edu/entries/cosmopolitanism,

accesat la data de 15.05.2013.

8. TAMAŞ, Sergiu, Dicţionar politic. Instituţiile democraţiei şi cultură civică,

Ed. Academiei Române, Bucureşti, 1993.

9. TEULON, Frédéric, Comerţul internaţional, trad. Anca-Andreea PAVEL,

Ed. Institutul European, Iaşi, 1997.

10. USCĂTESCU, George, Ontologia culturii, Ed. Ştiinţifică şi Enciclopedică,

Bucureşti, 1987.

11. ZAIŢ, Dumitru (coord.), Management intercultural. Valorizarea

diferenţelor culturale, Ed. Economică, Bucureşti, 2002.

13