36 Jindal School of Interenational Affairs, Vol.

10, Issue 1

Article – III

Cultural Imperialism and the Global South

Vivek Mohan Dubey1

ABSTRACT

This essay addresses the issue of Cultural Imperialism and the National
Identities of the countries of the Global South. The binarism in which both of
them are portrayed is the main focus of this essay. It tries to conclusively
demonstrate the untenability of the same binarism by highlighting the various
local worlds that empirically exist in the contemporary world. The overlap of
many complex social processes and concepts have been unravelled to refute the
popular and faulty understanding of the current human condition that cries out
for better explication.

Keywords: Cultural imperialism, liberal-rational dilemma, cultural universalism,

cultural relativism.

What the present world seems to be undergoing is nothing but the interplay of Seven
Master Variables operating at the global level along with their respective paraphernalia
with numerous permutation and combination. They are Agricultural Economy,
Industrial Economy and Post-Industrial Economy and their commensurate cultural
counterparts are Primordial Ties, National Identities and the Global Culture. With a few
constantly decreasing exceptions, the Seventh Master Variable, Democratic State
organizes the political life of humankind. The complexity and at times confusion also of
the current human condition stems precisely from the interplay of these variables as
they operate parallel and simultaneously in many parts of the world. Only in the
developed world of the West the intersection of Post-Industrial Economy, Global
Culture and Democracy is clearly and cohesively established although much variation
and many problems exist even there. The rest of the world is doomed to face the
consequences of the operational requirement of all seven variables put together. Due to

1 Vivek Mohan Dubey has been Assistant Professor in Jayoti Vidyapeeth Women University, Jaipur and
Amity University, Noida. Prior to moving to academia, he held positions in the National Commission for
Women, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA) and Indian Council of World Affairs
(ICWA). He holds a doctorate from the School of International Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University,
New Delhi.
37 Jindal School of Interenational Affairs, Vol. 10, Issue 1

precisely this ambiguity Global Culture and National Identities of the countries of the
Global South have been and still are portrayed in antagonistic terms in which the loss
of one is inevitably seen as the gain of the other. Their mutual incommensurability and
contradictory operation in many parts of the world make the comprehension of the
contemporary human condition exceedingly difficult as they function in a highly
heterogenous and diversified world with little willingness, as it is clear by the mid of
2022, to abandon its distinct cultures and traditions. Isolation, indifference, resistance
and adaptation all register their political presence with the hope of its due recognition
by the other side. No wonder many attempts to capture the present human condition
either succeeded partially or failed completely. This short and narrowly focused essay
tries to address the same issue in a thematic manner. What follows, therefore, is humbly
and hopefully the most comprehensive account of the same reality weaving together
existing insights available on the subject and avoiding their familiar shortcomings.

Nationalism, by definition, is a cultural phenomenon and like much of the

contemporary human heritage, historically speaking, it emerged in West Europe first
and spread over to other countries of the West itself. The spread of nationalism in other
parts of the world like Asia and Africa was the subsequent historical development
propelled by the forces of Modernity exploited by Western countries to their advantage.
The basic error of the current scholarship begins here. Even in England and the first
convert France, it was initially confined to Europe only. It emerged, there too, due to
the combination of their domestic politics and the unprecedented forces unleashed by
Modernity. It required some time to crystalize there. Once consolidated in the Parental
Home it came in a position to be emulated by the others. That is why even the United
States is a darling child of modernity, not its mother. Mercantilism, Colonialism, Race,
and Imperialism all in one form of a combination or the other imposed modernity on
the rest of the world and nationalism emerged as a reaction and unintended
consequence of this imposition. Had there been no West-East encounter the trajectory
of the East or Global South would be radically different from the one it turned out to be
in the Modern World History. It was natural and emulation in the West and the
outcome of blatant imposition on the Rest. This is precisely the reason why the same
phenomenon has yielded strikingly different outcomes as the world later witnessed and
the process is likely to persist in the long run as well.

In a not-so-familiar essay, John Plamentaz specifies conditions under which nationalism

is likely to flourish. Nationalism, according to him, is the weapon of the culturally
disadvantaged. It grows where the people somehow become convinced that their values
and cultures are being threatened either by another superior culture or by some other
political threat. Political sociology of international politics sufficiently provides the
aforementioned background condition for nationalism to flourish. Since the family of
nations is moving or aspires to move in the same worldly direction of material progress,
some are inevitably in a more advantageous position than others. Huge disparity among
38 Jindal School of Interenational Affairs, Vol. 10, Issue 1

the nations of the world is the condition of primary importance for nationalism to
emerge.

Plamenatz classifies nationalism into two types: Western and Eastern. In the case of the
West, nationalism emerged from the feeling of some scarcity. Scarcity lies in the
standards that were likely to and did prevail all over the world in the ninetieth and
twentieth centuries. But West was culturally equipped to overcome those deficiencies.
As pointed out by Plamenatz “the Germans and the Italians, when they first became
strongly nationalist, were already, by reference to standards they shared with the nation
with whom they compared themselves, well equipped culturally … Their most urgent
need, so it seemed to them, was to acquire national states of their own, rather than to
acquire the ideas and skills needed to run such a state, for they possessed them already
in large measure” (Plamenatz, 1989).

Eastern nationalism is fundamentally different in character. It is drawn through the

process of diffusion into the civilization that is alien to it. Eastern nationalisms are to
survive in a world, whose models and standards have already been shaped by the West
Europeans. There is a growing awareness among the people of Asia, Africa and Latin
America that their cultures are not well equipped to meet to standards of civilization
they are drawn in. Therefore, they have to revitalize their cultures in order to survive,
excel and flourish in that civilization. In his words “We have also the nationalism of
peoples recently drawn into civilization hitherto alien to them, and whose ancestral
cultures are not adapted to success and excellence by these cosmopolitan and
increasingly dominant standards. This is the nationalism of people who feel the need to
transform themselves, and in doing so to raise themselves; of people’s who come to be
called backward and who would not be nationalist of this kind unless they both
recognized this backwardness and wanted to overcome it.” (Plamenatz, 1989). Besides
the desire to meet or surpass those standards there is a feeling that these standards have
come from an alien culture. Whether it is diffusion or imposition or both it certainly
leads to a baffling paradox.

This predicament unfolds itself firstly in the need to create new identities that are in
consonance with cosmopolitan standards. Due to the awareness of the fact that their
ancient cultural heritage obstructs their development, they have to either change it or
transcend it. At the same time, the same cultural legacy is seen as necessary to retain
their distinct national character. They are faced with two choices: imitation and
hostility. Imitation is necessary to meet the standards of progress set by the alien
culture. Hostility is required to prove their own equality or in some cases superiority
over the dominant standards. “The attempt is deeply contradictory. It is both imitative
and hostile to the models it imitates. It is imitative in that it accepts the value of the
standards set by the alien culture. It has involved two rejections, both of them
ambivalent: the rejection of the alien intruder and dominator who is to be imitated and
39 Jindal School of Interenational Affairs, Vol. 10, Issue 1

surpassed by his own standards, and the rejection of ancestral ways which are seen as
obstacles to progress and yet also cherished as marks of identity.” (Plamenatz, 1989).
Dilemma particularly assumes a politically charged form in an increasingly democratic
set-up where the choice becomes either the conventional identity or the modern
progress. It is precisely this binarism that colors human thinking in many parts of the
world including enlightened ones. We are now in a position to move to the next issue
of Cultural Imperialism.

According to Iris Marion Young “cultural imperialism involves the universalization of a

dominant group's experience and culture, and its establishment as the norm, some
groups have exclusive or primary access to … the means of interpretation and
communication in a society. As a consequence, the dominant cultural products of the
society, that is, those most widely disseminated, express the experience, values, goals,
and achievements of the groups. Often without noticing they do so, the dominant
groups project their own experience as representative of humanity.” (Young, 1990).

Another useful definition of cultural imperialism has been provided by John Tomlinson.
According to him, “the term cultural imperialism refers most broadly to the exercise of
domination in cultural relationships in which the values, practices, and meanings of a
powerful foreign culture are imposed upon one or more native cultures. In this broad
sense, cultural imperialism could be used to describe examples of the enforced adoption
of the cultural habits and customs of actual imperial occupying power from antiquity
down to nineteenth and twentieth-century European colonialism” (Tomlinson, 1999).

Cultural domination is the sine-qua-non of cultural imperialism. It has been used (and
sometimes misused) in a variety of ways with several serious stakes on each side. John
Tomlinson, for instance, points out that “the issue of language dominance and the
threat to linguistic diversity opens out to the broader issue of cultural imperialism, the
idea that a global culture is in one way or another liable to be a hegemonic culture. This
pessimistic construction of the idea of global culture has been the more prominent one
in the late twentieth century.” (Tomlinson, 1999). There is another school of thought
that associate it with the growing consumerism of Western and more particularly
American products. Jonathan Friedman’s writings are clearly on these lines. As noted
by him cultural imperialism is “an aspect of the hierarchical nature of imperialism, that
is the increasing hegemony of particular central cultures, the diffusion of American
values, consumer goods and lifestyles.” (Friedman, 1994). Next on the list are those who
openly praise cultural imperialism. David Rothkopf and M. Waters are the names, who
are most associated with this school. In Rothkopf’s words “American culture is an
amalgam of influences and approaches from around the world … The United States
should not hesitate to promote its values. In an effort to be polite or political, Americans
should not deny the fact that of all the nations in the history of the world, theirs is the
most just, the most tolerant, the most willing to constantly reassess and improve itself,
40 Jindal School of Interenational Affairs, Vol. 10, Issue 1

and the best model for the future … If Americans now live in a world in which ideas can
be effectively exported and media delivery systems are powerful, they must recognize
that the nature of those ideas and the control of those systems are matters with which
they should be deeply concerned” (Rothkopf, 1997).

Despite being recognized under International Law, the state ceases to be the soul object
of political reference in a densely connected world. As a natural corollary of this
development National also ceases to be the opposite of the Global. Quick and intensive
connectivity enabled by the revolution in transportation and communication
highlighted the significance of the local. The porosity of state borders and omnipresent
media made the production and presentation of locality at a global scale an unignorable
development of the late twentieth and first quarter of the twenty-first century. As noted
by James Rosenau “localisation involves processes wherein connections within countries
are either reduced to, preserved by, or confined to existing or smaller jurisdictions,
preferably within subnational or eve sub-provincial spaces but not excluding national
spaces.” (Rosenau, 2003). Local people are those whose existence primarily depends on
or is tied to territory. Their politics, economics and most importantly their identity are
heavily shaped by local territorial conditions. As Rosenau observes “for them place and
rootedness are as important as ever. Their very identity is tied to place, and they cannot
conceive of living anywhere else, for they are dependent on a piece of ground for their
livelihood and on a particular culture and language for their sense of well-being.”
(Rosenau, 2003). Caution, however, needs to be maintained while thinking about the
local people. Local worlds are dynamic entities even if the pace of change is relatively
slow there. They cannot be treated as constant. “They do undergo transformations.
Variations occur in the way globalizing dynamics impinge upon their processes and
structures.” (Rosenau, 2003). Despite all magnitude, intensity, velocity and penetration
capacity of globalisation, a large part of humanity still resides in the local world
although the shrinkage of this space is also beyond dispute. Not being a monolith, like
culture and identity themselves, huge inner variation defies its coherent and consistent
articulation. For the sake of convenience and at the risk of over-simplification, an
attempt can be made to classify the local world under the following categories.

Insular Locals
The world of Insular locals is largely unaffected by, if not completely isolated from, the
dynamics of globalisation. They are found in rural and semi-urban areas where the
impact of globalisation is yet to be felt. The world of Insular Locals in some ways
highlights the limitations of globalisation. They are mired in the remotest areas of the
world that are yet to be properly connected with the rest of the globalized world. It,
however, needs to be mentioned that the space occupied by Insular Locals is
substantially shrinking day by day and the day is not far when their space may evaporate
completely. As pointed out by James Rosenau “with the possible exception of peasants
41 Jindal School of Interenational Affairs, Vol. 10, Issue 1

in remote rural areas of the developing world-and even these exceptions are increasingly
rare-the ranks of the Insular Locals are diminishing … Some people are still much less
affected by global forces-still much more authentically local-than others and it is these
less globally touched who are treated here as Insular Locals” (Rosenau, 2005).

Face-to-face community life with extremely limited geographical mobility characterizes

the life of Insular Locals. The neighborhood is their society; family is their centre; nearby
temple, mosque or church is their heaven; local schools are the place of their learning;
job in a proximate area is their livelihood; the small market is the place of their shopping
and socialization. They are easily located and often directly contacted. Their addresses
are fixed and show little mobility. Life is simple. Culture is relatively “pure.” Social bonds
are tight. Families and even joint families are intact. People usually recognize each other
by face. Horizons are limited. Mobility is infrequent. Outside global influences are
irrelevant. Eating, clothing and living patterns are old. They are perfect or near so an
example of the old form of community life. Community means in most cases face-to-
face small community occupying a relatively short piece of land.

Insular Locals are largely immune from the influences of global culture. The main
attributes of global culture like pop music, the internet, McDonald’s, global
standardization, global sports, consumerism and so forth are alien things for Insular
Locals. The only thing that keeps them informed about the outside world is either radio
or TV, a percentage of which is increasing even in the remotest areas of the world. Their
lives are indeed a little more complicated than depicted here, but it is far simpler than
that of those who either have become or are increasingly becoming globalized. As
pointed out by Rosenau “for Insular Locals the immediate community traces the limits
of their horizons. Beyond the horizons little is considered salient. Their lives are
inextricably tied up with and fully sustained by events and trends in the community,
and their orientations towards developments elsewhere in the world are minimal, if they
exist at all” (Rosenau, 2003).

The world of Resistant Locals

Globalisation has not remained unchallenged in contemporary world history. It causes
a lot of discontent and faces a lot of resistance ranging from the nonviolent to violent.
Resistant Locals are those who resist globalisation. Unlike Insular Locals, Resistant
Locals are aware of the globalizing dynamics operating in the world. Nor are they
isolated from the process of globalisation. Its influence is also familiar to them. But they
are somehow dissatisfied with the consequences of globalisation and perceive that
resistance is where their interests lie. Who are Resistant locals? According to James
Rosenau “diverse types of people reside in this world. Workers are threatened by a loss
of their jobs to foreign competitors; citizens are convinced that local cultures are being
overwhelmed by westernisation and its corollary, Americanisation and thus fearful that
42 Jindal School of Interenational Affairs, Vol. 10, Issue 1

globalising dynamics are generating an undesirable degree of homogeneity,

environmentalists worry that rapid industrialisation in the developing world will
undermine the Eco balance of their small regiment of the developed world, arch-
conservatives who decry the movement of immigrants into their community;
intellectuals preoccupied with the negative effects of communication technologies for
social and political life; social democrats concerned that neoclassical economic policies
underlying globalisation are widening the gap between the rich and the poor-these are
among the more conspicuous individuals who seek to preserve the meaning of local
space by resisting the encroachment of global forces. Whatever their particular
concerns, however, they tend to share a conviction that globalisation has led to a life in
which the nearby is treated with contempt” (Rosenau, 2003).

Resistant Locals exhibit strong adherence to local values and affiliations. Though fully
aware of the dynamics of globalisation (due to which they tend to resist it) they are not
very keen to participate in it or to become a vehicle for it. On the contrary, they view
globalisation in general and the consequent emergence of global culture in particular
with suspicious eyes. Values and ideas, glamour and phantasmagoria associated with
global culture are things to be disdained by the Resistant Locals. Their attachment to
local traditions and distinct way of life does not permit them to get swayed by the
enormous attraction of global culture. Their resistance to globalisation takes a variety
of forms. Two are worth mentioning. Firstly, Resistant Locals particularly from modest
economic backgrounds tend to organize their resistance to globalisation at the local
level. They confine their activities and express their worries at the local level. Signing
petitions, participating in protest marches, attending rallies and in some extreme cases
damaging multinational-corporate-owned property are some of their favorite tricks.
Secondly, there are those who oppose globalisation at the global level. Elites, activists
and politically and socially aware people take a keen interest in organizing their
resistance to the dynamics of globalisation at the global level. They tend to contact like-
minded people all over the world and try to bear pressure on the dynamics of
globalisation (or at least parts thereof) which they find unacceptable. Internet is the
main tool of Resistant Locals. It is through internet dense networking is undertaken
among like-minded people all over the world. Several nongovernmental organisations
also play their role in resisting globalisation. Many NGOs, working in environmental,
social and financial sectors, highlight the unevenness of globalizing dynamics. They
actively keep their respective constituencies informed about the harms and other
undesirable or unacceptable social effects of globalisation. “Thus, it is not far–fetched
to describe the world of Resistant Locals as crisscrossed by a vast array of transnational
networks that are functionally equivalent to the conferences and airport gatherings
where those in the global world converge to frame their strategies, strike their bargains
and implement their policies.” (Rosenau, 2003). Rosenau further comments “for some
people the inclination to resist stems not so much from opposition to the consequences
43 Jindal School of Interenational Affairs, Vol. 10, Issue 1

of globalizing dynamics as from a valuing of the diversity embedded in cultural

differences. Such persons are likely to favor localizing processes because they serve the
goal of warding off uniformities fostered by the distant proximities and thereby sustain
the aesthetic and intellectual pleasures to be derived from the preservation of
differences among communities and cultures” (Rosenau, 2003).

Exclusionary Locals
Exclusionary locals are more hostile to globalisation than their Resistant counterparts.
Exclusionary Locals are different from Insular Locals in the sense that they are aware of
the dynamics of globalisation and their world is penetrated by globalisation. Nor do
they act like Resistant Locals who try to minimize the perceived bad consequences of
globalisation. Exclusionary Locals prefer to take a firmer stand against globalisation. As
observed by James Rosenau “the Exclusionary locals are characterized by an inclination
to retreat from the globalizing tide as the latter becomes more encroaching and to do
so by withdrawing to their intellectual haven or emotional (usually ethnic) heritage.
Those who retreat … tend to see themselves as members of a counterculture in which
localism is viewed as a solution to multifaceted challenges, as a place where anti-
globalisation, anti-development, ant-modernity, anti-science, only small-is-beautiful
come together in an island politics-seeking liberated zones outside the system, enclaves
that provide shelter from the storm, usually in the hope that the system will somehow
atrophy or collapse.” (Rosenau,2003:). Huntington’s thesis of Clash of Civilizations
eloquently captures this portion of the human condition which is large enough to make
the world look like such; clashing on civilizational lines.

A large part of Exclusionary Locals oppose globalisation for emotional reasons. They are
so touchy about their identity that they perceive globalisation and more particularly
global culture as a threat to it. So only they tend to take asylum in ethnicity, nationality,
language, religion or other heritage that can provide emotional and psychological
security to them. It is not an exaggeration to comment that most of the ethnic revival
witnessed during the Post-Cold War world is stemming from this psychic
tendency/necessity of these people. There are others who are equally loyal to their
traditional way of living. But they are not in favor of isolating themselves from the rest
of the world. Exclusionary locals, however, take a different line of thinking and prefer
to take a different course of action vis-à-vis globalizing dynamics of the world. They
seem to believe that their traditional culture is not a counter-attack on globalisation.
Their sheer attachment to their traditional way of living is enough to make them feel
and feel with conviction that theirs is the only culture that can save them from ever
intruding globalizing dynamics.

The traditional culture of Exclusionary Locals is much more than the way of living. It is
a source of social and psychological comfort and perpetuates their identity that is being
44 Jindal School of Interenational Affairs, Vol. 10, Issue 1

increasingly perceived as threatened. It is not that Exclusionary Locals were always

immune from external influences or they exemplified the notion of culture as a self-
containing whole. Most, if not all of them, did display quite openness to the external
world in earlier times. The present world as uncertain and unpredictable as it is (to
which globalisation is no exception) causes much of their sudden closeness towards the
outside world. It is worth mentioning that most Exclusionary Locals reside in post-
colonial states that are struggling with all sorts of problems within their domestic
jurisdiction. It is this already precarious situation that globalisation exacerbates that
causes if not justifies their effort to immunize themselves from the cultural influences
of the outside world.

Exclusionary Locals oppose globalisation on ethnic lines. Ethnicity is taken in the

broadest possible sense of the term. It refers to the “deeply felt bonds of kinship with
unknown others of the same background and history … ethnic, linguistic, religious,
national, cultural, tribal, and other historical bonds, some of which are occasionally
posited as primordial but all of which are seen as linking people to an idea of who they
are and with whom they share deep commonalities.” (Rosenau, 2003). This vast and
sometimes contradictory notion of ethnicity is deployed just to make the point that
nationalism can cause exclusionary localism as much as tribal orientations of people do.
Ethnic ties of Exclusionary Locals serve as the safeguard through which perceived
assault of cultural globalisation is sought to be countered, resisted, minimized and if
possible, bypassed. The current takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban immediately
comes to mind.

Nationalist resistance to globalisation traverses through several trajectories. For them,

globalisation is so intruding phenomenon that is to be always contested. They arbitrarily
draw ethnic and other social boundaries to generate we feeling so necessary for
contesting globalisation. Religion is used for this purpose. Religious values and the
threat stemming from the emergence of global culture to them are invoked. Muslim
Jihadis and right-wing nationalists in different parts of the world are the most glaring
illustrations. Primordial identities are invigorated to resist global culture. Networking
with the like-minded people is undertaken. Cultural purity is evoked. History is
glorified. The present is disdained. The future is depicted as bleak. Enormous effort is
devoted to convince the masses that global culture is threatening their long-cherished
traditions and values. Things are caricatured in binary terms. Nationalist sentiments are
overemphasized. “Aliens” are demonized. Research is undertaken to demonstrate the
adverse consequences of globalization. Despite being aware of the fact that costs of
isolation are high in an interdependent world, connection with the rest of the world is
discouraged. Even if the fellow citizens of Exclusionary Locals are tempted to exploit
the fruits of globalisation they are constantly reminded of their traditional values. This
is how gigantic resistance to globalisation is undertaken.
45 Jindal School of Interenational Affairs, Vol. 10, Issue 1

Affirmative Locals
Affirmative Locals welcome globalisation. They substantially differ from their Insular,
Resistant and Exclusionary counterparts. They neither resist nor retreat from the
process of globalisation. They perceive globalisation as a welcome development in its
own right. They tend to participate actively in the dynamics of globalisation. They want
to exploit the benefits of globalisation. They tend to travel frequently. They are not
opposed to consumption patterns brought to their home by globalisation. They are not
hesitant to work in Multinational Corporation for their livelihood. They watch foreign
T.V. programs, particularly American and European ones. They can be seen working on
the internet. They are not opposed to speaking in English. Without questioning their
fundamental values and orientation they buttress the dynamics of globalisation. As
pointed out by James Rosenau “in other words, Affirmative Locals are not inclined to
contest the consequences of globalisation. Other things being equal, they simply accept
that the world has shrunk, and in so doing, they see this shrinkage as offering
opportunities to enrich their own local ways without undue compromises.” (Rosenau,
2003). This vast section of humanity seeks ideational asylum in Francis Fukuyama’s
thesis of the ‘End of History.’

Affirmative locals display openness to global culture. They are not opposed to what
Benjamin Barber referred to as McWorld. They tend to spend their leisure time in
McDonald's, Disney Parks, and watching global sports. Their lifestyle resembles that of
the global elite. Most of them, particularly their children, aspire for global elite status.
They tend to ape the lifestyle associated with the global elite. In fact, some parts of this
lifestyle have already become the daily routine of Affirmative Locals. For example,
visiting McDonald's is the status symbol for many Affirmative Locals. Another
illustration of this will be the popularity of cricket in India or South Asia. Cricket means
different things to different people. It came to India from England during colonial times.
Since then, the game has become so popular in the country as to justify being labelled
as the national game (although it has not been declared officially). Soccer, T-shirts,
Tennis, Olympics, Jeans and so forth are some of the cultural attributes of the West that
have been readily accepted by Affirmative Locals throughout the world. Elites of
Affirmative Locals deliberately facilitate the percolation of global culture down to the
masses in their constituencies. Elites of this section try to bring their insular
counterparts into the mainstream of globalisation. They pay attention to the legitimate
concerns of Insular Local and tend to undertake the politics of reform so that benefits
of globalisation can reach these communities without undermining the fundamental
texture of the traditional life they fondly cherish. They tend to “harness globalisation on
behalf of local citizens movements and alternative institutions (that) are springing of all
over the world to meet basic economic needs, to preserve local traditions, religious life,
46 Jindal School of Interenational Affairs, Vol. 10, Issue 1

cultural life, biological species and other treasures of the natural world, and to struggle
for human dignity.” (Rosenau, 2003). Thus conceived the issue of national identity and
global culture dissolves into the famous debate of universalism versus particularism,
cosmopolitanism versus communitarianism and absolutism versus relativism. Detailed
critical examination of this debate is unwarranted here. Relevant points of this debate
will be discussed here that are pertinent to the issue of Global Culture and National
Identity.

At the heart of universalism is the idea of some fundamental and unchangeable human
nature that characterize humans as humans. “That human nature consists of stable and
predictable passions and dispositions, instincts and emotions, all of which can be
studied” is how it is being understood in the circle of philosophers and political
theorists. (Benhabib, 2002). This view is emblematic of modernity and found its most
systematic articulation in the works of none other than the father of modern philosophy
Rene Descartes. He sought to establish philosophy on the firm foundation of reason and
rationality. His task in his words was to seek an “Archimedes so that he might draw the
terrestrial globe out of its place and transport it elsewhere; demanded only that one
point should be fixed and immoveable; in the same way, I shall have the right to
conceive high hopes if I am happy enough to discover one thing only which is certain
and indubitable.” (Descartes quoted in Bernstein, 1983). His quest for some universally
applicable reason and standards led to the principle “that we should not rely on
unfounded opinions, prejudices, tradition, or external authority, but only authority of
reason itself.” (Bernstein, 1983:). No doubt, many Cartesian philosophical assertions
have been invalidated since the time they were postulated but Cartesian Anxiety for a
firm and universal base of knowledge continues to haunt Western philosophical
thinking till the present times.

Universalism serves as a justificatory strategy in contemporary philosophical debates.

The normative content of rationality is often justified in the name of universalism. As
noted by Seyla Benhabib “impartiality, objectivity, intersubjective verification of results,
and data, consistency of belief, and self-reflexivity minimally define this normative
content.” (Benhabib, 2002). Universalism in this scheme of things postulates that
rationality is universally applicable. Social phenomena if approached rationally will
yield similar conclusions. The entire social universe can be and should be explicated in
terms of reason. Rational methods should be deployed to comprehend the social world.
Humans are guided by a single universally applicable reason irrespective of their
differences. Same rational principles provide guidelines for human action. All people
behave in a similar manner under the same conditions. As pointed out by Ernest Gellner
“the inherently idiosyncratic has no place in a corpus of knowledge. Unsymmetrical
idiosyncratic explanations are worthless-they are not explanations … Ungeneralisable
explanations are useless for a practical and cumulative body of knowledge. If like
conditions did not produce like effects, then the experimental accumulation of
47 Jindal School of Interenational Affairs, Vol. 10, Issue 1

knowledge would have no point and would not be feasible.” (Gellner, 1984). It is
generally referred to as epistemological universalism.

Particularly important in this context is social and cultural universalism. As noted by

Ernest Gellner “in our actual and shared world, diverse cultures, though not sharing
their beliefs, nevertheless seem to have little trouble in communicating with each other.
The world contains many communities, but they visibly inhabit the same world and
compete within it. Some are cognitively stagnant, and a few are even regressive, some,
on the other hand, possess enormous and indeed growing cognitive wealth … its
implementation leads to a very powerful technology. There is a near-universal
consensus about this … those who do not possess this knowledge and technology
endeavour to emulate and acquire it.” (Gellner, 1984). It indicates at least two things
that are relevant for the purposes of this essay. Firstly, it connotes certain norms and
cultural standards are operating on the global plane. Though they might have originated
in Western and developed countries of the world, they, by now, have become or
becoming increasingly universal in the sense that adherence to them has become almost
necessary. Any deviance from them leads either to isolation or premodern status. These
so-called universal standards are seen as the models to be emulated. Secondly, many
cultures find them increasingly difficult to emulate them. They either do not have the
necessary technology (in the broader sense of the term) to emulate them or even if
emulated they present a threat to a certain way of life in many communities. It is in this
sense humanity is deeply divided among haves and have-nots. Ali Mazrui confirms this
point that “there is the gap in … power between North and South and the cultural
foundations that underlie it.” (Mazrui, 1990). It is in this sense there is something that
can be characterized as Southern culture distinguishable from Western culture. It is this
cultural divide between North and South that causes most of the problems confronted
by the contemporary world.

Relativist thinking operates in opposite direction. “In its strongest form, relativism is
the basic conviction that when we turn to the examination of those concepts that
philosophers have taken to be the most fundamental whether it is the concept of
rationality, truth, reality, right, the good, or norms we are forced to recognise that in
the final analysis all such concepts must be understood as relative to a specific
conceptual scheme, theoretical framework, paradigm, form of life, society, or culture.”
(Bernstien, 1983). While relativism stems from a variety of sources like romantic,
scientific and anti-epistemological, and takes a variety of forms such as moral,
conceptual, perceptual, and relativism of truth and reason, here the focus will be on
cultural relativism.

Cultural relativism rejects the idea that “all people at all times and in all cultures could
be brought to agree on the assessment of meaningfulness, existence, goodness (moral
worth) and beauty (aesthetic value) of relevant entities.” (Harre and Krausz, 1995).
48 Jindal School of Interenational Affairs, Vol. 10, Issue 1

Cultural relativists argue that “no such agreement is possible” and different cultures do
not lend easy credence to some universal evaluative standards. They are to be judged
on their terms. To put it more affirmatively cultural “relativism is often defined for a
popular audience in the thesis that meaning, truth and value are relative to culture, that
is each culture has its own unique system of meaning, repertoire of truth and criteria of
value.” (Harre and Krausz, 1995). Cultural relativism relies on the assumption that
various elements constitute the culture of a community. These elements differ
significantly from one culture to another. They mean different things to different
people. Spoken languages, sense of right and wrong, identities and affiliations, customs
and rituals, aspiration and practices, values and morals, emotions and their expression,
rationality and wisdom, behavioral norms and ideas: all these are culturally filtered. No
two cultures overlap on these issues beyond the point. They are culture-specific. It is an
error to apply elements of one culture to another. As pointed out by Harre and Krausz
cultural “relativism depends heavily on the thesis of the radical diversity of cultures …
There are various elements that go to make up a culture. Each element, which might be
alleged to vary from culture to culture, is tied in with certain aspects of everyday life …
there are diverse ways of experiencing the world, and many diverse symbolic systems …
on which so much emphasis has been placed.” (Harre and Krausz, 1995).

What implications does the issue of universalism and particularism have in the context
of global culture and national identities of the global south? The nation-state is a local
unit in the context of globalisation and globalisation is a master narrative operating on
the global scale bringing with it attendant global ethics and morality. National cultures
and global cultures stand or are perceived to stand in direct contradiction with each
other. As pointed out by Mike Featherstone “one of the problems in attempting to
formulate a theory of globalisation is of adopting a totalising logic and assuming some
master process of global integration is underway which is making the world more
unified and homogenous. From this perspective … the power of the flows of information,
finance and commodities, means that local cultures inevitably give way.” (Featherstone,
2003). That global culture is a threat to local national cultures of the world is what is at
stake in the debate between universalism (represented by the global culture) and
particularism (represented by national cultures). The very usage of the term culture in
the singular in the context of globalisation and plural in reference to national indicates
the direction of homogenization caused by the former leading to the evaporation of the
latter. Of relevance for this article is the fact that the notion of locality inherently
involves some kind of nostalgia and mythical security. It begins with some “good old
days” one has left behind or in the sense of some integrated organic community of
perfect coherence and order that provided some sort of mythical security in the early
days. Past in this sense is inherently virtuous, more moral and emotionally fulfilling.
Present, on the other hand, does not promise to deliver what the past provided in
amplitude. Since homelessness has increased in modern times because more and more
49 Jindal School of Interenational Affairs, Vol. 10, Issue 1

people work and live far away from the place of their parentage, this feeling is more
permanent in modernity. As pointed out by Featherstone “nostalgia, or the loss of a
sense of home, is a potent sentiment in the modern world, particularly for those groups
who are ambivalent about modernity and retain the strong image of the alleged greater
integration and simplicity of a more integrated culture in the past.” (Featherstone,
2003). It is, therefore, necessary to maintain some caution while speaking or listening
to some glorified version of the locality of a perfect social and moral order which is being
threatened by the emergence of global culture. “There are problems with establishing
the extent to which localities were integrated in the past. We have to be aware of …
those who make such pronouncements and that they might be painting a nostalgic and
over-unified picture. It is also important that we do not operate with the view that
localities can change only through the working out of a one-way modernisation process
entailing the eclipse of community and the local culture.” (Featherstone, 2003). Implied
in the notion of locality is the imagination of some sort of integrated moral community
based on face-to-face interaction supposedly unpolluted by external influences. It is
fondly believed that in such a small face-to-face social setting the social and emotional
bonds between individuals will be more intense and daily interaction will generate some
sort of common knowledge reducing the chance of misunderstanding. It is also believed
that “the regularity and frequency of contacts with a group of significant others … are
held to sustain a common culture.” (Featherstone, 2003). These kinds of communities
either never existed or even if they existed deep back in history, their decline cannot be
attributed to globalisation. To defend globalisation more vociferously, globalisation, as
it is understood today is far more recent vintage. It cannot be held responsible beyond
the point of destroying which either existed a long time back in history or was
empirically nonexistent. Even if fairy tales of pure moral and cultural communities hold
some water, in recent times their decline is caused by modernisation, a process different
from globalisation. The essential point to be made in this regard is that many complex
social processes overlap with each other and consequently making the Global Culture
and National Identity Binarism almost natural. Whereas the closer and more open
enquiry of the cultural ontology of the contemporary world conclusively renders
Binarism untenable.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Benhabib, Seyla, (2002), The Claims of Culture: Equality and Diversity in the
Global Era, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
2. Bernstein, Richard, (1983), Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science,
Hermeneutics and Praxis, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
50 Jindal School of Interenational Affairs, Vol. 10, Issue 1

3. Featherstone, Mike, (2003), “Localism, Globalization and Cultural Identity” in

Linda Martin Alcoff and Eduardo Menieta, eds., Identities, Race, Class, Gender,
and Nationality, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
4. Friedman, Jonathan, (1994), Cultural Identity and Global Process, London: Sage
Publications.
5. Gellner, Ernest, (1984), “Relativism and Universalism” in Martin Hollis and
Stephen Lukes eds., Rationality and Relativism, Cambridge and Massachusetts:
The MIT Press.
6. Harre, Rom and Michael Krausz, (1995), Varieties of Relativism, Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers.
7. Mazrui, Ali, (1990), Cultural Forces in World Politics, London: James Curry Ltd.
8. Plamenatz, John, (1989) “Two Types of Nationalism”, in Marc Williams, ed.,
International Relations in the Twentieth Century: A Reader, London: Macmillan.
9. Rosenau, James, (2003), Distant Proximities: Dynamics Beyond Globalization,
New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
10. Rothkopf, David, (1997), “In Praise of Cultural Imperialism”, Foreign Policy,
Summer.
11. Tomlinson, John, (1999), “Globalized Culture: The Triumph of the West” in
Tracey Skelton and Tim Allen, ed., Culture and Global Change, London and New
York: Routledge.
12. Tomlinson, John, “Cultural Imperialism”,
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470670590.wbeog129, 29/02/2013
13. Young, Iris Marion, (1999), Justice and Politics of Difference, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press.