TERM PAPER

THEORETICAL ASPECTS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

ANALYSING CULTURAL GLOBALIZATION

Submitted To : DR. VARUN SAHNI

Submitted : DEEPA RAJ KUMAR M. PHIL. (IIND SEMESTER) ORG/CIPOD/SIS

Culture has been defined in the New Encyclopaedia Britanica, 1987, as the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief and beha iour! "t consists of languages, ideas, beliefs, customs, taboos, codes, institutions, tools, techni#ues, works of arts, rituals ceremonies, and other related de elopments! Edward Burnett $aylor in %rimiti e Culture &1871', defined culture as including all (Capabilities and habits ac#uired by members of society)! *obert Buckman in his article (Cultural +genda of ,atin +merican Newspaper and -aga.ines/ "s s 0omination a -yth1) came up with recurring key words in arious definitiosn of cultures, ci ili.ation, way of life, beha iour, norms, heritage, tradition, tradition, society, products, artifacts, ideas, symbols, attitudes, beliefs, alues2all passed from generation to generation!!

Culture as a concept has its roots in the term (agriculture)! "ts usage has mo ed from being e erything learned and produced to now being systems, codes and programmes of meaning! 3rom 1945s to the present its usage is as an (essentially symbolic, cogniti e &i!e! ideational or semantic' construct!) "n anthropology culture has been used as a (generic culture) referring to (#ualities of 6omo 7apiens that is specific to the human beha iour, i!e! its organi.ation into meaningful schemes, or rather schemes of attributed meanings as opposed to simple isceral reactions and instincts), and as (differential culture) &common usage' that (consists in the attribution of a set of social beha ioural and representational properties to a gi en population) i!e! in (identification of otherness!)" Culture is leanrned and transmitted from generation to generation! 0" *ikoto in his article (Ci ili.ation, Culture, $echnology and the market states that each culture has a (cultural nucleus) i!e! a (comple8 nuclear structure) that (ensures the presentation and transmission from generation to generation of the information rules, and norms that guarantee historical reproducibility and self2identity of the body social!) 6e says that this (socio2cultural genetic apparatus), de eloped o er centuries, is stable and strong! 6e adds that such a nucleus also secures and adaptation mechanism i!e! (the possibility of adapting to the changing conditions of the material and non2material e8istence of a gi en community) and is a (potential for socio2historical mutations), through the adaptability of cultural nucleus to inno ations aries from culture to culture! *ikoto says another form of cultural adaptation or change is by (self2awareness) when a (man knows of himself, of his human, deep e8istence, and especially of his limitations and short comings, his barners and negati e structures) and is then enabled to (effect deliberate and purposeful autotransformation of culture), by transforming (the mechanism of historical heredity contained in the nucleus)! Culture is thus dynamic!# Cultures to some e8tent o erlap and indi iduals can and do li e in and tra el among arious cultures! 9hile cultural differences between societies is because of physical habitats and resources, range of possibilities associated with areas of acti ities &language, rituals, customs, manufacture

and use of tools', and the degree of social de elopment, cultural change takes place by (means of ecological and en ironmental changes, diffusion of ad antageous cultural traits among societies at appro8imately e#ui alent shapes of cultural de elopment, ac#uisition of a foreign culture by a relati ely sub:ect people, and;or by e olution of cultural elements o er a period of time! Cultures thus can and ha e been undergoing transformation! $o some or the e8tent all the time!4 6aluk 7ahin and +su +ksoy in their article (<lobal -edia and Cultural "dentity in $urkey) ha e defined globali.ation as the (world wide trend towards increasing interconnectedness of goods and people)! = $his includes cultural globali.ation i!e! cultural e8changes;interconnectedness as well! Communication of culture is through the (total communication system) comprising, the press, books and literature, education, tra el, international conferences, business negotiations, artistic e8pressions, commercial e8change, technical assistance, the electronic channels &media' and much more! Cultural globali.ation howe er has been largely a one2way flow of cultural goods from the west especially the >!7! as <len 3ischer in his book (+merican Communication in a <lobal 7ociety) says the (>7 is the world?s largest producer, consumer and e8porter of all kinds of information and the inno ating genius in e#uipment and information management)! 7 -ichael @lahos in his article (culture and foreign policy) also states that the >7 continues to (dominate the world of ideas) and is a (global trendsetter) because of its energy and appeal!8 $he 9est &>7' seeks to bring within its fold the non29est &($he *est)', culturally too, to be able to maintain and impro e its present superior position in the international system, to pre ent threats to its present dominant position, and;or to (enlighten? the non29esterners! 7tephen A! *osow in his article ($he forms of "nternationali.ation/ *epresentations of 9estern Culture on a <lobal 7cale) calls the international system (European international system) and states that European system has always been an internationali.ing system that e8pands outwards from Europe into a global system! "n the process of internationali.ation i!e! (redeployment of social powers of nations and national economies on an international scale), he says Europe &9est including >7' has been and still is using three discursi e practices &that

inter twine and blend too' for constituting others in ways that effecti ely integrate them into the dominant European way! $hese narrati es or characteri.ation pro ide Europeans with (meaningful frame work for political action towards those not sharing the dominant system of international legitimacy, and pro ides for enabling relations between Europeans and others B relations which are different from those e8isting within the European system! $he firs discourse is of Barbarians or outsiders! $his to establish boundaries, and aids in self2identification and iewing of (others) who are unci ili.ed! "t helps in highlighting and isolating one?s culture as aluable and praiseworthy! Barbarianism thus implies a (system of power relations) B power of the dominant way of life B in the international system! $his enables coe8istence with Barbarians, establishment of trade and relations with them, on the basis of shared alues while being aware of their distincti eness and being many of them! 9hile negotiations are possible with the Barbarians, because of differences that could radically alter European identity and constitution, they cannot be absorbed into the dominant system! $hey are dealt with as natural outsiders! $he second narrati e is of heretics (who were once within the fold but ha e since left!) $hey are sought to be con erted B e en by force 2, or kept away as permanent e8iles since they are dangerous &more than barbarians' in that they condemn the dominant way of life and attack it &always partially from within', create in Europeans a sense of insecurity! $he course of action is thus to be e er igilant and to con ert and discipline them! $he third narrati e is of %rimiti es who are newly disco ered and strange! European ci ili.ation is assumed to be the product of &e olutionary' de elopment of %rimiti es! %rimiti es are used to look at the irtues or ices in the European ci ili.ation i!e! they are taken to symboli.e either what re:ection of the path of modernity will mean for Europeans or to remind of the artificiality of the European ci ili.ation! %rimiti es signify Europe?s control o er nature to which primiti es themsel es ha e surrendered! $hey are thought of as ha ing no culture and no autonomy! $hey are also not yet percei ed as an irreconsiable threat to the dominant European way of life! 7o they are either transformed &by European

go ernments and Christian missionaries' into (ci ili.ed people) or are used as a (critical lens) to iew European society!) *osow says the such discourses ha e resulted in racialist theory, ideology of imperialism and colonialism besides internationali.ation B defined by him as (a process of mo ement from national to international society, a mo ement from national to international society, a mo ement of incorporating those outside the boundaries of the system into it) B i!e! formation of an international system!9 *obert 7tan and Ela 7hohat in their article (contested 6istories/ Eurocentrism, -ulticulturalism, and the -edica) look at Eurocentrism as another historically B situated discourse on how European &9est' has historically &and still is' iewed non2Europeans! Eurocentrism iews Europeans as a (kind of composite portrait) or (ideal type)! ("t saniti.es the 9estern history and thinks of itself in terms of its noblest achie ements B science, progress, humanism, while patroni.ing and e en denouncing the non2west in terms of its real or imagined deficiencies! $hey state that Eurocentrism (is a form of estigial thinking that permeates and structures contemporary practices), e en now! European dominations say (informs the general culture, the e eryday language, and the media engendering a fictions sense of the innate superiority of European dri en cultures and people! Eurocentrics howe er can also be non2Europeans &and Europeans can be non2Eurocentric' since Eurocentrism is not a generic inheritance!15 $he west, has thus, through such discourses, tried to bring the *est into its fold all the time asserting its superiority! +li +! -a.mi in his book cultural forces in world politics states that culture is at the heart of nature of power in international relations, and in the whole problem of dependency in the North27outh relations! 6e says cultural foundations underlie the gap in power B in technological gaps in skill and technology, in financial gaps in income, in military gaps in naked power, and in cultural gaps in alues and attitudes between North and 7outh, and between European dominated non2western countries &"srael, 7outh +frica etc!' and the rest of the third world!11

-a.mi in his book A world Federation of Cultures: An African Perspective he calls for cultural con ergence to build consensus for world reform (in the direction of greater social :ustice, more widely distributed economic welfare and reduced iolence B actual or imminent!) But he acknowledges that the present le el of (indimentary homogeni.ation of political sensibilities) &and of crude form of pop culture' of west, is characteri.ed by dependency B structural and cultural!1C 0ependency has been defined by the stomiodes santos as (a situation in which certain groups of countries ha e their economies conditioned by de elopment and e8pansion of another economy to which their own is subordinated! $he relationship of interdependence between two or more economies, and between them and world commerce, assumes the form of dependency when some countries &the dominant ones' can e8pand and pro:ect themsel es, while other countries &the dependent ones' can only act as a refle8 to that e8pansion, which can act positi ely or negati ely on their immediate de elopment!) $he concept of cultural dependency is ery similar through in cultural terms! + similar concept, of cultural imperialism has been defined by 7chiller as (the sum of processes by which a society is brought into the modern world system and how its dominating stratum is attracted, pressured, forced, and sometimes bribed into shaping social institutions to correspond to, or e en promote, the alues and structures of the dominating centre of the system!)1D Cultural dependency then sums up the cultural relation between North and 7outh in that 7outh is made to ha e (surplus need) for the North and is in a position of (deficit control) in its relation to the North! 1E $he North because of its power in the international system and its appeal in terms of indi idualism, has been able to assume its dominant cultural position, and dictate the flow of culture, at the organi.ed le el! <len 3isher says that the >7 culture occupies a central position in the communication system because B it is the (primary reser oir) of technology and that in English B the international language for (technology, commerce, finance, science and tra elF of the general similarity between cultures of western nations and its homogeni.ing influence on the mainstreams of international relations &where western con entions dominate'F of the role

that >7 plays directly or indirectly as a college professor to the worldF and +mericans being most trawdeed people in the world!14 +merican efforts at cultural diplomacy i!e! positi e presentation of a countries society abroad) to create fa ourable public opinion abroad and promote recepti ity for its foreign policy B while less than those of other western countries &notably 3rance', ha e howe er been #uite successful in culti ating fa ourably disposed publics and leaders abroad, as 9alter *! *oberts in his article ($he -edia 0imension ""/ 0iplomacy in the information +ge) states!1= -ichael @lahos in his article (Culture and 3oreign %olicy) says that >7 has, since 19E5s, followed a policy to asserts &its' global culture and used the concept of (9est) as a highly useful political tool, to aggressi ely promote +merican culture for cultural uni ersalism! 6e says that +mericans belie ed that the rest of the world would adopt the >7 culture if they had a choice and e8posure to +merican technology, mo ies and music!17 $he >7 go ernments efforts in this direction were through its "nternational Communication +gency that includes >nited 7tates "nformation +gency, Bureau of Educational and Cultural +ffairs and oice of +merican! $he >7 citi.en also contributed through acti ities ranging from missionary acti ities to letters +broad programmes, to pri ate educational programmes like *ockefetter 3oundation, 3ord 3oundations, Carneige 3oundation etc!18 ,ike <len 3ischer says, in the present era where non2go ernmental transnational corporations, labour groups, religions and educational corporations, non2profit organi.ations and ser ice clubs, scientists, political parties, book publishers and news personnel are in ol ed in public diplomacy, the go ernment programs are not the only influential communicator! <lobal corporate owners of media, who ha e a ma:or stake in global media and its messages, too ha e a role in homogeni.ation of culture!19 0ennis -cGuail in his article (7ociology of -ass Communication) states that these media elites are most integrated into the capitalist power structure and are most inclined to adopt corporate2liberal perspecti e i!e! an attitude

of (responsible capitalism!) <ans says this is (not necessarily because of cynical self2interest or subser ience to ruling class but because of self2 sufficient professionalism, liberal reformist tradition and a world iew that they share with other middle class beneficiaries of the system! *esearch findings show that reported or represented reality differs from (ob:ecti e) reality mainly because of media?s own needs and working procedures! +t best it is somewhat ritualistic and top hea y ersion of the world and at worst a confirmation of popular stereotypes and an unwitting &usually' but acti e form of social control! -cGuail says that while media which are (comple8 social institutions (whose theories, traditions, norms, practices and self2chosen ob:ecti es influence the message, (the message sent belongs to a broader system of social and cultural meaning) B with many interpretations of its origin and function!C5 "n his article (6ow Culture 9orks/ %erspecti e from -edia 7tudies as the efficacy of symbols) -ichael 7chudson states that (human beings make their own histories but not according to their own choosing!) $he efficacy of cultural ob:ect or message he says depends on the ( ariable susceptibility of people) to it depending on the circumstances of their li es at that moment! 6e talks of fi e dimensions that determines the efficacy of a cultural ob:ect! $he first dimensions is retrie ability or a ailability or reach of the culture to the indi iduals! 7ome messages are more retrie able because they may be cheaper i!e! economic retrie abilityF social barriers may be lacking i!e! social retrie abilityF may be culturally more accessible to the awareness or memory of an indi idual i!e! retrie able in terms of space &geographically' or in time &temporally'! $he second dimension is rhetoric force of the sender, the recei ing audience, of the form;format, of the cultural situation and of the message itself! $his power of a cultural ob:ect e8ists by irtue of the contrasting relationship it has to other ob:ects in the field! $he third dimension is the degree of resonance of ob:ect with audience and states that the rele ance or utility of the cultural ob:ect is a property of the position of the ob:ect in the cultural tradition of the society audience is a part of, and hence is a function of a public and cultural relation between cultural ob:ects, tradition and audience! 3ourth dimension is that of institutional retention when cultural ob:ects e8ist (as a set of concrete social relations in

which meaning is enacted, in which it is in a sense tied down through social sanctions!) %owerful culture is thus reinforced in and through social institutions that ha e carrot and stick of their own! $hese institutions presence and transmit culture they certify and also act as gatekeepers in the certification process! $he fifth dimension is of le els of resolution i!e! influence of a cultural ob:ect as directi es of action or if they are better situated at a point of action! *esolution is the ability to stimulate action in concrete, isible, immediate and measurable ways! 7chudson says that since people?s attention is a scarce resource, audience can be manipulated through elements of retrie ability by making a message more or less a ailable! 6e also says that, howe er in normal circumstances cultural ob:ects act as a reminder! 9hile the efficacy of a symbol in terms of the degree and direction of its impact is determined by both the cultural ob:ect and the audience, ma:or cultural change can occur only when the ob:ect resonates in the cultural and social conte8t of the audience! $hus media generally reinforces people?s prior iews, habits and actions! "t as the whole determines not what people think but what people think about! $he international media, today is owned by fewer and fewer corporations, is showing #uantitati ely more but with less and less of content ariation! $here is thus a homogeni.ation of imagery that celebrates e8isting power structure and makes them seem normal and acceptable!C1 $he media howe er has not been pro en to ha e an impact by itself! "t works within a comple8 of other factors, that effect cultural change! "t impact may be through the images it presents and how the audience within a social conte8t recei es it! Aan Ne erdeen %ieterse in his article (<lobali.ation and Culture/ $hree %aradigms says that impact of all forms of communication of culture or cultural globali.ation &on cultures around the world' are iewed through three broad paradigms! $he first paradigm is of cultural differentialism, best symboli.ed by 7amuel 6untington?s (Clash of Ci ili.ation!) "t iews culture as lasting and immutable and states that there is a (growing sensiti ity of cultural differences that coincide with an awareness of the world becoming smaller with these cultural differences generating ri alry and conflict! $he second paradigm is of cultural con ergence, best

symboli.ed by -c0onaldi.ation! "t iews culture as erasable and being erased and states that there is growing some sameness with cultural differences diminishing with (growing global interdependence and interconnectedness leading towards cultural standardi.ation and uniformi.ation as in the global sweep of consumerism! $he third paradigms is of cultural hybridi.ation i!e! (the ongoing process of translocal cultural mi8ing where new translocal forms of difference is in the process of being generated! 9hile critici.ing clash of ci ili.ation, %iet erse, critici.es it also for the implications of the paradigm?s definition of culture! 6e says such a definition of culture as (culturist differentialism) is a closed iew of culture and is linked to concepts of nationalism with its emphasis on territory &and language' and to racism in its emphasis on biology as a destiny!

-c0onaldisation has been defined by <eorge *it.er as (the process whereby the principle of the fastfood restaurants are coming to dominate more and more sections of +merican society as well as the rest of the world)! %ieterse bureaucratic nationalisation in terms of rules and regulations is thought of as making the -c0onald formula successful! -c0onaldisation is assumed to be efficient &rapid ser ice', calculable &fast and in e8pensi e', predictable &no surprises' and as controlling labour and customers! 6e critici.es -c0onaldisation saying that such rules;norms do not hold the citing 7hamnon %eters $albott?s 7tudy an -c0onald in -oscow! 7he found no efficiency &long #ueues and lingering', costly meals, menu not standardised &its uni#ueness and difference, and not predictability attracting customers' and ariations in labour and customer control! 6er conclusion was that -c0onald in -oscow showed global localisation and that corporation! 9hen they seek to represent (9orld %roducts) succeed only if and to the e8tent and that they adopt themsel es to the local culture and market! %ieterse says that this is time in other parts of the world as well and that attitudes of customers world wide also show global localisation in consuming such products! 9here imported fast food :oints thus differ in their social, cultural and economic function from that in their place of origin adapting their formula to local conditions! %ieterse considers -c0onadisation itself as a form of inter cultural hybridisation,

partly in its origin &from street side stalls in +sia and 9! +sia' and certainly in its present globally localising ariety of forms! %ieterse says that cultural differentialism and cultural con ergence are representations of the same phenomenon2 with growing awareness of difference being a function of cultural differences being a call for e#uality and e#ual rights i!e! some treatment or a Hcommon uni erse of difference)! $o him the present (Clash of ideas) represented in these two paradigms is a (creati e clash) that will result in trans2cultural mi8ing or hybridisation! 6e says hybridisation paradigm takes a broad iew of culture and it starts from the pi..iness of boundaries emphasising mi8ed breed and boundary crossing in terms of a (tra elling culture)! 6e counters critics of this paradigm starting that hybridisation is not an urban phenomenon only and that change in cultural language is not :ust superficial but has deeper undertakes of change in cultural language &cites North +merica an e8ample'! $o pisterse, these paradigms also ha e implications for the politics of multiculturalism! 6e says cultural hybridisation refers to politics of integration &without gi ing up ones identity' and of cohabitation unlike the negati e implications of cultural differentialism through politics of closure and apartheid, and of cultural con ergence through the politics of assimilationCC! $his paper iews culture of the world as getting hybridised in the process of the Hclashes) that arise because of the uni ersaling and particularising effects of cultural globalisation effort! 7uch effects can be seen all o er the world in ,atin +merica, +sia, -iddle East &especially $urkey', +frica and e en in the 9est! $here does not e8ist a (cultural west) comprising of a homogenised culture in the >7, Europe, Canada, +ustralia and Aapan! Each of these regions &countries' of the 9est ha e their own cultures within which too, e8cept for Aapan, there e8ist di erse cultures! $hese countries too then are e8periencing mo ements towards cultural con ergence &towards the dominant culture of that country and towards the dominant culture2 Caucasian B of the >7' simultaneously with mo ements towards cultural differentialism along racial, ethnic, lingual and religious lines &because of assertian from suppressed local cultures and from immigrants'! $he

dominant >7 culture that the >7 is trying has pro:ect and spread as global culture is itself facing opposition within >7! 9hat results in all such Hclashes? is hybridisation of culture, different in each conte8t! $he global media itself through the messages it presents &e en though such messages are largely western' leads to cultural hybridisation in that/ the cultural messages are recei ed by an audience situated within different cultural conte8ts and by indi iduals in such conte8ts situated within different psychological conte8ts, which then gi es rise to a ariety of interpretations and meanings and thus to differing degrees of social impact &and cultural change if at all'F and the media also present to the audience certain &e en if limited number of ; contests &by co erage of arious social mo ements' against the dominant culture! $he imposition of culture, ultimately is not :ust interms of a foreign or western culture being imposed but also of Hnati e culture? in that indi iduals do not Hchoose? it! %eter Caws in his article ("dentity/ cultural, trans2cultural, and -ulticultural) while starting this also states that the enrichment of the self through ac#uaintance with and culti ation of what is found to be most rewarding in all human products and practices with which one comes in contact (with is multiculturalism!CD $hus not being bound by the (imagined communities) into which one is born or by one that is sought to be imposed, and to e ol e by choice will result in and is a result of cultural hybridisation! $he choice present today is limited but with (clash of ideas) between cultural con ergence and differentialism will arise greater choice and actual freedom!

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS 1! Braisted, %aul A! &ed!', Cultural Affairs and Foreign Relations , Columbia Books, %ublishers, 9ashington, 0!C!, 19=8! C! 3isher, <len, American Communication in a Global Society, +ble8 %ublishing Corporation, New Aersery, 1979! D! 3riedman, Aonathan, Cultural Identity and Global Process, 7age %ublications, ,ondon, thousand Iaks, New 0elhi, 199E! E! <oldberg, 0a id $heo &ed!', Multiculturalism: A Critical Reader, Blackwell %ublishers, I8ford, >J, Cambridge >7, 199E! 4! -a.mi +li +!, A World Federation of Cultures: An African Perspecti e, $he 3ree %ress, New Kork, 197=! =! -a.mi +li +!, Cultural Forces in World Politics, Aames Currcy, ,ondon, 6einemany, Jenya Nairobi, 6einemann, New 6ampshire, 1995! JOURNALS 1! +lternati es C! +nnual *e iew of 7ociology D! Economic and %olitical 9eekly E! Education and >rban 7ociety! 4! 3oreign %olicy =! "nternational Aournal of <roup $ensions 7! "nternational Irganisation 8! Aournal of Communication 9! Aournal of Education 15! ,atin +merican *esearch *e iew

11! %olitical +ffairs 1C! %olitical 7cience *e iew 1D! %roblems of Economic $ransition 1E! $heory and 7ociety 14! 9orld $oday ENCYCLOPAEDIA 1! Encyclopaedia Britannica!

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ASSIGNMENT NO. " BOOK REVIE$

BOOK %SCDUCING AMERICA: HO$ TELEVISION CHARMS THE MODERN VOTER (REVISED EDITION) AUTHOR % RODERICK P. HART

PUBLISHING DETAILS % S&'( P)*+,-&.,/012 T3/)1&04 O&512 L/04/02 N(6 D(+3, % 777 8 !".79.

SUBMITTED TO : PROF. VARUN SAHNI

SUBMITTED BY : DEEPA RAJKUMAR M.PHIL (!04 S(:(1.(;) ORG/CIPOD/SIS

(7educing +merica/ 6ow $ele ision Charms the -odern @oter by *oderick %! 6art is an academically treated book that identifying $@?s psychological i!e! emotional impact on +mericans as a ma:or came for less and less +mericans being in ol ed in political and community acti ity! 6ark claims that $@ (occupies too much of our &+merican' emotional li es (and tells them what, when, how and why to feel, and thus is redefining how +mericans feel about politics! 6ast uses phenomenological techni#ue, and statistics and e8amples in psychologically studying media impact! $his suggestion to increase political participation among +mericans is by making them (New B %uritans) B reformers, essentialists, synthesi.es and indi idualists i!e! skeptics who resist ariety and ha e ci ic responsibility and community feeling! 9hile conceding his suggestion to be contro ersial, he says changing the tele ision is futile and will lead nowhere! $he book itself is di ided into se en chapters! "n the first chapter) %olitical 3eelings), 6art lays the foundation for his arguments! 6e says $@ has filled an emotional oid &of lo eliness' in the modern man but that the endless te8ts of uncorelated e ents (fed by $@ miseducates) man and makes him a cynic who has uni ersali.ed the message of the $@ that (politics is a dastardly business) of feelings of control and not being in control simultaneously that leads to confusion and politics alienation of the

iewer! (%eople?s feeling about democracy has to be addressed according to him to o ercome political lethargy! Chapters two to si8 deal with emotions that $@ gi es rise to among the iewers (feeling intimate), (feeling informed), (feeling cle er), feeling busy) and (feeling important) all of which take the oter away from actual political in ol ement! 6art says $@ makes politics personality based and this makes politics feel personal and intimate to the iewer who iews politics and politicians then with are an also contempt! $@ features

psychological &and not power' relations through personal, sensational psychodramas that make attention away oters feel informed while it di erts iewers

from go ernance and issues to personalities $@ by

confusing politics with culture and by using the language of post modernism &of di ersity and emphasi.ing the present' makes it the

language of politics! $his leads to cynical &cle er' iewers who feel they know politics and its workings but who do not participate politically to snub the politicians! %olitics is then a way of speaking and not li ing! %olitical participation is simulated when $@ presents an o erload of te8ts that makes iewers feel busy! 6art also says that feelings of importance among members of Hrhetorical Establishment &professionals in ol ed in social mo ements who get publicity wile trying to affect social change' arise when they are doled out media time slowly, selecti ely and arbitrarily! $his loads to sub ersion of the mo ements goal &when and' if media e8posure

leads to (electronic narcissism) and (celebrity) status! $he actual decision makers less isible people in political and economic fields then use this establishment to create feelings that (problems are being sol ed because they are being talked about)! 9hile 6art does not blame only the $@ or the politicians for using the medium, he does blame technology for such effects on oters that they become apathetic, cynical and apolitical! "n the se enth chapter (*esidual 3eelings) 6art talks of the feelings induced by tele ision as being (counterfeit)! 6e then emphasises HNew %uritanism) as a way of life that +merican should embrace, and inculcate through schools and in homes, so as to not succumb to $@?s impact on political participation! 6e emphasi.e the role of go ernments and politicians &e en corrupt' in ser ing he nation and its people and that he $@ should not be allowed to take oters and politicians away from issues and their resolutions! 6e says New2 %uritanism could help in inculcating feeling of duty, community and hope which would better ser e +mericans and the >7! 6art, the ,iddle %rofessor of Communication and %rofessor of <o ernment, has written si8 books on topics such as communication, presidency and leadership since 1974! 6e has also got numerous publications in :ournals! $his book is a 1999 re ised edition of a 199E book! 6e has updated the statistics and used more recent e8amples in this edition!

6art belongs to that group of media critics who look at media &$@' as impacting iewers profoundly as can be seen in the books contents! 6e howe er emphasis the psychology behind such an impact! $his well

researched book is an attempt an his part to prone his case! $he book contains good notes, sub:ect inde8 and bibliography! 9hile the book deals with media and politics it is written lucidly and so can be read by

academics as well as lay person! "t has something ery interesting and #uite no el to state! $he book is another input into the ongoing debate about whether or not, and what impact $@ &media' has, e en though located in the >7! %riced at L CD!94 for paper back edition the book howe er is a little e8pensi e! $here are repetitious at times from one chapter in the other in 6art works! $he book makes it seem easy and plausible to con ert +mericans into New %uritans by educating them at home and school2 a iew that might be simplistic and optimistic! 6owe er, all in all it is a book that is

interesting, lucid, insightful and worth leading!

1 C

<oet., %hilip 9!, ed2in2chief, T!e "e# $ncyclopaedia %ritannica, @ol!D, 14th Ed!, 1987, p! 78E! Buckman, *obert, Cultural Agenda of &atin American "e#spapers and Maga'ines: Is (S )omination a Myt!* ,atin +merican *esearch *e iew, @ol! C4, No! C, 1995, p! 1D=! 3riedman, Aohnathan, Cultural Identity and Global Process, 199E, p!D! *akito , +", Ci ili'ation+ Culture+ Tec!nology and t!e Mar,et , %roblems of Economic $ransition, No! D4 &""', -arch, 199D, p 1D21E, 1=217! %hilip 9! <oet., p! 78E! 7ahin, 6aluk and +su+ksoy, Global Media and Cultural Identity in Tur,ey , Aournal of Communication, No! ED &C' 7pring 199D, p! D! 3isher, <len, American Communication in a Global Society, 1979, p! C! @lahos, -ichael, Culture and Foreign Policy, 3oreign %olicy, No! 8C, 7pring 91, p! =C! *osow, 7tephen Ao, T!e Forms of Internationalisation: Representation of Western Culture on a Global Scale , +lternati es, No! 14 &D', 7ummer 1995, p! C9E2C99! 7taus, *obert and Ela 7hohab, -Contested .istories: $urocentrism+ Multiculturalism+ and t!e Media+ -ulti2 culturalism/ + Critical *eader, 199E, p! C972C98! -a.ni, +li! A Cultural Forces in World Politics, 1995, p! E! +li!+! -a.mi, A World Federation of Cultures: An African+ %erspecti e, 197=, p! 1,D =27! *obert Buckman, p! 1D=! +li +! -a.ni, Cultural Forces in World Politics, p! =! <len 3isher, p! 1C2C4 *oberts! 9alter *!, T!e Media )imension II: )iplomacy in t!e Information Age , 9orld $oday, No! E7 &7', Auly 1991, p! 11D211E! -ichael @lahos, p! =5, =D! <lenfisher, p! C! "bid, p!8 -c#uali, 0enmis, Sociology of Mass Communication, +nnual *e iew of 7ociology, 1984, p! 97299! 7chudson, -ichael, .o# Culture Wor,s: perspecti e from Media Studies on t!e $fficacy of Symbols , $heory and 7ociety, No! 18 &C', -arch 1989, p! 14=, 1=5217D, 174! %ieterse, Aan Ne erdeen, Globalisation of t!e Culture+ T!ree Paradigms+ Economic and %olitical 9eekly, No! D1 &CD', 8 :>ne 199=, p! 1D8921D9D! Caws, %eter, HIdentity: Cultural+ Transcultural+ and Multicultural/, -ulticulturalism/ + Critical *eader 199E, p! D712 D7C!

D E

4 =

7 8 9

15

11 1C 1D 1E 14 1=

17 18 19 C5 C1

CC

CD