It is commonly observed that as the political hegemony of the West has grown, so has its cultural dominance: Mickey Mouse, Elvis Presley and Big Mac take over the world.
Such perceptions often express political fears. Rock music is viewed as dissident, Madonna and Michael Jackson are seen as destroying native roots, Hollywood films are blamed for dissolving whole cultures.
These fears can be used for nationalistic ends, as when the Myanmar's military junta condemns a wide range of "un-Burmese sounds." Or moral ends, as in Indonesia's accusation that U.S. pop is destroying humanity. Or ideological ends, such as the Chinese government's campaigns against "spiritual pollution" from North America.
One might point out, however, that the hegemony is chosen rather than forced. Western popular culture might be seen as an assault, the very archetype of imperialism, depriving nations of identities, draining economic and spiritual resources, but it was nonetheless invited in.
Modernization is, as the editors of this collection maintain, a package deal, and cultural values slide in under cover of industrial and technical marvels. TV sets may have their educational value, but they also sell greed and gratification. Ways to make money are accompanied by instructions on how to spend it.
Further, it might be asked, is it true that this diaspora of cultural values is such a bad thing? After all, as anthropologist Arjun Appadurai has observed, "globalization is not the story of cultural homogenization," and as Peter Metcalf here asserts, "every act of borrowing is . . . a reinvention." So, just how bad (or good) is this Western cultural domination?
In an effort to find out, some 60 scholars, writers and students convened at the University of Victoria in 1998 for a conference on Asian popular culture. Papers from 14 of the participants were subsequently chosen for reprint in this volume.
All discover that Western popular culture has not spawned mere pale imitations of a shallow, hedonistic, alien civilization. After examining such examples as TV home drama in China, commercials in Malaysia and pop music in Korea, they find that "imported cultural forms can be invested with fresh meaning and transformed by local artists to assert identity and express resistance." As one of the papers demonstrates, the upriver people of Borneo have their own reasons for admiring Hulk Hogan.
It is certainly true that societies exposed to Western popular culture cannot remain as they were. Each and every community, as the editors state, "must, whether it wishes to or not, respond to the threats and challenges posed by the World Wrestling Federation, 'Dallas,' Ricky Martin, 'Titanic,' and the Spice Girls." That they do so in a vital and creative manner is the scholarly conclusion.
With such an upbeat and unanimous thesis, it is not surprising that there is no evaluation of what might have been lost in the process of cultural "modernization." There is no comparison of Dyak culture pre-and post-Hulk Hogan. Since all of this local Asian culture was in any event going to change, it might have appeared counterproductive to examine what had been forfeited rather than what had been gained.
Another question, however, might have been asked: Just how even is the tradeoff? To what degree has Michael Jackson enriched his new abodes? This query, however, is largely unaddressed, and one of the reasons might be that the authors of these papers are either Westerners or else teaching at Western institutions of learning. They thus subscribe to a vibrant, vital, vigorous thesis. They look toward a successfully integrated future in which present problems are seen as phases that will work themselves out. No "quality," or nothing real, has been lost.
Yet looking about me, here in Japan, it is obvious that this is not the case.
With your current subscription plan you can comment on stories. However, before writing your first comment, please create a display name in the Profile section of your subscriber account page.