Localization, Glocalisation

The world’s media system is becoming increasingly global and there is no way to deny that. According to Robert McChesney, eight transnational corporations control a large majority of the global media system. But in a strange way, the global media system has led to more local media cropping up. Local entrepreneurs have seen opportunities to provide programming in their local languages, especially when a lot of the content the TNCs provide is not in the local language. Then, furthering the cycle, the TNCs start to provide more content in the local language because they now have to compete with the local products. And although the content provided by the TNCs is often higher quality because they have the budget to create higher quality material, in many places the content provided in the local language will always prevail.

Companies are trying to find more and more ways to localize their content. According to McChesney, in Asia, Time Warner uses local musicians to do a song used for the promotional campaigns of their movies. They’ve found that this increases interest in movies that are otherwise completely Western. Lots of international channels are also trying to mix English language programming with programming that is in local languages or at least dubbed into local languages.

One of the best formats for dubbing is animation, because the dubbing doesn’t tend to look so obvious. McChesney mentioned that Cartoon Network is dubbed into many languages, even for small countries, like the Netherlands. It also makes sense that animation, which is usually children’s programming, is dubbed because children often don’t learn much English until they are school-age. Dora the Explorer is a great example. In the US, Dora speaks mostly English and teaches a few Spanish words. In the Netherlands, Dora speaks mostly Dutch and teaches a few English words.

I also found it interesting to see what Dutch adults preferred to watch on T.V. They overall liked to watch Dutch programming the best. While many young people do watch the U.S. show, Jersey Shore, even more watch the Dutch version of Jersey Shore, Oh Oh Cherso, where eight young Dutch adults party and hook up in a Dutch vacation town in Greece. 

cast of Oh Oh Cherso 

They also love watching their Dutch versions of reality shows like So You Think You Can Dance, X Factor Nederland, and Benelux’s Next Top Model. There are some American shows that are popular, particularly Glee, Grey’s Anatomy and Modern Family. But those shows are never dubbed since the Netherlands is such an educated country and almost all adults speak English. Besides the fact that most people seem to prefer local content, another reason I think many of the Dutch adults watch Dutch programming more than imported American or English content is that American and English shows are always at least a few months behind and a lot of young Dutch adults just watch them online when they premiere in the US or UK, instead of waiting months for them to be on Dutch T.V.

I think the experience of observing a European country’s television habits really helped me to understand the importance of localization. And it leads me to think McChesney cannot not be completely right in believing that the media has become completely globalized. While it was disturbing to see I could watch marathons of Keeping Up with the Kardashians (which I did, by the way, watch anyway!), it is refreshing for me to recognize how much I learned about the Dutch culture just by watching television, meaning that at least in the Netherlands, local content was alive and thriving. 

Globalization: Eating Dutch Mexican food

Globalization is always a hot-button topic. People argue about it on the most basic level, and argue about whether it even exists or not. Even for those who have determined that it does exist, there is still often a lot of controversy. One of the biggest disagreements revolves around whether globalization results in more heterogeneous societies or more homogenous societies.

Those who believe globalization acts as a homogenizing force tend to subscribe to the theory of cultural imperialism. These people believe that developed nations (most often in the Global North) push their values, culture and ideals on developing nations (usually Global South) and that is labeled as globalization. So they believe that instead of all the global cultures mixing and combining, that developing nations are losing their cultures and just becoming like the developed nations that are exerting an influence in their country. Many people refer to this as the Americanization of the world, as the U.S. has a large cultural and advertising presence in many places. In John Sinclair’s “Globalization, Supranational Institutions and Media,” he tackles the communication side of this issue. He refers to this as media imperialism, which he describes as Western states pushing their media culture on developing countries. He says media has the power to influence with their content and act as a homogenizing ideological force.

On the other hand, there are those who believe that globalization allows for a eclectic and interesting mix of global cultures that can thrive in different places all over the world. It means countries can keep their national cultures, but combine them with other facets of other cultures. This could mean eating sushi for Christmas dinner in Paris or trying on traditional saris in India while listening to Britney Spears.

Most people who believe in either side of the argument believe in it pretty adamantly and absolutely. I think that it can depend on the culture. There are possibly places where cultures have become more homogeneous. When you see streets in Mexico plastered in American advertising, it can be easy to lean this way and see globalization in a negative light. But I think there are also places where globalization creates an interesting and new culture. I think I lean more towards this viewpoint, although I can see both sides. A great example of this is the popularity of ethnic food in Amsterdam, due to its large immigrant populations. When I was living there, I thought the fact that I could go to a restaurant run by Mexicans, hear Spanish being spoken and get better enchiladas than I have found in DC yet, was pretty great! 

The question I pose is this: What differentiates between the outcomes of globalization? Since I believe both viewpoints have valid points, what is it that makes some globalization a positive, heterogeneous force and other globalization a negative, homogenizing force? That’s a study of which I would be interested in the results.