Globalization: Globalisation is the term used
to describe the increased pace of interconnectedness that has taken place over
recent years. It came about as a result of two developments. Firstly,
technological changes have enabled information and goods to travel much faster
than before, making it easier to transport things and communicate with people.
Secondly, the end of the cold war and the spread of a new political philosophy
of liberalisation led to the removal of trade barriers. As a result of globalisation,
foreign trade and investment have grown dramatically.
Diversification: The concept of spreading your
money among a number of different investments in order to reduce risk.
It's the idea that you shouldn't put all of your eggs in one basket.
Television shapes a unified, global
consciousness which promotes a culture fitted to the purposes of the
corporations who own and operate global media and who have a stake in people’s
living, believing, and buying, according to the corporate vision of how life should
be lived (Mander, 1998).
Economic globalization actively undermines
all values, except economic values. It enshrines the free market and its
principal actors (global corporations) as the engines and the benefactors of
the process. It places first importance on the achievement of ever-more rapid
economic growth and the constant search for new markets, new resources, and
cheaper labour, which is why everyone is so excited by China’s joining into
this experiment (Mander, 1998)
In sociology, the ‘global culture
approach’ focuses on the problems that a homogenising (quality of being of
uniform throughout in composition or structure) mass media-based culture poses
for national identity.
A major influence of the
idea of a global culture is the very rapid growth that has taken place over the
last few decades in the scale of mass media communications and the emergence of
what McLuhan (19664) famously called ‘the global village’. The basic idea is
that the spread of the mass media, especially television, means that everyone
in the world can be exposed to the same images, almost instantaneously.
While globalisation has
brought about an increased cultural homogeneity where people all across the
world can drink Coca-Cola, eat McDonald’s and watch the same Hollywood films,
it has also produced increasing differentiation. Increasingly different
cultural traditions exist alongside each other, competing for people’s
attention. However, some see this as cultural fragmentation rather than unity
(Baudrillard, 1988), and argue that the ‘electronic reality’ created by the
media has actually produced a state of hyper-reality, where the distinction
between the ‘real’ world and the media image is eroded. Baudrillard (1988)
argues that the hyper-real is becoming a condition of the whole of the
contemporary world: reality is broken down and people’s identities and
lifestyles are no longer anchored in social structures but are rather
constructed through the mass media images of lifestyle options available to
them.
The ten corporations that
now dominate the U.S. media are identified as: Time Warner; Disney; Viacom;
News Corporation Limited (Rupert Murdoch's empire, which in the UK is known as
News International); Sony; Tele-Communications, Inc.; Seagram; Westinghouse;
Gannett; and General Electric. The resources they command inspire, in equal
measure, awe and fear; the $340-million media merger between Gannett and
Combined Communications Corporation - the biggest media merger in history at
the time- shrinks in significance beside the $19-billion deal that, in 1996,
brought together Disney with ABC/Cap Cities. This latter union created a
conglomerate commanding great power over every mass medium: newspapers,
magazines, books, radio, broadcast television, cable systems and programming,
movies, recordings, video cassettes - and, through alliances and joint
ventures, telephone and cable.
The name of the new game is 'synergy' (cooperative
interaction among groups, especially among the acquired subsidiaries or merged
parts of a corporation that creates an enhanced combined effect). Whereas it
was once possible to identify specific corporations dominant in one
communications medium, with only a few of those corporations similarly dominant
in a second medium, the new media conglomerates aggressively pursue a far more
comprehensive agenda. They aim to acquire "dominant positions across every
medium of any current or expected future consequence." The process by
which one company subsidiary is used to complement and promote another has
helped produce what some identify as a "quantum leap" in the power
exercised by the media cartel over news, information and popular culture.
REFERENCES:
McLuhan, M (1964) Understanding Media London: Routledge & Kegan Paul
Sklair, L (2000) Globalisation (in) S,
Taylor, (ed) (1999) Sociology: Issues and
Debates Hampshire: Palgrave
Taylor, S (1999) Sociology: Issues and Debates Hampshire: Palgrave
Mander, J (1998) (online) Globalisation: What you don’t know can hurt you
http://www.sustainable-city.org/intervws/mander.htm
The future of globalization
Abstract: This political article
develops a definition of globalisation (or globalization). Globalisation is the process of integration of the world community
into a common system either economical or social.
The first phase of globalization is to integrate
economically most of the populations of the world. The advantages of these
phases would be the reduction of geographical inequalities by spreading jobs
and business opportunities all around the word. So, the main action of actors
of the first phase is world trade negotiation against protectionism.
First phase of
globalisation
During the first phase, a global market for all
products has been created. The market equilibrium between undeveloped and
developed country is obtained by the currency exchange rate. Countries, who
have insufficient exported capabilities, have a weak currency. Weak currencies make imported products of developed countries outrageously expensive
and prevent the local population to buy them.
Then, according to the neo-liberal economical theory,
the effect of low salaries make the country attractive to foreign investment
and the local entrepreneurship become more competitive. The local industry
exports more and so the country can bear higher salary and the level of
importation will so increase.
This classical scenario has one major drawback: foreign
currency exchange rate volatility. The currency can adjust strongly against
other currency or be linked to a strong
currency and so follow the movement up of the strong currency.
In the case of the Asian crisis, the bath (Thai currency) follows up the
movement of the dollar and so became less competitive against other currencies
as Euro, Japanese yen and the Chinese remembi. In doing so, Thai salary went
up, many local business close down. Foreign investments were reduced and
imported products increased. Then, while the crisis starts, the bath
moved down sharply. People suffer of the price increase of import product,
interest rate also increases, people consume less and even more local business
went into bankruptcy.
Second phases of
globalisation
The second phases of
globalization is the constitution of a global governance. Today, the united
nations is the first step of the second phases. The purpose of the united
nations are to prevent the risk of war on the principle of national
sovereignty. But, due the development of mass destructive weapon and the
multiplication of the number of nations, the principle of national sovereignty
is more and more problematic. And, united nations had to pronounce itself in
favor of war against dictatorships like Iraq who can constructed weapons which
can threaten the future of the human kind.
This process creates the
fear of an Americanization on the name of a global culture. This fear is a
combustible to the Islamic terrorist movements who fear the cultural
globalization, and the creation of a global governance.
Media is the plural of medium.
So radio,
for example, is one medium whereby certain individuals can disseminate
their ideas and thoughts to a willing audience.
Radio, television and newspapers
are three different media, each capable of disseminating ideas, views and
opinions.
The mass media are those media
which have access to mass audiences. Popular television channels fall most
easily into this definition, followed perhaps by, high-circulation newspapers
and easy-to-read magazines. As the number of channels available over cable
and from satellites increases, the competition
among these channels for an audience is increasing. However, as satellite TV
comes to maturity, the era of the national mass media is ending and we are
entering the era of global mass media. CNN
and MTV
are the closest we have to global media,
and each of these adapts its output to the different time zones and cultures
around the world, creating sub-channels within the main channel.
The above simplistic definition,
however barely goes any way toward explaining the hidden power of the phrase.
Those two words, "mass media" often carry with them the additional
implication: "the influence of the mass media" And this is a whole
different subject.
Get what we deserve
Broadly, in free societies, we get the media
we deserve. Those who control programming and editorial content are strongly
encouraged to deliver what their audiences want. Their job is to attract a
large, desirable audience, which might be receptive
to advertisements. Period.
That is how the world's mass media works
today. On TV, the programming is designed to bring in the largest possible
audience, in order to satisfy the advertisers. Mass-market magazines are
designed to appeal to the largest audience and that, in turn attracts
high-value advertisements.
Most TV programmes are produced to last 50
minutes or 25 minutes, to take up a 1-hour or half-hour slot in the schedules.
That leaves a few minutes at either end (or in the middle) for adverts to be
shown. This time in between the programming is sold to advertising agencies and
their clients. The fee is based on the size, make-up and spending profile of
that audience.
The sale of this time is the major source of income
for any TV station and most large-circulation magazines. Most governments
restrict the amount of time TV channels can devote to advertising, though some
countries allow more time than others.
Advertising and programming
The money to make the programmes comes
directly from advertising agencies and their clients. Over the last 20 years,
this has become an absolute fundamental
truth of the mass media. It is vital to understand the relationship between
programming and advertising before attempting any analysis of what the media
offer, or fail to offer.
A few channels choose to use the advertising
revenue from their more popular and profitable
programmes to make other programmes that appeal to smaller, less lucrative
audiences. In some countries, this cross-subsidy is a condition of their
broadcasting licence. But as the television world gets more competitive, fewer
channels are prepared to do this, and where they law requires them to do it,
lawyers increasingly find ways to bend the rules.
On the whole, making programmes is expensive,
whereas buying them is relatively cheap.
If you want to make a TV programme, it is cheapest to make a game show,
sitcom, or other programme filmed entirely in a
studio
with minimal investment in scenery, research, or acting talent. Watch daytime
TV and you will see a great deal of cheap programming.
Cheap programming
Of particular note in today's television
world are the programme ideas, such as Millionaire, Big Brother,
and Weakest Link which can be adapted to local culture
and participants. These proven successes can be
very lucrative for the original programme developers and for each licensed
programme maker. Even though the programme might be expensive to produce, the
backers are more willing to put up the money if they know the programme has
already generated good returns in another country.
Thus, in any country where the granting of
licences is open and free, where the markets are free to set their own
standards, and where the technology
is available to deliver many channels, the TV stations will, almost inevitably,
descend to a low common denominator of what is cheap to produce
and brings in the maximum advertising revenues. The USA is a perfect example of
this kind of market. Some series have become very popular--and profitable: Friends,
Frasier
and a few other long-running shows, are perhaps the more acceptable face of
this industry. Jerry Springer and imitators constantly push
the boundaries of acceptability, and have succeeded in broadcasting images and
words which a few years ago would have breached taste and decency laws.
Dumbing-down
The UK is often held by the chattering classes as an example of a place
where TV can successfully deliver high quality mass-market
programming. The broadcasting rules in the UK have for
many years been very restrictive, with few channels available, and
tight rules governing the granting of broadcasting licences by the government.
In recent years, as broadcasting has
embraced the digital world, and relied increasingly on satellites, rather
than terrestrial radio masts, the quality of UK
programming has declined, while even the publicly-funded channels, such as the
BBC have turned to much more commercial programming philosophies (see dumbing-down).
However, other countries continue to resist
the commercialism of broadcasting. In France,
the language is an asset, as the authorities limit the proportion of
foreign-language broadcasting in the country. Though many French
viewers have turned to satellite channels in an attempt to get more
international programmes. In Scandinavia,
some countries insist that a significant proportion of broadcast time be on
local and regional issues. Again, the satellite companies have been doing well
in all these countries.
Governments in free countries are powerless
to prevent their citizens from buying satellite reception equipment and using
it to watch the programmes coming down from the satellites. Furthermore, as
governments encourage the installation of broadband
fibre-optic
networks to get their populations on-line, they are also creating an infrastructure for cable TV.
Satellite channels and Cable TV both have
very high infrastructure costs, and they need to recoup their investments
quickly. In almost every case, this leads to intensely commercial programming,
with cheap programmes interspersed with long advertising breaks.
The mass media form an important sociological
institution,
playing an increasingly important role in the development
of our identity,
norms
and values.
Recently, the role of the mass media has increased considerably, as new technologies
and wider availability means we spend more time in contact
with them. This can be seen in our increased reliance
on television, arguably the most influential
medium
in developed
countries.
The majority
of the mass media involve very little audience
participation. What little there is through
"Letters to the Editor" or phone-ins
is normally edited
in some way. This, along with the fact there are relatively few
media organisations in comparison with a huge
audience means that those who are in control of the media wield
significant power.
As the media
have grown, noticeable trends in ownership
can be seen which have implications
for their influence on society.
Often
cited
as the most worrying trend, this involves smaller media companies being swallowed up
by larger ones. For example, the News Corporation owns a large proportion
of the UK's national
and local
newspaper
market and Clear Channel Communications now owns a
very big share of the USA's radio stations.
The
ownership of many or all stages of production
and distribution in order to maximize
profit.
For example, a newspaper mogul could own a sawmill,
a paper mill,
newspaper offices, a printing house, lorries
and newsagents.
Such an extreme
example doesn't happen very often, but less dramatic integration
does.
When
a company
has interests in non-media companies. For example, Vivendi Universal, which is largely a media
company has environmental and waste management interests. This means that
when something economically bad happens, like a bubble
bursting, the company has other means to support itself.
Cross-media ownership
Media
conglomerates
have ownership of companies in more than one medium.
Examples include most of the big media companies like the News Corporation. This can provide some of the economic
stability of diversification as when one medium does badly,
another can go some way to cut the company's losses *cough*.
Transnational
Ownership
The
spread
of a company's control over national
borders. This leads to speculation
(mostly in countries that aren't the USA)
that local
and national
production is being undermined.
As
technology converges, media companies that previously
existed in distinctly separate sectors
now have the opportunity to merge together. Many do, such as AOL
and Time Warner.
Various sociologists
have developed theories as to how the mass media affect society
as a whole. For the purposes of this node, I will focus on Marxist
and Pluralist
theories about the mass media, because they are suitably contrasting
and are the only ones I know about.
Marxists, as is their wont,
link the mass media to the imposition
of social order and structure by bourgeois
to support the domination of the ruling class.
Marxists emphasise the way the media tend to (in their eyes) a conservative,
conformist
view of the world, promoting the established ideology
of the capitalists. This creates a "false consciousness" to keep the proletariat's
minds away from the harsh realities of capitalism.
The German Ideology, Karl Marx
and Friedrich Engels 1845
The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch
the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material
force of society,
is at the same time its ruling intellectual
force.
Ralph Milliband's study "The State in
Capitalist Society" (1973) gives an insight
into a traditional Marxist view of the mass media. He dismisses the idea of
pluralist diversity and suggests that:
The State in
Capitalist Society, Ralph Milliband 1973 p198
Most newspapers
in the capitalist world have one crucial characteristic in common, namely their strong,
often their passionate hostility to anything further to the Left
than the milder forms of social democracy, and quite commonly to these
milder forms as well
Milliband argues that the media give some degree
of impartiality but only so they remain in the limited
sphere of "acceptability". There remains a stream of propaganda
against views that fall outside the general consensus.
The media reflect the viewpoint of the dominant
group in society and give the impression that nothing is radically
wrong with it. He also suggests that we should not forget that the majority
of the media are privately owned.
In response to the criticisms
of traditional Marxism,
some Marxists have instead developed a different theory. They believe that
instead of the media's content being directly influenced by their owners, capitalist
ideology
is implicit
in everything. The ruling class's view is taken as "common sense".
The proletariat are happy to go along with this, aiding the continuation
of this hegemony.
This theory is hegemonic or neo-Marxism.
Hegemony, R. Bocock,
1986.
The convictions
of people are ... Not something manipulated
by capitalists
or put into the minds of the masses
by them, but rather flow from the exigencies
of everyday life under capitalism. The workers, and others, hold the values and
political ideas that they do as a consequence both of trying to survive and of
attempting to enjoy themselves, within capitalism.
Hegemonic Marxists believe that one of the
main methods of perpetuating the ideological
views of the capitalist system is through the agenda setting of the media. The media present
us with a narrow agenda for discussion. What David Beckham wore to go and visit his greatest
fan is more discussed than the inequalities
that exist within society. When the National Lottery was instituted in the UK, a
survey was performed in which people were asked if they would rather have one
big-ass prize or many smaller prizes but with greater odds of winning. Most, no
doubt under the influence of the hegemonic capitalist
belief that one should maximize profit,
went for the former option.
Supporters of the pluralist
or liberal
theory believe that the media offer a wide selection
of views, contributing to free and democratic
society. If people do not like what the media show, they do not buy
or watch
it. The media have to play to the market
or they go out of business. Pluralism emphasises the role that the media play
in providing information and the opportunity for open debate.
People are not victims of ideological
hegemony,
they can interpret and choose what they want.
Pluralists believe that the freedom
that exists in setting up media ventures
ensures that a range of opinions is represented and that editorial
freedom and professional journalistic
standards help to maintain effective media. Pluralists also believe that the
limited audience participation in the media is nevertheless
effective and allows individuals to express opinions
and criticisms.
Pluralists tend to defend the media from
Marxist criticisms. They point out that vertical integration is often frowned upon
as a business
practice (which is probably why it hasn't happened) and many countries have
laws preventing cross-ownership and the proportions of imported
content that are allowed. Furthermore, journalists and editors do not always heed
the counsel
of their bosses
as there is a strong tradition of "investigative journalism". The best
example of the benefits of such nosiness
is Watergate.
As it goes, I tend to agree with the pluralist
view, but it is a bit optimistic for my tastes. There is evidence of owners
interfering in the content their companies produce in several cases. For example,
when BSkyB
was contemplating a greater stake in Manchester United, most newspapers opposed the
move, with the notable exception The Sun
and The Times,
two News Corporation newspapers.
SOURCES:
My Sociology
notes
Paul Taylor et al, Sociology in Focus
ISBN: 1873929218
Taylor, S (1999) Sociology: Issues and Debates Hampshire: Palgrave