Cultural diversity is a combination of two complex concepts which make up for an even more complex one. From an anthropological point of view, culture and diversity are intrinsically related, given that culture is a characteristic of human beings and human beings are unique, therefore culturally diverse (Laraia 1986). Nonetheless, since 1970, society has been changing in such a fast pace and in so many ways, that some critical theorists began to wonder what would be the consequences of all these changes (e.g. Hall 1992; Bauman 2005; Giddens 1990). The global market that was seen by many free trade negotiators as the key to development began to be perceived as a dangerous cultural obliterating process (UNESCO 1999; Álvarez 2005).
Given the unequal socioeconomic distribution of wealth in the world, the concern of critical theorist is that trade liberalization is disadvantageous for developing countries which cannot protect their markets from the competitive commercial strategies of developing countries (Beltrame 2005). In fact, the validity of this argument lies on the asymmetrical relation amongst countries and the potential of some specific countries to control and manipulate the means of production. What social theorists have been arguing is that local markets and developing countries are not able to compete with the ones from developed countries, and, because capitalist liberalism prerogatives are based on consumerism, the more globalization advances the more societies will have to adapt themselves to the global market rules, leaving behind their local culture, their traditions and their customs (Segovia 2005).
Since, asymmetry is a characteristic of contemporary society, this competition for the market share will soon lead to the substitution of the old processes and systems of meanings for the globalized ones, in an mutative adaptation process which will slowly obliterate local culture and tradition or not (Hall 1992). Some theorists have been defending this argument and promoting debates about the damages globalization has caused to society by commodifying culture, goods and services and homogenizing creative processes and cultural values (UNESCO 1999; Álvarez 2005). It is noteworthy that this argument has a strong economical appeal, for it is focused on the issues of globalization and free trade as the two major dangers to cultural diversity. but it doesn’t give much evidence about how cultural diversity is being obliterated or how society is being homogenized or if this process is actually perceived by society as harmful.
As mentioned in the first paragraphs, cultural diversity is an intrinsic characteristic of human nature. Therefore, why is “society” concerned that globalization or free trade is going to obliterate cultural diversity? Better yet, what society is worried about it? It is important to understand that critical social theorists often use the term society without providing a clear definition to which society they are referring to.
My argument is that societies have different characteristics, sometimes as many characteristics as individuals. Therefore, it is important to indicate the society that is being investigated in order to verify if the assumptions above are true in each context they take place. For this reason, this research proposes to analyze two countries that regard the issue of cultural diversity as a key element of their public policy, that is: Brazil and Canada.
Both of these countries have taken the issue of the defense of cultural diversity as a major concern of their cultural policy and has demonstrated their concern in the national level as well as the international (Álvarez 2005). Given the cultural diversity of both countries, it will be interesting to examine in which arena the concerns about cultural diversity arises and what part society takes in the construe of the axis of these concerns. As stated before, globalization and free trade is often appointed as the evil cause of the cultural obliterating process. In the case of Brazil and Canada, do these concerns arise because of globalization and free trade or do these societies have other concerns when it comes to protecting cultural diversity?
LITERATURE REVIEW
Globalization is one the most important phenomena of the twentieth century. It refers to those processes that take place in the global scale and pass national boundaries integrating and connecting communities and organizations in new combinations of time-space making the world, reality and experience more interconnected (McGrew, quoted in Hall 1998). It is part of the socioeconomic evolutionary process started by mercantilism and followed by capitalism (Giddens 1990). But, since 1970, when the global integration rhythm spiked accelerating the flow and bonds amongst nations. Many concerns have been raised about globalization, including the necessity to protect culture and national identity (UNESCO 2001).
As observed by Marx and Engels, modernity “is a constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social relations, everlasting uncertainty and agitation (...) All fixed, fast-frozen relationships, with their train of venerable ideas and opinions, are swept away, all new formed ones becomes obsolete before they can ossify (...) All that is solid melts in the air” (1973: 70). This mutative, rapid changing process is most often perceived as the evil machinery behind the cultural obliterating process. As indicated by Giddens “in traditional societies, the past is honored and symbols are valued because they contain and perpetuate the experience of generations” (1990: 37-8). As opposed to modern societies which are, “by definition, societies that are constantly changing, rapidly and permanently” (Hall 1992: 599).
The intense process of liberalization triggered by international efforts to build commercial frameworks to regulate free trade such as the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT 1947) and the Free Trade Agreement (FTA 1988) brought up many concerns about the consequences of this intense process of world exchange would be, especially in terms of cultural values and national identity (Goldsmith 2005, Thiec 2005; Neil 2005).
Stuart Hall (1998) points out that we are as post-modern as our world. The changes that occur in society reflects in the individual and vice-versa creating a symbiotic flow. In this sense, globalization wouldn’t bring much consequences as for the processes of construing cultural values or identities as such, because if it disarticulates stable traditional identities of the past, on the one hand, it also creates new opportunities for new identities to and new subjects in this continuous permanent flow of changes, on the other (Hall 1998). As pointed out by Roland Robertson “globalization leads to increase cultural differentiation, not homogenization” (cited in Mitchell 2000: xiii). For society is not an “unified and well-bounded whole, a totality producing itself through evolutionary change from within itself, like a daffodil from its bulb” (Laclau quoted in Hall 1992: 600).
This can be argued from a cultural point of view, that perceives the dangers of globalization for individuals when construing their identities, languages, symbolic values, national traditions. From a socioeconomic perspective, on the other hand, globalization is perceive as an evil to be defeated especially in terms of cultural industry (Goldsmith 2005). In terms of the production of cultural goods and services, the discussion about the consequences of globalization for cultural diversity is a major concern of countries, such as: Canada, France and Brazil (Álvarez 2005; Thiec 2005; Neil 2005).
Canada was the first country to retain the right to protect its cultural industries, during the negotiations of the Free Trade Agreement - FTA, in 1987 (Álvarez 2005). A similar approach was introduced by France in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) negotiations in 1993 (Thiec 2005). Since then, these countries together with UNESCO have promoted many meetings and discussions about the issue of cultural diversity and the necessity to protect it (Álvarez 2005). Clearly, there is a distinction between the discussion about the danger of globalization as an obliterating force of identity and symbolic values, and the danger of globalization for the economic sector called “cultural industries”.
In relation to the first issue, Stuart Hall points out three possible consequences: “the disintegration of national identities as a result of the growing cultural homogenization process, national identities and other local identities are being reinforced as a resistance movement of this globalization and national identities are in a decline, but new identities - hybrid - are taking its place” (1992: 69). The second issue has a political appeal and it seems to be drawn from economic purposes focused on the production and consumption of cultural goods and services (Thiec 2005; Neil 2005). It seems that the discussions that led to the establishment of the Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity and the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Cultural Diversity Expressions have little to do with the issues concerned by Hall and other critical theories (Goldsmith 2005).
Hall (1994) investigates the impact of globalization on the symbolic perspective in relation to identity and society. His main concern is how individuals are represented in such a mutative globalized world. Goldsmith (2005), Neil (2005), Thiec (2005) and Alvarez (2005) are also concerned about globalization, but from the economic aspect in relation to the impact of free trade for cultural production and consumption. My major concern is about society and what part it plays in it. I take globalization from the citizenship perspective, in which I question if individuals are aware of the rapid changing process Hall talks about and if they act upon this changing process by resisting it or by embracing it. In other words, is cultural diversity a demand from the Brazilian and Canadian societies or is it a political discourse?
Comments