Globalization is synonymous with cultural hegemony.

The Relationship Between Globalization and Cultural Hegemony

The question of whether globalization is equivalent to cultural hegemony is rooted in the definitions of the two terms. People’s references to ancient empires when discussing cultural hegemony complicate the relationship between globalization and imperialism. It is past time for people to change their minds and recognize that racial hegemony is not a forgotten phenomenon, but rather one that persists in today’s culture. The argument follows the paper’s thesis, which asserts that globalization is synonymous with cultural hegemony. Globalization is similar to imperialism because it entails religion, cultures, and ideas rather than a mere integration of economies (Demont-Heinrich 671).

Globalization and Cultural Imperialism

The other reason why globalization and cultural imperialism are identical is that everywhere around the world is increasingly going through a process of westernization. In other words, other thinkers can reason that the integration of general standards such as human rights is not only a process of globalization but also a form of cultural imperialism. Finally, it is worth arguing that globalization is the same as cultural imperialism because they both have political and economic control over the other.

The Political and Economic Control in Globalization and Imperialism

In terms of political and economic control, it is imperative to note that none of the two concepts under discussion has anything relating to culture. After all, they both concern exploiting resources from other nations to satisfy the needs of their powers. The reason why one can attest that the concepts are the same but only worded differently is in black and white. The same way globalism would be described as exploiting several countries to satisfy the needs of a particular superpower, the literal definition would also term imperialism as a means of exploiting diverse nations to satisfy a particular political interest (Shuker 258).

Changing the World through Imperialism and Globalization

Expert opinions suggest that imperialism has changed the phase of the world. That is, it has made the globe look smaller by consolidating various continents both politically and economically. Moreover, to some degree, it has also changed the social environment of the world in terms of individual movement, culture, and language between different continents.

Differences in Globalization and Imperialism Today

Concerning the same, there is no difference between what has been mentioned above and modern globalization. The only difference is that modern globalization is institutionalized through international governmental institutions such as the IMF and the United Nations, while imperialism was institutionalized through the imperial power governments such as the Netherlands, Belgium, UK, and France. Today, international governmental institutions are the core drivers of independence between countries and economic integration (Demont-Heinrich 675). Nonetheless, present governments can still be seen carrying on with their activities without depending on such organizations. For instance, in their diplomatic relations regarding trade agreements. Even so, it should not be forgotten that the United Nations sets standards both for social and political integration upon which the majority of the countries follow, those being asylum quotas for the latter and dominantly human rights for the former. Nevertheless, with the integration of the economy, independent nations remain powerful actors the same way they were during the time of imperialism.

The Role of Globalization in Sharing Ideas, Cultures, and Values

As mentioned earlier in the thesis statement, globalization is not merely the integration of the economy; rather, it is all about the sharing of ideas, cultures, and values. It is significant to add to the account that a similar description is reiterated in the definition of cultural imperialism (Shuker 259). In terms of sharing cultures and values, globalization fits best. The modern society, also referred to as the digital era, distant countries are connected and interrelated together both by cultural experience and by trade communication. Technology, especially social media, brings the nations together through globalization, where people from different nations get to share their thoughts, ideas, and values through social media platforms (Mirrlees). The internet makes the world smaller by bringing different states into direct contact with each other for a common interest. The global marketing of media and TV products, sales of films, alongside the internet, plays a great role in uniting cultural diversities regardless of where people come from. The integration of cultures and values of different groups through technology and media is a credit given to globalization (Mirrlees). The product of globalization can be seen all over the world. Even so, it is also imperative to touch on cultural homogenization, which has been an aftermath of globalization. It was stated earlier in the essay that there is no substantial difference between cultural imperialism and globalization. This claim is tied to the mission of the two concepts as far as sharing of ideas and values between various world communities is concerned. The same way globalization leads to the sharing of ideologies through digital communication, cultural imperialism dominates the media consumption of different countries around the world, therefore, dominating their ideologies and values (Mirrlees). Thus, it is rational to claim that globalization is the same as cultural imperialism.

Works Cited

Demont-Heinrich, Christof. “Cultural Imperialism versus Globalization of Culture: Riding the Structure-Agency Dialectic in Global Communication and Media Studies.” Sociology Compass 5.8 (2011): 666–678. Web.

Mirrlees, T. Global Entertainment Media: Between Cultural Imperialism and Cultural Globalization. N.p., 2013. Web.

Shuker, Roy. ”‘We Are the World’: State Music Policy, Cultural Imperialism, and Globalization.” Critical Cultural Policy Studies: A Reader. N.p., 2008. 253–263. Web.