Anakena Paddon

Cultural Globalization: Media and Representation

            I found this collection of texts particularly relevant because most of us will have been touched in some form or another by all the issues discussed: tourism, the presence of mass media in our lives and its effects (sometimes detrimental, see eating disorders; sometimes revolutionary, see Brazil) and the tension between our power and vulnerability regarding our exposure to these images.

            Tomlinson presents two case studies on the hit TV series Dallas. Although I’d never seen so much as an extract of the show before looking it up after reading this extract, from what I gather it focuses on the glamorous (read: materialistic) lives of wealthy Dallas inhabitants, weaving tangled webs of drama and exaggerated life situations for all to relish. The case studies, both very different from one another in the formality of their conduct, sought to shed light on the international success of the show. Most people cannot relate to the plotline in the least, given the extravagance of the lifestyles presented; European intellectuals have attacked the show as “cultural poverty” and as a symbol of “the American mass culture industry” which is often felt as an oppressor, or a threat. But people watch the show, and audience ratings are incredibly high, so somewhere along the line, even if it is a guilty pleasure, people enjoy watching the show. One of the case studies suggests that people have found a way to bridge the gap between their reality and the TV’s, using the fictional reality as an escape from their own all-too-real life.

            I think there are a great many TV shows that continue to do just this today, although perhaps targeting more teenage populations – shows such as the popular Gossip Girl, or 90210 that present over-dramatic, over-expensive “glamorous” lifestyles that do not correspond to the reality of the 99%. So why do people agree to watch these shows? Why are American TV shows so popular if they are so distant from people’s realities? How have they been packaged to be consumed by viewers all over the globe?

            I would have liked to further learn about this self-distancing from foreign (not nationally foreign, but realistically foreign) material affected people’s opinions and acceptance of the show Dallas. It contrasts effectively with the research done in Fiji on the impact of mass media images on eating disorders in female teenagers. The team of researchers chose to base their work in Fiji because it presented a “naïve” population, which in this situation indicated that their level of exposure to television prior to this study was little or non-existent in many cases.

The object was the see how the intake of these images affected their self-image and whether it caused them to strive for bodily change. Fiji was an interesting base because traditionally, there is a fundamental difference in the ideal physical aesthetic of a Fijian and what is portrayed on (heavily American dominated) television. Indeed, the Fijian population “encourages robust appetites” and “individual efforts to reshape the body by dieting or exercise thus traditionally has been discouraged”. The results of the study found that after prolonged exposure to television, a higher percentage of young women were subject to wanting to change their physique and were more prone to developing eating disorders, where they had previously been a non-issue on the island.

Interestingly, if we look at eating disorders in American culture, I would argue that it is still relatively taboo – young people who are subject to them are not quick to self-report an eating disorder. Thus, I am curious as to whether there was any reluctance to report their changes in eating behaviors (particularly with the familial disapproval and lack of understanding) as an eating disorder or if they willingly proclaimed to be vomiting to lose weight and change their body image.

I finished reading this report with an overall feeling of unease because I couldn’t stop thinking about the ethics of this research: if the researchers hypothesized that exposure to television would bring about eating disorders, why would they knowingly and willingly subject a “naïve” population to that? Is it just understood that television would eventually make its way to Fiji anyway, so why not just catch the research while it’s fresh? Were families angry about this research? Is there a part of responsibility attributed to the research in the increase of eating disorders?

Next, I’d like to move on to Gorney’s article on Brazilian women. I found the title to be somewhat misleading and expected/hoped for more of an emphasis on the impact of the media and telenovelas to shape women’s opinions or the change in demographics but the story was interesting nonetheless. Gorney explores how and why the Brazilian fertility rate has dropped to the point of being below the replacement level, and how it has spread nation-wide, regardless of class – for many women, a fábrica está fechada. She argues that despite there being many reasons why this is the case, most of the credit for this social change must be given to the women themselves, “tough, resilient women who set out a few decades back, without encouragement from the government and over the pronouncements of their bishops, to start shutting down the factories any way they could”. This has led to many women undergoing sterilization surgery, which serves as an irreversible contraceptive.

But how did this massive and notable social change come about? How did women’s priorities change to: #1 Education; #2 Profession; and finally #3 Relationship & Kids? There were several factors in this evolution: expedited industrialization, easy access to various contraceptives (despite shady legality), lower child mortality paired with national pension programs (which altered the commonly accepted view of a nuclear family and the need for dependency between generations), and the media portrayal of the “ideal” Brazilian, which does NOT involve “a soccer-team-size roster of siblings anymore”.

This was where I wanted more on the role of the media in changing women’s perceptions of themselves and of their roles within a family. Machismo is a very real phenomenon in Brazil, so what was the role of the media in altering the perception of society to the point that women are now expected to strive for education, and a profession, with the understanding that they will eventually be juggling these responsibilities with those of a child?

The power of media, and more particularly cinema, is a theme explored by Florian Stadtler in his article on Lagaan and the responses it received from audiences both in India and more internationally. Although the Bollywood hyper-production creates over 800 films a year, it wasn’t until 2001 that a real turning point occurred for Indian and South Asian cinema, and culture in general. There were several reasons for this, the first of which being that there had been a shift away from the less mainstream art-house cinema to more populist films. Along the same time were museum exhibits, books and various documentaries highlighting cultural icons and styles (Stadtler reminds us that purely statistically, it would make sense that South Asian cultures were growing in popularity, because they make up close to 80% of the world’s population).

In this context, “globalization is no longer a euphemism for Western cultural domination” and many new “fusion” projects were seen in development. The timing was just right for these, as Ang Lee made subtitles cool again, and Moulin Rouge brought back the musicals to popularity (also introducing many people to Bollywood influences). This shift in audience tastes set the groundwork for a positive response to Lagaan but still doesn’t explain its widespread success, since it broke all the rules.

Internationally, it should have been doomed a film with subtitles. In Bollywood, it never should have worked, because it is a period piece with a focus on poverty – that’s not what people want to see! But the universal themes it explored tied people in: the timeless right vs. wrong, the ever-popular story of the underdog defeating the oppressor and more importantly and up to date, the presentation of an ideal nation where all ethnic groups and social classes can cooperate to succeed together.

I was most bothered/curious about his use of the term “threatening” when referring to the diaspora of South Asian culture. On more than one occasion in the article, Stadtler states something along the same lines as “must we not re-examine this in the light of increasing South Asian influences penetrating mainstream culture and argue that globalization allows these influences to travel backwards and forwards, threatening the perceived pre-eminence of Western popular culture?” Without wanting to sound naïve myself, why did he not choose the term “enriching” instead of “threatening”? Why must a blend of cultures automatically be a threat? Aren’t we at a point now where we are aware that there is no “pure”, “un-fused” culture? And instead of fighting it, can’t we make it to the point where we celebrate this fusion and enrichment?

The final text is Bruner’s presentation of tourism in Africa, focusing particularly on the Maasai and their representation in foreign minds (particularly following the success of the Lion King). Bruner presents three different types of tourism, which he has labeled as postcolonial, postindependence, and postmodern.

To begin, here is a breakdown of the highlights of each site:

	Mayers Ranch	Bomas of Kenya	“Out of Africa Sundowner” party
What?	Privately produced performance	Public production	Tented safari camp near reserve
Who organized it?	Local entrepreneurs	National government	Tour agency
Targeted Audience	Foreign tourists	Modern urban Kenyans	Wealthy “post-tourists”
Summary of Events	Staged Maasai dancing in warrior compound	Dances of Kenyan ethnic groups	Maasai male dancing, mixing with tourists Formal cocktail party
Theme	Timeless & ahistorical presentation 19th century colonial narrative	Theme: Kenyan nationalism, “to show that all the ethnic groups of Kenya are equally valued” *Ethnic theme park for domestic tourists*	Present a Hollywood-ized version of Africa, with all the comforts and luxuries from home
Type (according to Bruner)	POSTCOLONIAL	POSTINDEPENDENCE	POSTMODERN

I am currently in the midst of writing a thesis on tourism in New Caledonia, which is presented with similar conflicts of identity surrounding a colonial past and how to move forward. The idea of an “ethnic theme park for domestic tourists” is one that many former Empire states struggle with today – how does one highlight the validity of a local culture without being condescending, or denying it any mobility and evolution in time? So often, either a colonial narrative pervades or tourists seek to escape the reality of that country in high-end luxury resorts that offer a staged performance of reality, ignoring any politics or economic problems and once more trapping local populations in an ahistorical context.

The evolution of tourism will only become possible when tourists seek to be educated when they travel. The current equating of tourism with escape makes it a vicious circle as travel agencies burgeon in poorer countries and present them as idealized havens of foreign qualities for tourists who are all too happy to play the part of the ignorant post-colonial empowered.