Western culture is seen across the globe, particularly in terms of commercial products, including movies and television. Does the spread of Western culture help unite the world in a beneficial way, or does it inhibit local cultural developments that might benefit humanity?
We animate in a domain that is instantaneously expanding and shrinking, growing further apart and closer due to western culture. Our national borders are progressively irrelevant, and yet the culture of the West is by no means exultant. The pace in which the Western culture is spreading is extremely high even those who are tracking and analyzing it have difficulties in keeping up with its range and new developments it brings on board. Nevertheless, the western culture is admittedly employed to bring an extreme diversity of change that expresses prevailing sentiment in the communities' lives. Despite the fact that the culture of the West has some positive benefits to the world as a whole, in most cases, it contravenes and inhibits the local culture from developing and bringing much-needed benefits to humanity (Eller, 2016).
The scope and transcending power of western culture are changing and reversing life and way of the local culture. The identity of local culture is being threatened and thrown into question. The local culture's is experiencing a decrease of less freedom of action against the might western culture. Thus, western culture is disruptive and brings inequitable side effects on the local culture. The culture of the West is bringing to the globe new challenges that inhibit governance of local culture, weaken the local culture support and autonomy. Paradoxically, Western culture provides a means that excludes the local culture in organizing its homogenizing or subordinating force (Eller, 2016). Therefore, western culture is considered to be creating a social unrest and conflict to the development of a local culture that benefits humanity.
What are some negative and positive aspects of McDonald's restaurants spreading into different societies across the globe? What does this say about the trajectory of culture change in the world then? ...and out of curiosity, if you were traveling outside the US/North America....would you eat at a McDonalds? Why or why not?
Yes, I would eat at a McDonalds just to see if the food and customer service is the same as in America. McDonalds's spread to into different societies across the globe has both positive and negative aspects. On the positive side, McDonald's is providing quick and cheap meals, beverages and disserts through a service of drive through that enables customers to make purchases of their favorite food without treading outside of their cars. Secondly, it is deemed to be the world's largest employer across the globe providing a daily bread to their staff who cuts throughout the world. McDonald has forced most of its competitors in respective different societies such as those in Hong Kong to improve their hygiene in the restrooms since it is McDonald's who were the first to introduce consistent sanitary condition display across the globe. On the downside, since it is considered to be the most prominent brand in the world, it has been linked to being spreading the lifestyle of American to different societies it operates. It is being accused of backing up markets in which American domination is visible at the same time leading to a decline of other cultures in the world even though foreign franchise are considered to be embracing local produce and be locally owned. It is also blamed to be embracing American dishes thus replacing the traditional meals thus leading to a loss of traditional customs in localities they are usually operational. Therefore, from the perspective of McDonalds's oversee operations and its impact across the globe, it can be said that change of culture is a trajectory to the famous brand in the world.
Since we cohabit in an increasingly global world, should we move away from definitions of citizenship that link us to a particular state/nation? [Consider the massive movements of people across the globe throughout history...recent history as well] Explain why or why not you believe so, perhaps based on your experiences with the globalization phenomenon
I do not think we should move away from definitions of citizenship that link us to a particular state/union. From my point of view, globalization has done a lot, for instance eliminating barriers to communication, trade and cultural exchange. Globalization has also led to the advancement of communications and technology hence making the world become deterritorialized. Despite the positives it has brought to the world, it is considered as a powerhouse that destroys culture and heritage of different groups of ethnicity. People should not move away from the definition of citizenship since globalization concept weakens nationalism through increasing interdependence and making national barriers weak among countries. With citizenship prioritized, there will be a clear national sense; a strong traditional heritage observed, national borders that are clear and lesser ways of contracting other people from different countries. Hence, we should not move away from the definition of citizenship that always links us to a particular state or nation.
Eller, J. D. (2016). Cultural anthropology: global forces, local lives. Routledge.
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the ProEssays website, please click below to request its removal: