Globalization remains the most encompassing of all planetary phenomenons. It seems to be functioning as an umbrella subject which engulfs every go oning all about. Globalization affects our lives in all ways. The nutrient we eat, the apparels we wear, the Mobiles we flaunt are the contemplations of impact of globalisation on our lives. The recent up billowing in Egypt and Libya are the consequence of the greater communications with the outer universe. The sort of literature we are reading which mostly comprises of Diaspora experiences[ 1 ], is the consequence of the greater exposure to the outer universe and to and fro gesture of the persons between two civilizations. Even our Bollywood, if we can name so[ 2 ], show better interchange of civilizations. Many of our histrions are working in Hollywood and few of the Hollywood famous persons are having in Indian film. Everything about seems to be reflecting the amusive interchange of civilizations and a alone merger of civilizations. It does n’t look that there is complete eroding of any one civilization. Each civilization seems to be accommodating to another civilization to organize a new civilization.
As a affair of fact, no 1 civilization is homogenous. A civilization may include assorted other sub-cultures and interaction and blending takes topographic point among these sub civilizations excessively. For illustration, now we find dosa-idli mercantile establishments even in little towns of northern India. It can be called “ local globalisation ”. Today, when boundaries are film overing across and within the states and the universe is merely a click off, we truly halt and inquiry ourselves, where do we belong to. The easiest reply to it could be this that we belong to where our bosom lies. The reply may be easy for us but it is non so easy for the NRIs who are sometimes besides called ABCDs[ 3 ]. For them the inquiry is more of ‘loyalty ‘ instead than belonging. They seem to be witnessing the nostalgic parents who do n’t desire their kids to lose their individuality among the western childs. It is from here we witness the whole thought and importance of ‘identity ‘ coming into light. We populating in New Delhi seldom chew over our ain individuality.
We seem to be excessively busy in the tally for life, because we do n’t necessitate to turn out our individuality to anyone. I am an Indian and I do n’t necessitate to proclaim it. The whole thought of individuality harvests up when we are amidst individualities and our class of life is decided harmonizing to our individualities. Merely so we will do an attempt to look like what we truly are or may be even seek to conceal our individuality. It all seems to be a batch of rhetoric but it is from here I would wish to look into the issue of globalisation and its impact on homogeneousness. I will mostly concentrate on the issue of “ cultural individuality ”. I shall besides look into the on-going argument on head covering and how globalisation has played its portion in the whole issue.
GLOBALIZATION AND HOMOGENEITY:
Robert Holton gives three thesis of globalisation,[ 4 ]which are as followers:
‘Homogenisation thesis proclaims that planetary civilization is going standarised around a Western or American form ;
Polarization thesis suggests that presence of cultural options resist against Western norms. Global interconnectedness and mutuality do non needfully intend cultural conformance ;
Hybridization thesis argues that civilizations borrow and incorporate elements from each other, making intercrossed, or syncretistic, signifiers. Evidence to back up this position comes chiefly from popular music and spiritual life. ‘[ 5 ]
No society or state is homogenous. Homogeneous society refers to a society which comprises of similar people practising similar civilization and similar life style. There has been a turning impression of development of the universe into a “ planetary small town ” where across boundaries similar civilization and life style is found and practiced. Theorists who oppose globalisation maintain that there has been eroding of local civilizations in the aftermath of globalisation, whereas, the protagonists of globalisation feel that there has been a better interaction of assorted civilizations and it has increased the feeling of brotherhood hence devising universe a better topographic point to populate in.
‘Over the old ages the word ‘globalization ‘ has progressively been used to mention to a procedure through which the full human population is bonded into a ‘single system ‘ ( Wallerstein 1990 ), a ‘single society ‘ ( Albrow 1990 ), or ‘the structuration of the universe as a whole ‘, as defined by Robertson ( 1990 ). This ‘single system ‘ so forms the model for single activities and state sate operations. It is conceived both as a journey and a destination- with an reaching at the globalized province a conclusiveness, which constitutes a unit of analysis in its ain right.
In other words, globalisation is seen as the broadening, intensifying and rushing up of worldwide interconnection in all facets of modern-day societal life. ‘[ 6 ]However, the people who oppose globalisation refute the thought of ‘single society or system ‘ on the name of eroding and corruptness of local and autochthonal local civilizations. Harmonizing to them, it is “ cultural imperialism ”[ 7 ]. By cultural imperialism they mean that the western manner, music, nutrient etc. have overtaken the local and autochthonal civilization. So, pizza took over paranthas, stone took over ghazals, denims took over saris and suits. Wordss like “ Americanization or McDonaldization or Coca-Colonization are used in topographic point of homogenisation.
However, it does turn out the point that planetary civilization seems to following the planetary economic system. The better publicity and selling of the merchandise consequences in broad credence among planetary clients irrespective of physical boundaries. When people follow one tendency across the Earth, the tendency so is called “ planetary civilization ”. So, Hollywood films making good across the Earth, formation of stone sets in India, come ining of trade names like Dior, Dolce & A ; Gabbana etc, all explain the formation of planetary civilization. So, opium feeding and narcotic dependence has ever been and still is a portion of Indian civilization but smoking marihuana or weed for the interest of intermixing in the hippy crowd is something which Americanization brought along.
However, the homogenisation is excessively utmost a position to be accepted. The more acceptable thesis is that of hybridisation. ‘Consider the undermentioned illustration by outlined by cultural anthropologist Ulf Hannerz ( 1992 ) :
“ Each twelvemonth the counties of Europe meet in a televised vocal contestaˆ¦aˆ¦watched by 100s of 1000000s of people. There is foremost a national competition in each state to take its ain entry for the international competition. A few old ages ago a contention erupted in Sweden after this national competition. It was rather acceptable that theaˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦first smuggler up was performed by a lady from Finland, and the 2nd smuggler up was performed by an African-american ladyaˆ¦aˆ¦.Both were thought of as stand foring the new heterogeneousness of Swedish societyaˆ¦. What was controversial was the winning melody, the chorus of which was “ Four Buggs and a Coca-Cola ” : Bugg was trade name name for masticating gumaˆ¦..Of the two Coca-Cola was much more controversial, as it was widely understood as a symbol of cultural imperialismaˆ¦. What drew far less attending was the winning melody was a Calypso. ( 1992 ) ”
This anecdote draws attending to a 3rd thread woven into the complex cloth of globalisation, that of hybridisation, or syncretization. It centers on intercultural exchange and the incorporation of cultural elements from a assortment of beginnings within peculiar cultural patterns. Merely as biological loanblends combine familial stuff from different beginnings, so hybrids societal patterns combine cultural elements from a scope of beginnings. ‘[ 8 ]Therefore, Hollywood famous persons coming over to India merely to acquire married in the Indian manner and Indian twosomes acquiring married in more than one conventional mode is a alone illustration of hybridisation. Peoples in West have left gyms to pattern yoga and Suryanamaskars. Yoga CDs of Shilpa Shetty, Bipasha Basu or Baba Ramdev are the best sellers in the West. If we of all time watch any Hollywood films closely we can happen their histrions have oning “ OM ” pendents, T-Shirts etc. I do n’t believe that it is merely a one manner traffic which leads to Americanization. There is a common interchange and esteem which is traveling on. Furthermore, there can be other menaces to civilizations else than America. As Arjun Appadurai says “ for the people of Irian Jaya, Indonesianization may be more unreassuring than Americanization, as Japanisation may be for Koreans, Indianization for Sri Lankans, Vietnamization for Combodians, and so forth ”[ 9 ]
It is from the argument on homogenisation that we arrive on another important facet of our term paper i.e. cultural individuality ; because it is from here we will seek to associate the argument on globalisation with the argument on head covering.
GLOBALIZATION, HOMOGENISATION AND CULTURAL IDENTITY:
“ Within us are contradictory individualities, drawing in different waies, so that our designations are continually being shifted about. If we feel that we have a incorporate individuality from birth to decease, it is merely because we construct a soothing narrative or ‘narrative of the ego ‘ about ourselves. ”[ 10 ]
It is the right occasion to remember what Raymond Williams said about ‘culture ‘. He said that “ civilization ” is one of the two or most complicated words in the English linguistic communication. The intension that “ civilization ” means high civilization or that its range is concerned with beliefs and values instead than practical activities and temperaments remain mostly integral.[ 11 ]
Harmonizing to Featherstone, globalisation suggests two positions of civilization. The first taking a monoculturalist point of position, treats globalisation as ‘extension outward of a peculiar civilization to its bounds, he globe ‘, through a procedure of conquering, homogenisation and fusion brought approximately by the ingestion of the same cultural and material merchandises. The 2nd one, following a multiculturalist base, perceives globalisation as ‘the compaction of civilizations ‘.[ 12 ]A individual may belong to anyplace but there is ever a desire to make out to what is found outside his kingdom. In the epoch of globalisation it has become easy and people travel widely and absorb within themselves what they appreciate and discard what they do n’t O.K. of. It consequences into hybridisation of civilizations instead than homogenisation as we have already discussed.
‘Both in public discourse and in research literature, a batch has been said about people ‘s individuality. Particularly n diasporic surveies and the kingdom of in-migration research, individualities of new comers, the grade of fond regard to both, state of beginning and state of abode, their alteration over clip and differences between groups, has been a field of academic survey, political argument and public contention for a long clip. ‘[ 13 ]
‘Thomas Eriksen starts from the premise that individuality is locally constructed and that ‘people still live in topographic points. ‘ This indicates that the affiliated universe is a phase where people with different civilizations and individualities meet. Assorted civilizations manifest different individualities. In the current age, corporate and single individualities seem to be fragmented. With this we mean that individualities are composed by taken fragments that originate from multiple degrees. These degrees range from the planetary to the local. A planetary individuality and a local individuality are hence ‘ideal ‘ signifiers, non bing in existent life. All individualities are a mixture of planetary and local facets. Peoples in local scenes invariably reshape their ain person and corporate individualities by devouring cultural elements arising from a assortment of degrees. ‘[ 14 ]
Identity is a self remedial mechanism, with which we are born, but it is merely when we are in a crowd of different individualities, we exhibit it. It may by assorted ways, either by linguistic communication or by our garb or by any other agencies. As a affair of fact, we are non cognizant of our individualities until and unless we are non put to inquiry by anybody. Harmonizing to Tomilson, ‘identity is non merely a description of cultural belonging ; it was a kind of corporate hoarded wealth of local communities. ‘[ 15 ]Acording to Tomlinson globalisation does non destruct individualities ; instead it gives rise to newer individualities which are the consequence of hybridisation. I earlier thought that we can alter our individualities by altering our truenesss, which I no more believe. Now, I feel that it is the individuality which keeps on altering its colourss and melodies from clip to clip and it ‘s non really hard to scuffle between two individualities. So, when Indian daughter-in-laws semen to India from abroad they wear the Indian apparels which they might hold got in their matrimonies.
‘With respect to individuality as a construct in societal analysis, Amartya Sen complains about two reductionisms. The first is an ‘identity neglect ‘, frequently found in economic theory, which does non add individuality related inquiries to the set of variables explicating determinations, behaviour and interactions. Countering this reductionism, Sen states that ‘a sense of individuality with others can be a really of import – and instead complex – influence on one ‘s behaviour. The other reductionist form, harmonizing to Sen, consists in bordering individualities as ‘singular associations ‘ ignoring the many different and at the same time bing designations and properties of any human being. ‘[ 16 ]
Jan Servaes & A ; Rico Lie[ 17 ]besides gives two possible ways of gestating ‘cultural individuality ‘ :
Essentialist attack – it is a narrow and closed attack – conceives individuality as an already accomplished fact, as a merchandise
Historical attack – it is an encompassing and unfastened attack – conceives individuality as something that is being produced, ever in procedure
They besides give two more senses of cultural individuality. First the inward sense of association or designation with a specific civilization or subculture, and, secondly, an outward inclination within a specific civilization to portion a sense of what it has in common with other civilizations and of what distinguished it from other civilizations.
Now, in relation to globalization the argument on cultural individuality, the best piece of work which I came across is John Tomlinson ‘s article titled “ Globalization and Cultural Identity ”. He argues that cultural individuality is much more the merchandise of globalisation than its victim. He says that globalisation is truly the globalisation of modernness, and modernness is the forerunner of individuality.
I think that globalisation when raises inquiries on cultural individuality, it gives rise to the issue of “ Ethnicity ”. Ethnicity celebrates the local and autochthonal industry, civilizations and belonging. FabIndia is an first-class illustration of planetary jubilation of ethnicity. It promotes handloom and handcrafts of India.
Peoples who oppose globalisation besides say that because of engineering there has been brushing of local civilizations and individualities. However, engineering besides acts a medium for resurgence of local civilizations. In the words of Nick Knight, “ the engineerings that make a planetary civilization possible besides facilitate the airing and hence resurgence of typical local civilization. ”[ 18 ]Therefore, opening up of Indian eating houses abroad, the fan following of Herbal Queen Shehnaz Hussain etc all reflect the resurgence of local civilization with the aid of engineering and information.
Therefore, in the context of homogeneousness and cultural individuality, globalisation can be defined in the words of Anthony McGrew, “ Globalization refers to the multiplicity of linkages and interconnectednesss that transcend the state provinces ( and by deduction the societies ) which make up the modern universe system. It defines a procedure through which events, determinations and activities in one portion of the universe can come to hold important effects for persons and communities in rather distant parts of Earth. Nowadays goods, capital, people, cognition, images, communications, offense, civilization, pollutants, drugs, manners and beliefs all readily flow across territorial boundaries. Transnational webs, societal motions and relationships are extended in virtually all countries of human activity from the academic to the sexual. ”[ 19 ]
It is from this definition I will pull togss of argument on head covering in context of globalisation and cultural individuality
GLOBALIZATION, CULTURAL IDENTITY AND VEIL:
In France two school traveling misss were expelled from the school for have oning hijab in school. Soon a jurisprudence came into being which banned the erosion of head covering. It besides prohibited people from have oning large crosses. But non as many people wear large crosses around their cervixs as many people wear hijab. There is a certain history of head covering. There are both subdivisions of bookmans in Islam which support and condemn erosion of head covering. Those who support veil quote assorted “ suras ” ( Citations ) from the Holy Quran which directs adult females to have on head covering. Similarly, “ adversaries ” of head covering besides justify their stance by virtuousness of Quran.
Womans wear hijab due to many grounds. In foreign states adult females wear “ hijab ” or “ burqa ” as a symbol of individuality. France had its ain history of racism, which they have justified as patriotism. Whosoever, reaches France should follow French ways and traditions. No infinite is left for one ‘s autochthonal imposts and traditions. Integration in France means “ assimilation ”. In foreign lands Muslim adult females wear hijab for their ain convenience. Not in all instances there is spiritual force per unit area or force per unit area from their households. Some wear so that their mobility is non hampered. By have oning hijab they can travel freely, which otherwise they would non hold been able to, or their household would non hold allowed them to. Thus, hijab aids them to gain their dreams and aspirations. If a adult female is have oning hijab out of her free will, I do n’t see any ground for resistance.
For, adversaries of head covering or hijab, it is the most utmost reaction against modernness. They resist modernness by have oning hijab. They proclaim that “ We are non Western and do n’t desire to be ”. Young Arabs frequently say: I feel like everyone, but they ever mention my difference. These immature Arabs, have now decided to repossess their difference, and that mean or include different things. For many it is a loud announcement and manifestation of their spiritual individuality. Article 1 of the Gallic jurisprudence says that: “ In public elementary, center and high schools, the erosion of marks or vesture which conspicuously manifests pupils ‘ spiritual associations is prohibited. Disciplinary processs to implement this regulation will be preceded by a treatment with the pupil. ” It besides explains that what sums to be “ conspicuous ”, it includes big crosses, a head covering or a skullcap. This jurisprudence by any criterions can non be justified and more so in a state which proclaims to be secular. Secularism do non intend doing everyone equal, instead it means handling everyone every bit. This Gallic proposition is non expressed ; it can merely be deduced.
It is likely that consciously, Gallic society wanted, and still wants, these adult females to be the envoies of civilisation in their ain households. In pattern, nevertheless, the load it places on these adult females acts as an injunction for them to interrupt away. How can they cut all ties with their beginnings without interrupting off wholly from their close and beloved 1s, their household roots? The UN Committee charged with implementing CEDAW expressed its concern about the effects of such prohibition on adult females ‘s entree to schools and universities. The headscarf, as a spiritual mark, should be accepted as other spiritual marks ; the new politically right Gallic attitude, which consists in feigning that faith ‘belongs in the private domain ‘, is merely indefensible. Religion is by definition populace.
Now in context of cultural individuality and globalisation, altering boundaries non merely redefine signifiers of political and socio cultural community, but challenge jealously guarded traditions and universe positions. Therefore, when amidst different individualities the Muslim adult females guard their individuality by have oning hijab. As a affair of fact, hijab is a modern version of ‘burqa ‘. Hijab covers merely head whereas burqa covers the whole organic structure. Therefore, it can be understood as a merchandise of hybridisation. It can be worn over any garb. Furthermore, in the aftermath of rise of ‘Islamic terrorist act ‘[ 20 ], there has been a growing of a fraction of Muslims who oppose of any sort of force on the name of faith and celebrate and laud their individuality as Muslims. They oppose the aiming if whole Muslim fraternity. The advocates of this school besides promote have oning marks of their civilization instead than faith. Wearing of head covering can non be called as a spiritual activity because if you do n’t have on veil you are non Non-Muslim. Thus, the Gallic prohibition on head covering can be seen as an utmost reaction to something non really utmost. Gallic patriotism is an antithesis to globalisation.
Therefore, it can be concluded that globalisation do non hedge cultural individualities and the opposition to the prohibition on head covering is an first-class illustration that it is with the aid of globalisation that people across boundary lines have come together to defy against the prohibition. Globalization brings people closer and gives rise to planetary fraternity of likeminded people, with no mention to their cultural individuality, nationalities, and spiritual associations. Therefore, globalisation does non ensue in homogenisation but to hybridisation of assorted civilizations giving rise to “ planetary civilization ”.