Report R2.21 An Approach to Study Culture and Globalisation Seminar Leader: Anjali Gera Roy, IIT Kharagpur agera_99[at]yahoo.com The seminar leader examined commonly held understandings of the phenomenon of globalisation. It was often understood as a phenomenon of homogenisation of the world. The word "global" indicated an overarching perspective and a higher scale of thought. Ease and speed of interconnectivity have taken cross-cultural movements to a scale that is larger than ever before. The dominance of the media is another factor that characterises globalisation today. The seminar leader identified two dominant responses to the phenomenon of globalisation. One was "celebratory" where as the other was "anxious." Management literature has on the whole followed the former perspective illustrating the desirability of sharing knowledge and resources. Analysts in other fields have often highlighted the fear that this wave might lead to a global monoculture obliterating local identities. There is also the concern that it is a new mode of cultural and economic imperialism. However, the very technological advances that facilitated a homogenising globalisation have also given rise to increasingly assertive localisations. Due to the availability of appropriate technology, geographical proximity is no longer a prerequisite for a sense of cultural unity. Dispersed populations are increasingly asserting their own identities and often displacement from the "homeland" serves to accentuate this sense of cultural identity. Simultaneous interplay of the opposing forces of globalisation and localisation has given rise to what some label as the phenomenon of "Glocalisation". This is exemplified by multinational companies like Coca Cola and McDonalds that attempt to fuse the global with the local for commercial success. Culture was interpreted as a way of life or doing things. The notions of high and low cultures were examined. Vernacular and cosmopolitan are mere labels and can easily be reassigned. What is vernacular in a particular situation might be labeled as cosmopolitan in another context. Thus, these are best described as fluid concepts that differed a great deal depending on contexts of location or time. . Postcolonial and postmodern thinking have emphasised the perspective of the "other." Marginalised societies and their ways of thinking are progressively being recognised. However, even as this is welcome, one should realise that this might be used to review the western self. True synthesis of cultures is impossible because of their incommensurability. Meaningful culture contact can only occur in the intercultural space. The global individual is endowed with the opportunity to choose what he/she wants to be. A critical awareness seems to be what gives anchor to the individual swayed by the dual influences of homogenising globalisation and a differentiating localisation. This seems to correspond to the concept of "cultural intelligence" suggested in recent writings in Management. However, the term culture in the field of Management is limitedly used to denote organizational culture and the discipline is yet to draw profitably from the field of culture studies. Discussions during the seminar also sought to distinguish between commonly employed research methodologies in the humanities and social sciences. The former seems to favour interpretative methods where as the latter prefers empirical methods. However, of late, there has been increased deviation from these predominant modes in both categories. For example, Film studies tend to use audience analysis while sciences are beginning to look at the notion of constructed reality seriously. Historians are also recognising the value of interpreted oral histories that complement a more "scientific" study of history using written records. Humanities however, constantly draw from the results of empirical research in other disciplines and set future directions by the introduction of new concepts and ways of thinking. As opposed to scientific research, the need for verifiability, falsifiability, consensual agreement, and hence a common language and vocabulary are not compelling factors in the humanities. Multiple interpretations are accepted for their own inherent worth, though researchers often feel the need to conform to disciplinary power structures that moderate scholarship. References Roy, Anjali Gera. (2003). Only connect: Holding post-colonial ground in the global village. Resistance and Reconciliation, 152-167. Roy, Anjali Gera. (2004). The local as global: Resistance of the place form in post-colonial cultures. Unpublished manuscript.
Xavier Institute of Management, Xavier Square, Bhubaneswar 751013, India Research World (ISSN 0974-2379) http://www1.ximb.ac.in/RW.nsf/pages/Home |
