Globalization is often viewed as a catalyst of cultural homogenization; it is linked with Westernization, or specifically Americanization, and also confined to modernity. In Globalization and Culture, Jan Nederveen Pieterse points out such a perspective is “geographically narrow and historically shallow (p.4).” Rather, he sheds light on the concept of hybridity in viewing globalization. That is, globalization is more of a cultural hybridization and translocal cultural mélange that has existed throughout an extensive period of time.

Nederveen Pieterse discusses three paradigms through which the future of globalized cultures can be viewed.

The first is the “clash of civilizations”. Through this paradigm, we see a dystopian future (and present), in which differences in culture become points of conflict. BREXIT and Donald Trump’s extreme border control policies are examples of this model in contemporary politics. Although this model has bearing based in history, it is somewhat problematic. There are established historical cases of cultural hybridization (especially in art) that cannot be discounted.

Another model of globalization is “McDonaldization”. The basic principle is that one view of the world is adopted by cultures across the globe. This model predicts the development of hegemony, and especially a western view ‘taking over’. It is difficult to measure the effects of this model, as in some cases particular methods are adopted, but perhaps the resulting products still maintain a specific cultural flavour.

The third paradigm is perhaps the most complex: hybridization. Through hybridization, we see the rise of cultural sharing. In the ideal sense of the theme, cultures become more diverse and increasingly individual. Increased global connectivity and the advent of the internet have broken down identity as a strictly national idea. Hybridization creates a world in which an identity is defined by many different sub-cultures.

Modernity and globalization seem to be inextricable. The approach commonly used to identify what globalization is usually comes with the idea of viewing globalization as consequence of modernization (e.g., Giddens, 1990). That is also why the effort of re-thematizing modernization and attaching it to globalization is taking place (Tiryakian, 1991). But there are some problems with modernity/globalization’s point of view. Considering both historic and cultural facts, Pieterse (2015) points out that the thesis of globalization spreading from West to East and North to South is too narrow sighted. He contends that it should be named as westernization or Americanization, not globalization.

Giddens (1990) defines globalization as “intensification of worldwide social relations”, viewing globalization has been started from 1800s. However Pieterse (2015) argues that this kind of definition presumes the prior existence of “worldwide social relations”, which can be regarded as a part of globalization. In addition, Pieterse suggest that modernization/globalization thesis is neglecting the manifold shapes of modernization. Modernization in non-western countries, especially Japan, followed different steps from that of the West.

Viewing globalization through the lens of modernity can reflect therefore, a eurocentric point of view.

Viewing globalization through the lens of modernity can reflect therefore, a eurocentric point of view. According to Jan Nederveen (2009: 69) globalization can be percepted much more as a long term process, that is linked to history. A process "that finds its beginnings in the first migrations of peoples and long distance trade connections, and subsequently accelerates under particular conditions". By "particular conditions" we can understand that the technological advances may not be discardable, but also that globalization assumes a gradual formation and reformulation of multilateral structures (social, political, and economical). Thus those structures, pushed by the global and local demands tend to turn flexible the relationship between centers and margins, and also to blur hierarchical instances, reflecting and being reflected by the globalization as hybridity.

Hence, political strategies facing situations as the decline of frontiers, biological diversity and cultural mixes, pop-ups as a current tendency. Endorsed by the crescent exchange of information between different cultures, positive or negative, consequences will remain echoing through many layers of society

In addition, Pieterse (2015) develops further the idea of hybridization as a transcultural compatibility. He points out how now a days it is common that in a specific place you can find an explicit amalgam of wider and more fluid ended relations between cultures. There is an inevitable mixing of cultures, which at the same time produces a mélange from different cultural contexts that have had time to develop and integrate. It is not a process of one day to another, but an elaborated and slow process in which the notion of hybridity is created usually through the similarities shared between different cultural elements.  As a result, this hybridity provokes more creative and dynamic environment in which individuals can develop further.

It is not a process of one day to another, but an elaborated and slow process in which the notion of hybridity is created...

It is because of this process that the author concludes the chapter by saying that “diversity and hybridity have entered into accounts of global economy as a cosmopolitan sphere and a condition of “globality” in which firms must organize into project teams that scout for talent and combine diverse skills from across the world, from engineering to regulatory regimes and law to local cultural savvy, in order to compete” (p.94).

Pieterse discusses the three major approaches to globalization and culture. He begins with the ‘clash of civilizations’, the idea of culture (or religion) as the major force of conflicts. The second idea is McDonaldization, the notion that global culture is walking towards the path of standardization and uniformity. Globalization as hybridization, which Pieterse highlights on, embraces the idea that globalization is not just moving towards cultural synchronization, but creating more diverse combinations. Globalization is an international interaction creating a cultural mélange, not just confined to Westernization. These days, Mcdonalds, along with Mcdonaldization are considered to have been fixed as the representations of uniformity and standardization. However, regarding the customized unique menus in accordance with the different culture, religion and taste -the Greek Mac in Greece or the Maharaja Mac in India-  it “should rather be understood along the lines of global localization”(p.52).

Discussion points:

Is globalization a profoundly positive force, or is the loss of individual national identities and cultures negative?

Are there concrete examples of all three paradigms to be found in contemporary global politics?

Is hybridization a realistic model for the future, or is it too utopian in principle?

Is McDonald's the symbol of homogeneity or hybridity?

Reference list

Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity.

Pieterse, J. N. (2015). Globalization and Culture (Third ed.). Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.

Tiryakian, E. A. (1991). Modernisation: Exhumetur in Peace (Rethinking Macrosociology in the 1990s). International Sociology,6(2), 165-180. doi:10.1177/026858091006002004

Written by Valeria Villalobos Campos, Jiyong Choi, Victor Hugo Rocha, Joanna and Ceilidh Newbury