“Hegemonic” Globalization and Cultural Diversity:

The Risks of Global Monoculturalism

Australian Mosaic
Fall, 2005, Issue 11, Number 13, Pages 15-19

Anthony J. Marsella, Ph.D., D.H.C.

Anthony J. Marsella is Professor Emeritus of Psychology, University of Hawaii,

Honolulu, Hawaii. He has been a visiting professor in Australia, China, India, Korea,
and the Philippines, and a visiting lecturer at numerous national and international
universities. In his 35 year academic career, he has published 13 books and 160 book
chapters, journal articles, and technical reports in cultural and international psychology.

Our Global Era

Our global community is facing a broad spectrum of local, national, and international
challenges. Our response to these challenges will shape the nature, quality, and
meaning of our lives throughout this century. Among these challenges are dramatic
increases in world population -- most of which will be occurring in the developing world -
- widespread poverty and famine, environmental desecration and destruction,
international migration flows, endemic diseases (e.g., AIDS, Avian Flu, TB), world-wide
violence, terrorism and ethnopolitical and religious conflict, and a distinct pattern of
globalization that can be termed “hegemonic” because of its control and dominance by
powerful individual, national, and multinational corporations whose policies, plans, and
actions are threatening cultural and biological diversity and promoting the rise of global
monoculturalism.

Globalization

Globalization -- or increases in the scope and magnitude of human contact, interaction,

and interdependency -- is inevitable. Indeed, some argue that globalization began
when our human ancestors first journeyed out of Africa to inhabit the distant corners of
our world, generating in the process thousands of diverse cultural traditions. The issue,
then, is not globalization itself, but rather particular patterns of globalization. If the
sources of globalization are concentrated in the hands and pocketbooks of a few
powerful individuals, nations, and organizations, and if the parameters are oppressive
because of their extent, focus, and intent, then the potential for the destruction of
cultural and biological diversity is high.

In today’s world, the major sources or drivers of globalization are transnational and
transcultural communication media, capital flow, transportation, tourism, and military
and security alliances, all of which are generating new and unpredictable levels of
interdependency. The uncertainty and unfamiliarity of this situation are raising
increased levels of fear, doubt, and suspicion. Where once events and forces in distant
 2

lands had little consequence for other parts of the world because of time and distance,
these events and forces now have global implications and consequences, often with
little possibility of prediction, control, and/or management.

“Hegemonic” Globalization: Western Values, Life Styles, and Dominance

While the emergence of increased Chinese and Indian political, economic, and military
power has changed the chemistry of events and forces shaping globalization, Western
governmental, commercial, military, and religious interests are still controlling
international markets, capital flow, commercial ownership, and cultural identities. This
“hegemony” constitutes a serious challenge for developing nations and traditional
cultures because it locates the power for molding national policies and decisions in the
hands of “foreign” interests. In addition, it also pressures minority populations in
developed nations to assimilate and to conform to the dominant culture.

The major players in “hegemonic” globalization include North American and Western
European nations and their satellite nation partners, media, national and international
financial institutions (e.g., World Bank, IMF, WTO), and, of course, multinational
corporations who hold no national loyalty. This group has been termed the “Davos”
faction because of the annual gathering of their leaders in the luxury resort town of
Davos, Switzerland.

A serious concern is the “hegemonic” imposition of values associated with North

American (i.e., United States) popular culture, including individualism, materialism,
competition, hedonism, rapid change (“progress’’), profit, greed, commodification,
consumerism, reductionism, celebritization, privatization, and English-language
preference. These values carry with them a way of life that are alien and offensive to
many people throughout the world, even residents in Western cultures. They are
powerful values, generated and sustained by institutions and organizations with self-
serving agendas. Of special concern is the fact that American popular culture values
are becoming the preferences of youth around the world.

It is true there is considerable cultural diversity in Western societies, and that this
diversity is encouraged and supported. But pressures to assimilate and to conform to
the dominant national culture are also present, and prejudices against diversity are
widely present and institutionalized (e.g., institutional racism). In addition, it is
unfortunate that the cultural diversities that exist fall prey to commercialization and
commodification. Consider the crass commercialization of indigenous cultures
associated with tourism in many nations. If it can sell, commercialize it. While all
societies seek economic growth and stability, there is, in my opinion, a justifiable and
widespread angst regarding “hegemonic” globalization.

It could be argued that “hegemonic” globalization has been omnipresent throughout

history. Wars, for example, have always resulted in winners imposing their ways on
losers. Consider the powerful cultural legacies that continue to exist from the days of
Greek, Roman, Arabic, Spanish, and British and French imperialism and colonization.
 3

“To the victor belongs the spoils!” This point of view contends “hegemony” is simply
part of the human condition -- a kind of Darwinian survival of the fittest applied to
cultures, societies, nations, and civilizations. But in a globalized world in which time,
place, and action are no longer limited nor constrained by distance, the consequences
of cultural “hegemony” assume problematic implications and proportions.
Monoculturalism at a global level is more problematic than monoculturalism at a
national level.

Thus, we are compelled to ask if the fruits of “hegemonic” globalization constitute local
and global improvements? Are we building a better world for all, or only for a small
select group? Are the values and actions of the powerful who support “hegemonic”
globalization the values and actions we would choose given the opportunity to control
our choices? There are many inconsistencies between the ideals and the reality
Western culture as revealed by the tragic scenes of Hurricane Katrina and the
widespread poverty, alienation, and disenchantment of those citizens denied access
and opportunity.

The West speaks ardently of democracy, especially of representative government and

active citizen participation, but a closer look at many Western societies reveals that
many governmental, commercial, educational, and religious institutions are under the
control of special interest (i.e., lobbyist) groups who shape and determine policies and
decisions. Is this democracy or oligarchy? It is notable, and I say this with great
disappointment, that the United States government, a major force in “hegemonic”
globalization, has failed to sign nine international treaties. Further, its recent actions at
the United Nations, where it has insisted on major changes in UN recommended
governance procedures and policies, indicate that it is seeking to limit international
powers.

Should Western Cultural Values Be Emulated?

There is a reciprocal relationship between a culture’s values and its institutions -- these
reflect and support each other. In “hegemonic” globalization, the values and institutions
of Western ways of life are being distributed across the world via a score of powerful
globalization venues (e.g., trade, investment, tourism, alliances) that are often insidious
in nature. For example, Western fast foods, clothing styles, entertainment, and
languages carry with them potent cultural communications about morality, identity, and
life priorities. Thus, cultures and nations, as both sources and target of “hegemonic”
globalization, must ask whether Western cultural values and institutions are the global
standard to which they aspire?

I do not mean to romanticize non-Western cultures for there is certainly much that can
be criticized regarding their distinct values and practices. But, I am more concerned
here about the loss of cultural diversity and all that it represents for alternative ways of
knowing (i.e., epistemology) and behaving, and the different constructions of reality
these offer. No culture have resolved all of life’s problems, but the variations do offer
wisdom and insights into the process of adaptation. In the West, there is widespread
 4

alienation of youth, abuse of substances, family disintegration, marginalization of

minorities, racism, poverty gaps, vulgarities and excesses of public culture, extensive
corporate and governmental corruption, and the destructive social and environmental
consequences of rampant consumerism, materialism, and commodification.

Unbridled capitalism, the heart of Western national economies, has proven itself to have
too little concern for people, and too much concern for profit. More than 250 major
corporations in the United States engaged in fraudulent accounting practices that
misrepresented actual corporate worth and financial value in pursuit of profit and
exorbitant salaries for corporate leaders.

To be sure, “hegemonic” globalization has led to increases in GNP, national wealth,

social mobility, job opportunities and choices, and improvements in health care in
developing countries. Level of living has increased and there are positive examples of
liberation from oppressive cultural traditions and practices in the name of human rights
(e.g., clitorectomies) and increased personal freedoms from authoritarian governmental
control. But inherent in these increases in wealth and changes in custom is the
eventual penetration of a world view aligned with Western cultural assumptions and
practices. It cannot be otherwise. One cannot buy into the process and product of
“hegemonic globalization” without having to give up or change prior assumptions and
practices. Further, increases in GNP in developing nations have also been associated
with increased gaps in income inequity. The rich get richer. Diverse ways of life are lost
in favor of a global monoculturalism with questionable consequences.

While “hegemonic” globalization claims to be driven by the pan-human values of liberty,

democracy, human rights, and justice, these appeals often become passing entry points
for cultural penetration and control by Western political and economic forces. National
and individual wealth may increase, but a new array of problems emerges. Level of
living does not guarantee quality of life. Who has benefited from global
monoculturalism? Are residents more secure and content? Or does disillusion and
disappointment eventually set in when the limits of opportunity are recognized.

In many societies in which “hegemonic” globalization forces are active, families have
collapsed leaving youth, the elderly, and working parents isolated from previous
collective ties. Socialization now is shaped via peers, media, and advertising, and it
occurs in new settings like movie theaters, shopping malls, night clubs, and traffic jams.
Advertising, a major driver of “hegemonic” globalization, confuses “needs” and “wants.”
Sex and sexy celebrities are used to convince consumers to buy and prefer certain
brands of beer, cigarettes, automobiles, clothes, foods, and appliances -- especially
Western products -- often without revealing the small print. Self-indulgence, one of the
principle values inherent in “hegemonic” globalization, encourages narrow self-interests
and individuality. Connection to others and to life itself -- the essence of spirituality --
becomes lost amidst materialism and the purchase of over-priced fashions, fast foods,
personal electronics, and the other accoutrements of the Western status and identity.
 5

By definition, “hegemonic” globalization minimally engages the participation and

decisions of local populations. For the most part, cultural and national entry and
dominance is often limited to existing privileged sectors who remain part of the ruling
class. But the process itself favors and privileges an “exploitive” character type that
further empowers an exploitive “capitalistic” model. I am concerned about the
consequences of using this character type as a the model for an emerging society to
prize and value.

The Quality of Change: Globalization With . . .

I am not a Luddite. I am not against change, nor am I against globalization. I am,

however, against “hegemonic” globalization because of its consequences for
homogenizing cultural diversity. I am against the asymmetrical concentration of power
and wealth of “hegemonic” globalization because it is driven by concentrated values and
motives capable of homogenizing the world’s diverse cultural traditions for commercial
and political gain. “Profit” is not in itself evil, but when “profit” is driven by greed and
avarice, it is simply violence. We need a globalization that is driven by equity and
ethics.

I can hear my Western critics’ cries already: “It is their choice, ” “They want what we
have,” “Our way has more comforts, choices, goods, and services.” I am compelled to
say “Yes” to many of these arguments. But I must also ask whether or not citizens are
fully aware of the sources and consequences? Majid Tehranian, a globalization
scholar, points out that there is a widespread resistance to “hegemonic” globalization in
the form of localist, pan-nationalist ethno-nationalist, regionalist, environmentalist,
feminist, and even religious movements. Each of these movements is an expression of
resistance to the forces of cultural homogenization, uniformity, and conformity
associated with “hegemonic” globalization. The resistance reflects an acute distrust of
those in power because of their agendas. Even terrorists have used “hegemonic”
globalization -- replete with its values, institutions, products, and abuses -- as motivation
for their destructive actions. Amidst this resistance, the issue of unity and diversity in
our global community become a significant concern.

Douglas Porch, a British scholar, in his acclaimed book, Wars of Empire, noted parallels
between turn of the century European imperialism and much of what is transpiring. He
writes:

“Through imperialism, poverty would be transformed into prosperity, the

savage would be saved, superstition would vanish into enlightenment, and
order would be imposed where once only turmoil and barbarism reigned. .
. . The peace operations and humanitarian interventions of the late
twentieth and twenty-first centuries may be seen as a revival, albeit in less
violent form, of yesterday’s “savage wars of peace.” The ultimate goal
was similar: fling open markets to the global economy, bring government
 6

to the hitherto ungovernable, end tribal conflict and ethnic cleansing, and
recruit converts for the Western way of life (p. 16).

The Issue of Universal Values

As the world moves inexorably toward becoming a global community, it is natural to ask
whether there are would encourage and sustain both unity and diversity, values that
would have “universal” appeal. In my opinion, among the values that meet this criteria
are peace, sustainability, civility, equality, social interest, non-violence,
interdependency, tolerance, diversity and spirituality. Spirituality refers to
connectedness – to unity with one another and to the larger universe in which we live. It
is associated with feelings of awe and reverence for the mystery of life and with an
identification with the very life force that animates the universe. And it is here that
diversity in all its forms becomes even more precious and salient because diversity
reflects the essence of life itself.

For unity and diversity to work, informed and principled global leadership are needed. I
envision a global leadership characterized by (1) a knowledge of global challenges and
resources, (2) a prizing and prioritizing of cultural diversity, (3) the wisdom to inspire and
guide changes with equity, ethics, and inclusion, (4) the character to speak for humanity
rather than narrow interests, and (5) the ability to inspire trust. I can imagine an action
agenda for global leaders of this fiber and cloth beginning with a global program that
engages populations throughout the world in dialogues and discussions about the
events and forces driving globalization and their consequences.

Possible Guidelines

Recently, the International Labor Organizations (ILO) and the World Commission on the
Social Dimensions of Globalization (2004) recommended a series of guidelines
designed to shift the emphasis of globalization from a “narrow preoccupation with
markets to a broader preoccupation with people.” They stated that globalization “should
be brought from the high pedestal of corporate board rooms and cabinet meetings to
meet the needs of people in which they live.” They contended that the social
dimension of globalization must become the arbiter of policies and practices, because: “
. . . it (i.e., the social dimensions) is the dimension of globalization which people
experience in their daily life and work: the totality of their aspirations for democratic
participation and material prosperity. A better globalization is the key to a better and
secure life for people everywhere in the 21st century.” They suggested the following
guidelines be considered:

ƒ A focus on people
ƒ A democratic and effective State.
ƒ Sustainable development.
ƒ Productive and equitable markets.
ƒ Fair rules.
ƒ Globalization with solidarity.
 7

ƒ Greater accountability to people.

ƒ Deeper partnerships.
ƒ An effective United Nations.

If we enter into widespread dialogues and discussions of these guidelines, if we

discuss their virtues and limitations, if we test them in the crucibles of local, national,
and international change, then, in my opinion, we will be prepared to meet the critical
challenge of encouraging unity and diversity in our world.

I am reminded here of the poignant words of Octavio Paz, Mexican Nobel Prize
Laureate, who wrote: “ Life is diversity, death is uniformity. Every culture that
disappears diminishes a possibility of life.”