LATEST NEWS:

Culture and Globalism

Culture and Globalism

By: Haqif Mulliqi

Globalization seems to be turning into a magic word of our everyday life. The development processes already, from day to day, seem to be relying on the concepts of internationalization of all human activities. The so-called "world of flows" has been replaced by the so-called "world of places" (M. Castells). Capital circulates at an unprecedented speed, as well as goods, people, information and ideas. This is a real and almost dizzying expansion. It is also evident that the political and cultural identity in one way or another is being separated and separated from the territorial identity (A. Appadurai). Humanity, from the "production of things in space" is moving towards the "creation of spaces" (H. Lefebvre). Thus, day by day, without a shadow of a doubt, a global context of human existence and human creativity is being created in which we define our personality, while also having our cultural identity and our lives.

Cultural globalization individual perceptions of the contemporary world


Globalization has involved all civilizations, all cultures and societies. Although based on the so-called economic liberalization, market functioning and standardization, it is, above all, a varied and complex process. The diversity and complexity of globalism derive from the involvement of different civilizations, different cultures and people in global flows. In fact, the types of economic globalization that support the standardization of production and the global cultural exchange, which, on the other hand, support the diversification and the redefinition of cultural identity are becoming more and more clear. Cultural globalization is observed in individual perceptions of the contemporary world as defined, but functional (in terms of communicative and content values) of interconnected wholes.

Cultural globalization flows from and initiates two processes: cultural diversification as well as cultural re-identification. Cultural diversification opens up space for the emancipation of all cultures and affects the so-called de-hierarchization of culture or cultures. And, thus, I don't think that with this, in one way or another, the integrative concept of national cultures has been put into question by strongly introducing into this concept the respect of cultural rights (the right to respect the language of minorities, then the right to choose one's own culture and affiliation, the right to choose religion, etc.) above all as human rights. Thus, both individuals and societies can accept different cultural values ​​based on their own determinations. For example, in the frames of belonging to the Euro-Western cultural arc, you can listen to African music, watch Japanese or Balkan, Albanian, Croatian or Romanian theater, or people eat Chinese cuisine or even wear Indian sarees, and this , to say don't bother anyone in particular. However, what is evident is that any of these selections, whether they are shorter or longer, will inevitably affect the redefinition of people's cultural identity. Thus cultural (re)identification is, so to speak, an open process in all societies and in all civilizations; in developed countries, less developed as well as in those not developed at all.

Cultural globalization and cultural diversity and the re-evaluation of cultural identity

But, on the other hand, the processes of cultural identification are often charged with irrational conflicts, in particular when we are dealing with the cultural identities of minorities or even in societies in which individual selections of cultural values ​​conflict and are in sharp contrast with collective traditionalism, which means those social forces which wish to eliminate or even avoid respecting cultural rights, and for which I believe that one of the most egregious examples in Europe is precisely the Balkans.

Although cultural globalization in particular cites cultural diversity as well as the re-evaluation of cultural identity, it nevertheless seems to introduce some elementary cultural standards on the global level. So e.g. the fight against illiteracy has turned into a special standard of cultural development, while in the contemporary world it is considered a standard, let's take the culture of working with a computer, respectively the ability of electronic communication in the network. However, although created, these cultural standards are not exclusive, nor are they imposed on only one culture or even by a single culture, even though, consequently, they generate from the same civilizational context (Euro-Western ), because they are ultimately open to all possible cultural contents. Therefore and for this reason, people are educated in different languages ​​using alphabets and cultural and traditional content from the most diverse. Whereas, when they communicate through different networks (electronic, for example) or even directly, the contents and meanings of such communication depend exclusively on the individual choices and preoccupations of each of them.

This can perhaps be considered one of the reasons why cultural globalization cannot be equated with the so-called notion of westernization (westernization) as claimed by anti-globalists in general and in particular. This, globalization, does not impose exclusivity, or as we say, cultural and civilizational exclusion, nor can I accept and support the concept of a unique and single world. Despite the globalization of cultural standards, our cultural worlds will remain eternally different and always marked by perceptions of cultural values. Humanity today lives in full parallel worlds and cultural worlds (Knutsson) which can only be connected through communication and information, namely with the knowledge of their special values.

The manifestation of individual or collective identities as acceptance of cultural and social pluralism

Thus, we believe that cultural globalization enables the emancipation of an extremely large number of cultures and civilizational heritages, a wealth that is available to all humanity. The values ​​and messages of all cultures circulate freely and somehow are or rather are considered to be the source of a kind of global cultural renaissance. Cultural connections, influences and interactions drive cultural development, but also social development throughout the world. Perhaps a good example to illustrate this thesis can be precisely the issue of female emancipation throughout the globe, and even in very traditional societies. And this actually turns out to be a new social process, induced, which, so to speak, latently, uninvestigated, we would say, is involving all countries, developed and undeveloped, contributing to the formulation of values cultural news.

In the world sense, the manifestation of individual or collective identities (national, ethnic, class, outsiders) is something that has been defined by many philosophers and globalists as: acceptance of cultural and social pluralism. Thus, opening the tabs of cultural globalism seems to increase the role of culture in general social changes. This implies, but does not deny, the different contents of cultural values ​​as well as influences specific and culturally profiled consumption. For this reason, cultural values ​​begin to essentially influence institutional changes as well as social reforms. By its own development, cultural pluralism supports cultural and political autonomy, and thus in the most direct way influences and supports the development of democracy.

Today, it is undoubtedly known that economic globalization depends on institutional changes as well as reforms in certain societies. Companies ensure the global functionality of capital, investment, production and market. But the success of all social reforms undoubtedly depends on the cultural and civilizational context. This context should not be content-standardized, so it is incorrect and unfair for anyone to call cultural globalization or consider standardization. The general acceptable standard is and can only be openness in communicating between us, which enables our collective or individual choice (good or even bad). Perhaps any society can choose democracy or authoritarianism, openness and active presence in the contemporary world, or even closure, self-isolation and reductionism. Finally, the opportunity to choose is necessarily a sign of freedom, but also responsibility, but it is that opportunity which can never be perfectly good and eternal. For this reason, the variants of the search for our own place in the world as well as our relationships with others are practically unlimited, although sometimes limited in the cultural aspect. /Telegraph/