Scribd
Upload
42 views

Lecture 10 - Media Imperialism (Revisited)

This document discusses various theories of media imperialism and cultural dominance. It summarizes Johan Galtung's center-periphery model of structural imperialism, which describes the harmony of interests between elites in powerful center nations and peripheral nations, and the disharmony between peripheral groups. The document also outlines Oliver Boyd-Barrett's definition of media imperialism as one country exerting disproportionate influence over another's media. Finally, it discusses criticisms of cultural imperialism theories and their relevance in an era of increasing globalization and transnational capitalism.

Uploaded by

Nik Muhammad
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
42 views

Lecture 10 - Media Imperialism (Revisited)

This document discusses various theories of media imperialism and cultural dominance. It summarizes Johan Galtung's center-periphery model of structural imperialism, which describes the harmony of interests between elites in powerful center nations and peripheral nations, and the disharmony between peripheral groups. The document also outlines Oliver Boyd-Barrett's definition of media imperialism as one country exerting disproportionate influence over another's media. Finally, it discusses criticisms of cultural imperialism theories and their relevance in an era of increasing globalization and transnational capitalism.

Uploaded by

Nik Muhammad
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 20

Media Imperialism

(Revisited)
Lecture # 10
Imperialism
• Lenin called imperialism the “highest stage of capitalism”
• The exploitation of distant peoples, in which the local
working class conspires, allows the working class to rise in
relation to the conquered peoples
• Nationalism, etc. becomes a mainstay of hegemony, hiding
and deflecting criticism of local elites or dominant classes at
home
• The working class provides the army necessary to dominate
foreign populations
Schiller
• Argued that imperialism remains an important
influence on global events and trends
• Media imperialism is a “subset of the general system
of imperialism.”
• “the cultural and economic spheres are indivisible”
Schiller
• “What is regarded as cultural output also is ideological
and profit-serving to the system at large.”
• “In its latest mode of operation, in the late twentieth
century, the corporate economy is increasingly
dependent on the media-cultural sector.”
Schiller
• American economic dominance and corresponding
cultural dominance remain supreme, but are
declining in the face of transnational corporate
cultural domination.
• However, modeled on American PR, advertising, research,
public opinion, cultural sponsorship, etc. model.
“U.S. Media Cultural Dominance”
• “American films, TV programs, music, news, entertainment,
theme parks, and shopping malls set the standard for
worldwide export and imitation.”
• Total cultural package—TV production, publishing, film
making, music recording, etc. envelope the audience
member, undermining the “active audience” concept.
Studies have tried to extract the impact of a single cultural
artifact—impossible to do.
Media Imperialism

Oliver Boyd-Barrett defined media imperialism as the:

process whereby the ownership, structure,


distribution or content of the media in any one
country are singly or together subject to
substantial pressure from the media interests of
any other country or countries without
proportionate reciprocation of influence by the
country so affected.
Boyd-Barrett (1977) p.117.
Media Imperialism Reformulated
Far from being …a dead concept, I want to argue that (i) it has never
been seriously tested; (ii) it still has much to offer as an analytical
tool, and (iii) by incorporating some of the key concerns of
‘globalization’ theory, including hybridity and the weakening of
nation-states, the concept can easily be modified for application to
the present time. Even if we accept that the significance of
(geographical) territory as a domain for communications control is
declining, this would be a poor reason for relaxing the critique of
what I call the ‘colonization of communicative space’.

Boyd-Barrett (1998), ‘Media Imperialism Reformulated’ p.57 in D.K.Thussu (Ed) Electronic Empires:
Global Media and Local Resistance
From Cultural Imperialism to theories of Globalization

Certainly empirical evidence re:

1) Basic geographical inequalities in terms of access and use to


communication technologies

2) Western-led conglomerates (transnational corporations)

3) Western (American even) cultural tastes and practices as


increasingly global
Cultural Imperialism reassessed
• Dominance of American/Western products
• surveys of primetime scheduling
• foreign imports/language differences
• domestic production
• contra-flows

• Active Audience theories criticize the:


• ‘unexamined assumption that hegemony is pre-packaged in Los Angeles,
shipped out to the global village, and unwrapped in innocent minds’
• notions of cultural ‘authenticity’ challenged
• also important ideas of: ‘hybridity’, ‘indigenization’

• Western led Dominance of Transnational Capitalism


• core-periphery model doesn’t grasp the complexity of global capitalism
which cuts across and reconfigures relations between nation states and
regions
Beyond ‘core’ and ‘periphery’

The global economy is increasingly decentred, no matter what


power western states and agencies continue to hold over what
was the ‘periphery’ … However critical one might still want to
be of the unfettered processes of capitalist enterprise, the target
has now become much more elusive. Conspiracy-style theories
of global disparities don’t have the purchase they once seemed,
to some observers at least, to have.

A. Giddens, (1994) Beyond Left and Right. p.87


Structural Imperialism (Galtung 1971)

The Structural imperialism model was developed by the Norwegian


sociologist Johan Galtung
- Notions of centre and periphery: the world as made by
developed ‘centre’ states and underdeveloped ‘periphery’ states
- Structural Imperialism: ‘A sophisticated type of dominance
relation which cuts across nations basing itself on a bridgehead
which the centre of the centre nation establishes in the centre of
the periphery for the joint benefit of both’
Commonality of interests between the centre of the powerful
(media owner) nation and the centre of the periphery nation. This
situation allows the centre nation to maintain its power over the
peripheries
The centre-periphery relations are sustained and reinforced by
information flows and reproduction of economic activities. These
create institutional links that serve the interests of the dominant
groups.

Information flows respond to a vertical logic from the developed


country to the developing country, but there is no connection
between peripheries.

All the information Southern countries receive is filtered through


the lenses of the media system at the centre, even info on
neighbouring countries

This situation influence the creation of an Agenda Setting shaped


accordingly to the interests of Western Countries
Structural Imperialism
For Galtung there is

• a harmony of interest between the core of the centre and


the centre in the periphery nation

• less harmony of interest within the periphery nation than


within the centre nation

• disharmony of interest between the periphery of the centre


nation and the periphery of the periphery nation
Centre: Modern industry
Urban centers
Population centres
modern culture

Periphery: Mountain areas


backward areas
minorities
Centre:Modern industry
Urban centers
Population centres
modern culture
Periphery: Mountain areas
backward areas
minorities
Structural Imperialism
For Galtung
• In terms of values and attitudes, the elite in the periphery is closer to
the elite in the centre than to groups in the periphery. Why ?
• South receive information about the North and little information about
fellow developing countries.
• The information flow is determined by capital flows as well as by
historical and colonial ties.
• News flows from the core to the periphery via the transnational news
agencies.
• The core actors define the news according to
• their needs
• and criteria for the developed world market.
Centre-Periphery-Model

• Premises:
• The relationship between nations is a relationship of
power
• The “developed“ countries are centres of economic,
political, social and cultural power
• The relationship between nations is also a relationship
of dominance and dependency
• There is also a “centre“ in the periphery
Centre-Periphery-Model
• Structural imperialism is characterized by the following
relationships:
• There is a harmony of interests between the centre of the
centre and the centre of the periphery
• there is a disharmony of interests between the peripheries of
the centre and the peripheries of the periphery
• between the periphery of the centre and the periphery of the
periphery the disharmony of interests is biggest.
Galtung’s Center-Periphery Model
center cities; rich, elites, multi-nationals
Richest 10 % in the First World took
29% of total national incomes.
Center rural areas; workers, farmers, poor
First world periphery
Poorest 10% in the First World got
countries
2.5 % of total national incomes.
disharmony
harmony
center cities; rich, elites, companies
Richest 10% of Latin Americans

Periphery took 48% of total national


incomes.
Third world, periphery rural areas; workers, farmers, poor
& Second Poorest 10% of Latin Americans got
world 1.6% of total national incomes.
countries
In USA, the richest 20% consume 60%; the poorest 20% consume 3%.
Galtung’s Center-Periphery Model

Three Stages of Imperialism


1) plunder
2) barter
3) monetary exchange: Since World War
II, the USA has dominated world
financial institutions, such as the World
Bank and Internal Monetary Fund
(IMF), and world trade organizations:
GATT and WTO, and regional trade
associations: NAFTA and FTAA.

You might also like