Media and cultural imperialism reconsidered

Abstract

The theory of media and cultural imperialism is today largely discredited. This article reviews the classical theory, particularly as developed by Schiller and identifies a number of its key elements. The main objections to this view are then briefly rehearsed, and their conclusive force is accepted. The article then considers how changes in the last decade have made the successor theories, which are variants of globalization, increasingly unsatisfactory. It is noted that in other disciplines these real-world developments have led to a revival of theoretical and empirical discussions of imperialism. In the light of these developments, the article reconsiders the requirements of theories of imperialism and proposes an account which differs in significant respects from the version advanced by Schiller. It is argued that this new version (a) does not suffer from the crippling defects of the classical account (b) explains much better the historical realities of imperialism and (c) provides a superior theoretical account of contemporary and likely future developments in international communication.

Keywords:

• media
• imperialism
• culture
• Schiller
• state

Notes

^1. Schiller was, of course, a consistent critic of imperialism, both in general and in its specific cultural form, but it is possible to find positive accounts of cultural imperialism to place alongside celebratory theories of imperialism like Ferguson's: “It is in the general interest of the United States to encourage the development of a world in which the fault lines separating nations are bridged by shared interests. And it is in the economic and political interests of the United States to ensure that if the world is moving toward a common language, it be English; that if the world is moving toward common telecommunications, safety, and quality standards, they be American; that if the world is becoming linked by television, radio, and music, the programming be American; and that if common values are being developed, they be values with which American are comfortable” (Rothkopf, 1997, p. 45).

^2. It is worth noting that Schiller operated with a model of effects very similar to that of Schramm and other development scholars (Schiller, 1970, pp. 109–115).

^3. It is worth noting, however, that the charge assuming a uniform international media market often laid against proponents of cultural imperialism cannot be sustained. Boyd-Barrett, for example, recognised the existence of regional markets for news and media as a potential challenge to the dominance of the core (Boyd-Barrett, 1977, p. 134).

^4. This state-centred approach differs radically from that of Hardt & Negri (2000), who argue that contemporary capitalism has outgrown the state system and therefore there is no longer any basis for the geopolitical conflicts that so marked the twentieth century. The conflicts of imperialism have been replaced by the conflict between Empire and Multitude. As they put it: “The distinct national colors of the imperialist map of the world have merged and blended in the imperial global rainbow” (Hardt & Negri, 2000, p. xiii). In essence, this is a theory of globalization rather than imperialism.

^5. So the British Empire seized Gibraltar, Malta, Cyprus, Aden and Singapore not primarily to exploit the denizens, loot raw materials, or export capital, but for the obvious military advantages they presented.

^6. GDP can be measured in several ways. The most common measure is Nominal GDP in US dollars, but an alternative is GDP at Purchasing Power Parities (PPPs). There is no obvious reason for preferring either measure, although in terms of the amount of human effort that is expended in cultural production the PPP measures seem more likely to give a better picture of national capacity. Both measures are provided by the IMF, and the rankings here are based on their figures for 2010. The first number is the country's placing in the ranking of GDP at PPPs, the second that in the ranking of Nominal GDP (International Monetary Fund, 2010).

^7. As the Indian saying has it: “Cricket is an Indian sport that was accidentally invented by the English.”