In ‘Globalisation and Cultural Imperialism Reconsidered: Old Questions in New Guises’ David Morley writes that ‘the USA’s potential to influence, if not control, imagery and opinion overseas was, in fact, the new quintessence of power’ (Morley, 2006: 32). Globalisation (or more specifically to this essay, Americanisation) is a form of cultural imperialism as it affects people’s media intake all over the world whether they want it to or not. America’s influence over global media content is dominating but to what extent?

In ‘Where the Global Meets the Local: South African Youth and their Experience of Global Media’ Larry Strelitz writes that ‘the notion that cultural imperialism is a penetrating, monolithic force that wipes out diversity and homogenises all cultures must be abandoned’ (Strelitz, 2003: 234). Here Strelitz is arguing that cultural imperialism is not as abrasive and powerful as it seems, but it is often abrasive and powerful and there’s no doubt about that. There’s no question about cultural imperialism existing as we can see examples of it in everyday life, the real question is how far it goes to penetrate the cultures of other nations. American sitcom Friends (1994-2004) is viewed all over the world and is extremely popular in a wide range of countries. I am going to focus on Friends as an argument both for and against cultural imperialism’s role.

 

Strelitz writes that ‘Western culture does not constitute an indivisible package that is either adopted or rejected by local cultures’ (Strelitz, 2003: 250). This is because people can choose to resist dominant ideologies presented to them by American culture specifically. People can choose to watch local television instead of the television broadcast to them by American networks. However pop culture is dominated by American sitcoms and dramas such as Friends. We see the show everywhere on the internet, dominating TV channels and it is referenced in many other aspects of pop culture. Even though people might reject popular culture, that doesn’t mean it’s not part of their lives, whether they want it to be or not. There is a pressure on people to accept popular culture and its influence. This cultural imperialism is not just apparent in TV shows but in popular news outlets, films and books as quite often you cannot ignore their domination in the media. As much as one tries to ignore the influence of News International, books such as Fifty Shades of Grey, etc. it is impossible to avoid them as they infringe on our TV screens, advertisements and social network sites.

 

Strelitz also argues that ‘global media images can provide a resource for individuals to think critically about their own lives and life conditions’ (Strelitz, 2003: 251). Friends presents many different friend and family dynamics that can be related to by people from all walks of life all over the world. An example of this would be Monica’s bad relationship with her parents e.g. in series 4 episodes ‘The One with Ross’ Wedding’ part one and two or perhaps the fact that Monica and Ross are both friends and siblings. Another example of relatable life conditions within Friends would be unemployment or bad jobs. Rachel is most susceptible to this as she works in a café and spends a number of periods of time during the show unemployed. However a lot of the situations in Friends are actually rather idealistic as they live in nice apartments in Manhattan and spend every day in a coffee shop. The fact that an American narrative, like the one posed by Friends, even matters outside of the US is very intriguing. As America is such a dominant figure in the World their popularity is important because they want people to relate to them and be forgiving of the atrocities they commit. But this is only a demonstration of what this means to America. For many people outside of America the relevance of these narratives can be found in the idealistic view of America as the leaders of the free world. This is an ideal that other countries can only aspire to not knowing how corrupt the corporate world in America really is, as they can control a lot of the media industry.

 

In ‘All Around the World: The Global Politics of Popular Culture’ John Street writes that ‘globalisation may describe an ideal rather than a real predicament’ (Street, 1997: 66). However it’s difficult not to see globalisation as a predicament, because America’s cultural imperialism is inflicted on people from all over the world. I disagree with Street’s comment as all the characters in Friends are white so there is no diversity. This shows that the ideal America imposes on the rest of the world is one of privilege, giving a platform to people who are white, American and well off. American TV shows will often have a token minority character to appear more diverse. In Friends only minor characters, without real narratives attributed to them, are of other ethnicities, for example Ross’ girlfriend Julie who is Chinese (7 episodes) or Charlie Ross and Joey’s girlfriend who is African-American (9 episodes). It’s not just Friends though other American sitcoms such as Sex and the City (1998-2004) and How I Met Your Mother (2005-2014) have a real lack of diverse characters in them. Although in some ways I can agree with Street as globalisation could be ideal as America will have to start creating more diverse television to suit the vast audiences it reaches. We can see this already beginning to happen in shows such as Orange is the New Black as a large proportion of the cast are African-American or Hispanic. This differs to Friends because the cast are more varied and present more realistic female characters. Although this could just be because more Hispanic and African-American people are incarcerated in the US than white people are. Despite this pointing towards a more diverse form of popular culture amongst the products America export, it is unlikely as the World seems to be back tracking and becoming less progressive.

 

In ‘Culture, Communications and Political Economy’ Peter Golding and Graham Murdock write that corporations can ‘exercise considerable control over the direction of cultural activity through the role as sponsors’ (Golding and Murdock, 2005: 64). Different media’s content is heavily mediated by the corporations who back it. This is an issue with a lot of America’s pop culture sponsors as they tend to have political and/or corporate ties. In ‘Mass Culture and Popular Culture’ Dominic Strinati writes that media allows propaganda to ‘systematically and pervasively… manipulate and exploit people’ (Strinati, 1995: 8). This propaganda can be seen to be as a result of these political and corporate ties. Friends was produced by Warner Bros. Television a subsidiary of “global” company Time Warner Inc. Over the years, Time Warner Inc. has expanded through acquiring other companies and the rights to books, comics etc. such as DC comics. As a result of sponsoring the creation of Friends they can ask for things to be taken in or out of the show to reflect their company’s ethos and values. America’s cultural imperialism allows them to produce effective propaganda. In the news they produce one-sided accounts of global events such as the Israel/Palestine War and 911, however this does often trickle into entertainment including sitcoms. In the Friends episode ‘The One Where Rachel Tells…’ most of the episode had to be rewritten due to it containing jokes Chandler makes about bombs in an airport, because the episode was aired just one month after the 911 terrorist attacks. As Friends promotes the American dream ideal, it presents to its international audience a false sense of what America is really like. For example Rachel can afford to live in a large apartment in Manhattan on the wages of a waitress in a coffee shop when in reality this would not happen. Although the show may not manipulate or exploit people, Friends’ domination as a sitcom overseas could lure people to America as they think that it’s easy to get by there and they may end up homeless or stranded. All this feeds the myth of America being the land of promise and opportunity, something that is not true unless you are a privileged white person.

 

David Morley writes that the cultural imperialism model ‘oversimplifies the complex nature of flows in international communication’ (Morley, 2006: 34). Initially one may agree with this statement as the original cultural imperialism model is outdated and too exclusive in its depiction of flows from America to the rest of the world. There are now many more forms of regional counter flows, especially in the news for example Al Jazeera and Russia Today. The problem still remains, although these news sources offer a challenge to the USA’s dominant ideology that is all they are doing as they aren’t a recognised competitor for the cultural imperialism of the USA. Other than Britain there are not many other countries producing sit-coms on a global scale like the ones produced in America. It is almost impossible for Friends and other big American shows like it to be matched in their prevalence as a form of popular culture that is watched all over the world. Although popular culture forms are being created in other countries such as Chinese and Japanese horror films and Bollywood rom-coms, Anglo-American products are still dominating the popular culture market. Even though Bollywood is a bigger industry than America’s Hollywood with more films being made and the industry exporting more products, it’s questionable that they aren’t more influential than America. Although maybe it’s not, with many countries being affected by Americanisation, the English language is often people’s first or second language, thus making Hollywood films more appealing. Despite Bollywood making a large portion of their films in English they are still not as culturally significant as Hollywood are and this could be down to the idealisation of white skin not just by America but even by countries such as China and Japan.

 

In ‘The Push and Pull of Global Culture’ James Lull writes that ‘the remarkable rise of the individual in globalisation has changed but not erased the role of collective culture as a stable, guiding source of belongingness, security and identity’ (Lull, 2006: 44). Nowadays it’s acknowledged that the individual takes their own reading from their viewing of popular culture as the ‘hypodermic’ model of the audience being passive has largely been discredited. Now the audience is seen to be active and the individual can use media to suit them and their interests. For example the audience of popular culture products can now use them to feel a sense of belonging like Lull has said, but they can read against the grain and draw their own interpretations from it to tell them something about their own life. In Friends there is many opportunities for the audience to read different scenarios in their own way. An example of this would be in series 3 the episode ‘The One Where Ross and Rachel Take a Break’ as it splits audience opinion on which character is in the right. As Ross and Rachel have been fighting Rachel decides they should have a break from each other, during the break Ross sleeps with another woman which causes another fight in which they break up. This scenario is bought up numerous times throughout the series and is even referenced still in popular culture today. With no one able to decide who was in the right, it is still open for individual interpretation. There is a question of how much agency do we actually have, to consider. In the face of influence we are often only offered the “illusion of choice” as one does not actually seem to have any choice. We can see examples of this in the types of TV we choose to watch or even who we consume our news from.

 

Lull writes that ‘people need both collective and individualized cultural experiences’ (Lull, 2006: 54). America’s cultural imperialism means that its popular culture accesses many other cultures. People with dual, multi or ambiguous national identities may appreciate the access to other countries popular culture as they want to both fit in with the people around them but also connect to friends and family from the same place as them. This is particularly apparent in South Africa as Strelitz writes that South African university students were ‘being drawn to programs which promoted values at odds with those of their parental culture’ (Strelitz, 2003: 248). This shows that they have a need for individualized experiences away from their parents and the culture which they are a part of. However some of the students Strelitz interviewed preferred watching locally produced TV as ‘it provides a haven from the threat of the “modern”’ (Strelitz, 2003: 241). This resistance of the cultural imperialism of America happens because many people don’t relate to the problems that the characters in Friends and other American popular culture do.

 

People don’t really determine what popular culture is, because that is what the corporations do. In ‘Commodities and Culture’ John Fiske writes that ‘popular culture is made by the people, not produced by the culture industry’ (Fiske, 1989: 24). This can’t really be the case as if it were, there would be more variety in the content of TV shows, films, books, etc. Also if this is true then why is America so dominant in the popular culture industry, it must be a result of people yet again not having a choice in what is inflicted upon them. Friends could be an example of “the people” having a say in what popular culture is as since Friends’ conception the formula has been reused in more and more popular culture products. Shows such as How I Met Your Mother, Happy Endings, etc. have the Friends-esque dynamics to them. However just because an audience likes a particular format in one aspect of popular culture that doesn’t mean that they enjoy seeing a copy of it. For example dystopian film series The Hunger Games (2012) was a remarkable box office hit but the film franchises that tried to emulate that success, The Divergent series (2014) and The Maze Runner series (2014), haven’t done nearly as well. Indeed we as an audience have some say in our deciding whether something gets the ratings to be deemed a success, however a show can still be part of popular culture without actually being all that “popular”.

 

Bibliography:

Fiske, John, 1989. ‘Commodities and Culture’ in Understanding Popular Culture. London: Routledge.

Golding, Peter and Murdock, Graham, 2005. ‘Culture, Communications and Political Economy’ in Curran and Gurevitch (eds) Mass Media and Society. London: Hodder.

Lull, James, 2006. ‘The Push and Pull of Global Culture’ in in Curran, J. and Morley, D. (eds) Media and Cultural Theory. London: Routledge.

Morley, David, 2006. ‘Globalisation and Cultural Imperialism Reconsidered: Old Questions in New-Guises’ in Curran, J. and Morley, D. (eds) Media and Cultural Theory. London: Routledge.

Street, John, 1997. ‘All Around the World: The Global Politics of Popular Culture’ in Politics and Popular Culture. Cambridge: Polity.

Strelitz, Larry, 2003. ‘Where the Global Meets the Local: South African youth and their experience of Global Media’ in Murphy, P. D. and Kraidy, M. (eds) Global Media Studies – Ethnographic Perspectives. London: Routledge.

Strinati, Dominic, 1995. ‘Mass Culture and Popular Culture’ in An Introduction to Theories of Popular Culture. London: Routledge.