The Cultural Pros and Cons of Globalization

One of the main detractors of Globalization for many countries is the idea that it is not so much a mutual sharing of ideas so much as the spread of western and American ways of life and thinking. This concern, addressed in Theodore Bestor's "How Sushi Went Global", James Waston's "McDonalds in Hong Kong", and George Packer's "How Susie Bayer's T-Shirt Ended Up on Yusuf Mama's Back", however, seems like a superficial one to me.

In Bestor's article, the opposite of this idea of west to east seems to be playing out. Sushi, a Japanese traditional meal, has had booming popularity in the US in previous decades and it has impacted the tuna trade around the world, though mainly in westernized nations. This transfer of culture is what many are worried about, but we have yet to see this shared love of sushi create a lasting impact on our national culture and identity, despite its presence as a popular food type.

However, James Watson does not share the same positive point of view on the sharing of culinary traditions from one nation to another. Watson describes the emergence of McDonalds as a dominant fast food restaurant in Hong Kong, and tells how it has radically changed the youth of the city in terms of their habits and desires. While there does seem to be a change in terms of children wanting to eat fast food rather than traditional (according to Watson at least. When I spent a month in Hong Kong, I ate only once at a McDonalds and instead my friends and I frequented local restaurants or food bars for meals eaten out of the house.) While Watson describes this change neutrally throughout the article, his point of view becomes evident when he says that something precious has been lost. But we really must ask what exactly has been lost. The desire of children to eat traditional meals? The lack of proclivity for lines? The dominance of local restaurants? When reading his article, I initially thought that he was going to be neutral on the topic of McDonalds' presence in Hong Kong, as he made sure to show that while yes, this is an American franchise, there was a unique Hong Kong spin due to cultural influences. The ability of the people of Hong Kong to form lines, to become acclimated to having clean bathrooms, and perhaps eating a bit more often at a fast food restaurant, does not appear to me to have impacted their cultural any more than the popularity of sushi restaurants has ours.

Packer's article has a very different spin for me than the other two. The first two articles dealt with highly developed nations, whereas Pack ventures where neither of the other two do- to the third world. The cultural impact of Globalization on third and fourth world nations will be distinctly different from that on developed countries. Those nations that have been war torn will be more susceptible to the cultural influences of the western world, as in some places national culture has been destroyed. As well, the economic instability in countries such as Uganda do not place them in leadership positions and puts them at the mercy of the economic powers of more developed countries. While this position is not the optimal one, and, as Packer points out, further destroys the native culture, it might be a good thing for change to come, even if it comes at a high price.