Please make sure that you don't use many outside sources and focus on the three articles that I sent it to you

162 Brendon O'Connor

when you're the smaller and poorer cousin. Because of our size we have to keep asserting our differences and supporting local talent, ideas and products. To have a vibrant Australian culture, particularly in the entertainment and arts industries, we also need to subsidize local performances and artists, and maintain Australian content regulations. The lure of freer trade with the U.S. is certainly no reason to back down on these cultural values.

I worry about the conformity and blandness that comes with much American popular culture. I would add to this concern an unease with the power of American advertising and marketing. Because of this, parents feel pressured into buying their children expensive label clothes, teenage girls starve themselves to look like Video Hits dancers, and every second individual seems to think that "Whatever!" is a witty way of telling someone you don't want to listen to their point of view. These superficialities aren't solely the fault of American culture but it does deserve a fair amount of the blame. For me they reflect a worrying confor­ mity in our culture.

My gripes aren't meant to imply a total rejection of American popular culture or a retreat to some mythical Aussie alternative; like most Australians there are aspects of American culture I loathe and aspects I love. My point is that while American products are highly entertaining and accessible for many people, these products often have unrivalled distribution and marketing advantages in our soci­ ety. That said, and given that the commercial power of the American cultural industry is likely to continue well into the future, a sense of local pride and government support of Australian talent is undoubt­ edly needed to maintain our own distinct, and evolving, culture.

Questions for Discussion and Writing

1. Brendon O'Connor seems concerned with the idea that American cultural influence will lead to a homogenized world culture where everything will look the same and local differences will be less apparent. Do you have the same concerns as he does? Explain.

2. What would be the advantages to America and Australia if culture did erase cul­ tural difference, as O'Connor discusses here? What would be the disadvantages?

3. O'Connor says that his students learn about what education should look like and how the law works from television shows. Is the same true for you? How does American culture affect the way you see institutions and social proce­ dure? List shows that deal with the law, medicine, and politics. How do you account for their popularity and influence?

In 2,000 Years, Will the World Remember Disney or Plato? 163

In 2,000 Years, Will the World Remembe'r Disney or Plato?

MARK RICE-OXLEY

Mark Rice-Oxley is a correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor, where this article appeared on January 15, 2004. He reports from his home in London, United Kingdom. In his article he discusses the spread of American culture around the world and the various forms it takes. Re notes that some nations are rebelling against such cultural imperialism as they fear their own sense of national culture and identity is at risk of being lost, The other issue at the center of this article is the question of how durable American influence will be in the future.

-----------+ ---------­

D own in the mall, between the fast-food joint and the bagel shop, a group of young people huddles in a flurry of baggy combat pants, skateboards, and slang. They size up a woman teetering past wearing DKNY, carrying Time magazine in one hand and a latte in the other. She brushes past a guy in a Yankees' baseball cap who is talking on his Motorola cellphone about the Martin Scorsese film he saw last night. It's a standard American scene-only this isn't America, it's Britain. U.S. culture is so pervasive, the scene could be played out in anyone of dozens of cities. Budapest or Berlin, if not Bogota or Bordeaux. Even Manila or Moscow.

As the unrivaled global superpower, America exports its culture on an unprecedented scale. From music to media, film to fast food, language to literature and sport, the American idea is spreading inexorably, not unlike the influence of empires that preceded it. The difference is that today's technology flings culture to every corner of the globe with blinding speed. If it took two millenniums for Plato's Republic to reach North America, the latest hit from Justin Timberlake can be found in Greek (and Japanese) stores within days. Sometimes, U.S. ideals get transmit­ ted-such as individual rights, freedom of speech, and respect for women-and local cultures are enriched. At other times, material­ ism or worse becomes the message and local traditions get crushed. "The U.S. has become the most powerful, significant world force in terms of cultural imperialism [and] expansion,"

164 Mark Rice-Oxley

says Ian Ralston, American studies director at Liverpool John Moores University. "The areas that particularly spring to mind are Hollywood, popular music, and even literature." But what some call "McDomination" has created a backlash in certain cultures. And it's not clear whether fast food, Disney, or rock 'n' roll will change the world the way Homer or Shakespeare has.

CRICKET OR BASKETBALL?

Stick a pin in a map and there you'll find an example of U.S. influence. Hollywood rules the global movie market, with up to 90 percent of audiences in some European countries. Even in Africa, 2 of 3 films shown are American. Few countries have yet to be touched by McDonald's and Coca-Cola. Starbucks recently opened up a new front in South America, and everyone's got a Hard Rock Cafe T-shirt from somewhere exotic. West Indian sports enthusiasts increasingly watch basketball, not cricket. Baseball has long since taken root in Asia and Cuba. And Chinese young people are becoming more captivated by American football and basketball, some even daubing the names of NBA stars on their school sweatsuits. The NFL plans to roll out a Chinese version of its website this month. Rupert Murdoch's satellites, with their heavy traffic of U.S. audiovisual content, saturate the Asian subcontinent. American English is the language of choice for would-be pop stars in Europe, software programmers in India, and Internet surfers everywhere.

America's preeminence is hardly surprising. Superpowers have throughout the ages sought to perpetuate their way of life: from the philosophy and mythology of the ancient Greeks to the law and language of the Romans; from the art and architecture of the Tang Dynasty and Renaissance Italy to the sports and systems of government of the British. "Most empires think their own point of view is the only correct point of view," says Robert Young, an expert in postcolonial cultural theory at Oxford University. "It's the certainty they get because of the power they have, and they expect to impose it on everyone else."

Detractors of cultural imperialism argue, however, that cultural domination poses a totalitarian threat to diversity. In the American case, "McDomination" poses several dangers.

First, local industries are truly at risk of extinction because of U.S. oligopolies, such as Hollywood. For instance in 2000, the European Union handed out 1 billion euros to subsidize Europe's

In 2,000 Years, Will the World Remember Disney or Plato? 165

film industry. Even the relatively successful British movie industry has no control over distribution, which is almost entirely in the hands of the Hollywood majors.

Second, political cultures are being transformed by the personality-driven American model in countries as far-reaching as Japan and the Philippines.

Finally, U.S. domination of technologies such as the Internet and satellite TV means that, increasingly, America monopolizes the view people get of the world. According to a recent report for the UN Conference on Trade and Development, 13 of the top 14 Internet firms are American. No. 14 is British. "You have to know English if you want to use the Internet," says Andre Kaspi, a professor at the Sorbonne in Paris.

A main problem is that culture is no longer a protected species, but subject to the inexorable drive for free trade, says Joost Smiers, a political science professor at the Utrecht School of the Arts. This means that it is increasingly difficult for coun­ tries to protect their own industries. France tries to do so with subsidies, while South Korea has tried quotas. Such "protection­ ist" tactics meet with considerable U.S. muscle, Dr. Smiers says. "America's aggressive cultural policy ... hinders national states from regulating their own cultural markets," he says. "We should take culture out of the WTO."

Another danger, detractors say, is the consolidation of the communications industry into a few conglomerates such as AOL· TimeWarner, Disney, and News Corporation, which means that the "infotainment" generated for global consumption nearly always comes from an Anglophone perspective. "You can't go on with just three music companies organizing and distributing 85 percent of the music in the world," says Smiers. "It's against all principles of democracy. Every emotion, every feeling, every image can be copyrighted into the hands of a few owners."

AMERICAN, WITH A TWIST

A backlash is being felt in certain places. In Japan, locals have taken U.S. ideas like hip-hop and fast food, and given them a Japanese twist, says Dominic al-Badri, editor of Kansai Time Out. In Germany, there is still strong resistance to aspects of U.S. pop culture, though there is an appetite for its intellectual culture, says Gary Smith, director of the American Academy in Berlin. In France, resistance is growing partly because of frustrations over

166 Mark Rice-Oxley

the Iraq war-but partly because Americanization is already so advanced in the country, says Mr. Kaspi.

He notes one interesting anecdotal sign of u.s. influence­ and the futility of resistance. France has repeatedly tried to man­ date the use of French language in official capacities to check the advance of English. "But most of the time, the law is impossible to apply, because if you want to be understood around the world you have to speak English," Kaspi says.

In the Philippines, even the best U.S. ideals have caused complications. "The pervasive American influence has saddled us with two legacies," notes respected local commentator Antonio C. Abaya. "American-style elections, which require the commitment of massive financial resources, which have to be recouped and rolled over many times, which is the main source of corruption in government; and American-style free press in which media feel free to attack and criticize everything that the government does or says, which adds to disunity and loss of confidence in government."

Meanwhile, for all the strength of the u.s. movie industry, sometimes a foreign film resonates more with a local audience than a Hollywood production-and outperforms it. For instance, Japan's Spirited Away (2001) remains the top-grossing film in that country, surpassing global Hollywood hits like Titanic. In addi­ tion, British TV has influenced and served up competition to U.S. shows, spawning such hits as Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, The Weakest Link, and American Idol [called Pop Idol in the UK].

1,000 YEARS FROM NOW

So how much good does American culture bring to the world? And how long will it last? Ian Ralston cautions against sweeping dismissals of u.s. pop culture. British television may be satu­ rated with American sitcoms and movies, but while some are poor, others are quite good, he says. "British culture has always been enriched by foreign influences. In some ways American cul­ ture and media have added to that enrichment." Others note that it is not all one-way traffic. America may feast largely on a diet of homegrown culture, but it imports modestly as well: soccer, international cuisine, Italian fashion, and, increasingly, British television.

As to the question of durability, some experts believe u.s. domination of communication channels makes it inevitable that

Is the World Falling Out ofLove with u.s. Brands? 167

its messages will become far more entrenched than those of previ­ ous empires. "The main difference now in favor of American culture is the importance of technology-telephone, Internet, films, all that did not exist in ancient Greece or the Mongol empire," Kaspi says. "American influence is growing, it's so easy to get access to U.S. culture; there are no barriers. "Disney is known worldwide now," he adds. "Plato is more and more unknown, even in Greece."

But not everyone thinks American culture will stand the test of time. "It remains to be seen whether the Monkees and Bee Gees are as durable as Plato," says Professor Young, with a dab of irony. "Let's have another look in 4,000 years' time."

Questions for Discussion and Writing

1. What problems or losses might the world at large be facing if it is prone to American cultural hegemony? Do you want to see a world that shares a single popular culture, style, or set of artistic ideas? How do Rice-Oxley's ideas differ from those of Brendon O'Connor in an earlier article?

2. The writer mentions a problem being that other political systems might become personality driven, as (he says) they are in the United States. What does he mean? Is this an element of politics that should be avoided? Why or why not?

3. What are some of the reasons why the cultural empire of the United States might last as long (or longer) than the culture of previous "empires"?

4. Why do you think that Mark Rice-Oxley uses the term "McDomination"? What does he mean by this and where does the term come from? How do you feel about his use of the term and the context in which he uses it?

Is the World Falling Out of Love with U_S_ Brands?

DAN ROBERTS

Dan Roberts is the U.S. Business Editor for The Financial Times (UK). This article appeared in that newspaper on December 29, 2004. Mr. Roberts was recipient of The World Leadership Forum Award for the Best Communications Submission at the 2002 Business Journalist of the Year Awards. In this article he investigates how