QUESTION: In your opinion, are transnational corporations destroying local economies and cultures?

     In Jamesons chapter ‘Globalization as Philosophical Issue’ he states: 

“I believe that globalization is a communiational concept, which alternately masks and transmits cultural or economic meanings.” (p.55)

Essentially, transnational corporations such as Wal-Mart, McDonalds etc. take their home cultures and spread them around the world. The color schemes, symbols and products of said corporations are readily associated with America wherever they may be spotted. Jameson notes that globalization both masks and transmits cultural and/or economic meanings and despite the contradictory nature of this statement, it holds so true in both senses. Take for example McDonalds…the company masks culture because when there are 20 of the fast food restaurants on one street in Japan the only way you’d know you’re actually in Tokyo rather than Manhatten is that the signs are written in a completely different language (oh, and a hot dog will cost you about 100 times the amount here); the traditional aesthetic of the host country is bombarded by alien culture and thus proposes a mask or loss of originality and tradition. However on the other hand, the traditional Japanese culture would also then be more appreciated because of the invasion AND American culture would give the Japenese a more well rounded view of American culture with actual real life exposure without having to leave their home country. Little Italy, China Town, Brooklyn (Jewish areas)…all of these areas are cherished by New Yorkers and tourists a like because of the melting pot of culture. Economically transnational corporations (generally) do local economies well…they bring in a lot of people because of recognition and they help keep competition up with the smaller stores. Unfortunately many small time stores do go out of business because of large corporations but that is just the price of a free market economy and it helps consumers get better service and goods because of the competitive market.

     I’d also like to point out something else about culture. As stated above, cultural imperialism has different sides which can be taken as good or bad for local economies and cultures but it is hard for anyone to honestly say what’s happening is ‘good’ or ‘bad ‘ for a ‘culture’ when culture itself is a subjective term. Mignolo feels that culture is a byproduct of civilization:

“The distinction between civilization and culture, as process and product, contributed to the internal colonialism enacted by intellectuals from colonized areas who fought against the “barbarism” of their culture in pro of the European civilization.” (p.34)

     He also points out that the intellectuals from the beginning fought out against ‘barbarism’ and uncivil behavior of current cultures in recognizing that the European way of life is the ideal. If this is true than is the definition of culture not a never ending loop of trying to find what is civil and ‘right?’ Should culture be defined as one’s reality on which he/she was brought up, than culture in itself is an extremely subjective term. Because of this subjectivity it is hard to say exactly whether transnational corporations and globalizations have a good or bad impact on culture itself.