 |
 |
||||
 |
|||||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
||
|
|
|
|
Chapter 18 | Mircea Vultur (continued) 2. the interference of cultural globalization in eastern europe Among the numerous questions raised by this colloquium, I hold back some which seem congruent with smaller Eastern European societies. I shall privilege some thematic axes of this colloquium, the one evoking interference lines of questions approached with the Eastern European area. 2.1 new technologies and information medias As mentioned by Michael Cross, through media and information technologies, globalization generates localism and allows smaller societies be in the forefront of larger ones. One could say that this is a positive influence. Corresponding to the above mentioned definition of cultural globalization, when we deal with globalized localisms, we can see that such a situation makes elements of local culture acquire, at any given moment, international exposure. Gobalization is not only a factor in the homogenization of culture, but it can also favour the emergence of extra-American and extra-Western cultural models which, up to now, were not worth mentioning in terms of a Hegelian conception of the cultural history of the world. A good example of this is what Carole Lévesque mentioned about the visibility gained by aboriginal knowledge in the new globalized order. The planetary interconnection of information technologies also incites the discovery of other cultures. It is through cultural globalization that the smaller societies of Eastern Europe have come to know and overcome so-called cultural incompatibilities, which in fact are the consequence of mutual ignorance. This is a factor of extreme importance, in a context where the experience of the Balkans shows us how individuals raised in different cultures can behave without respect or compassion for others. Without planetary cultural policies, which could bring smaller societies and nations closer together, it is cultural globalization which today favours reciprocal knowledge. Through it, respect for the cultures of others can become socially useful and a basic condition for a new social contract. 2.2 linguistic unification In Eastern Europe, the fear of linguistic Americanization and the domination of the English language does not exist as a serious concern. The process of the spreading of the English language is not working to the detriment of other languages of regional or global cultures here, as is the case with the French language. The French language has known popularity in this region since the intensification of cultural exchanges in the actual global world. The French language is well rooted there, and is moving toward an even stronger position. The cultural phenomenon of the French language succeeding is linked to the process of globalization, which resulted in the policies of Francophony not being defensive and inward, but more and more open to cultural riches and diversity. On the other hand, we can see that the logic of the dissemination of languages is not the same as that of commodities. The way one appropriates a given language is different from the consumption of material goods or of economic integration. The weakening of borders is, for the new Eastern European generations, an incitement to discover and assimilate other languages, out of passion or necessity. Speaking more than one language and moving around in other cultures is now a valuable professional asset. Léon Bernier, in his paper about youth and art, has pinpointed how this encounter arises through free expression, not as the result of a policy of cultural reproduction. I would like to know how many young people today learn French, German, Russian and even the languages of smaller societies like Romanian freely, because of globalization. It is certain that they are numerous; this is a positive development. Globalization, inasmuch as it is spreading cultures and languages all over the world, is the best means of preserving them. 2.3 cultural industries Regarding cultural industries, there is a tension in Eastern Europe between the supporters of institutional help for culture and the promoters of laissez-faire applied to cultural production. Mistrusting everything that comes from the State, Eastern European cultural producers have turned to the private sector for financing because it seems more likely than State institutions to encourage the expression of individual freedom for artistic creation. This situation is such that the prevailing opinion is that the success or failure of a cultural product depends on the market. This, of course, favours American cultural productions. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
