What we are is often better defined by simple elements of daily life than deep philosophical ideas. It’s the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the way we organize our living spaces that really spell our identity, what Bourdieu (1986, 1993) calls “habitus” and “structuring structures” – how is globalisation influencing what we are?
Throughout this essay the terms “globalisation” “culture” and “identity” will be used in full knowledge of their debatable meaning, with no pretense to define them. Culture becomes a very fuzzy concept in a globalised world (Lull, 2001).
In 2005-06 I filmed the African tour of a UK band playing music based on West African tradition, only half the band members were African, the concerts took place in various locations, including remote areas of Senegal and Gambia. The music was often perceived as exotic, and many in the young audience dressed and spoke like American rappers. This image exemplifies the visible cultural changes, uniforming of looks and behaviour that are becoming almost universal. The link to globalisation, the ubiquity of satellite television and mobile phones with Internet access, seems evident.
In the ongoing academic debate some forecast the end of local identities and the flattening of the world while others an increase in free flow of information allowing people more independence of choice and the spread of democracy and knowledge, in this essay I aim to indicate how the truth lies somewhere in the middle, with both theories being part of a more complex reality in the making.
In what became the anti-globalists’ manifesto Naomi Klein (2000) denounces international corporations’ world domination plan. Many of Klein’s points were correct and kick-started a debate resulting in visible improvements in corporations’ ethics, fortunately many of her direst predictions proved exaggerated.
In 1961, with considerable foresight, McLuhan imagined “the global village” assuming that electronic communication would have on human evolution an even greater impact than the invention of print: In this new age, humankind will move from individualism and fragmentation to a collective identity, with a “tribal base.” The internet took off 10 years after McLuhan’s death, but he had imagined it with cunning accuracy; one of his interesting (and controversial) points was that the medium is more important than the message it carries, in as much as it creates situations that are conducive to variations in human behavior, and that seems very relevant to the current global reality.
The creation of myths from distant lands has always existed. In ancient times the accounts of traveling merchants shaped visions of foreign people and places that endured over centuries. When western societies adopted science as their source of wisdom people were presented with scientists’ findings through the press, which most could barely read, and thus constructed their perception of the world. More recently the 60s and 70s generations made radical socio-political choices based on misleading representations of historical realities, such as the Maoist regime in China or revolutionary movements in South America. Having had the full picture and the critical ability to analyze it, choices would have been different. Truth is that people’s opinions and perceptions are always conditioned by partial representations of reality, and only a few are equipped with the knowledge needed to make accurate critical evaluations. Not all of this is an intentional evil scheme, it is in the nature of communication, think of the misunderstandings and misrepresentations within a relationship or a family, and magnify these by millions.
What is making a real difference is the unprecedented scale and speed of the creation of myths.
Homogeneous world domination by the Euro-American model is temporary at best, although overwhelming control by corporations to a certain extent has become a reality. The parallel between the Roman empire and 20th century US has often been made, but the similitude is weak and possibly the British empire would be a better example; as British historian Niall Ferguson (2004) maintains: the social and political structure of the US is closer to the Roman model while its economical attitude is closer to the British. Economists such as Stiglitz (2002) may be better placed than philosophers to picture the outcomes of globalisation, if anything because their views, in their stark realism, are based on data and practical, observable models.
The creation of what Giddens (1991) calls a “self-identity to sustain a narrative about the self and choose what to do, how to act” is perilously skewed by a vast input of non-contextualized messages that individuals receive via the media. Giddens describes identity as a project, ever evolving and reshaped by learning and experience, while Hall (1992) goes a step further, looking at the postmodern self as a hybrid of several, often contradictory identities. Framed by Foucault’s concept of the individual as purely the result of an historical process and moment (1969) this suggests how fickle the idea of a permanent identity is and how the variety of new identities available to global citizens is a reality beyond good and bad, in a game of multisided cultural appropriation.
I will be looking at two fields where the effects of globalisation are very visible: the imaginary space of television and the reality space of architecture.
Television – the imaginary space
Chomsky vocally criticized world’s cultural flattening by western corporations, which he called “corporate takeover of democracy”. He accused American media of manufacturing public consent, raising the concern that from al Qaeda to Wal-Mart the reality is almost irrelevant when compared to the perception people have of a branded world.
Globalisation of the media sounds good, but looking at it with disenchanted eyes shows us a distinct provincialism, an irony that is lost on the majority of the public, telling us that global information is probably more a concept than a reality. Sociology and modern strands of Philosophy may give too much credit to the power of globalisation to change world cultural identities, but looking at the development (and ownership) of communication networks many (Sparks, 2007 Hafez, 2007 Barker, 1999 Chomsky, 1997) legitimately ask whether globalised communication and access to information isn’t perhaps even more controlled and limited than it was when local information networks were acting independently and ideas were slower to shape.
The empires built by the likes of Murdoch or Belusconi testify to the political and economical power that is associated with the control of television. The question that remains unanswered is how deeply television has really homogenised world culture and where it is going now that the Internet and mobile phones are increasingly offering other ways of accessing information, with added interaction.
“The globalisation of television has provided a proliferating resource for both the deconstruction and reconstruction of cultural identities. That is, television has become a leading resource for the construction of identity projects.” (Barker 1999). The mediated nature of television and the massive amount of information that is delivered simultaneously across the globe is a factor that can’t be underestimated in its power to shape identities, accepting that these are ever evolving and never fixed.
The “customized” versions of international news bear a considerable responsibility when it comes to shaping people’s opinions, but are CNN and Al-Jazeera really succeeding? MTV may have had more effect than news broadcast, but how meaningful and long lasting are these effects? Where is the evidence?
Both positive and negative views seem to over-emphasize elements that are in reality still on a fairly small scale.
Fluid identity is shaped by interaction but in the case of TV and Internet there is an element of remote interaction that is too new to be fully understood in its future consequences.
The world vision we are presented with is editorialized and domesticated, the news we have access to and the way these are contextualized is in itself a way to create an ad-hoc narrative, intending to form our opinions. This can be manipulated at different levels, from the complete manufacturing of reality operated by totalitarian regimes to the subtler, but possibly, precisely for that reason, more effective system of capitalist democracies.
Independent information is available, but on such a small and fragmented scale to be almost irrelevant. Moreover, it tends to preach to the converted, as only people actively involved and concerned with certain issues will go the length of seeking it out, and even the independent information is often biased by an agenda.
Messages are detached from their original context, assimilated by people elsewhere, and recycled to become embedded in something new. This form of re-appropriation is in itself an organic and active process, leading to a ‘patchwork reality’ that Hall had named “world-of-the-whole”. While the consumption of television’s messages is passive, the application to one’s reality of the impression generated by these messages isn’t, and people do reinterpret them through the filter of their individual background. This results in a new language of the imagination, perhaps one that may seem like a mongrel for a time, before turning into a recognizable new species. That is how many languages developed over centuries of cross-pollination, integrating greatly different sources, and yet ending up as fully formed idioms.
How do we evaluate the impact of media and communication on the life and decisions of actual people? What criteria do we use?
Cuba is a uniquely interesting place to make observations in this field. People’s level of literacy and education is higher than average and the isolation the island has been subjected to sheltered it somehow from an overwhelming influence of American culture. Despite decades of life under a regime people are considerably better equipped to be critical than most of their US and South American counterparts. Nevertheless, a very large proportion of the population follows with utmost dedication Mexican and Latin American telenovelas, families and friends gather around the TV set over long afternoons, yet the effects of these viewings seem very superficial. Those who maintain television has killed local identities seem to give an exaggerated importance to the effects it has had in developing countries, the theory makes sense but the evidence is scant.
On the other hand, those who say globalisation had no effect on people’s worldview underestimate the suggestive power of mythologies that can spread virally and become more real than reality.
Countries need to preserve local traditions, a process termed ‘glocalization’ by most social anthropology theorists, and in recent years many have started producing more and more of their television programmes. If it is true that the US still has a large share of the world market, it is also true that local productions exist independently and are growing fast, even though it is difficult to evaluate a reality that varies greatly from country to country.
The visible elements that may give us the impression of a newly flattened world are in fact rather superficial, they include the spread of certain fashions in clothing or the fame of sports and entertainment personalities, not enough to prove that cultural identities are being completely lost in a non-descript Americanisation of the world.
Lull (1997) observes how the attempt of the Chinese government to monopolise television production to manufacture a “Chinese identity” has backfired and people appropriated television with results that were quite opposite to the government’s plan. Surprises are to be had.
An over-quoted example is MTV, the television channel with one of the largest audiences (411.7 million households in 164 territories in 2004 – MTV data) that has, willingly or not, had an impact on the imaginary vocabulary that millions of people around the planet share. However, even MTV had to change over time to accommodate local taste and has become more localized, showing that there is a limit to how far corporate global take-over can go (Hafez, 2007).
At the same time if we observe the changes, mostly positive, that the availability of affordable mobile communication is having everywhere in the developing world we can’t but be optimist and hope for widespread improvements.
Much of this debate is not new. Back in the 70s the end of direct colonial domination left the stage open to a subtler network of interdependencies. Local puppet governments replaced foreign rulers and the media took a more important role in shaping people’s opinions, both in the ex-colonies and ex-colonizing countries.
The failure of the imperialism paradigm (Sparks, 2007) became subject of debate, international organizations initiated new discourses, and the role of media in forming new identities was given greater attention. UNESCO became prominent among these organizations, promoting debate and research such as the commissioning of the MacBride report in the context of what was known as the New World Information and Communication Order.
The report dates to 1980, and was already considering the imbalance of the flow of information and its consequences. Most of the information was and still is produced in rich western countries, where more is made and stronger is the capacity of distribution. Also, the recipients of this flow of information are inevitably the richest members of societies in developing countries. The consequence is that the poorest around the world don’t have a voice of their own and in most cases are just receivers of representations of reality manufactured elsewhere. Despite technological progress the situation hasn’t yet changed as much as we are led to believe, nor in the most positive of directions.
It is interesting to note that many worthwhile initiatives devised by UNESCO to redress acknowledged imbalances in the world media were never implemented for the withdrawal of the US and UK in the late 80s as both countries profoundly (if not openly) disagreed with the principles of a more open media.
What Sontag named “chronic voyeuristic relation to the world” (1977) has since developed into something much deeper and more widespread thanks to television, whereby forming experiences are increasingly absorbed via mediated and manufactured media rather than personal direct experience. This not only makes the acquired knowledge more fragile but also more easily manipulated, however, globalisation may be a necessary myth (Hafez, 2007) that can help us maintain a healthy critical debate on the potential new forms of colonialism heralded by the media.
The technology that enabled true global communication via satellite is contemporary to the 1991 Gulf War; far from having resulted in more impartiality, over ten years later manipulated media was instrumental in contributing to divide the world and start a new major war based on fictional reporting. This fact alone should make us question what is the real meaning of global media and communication and call for greater scrutiny.
Architecture – the real space
With its visible stratifications and juxtapositions Architecture provides a concrete reminder of the flux of time and evolution. It does so in a subtle and practical way, which defines the way people live. More than most other human expressions architecture reflects humanity in its daily real essence (Speck, 2006).
Visiting places with a complex history, such as towns around the Mediterranean, one can read and feel history everywhere in the architecture and spaces. Sicily is such a place, where one can see buildings with Greek foundations topped by Roman columns, filled-in by Norman walls where Arabs inserted their intricately laced windows to which the Spaniards added baroque balconies. A 360° spin in a square of most towns is enough to “know” history and “see” the layering of cultures, with its consequent shaping of complex identities that organically integrated over time. Had these building been demolished, at any stage in history, and replaced by something totally new and stranger what would the consequences have been? Breaking the continuity and transplanting imported models undermines culture and identity.
The analysis of the way architecture was used in Nazi Germany to reshape culture and rewrite history (DeCoste and Schwartz, 2000) exemplifies the fundamental importance the inhabited space had throughout history in defining the identity of its inhabitants and vice versa. There is a profound psychological cause and effect relationship between humans and the space they occupy, as important as that of language in shaping what Lacan termed the “symbolic ego” (Hendrix, 2009, Lacan 1966).
Good architecture is flexible and evolves over time adjusting to human needs and reflecting them (Brand, 1994). Brand, referring both to architecture and communication technologies, was convinced that, given the necessary awareness, knowledge and tools, human beings might reshape the world they had made for themselves into something environmentally and socially sustainable. All around the world a kind of uniform “global architecture” is rapidly replacing an infinite range of styles, techniques, materials and shapes, and this may be a more permanent erasure of identity than that caused by television. This architecture owes its looks and structure to practical rather than cultural reasons. Availability of materials, compatibility of pre-made modular elements, standardization of appliances’ size and so on, all contribute to a uniformity that is crucially important in creating the future. Also, migrant workers learn skills and techniques while working abroad and then import these when they return home to build their own homes. All these contribute to the creation of a new kind of environment that is often lacking distinctive features and character. Poverty and lack of education contribute to the process too, people are legitimately eager to achieve a better standard of living and happy to swap their traditional homes for modern dwellings, convinced that new necessarily implies better. This has always happened and while the direct improvement of material quality of life usually benefits, the quality of “social” life often suffers. Structures that had developed over centuries were in tune with people’s way of life and symbiotic with it. Dismantling these complex structures and replacing them with modern rational buildings does not work long term, yet a practical alternative is hard to imagine.
Over the years most experiments of manufacturing living environments failed, even those based on very sound principles, testifying to the need for an evolutive process and the weakness of superimposed models.
In periods of rapid development, such as after wars and natural disasters, excessive zeal and enthusiasm for reconstruction and renovation can suddenly erase a whole set of essential markers and identifiers. Europe after WWII went through a deep and radical transformation. The reconstruction effort meant that sizeable urban areas were rebuilt completely while large numbers of people moved from the countryside to cities.
That radically changed culture and the social fabric of which the style of homes and structure of public spaces are important components.
What is happening now in some parts of the world is a faster and deeper change of that same kind. China is a prime example of systematic and sudden removal of the physical vestiges of history. Whole cities are being bulldozed, completely disappearing in a matter of weeks. The inhabitants displaced and dispersed, new large buildings made and populated with migrant workers or new affluent citizens.
Little attention is paid to social spaces, as these aren’t useful in a perspective of economic development. Massive structures are built that incorporate all services so that people hardly need to leave the building they live in. If we look at most traditional urban structures these all developed around some crucial social space of human interaction, the market square and the places of worship being the most universal ones. Is the shopping centre the modern day substitute? This concept, originally developed in the US, has become a defining model, and it is difficult to imagine how future historians and archaeologists will look back at shopping centres of the 21st century as social gathering places.
Stratification is essential, any sense of identity requires continuity over time, and the element that should probably concern us most in these cases of sudden and imported modernization is the removal of traces of the past. The model that many are adopting around the world is greatly influenced by what people see in films and TV serials. Fueled by the desire to imitate models that have come to signify progress and wealth people build their own interpretation of Dallas’ mansions and Dubai’s skyscrapers.
There are some very good reasons why this is happening, and with a realist approach one must recognize that in many cases the elimination of poor quality or decaying, if charming, buildings results in a definite improvement of the quality of life for many, a better infrastructure, improved hygiene, services and transport. These advantages are undeniable and welcome, but the total disregard for local cultures and identities should be of great concern to us all, because its long-term consequences will almost certainly be detrimental. There can be no healthy society without a psychologically balanced sense of belonging. At a time when already more than half the world population is living away from the place of origin and in large urban areas, the disappearance of reference points, physical and psychological, can create a void of unthinkable consequences. This also leaves an open and barren territory for black & white ideologies, fundamentalisms of all sorts, palliative pseudo-cultures, unexplained resentment, solitude and lack of meaning. A greater attention to the survival and continuity of distinct identities should be a priority.
Trying to impose on people in developing countries a kind of “conservationist” approach would be patronizing and difficult to justify, but more pressure should be put on governments to act responsibly. UNESCO’s initiatives such as the World Heritage Sites preservation, are positive and useful, but culture and identity can’t be preserved in a museum, they cease to exist when they aren’t lived and felt by people in their daily reality. It is also interesting to observe how these initiatives are looked upon with some puzzlement and bemused curiosity by many in the interested locations. In most cases “old” (which may be 100 or 1000 years, irrespective) is identified with poor and backward, hence to be removed. Attention to architecture will become more crucial in the global world, the University of Westminster now offers a MA course titled Architecture, Cultural Identity and Globalisation, which seems to acknowledge the need for specific analysis of this subject.
What can we learn?
What we can observe in places that underwent radical and fast changes is that once achieved some measure of comfort and integration people start feeling a void, and that’s when the search for roots begins. Cultures and identities can assimilate and integrate in an organic way when changes are gradual, taking the best of each other, but the speed of our globalised world prevents this natural process and, in case of systematic radical changes like those taking place in the sprawling new megalopolises of the developing world, piecing together traces of the past becomes almost impossible.
This often results in a trauma that can take different shapes, some affecting individuals, others wider social groups, and that can also cause hostile backlashes, leaving people feeling resentful for the loss of their individual essence, causing aggressive stances, such as the radicalization of some second and third generation immigrants to Europe and the US, particularly visible in the Islamic community but equally worrying in other less noticeable and advertised groups.
Many take life changing decisions like emigrating to another continent or joining a terrorist group, based on the myths their minds have created by mixing the partial realities absorbed through television and conditioned by alien environments they found themselves living in.
Humans need diversity, the tendency to “flatten” the world exists, mainly motivated by economic and practical factors, and, inevitably, important elements of cultures that are less dominant will be lost. Reviving these with a conservationist approach can preserve their memory, but can’t make them come back to life, and that is the real loss. Cultures that evolve slowly tend to be more consistent and real, the speed of change makes new identities and cultures more fragile and temporary, almost something one can choose to wear like a new fashion.
From an individual’s psychological point of view this is almost certainly negative, consequently it is also negative for society at large as a sum of its components. The idea of a multicultural society, its various descriptions of which the UK, US and France for instance have distinctly different versions, doesn’t seem to provide the answer to the need for a real, spontaneous offspring of the merging of different civilizations. The vast and fast movement of people between countries, made simpler and more necessary by the development needs of globalisation, doesn’t allow for the stratification and sedimentation of different life styles and cultures in a way that is sustainable.
It is difficult to imagine what kind of multicultural societies will be predominant and more significative once this first wave of fast development will be over, estimates vary as to how long it will take for the balance of dominance and influence to shift from Europe/US to China/India or some other combination.
Borrowing indicators of identity, such as local figures of speech, makes people feel more at ease, belonging, thus avoiding the all too real risk of feeling displaced and estranged that comes with migration, cultural assimilation, and fluid cultural identity. These indicators can equally be used, more or less voluntarily, to associate or dissociate oneself from the surrounding context. There is a generational contextualization too, often young generations use foreign, imported ways of expressing themselves to dissociate from the previous generation and the local traditions, perceived as backwards. In that situation young people are more likely to adopt models they see on TV from far counties as a means to symbolize their being modern. In this context the use of language and its various forms of slang is extremely important to define one’s belonging to one group or another (Chuang, 2004) “There are only strategies based on identity” (Bayart, 1996) and one or the other model is assumed as the dominating or “correct” one depending on political and economical convenience, leaving people only apparently free to choose where they belong or told they belong somewhere because of race, gender, social or historical constructs that are mostly borne out of convenience. “There are a few contemporary matters that do not involve the problem of the illusion of identity” (Bayart, 1996) and the process of globalisation, with its apparent openness and ability to encompass all cultural identities in a multicultural world, has failed to prevent conflicts based on differences in (perceived) cultural identity, from Rwanda to the Ex-Yugoslavia, from Kashmir to Sudan, from Shia and Sunni to Hindu and Muslims, the choice is sadly vast. While the superficial elements of human societies worldwide have assimilated models, products, ways of being, becoming increasingly similar and exchangeable, the cultural differences that matter have remained and often their frictions have been exacerbated by the need to survive and the fear of being overwhelmed.
We are being pulled in two opposite directions. One of unification and uniformity, needed by capitalism to survive and by the world to function in terms of economy, communication, transportation, travel and all matters practical, and one of diversification and retrenchment behind the sheltering screens of individual cultural identities, which are needed by humans to feel unique, independent, real and belonging. These tensions affect people’s lives and psyche, to a level most are unaware of.
The definition “clash of civilizations” has appeared in many and diverse public discourses after the 9/11 dramatic events, and it is a worrying indication of a reality that is far from the homogenising model promoted by globalisation. The fact that this “clash of civilizations” is more an artificial manipulative construct than a reality doesn’t make it less dangerous as it supports a whole range of political and cultural choices, not to mention forming the backbone of international policies leading to conflicts that would be technically avoidable.
The kind of justifications that this concept offers to political choices, that would otherwise appear for what they are, insane propositions supported by fickle reasons to the detriment of most for the profit of a few, can’t be underestimated, it is not too far from the “scientific truths” that supported, justified and allowed colonization, slavery and holocaust(s). The ability of the media and political propaganda to convince entire (assumedly well educated and critically minded) populations of the need and justice of going to war, supporting one or the other regime, help a country while strangling another with economic restrictions and so on is hard to believe if looked through a critical lens. However, the examples in the late 20th and early 21st century abound and we can’t dismiss them as freak accidents.
Goethe coined the world Urphenomånen to describe his concept of universal principles that unify humankind in the respect and admiration for diversity. This essential need for understanding was debated and described by many philosophers and intellectuals, from the Enlightenment days to contemporary thinkers such as Julia Kristeva, (1993) who explores in depth the need for a real understanding and acceptance of difference and cultural identities if we are to hope for a peaceful and progressive world, yet the special interests of small groups have often succeeded in shaping people’s beliefs and behaviours, resulting in countless conflicts. Our modern globalised world doesn’t seem better than its predecessors at coping with this dilemma between integration and difference, togetherness and individuality. Multicultural societies are still very much a project with no material and practical execution.
While we may look forward to the end of the state and national ideologies it is difficult to be sure if substituting that with a global order with international corporations at the helm is preferable (Hassner, 1995). While we can observe with concern a visible Americanisation of the world we can also see the strengthening and stiffening of local identities and the birth of new “modes of resistance”.
The oversimplification we have been asked to accept when it comes to define ourselves is unrealistic. Whether it be on the basis of religion, language, race, national identity or else, the herding of large numbers of human beings into corralled categories can only be detrimental to their individual development as well as to the peaceful and productive exchange between them.
We need to invent a form of connected diversity, where individuals remain distinct, traditions survive side by side and contribute to a fluid continuous evolution. Contact between different peoples always brought new knowledge, merging of ideas, habits and techniques. There is an inherently positive value in this exchange, it’s at the heart of evolution. But the graduality of it is essential, both because it allows for the new to be understood and absorbed and because it preserves what is good of the old. Looking at history we could say that identities are as much a manufactured concept as a naturally evolved mode of life, a sudden replacement of a model with a new one, even when it is not directly imposed, generally results in a schizophrenic culture.
The Orwellian view of a lobotomized world controlled by bureaucracy and the media never quite materialised, humans have proven remarkably resilient to systematic “flattening”, the various dictatorships that have regularly defined periods of human history all had ambitious homogenising projects, all appealed to human insecurity for a period of time, all caused immense damage and suffering, but all were eventually defeated. Human inherently anarchic spirit comes to the rescue of the equally human sheepish flock attitude. A spread of knowledge will help counterbalance the flattening attempts of even the most organized media and capitalist corporation, but the spread of knowledge is far slower than capitalist investment, thus presenting us with a range of possible outcomes and some real risks that could lead to a less varied world based on a reductive model of life.
Like with the environment, we are causing damage at a speed that is greater than that at which we can develop solutions, however, we cannot slow down the pace of development because too many depend on it to improve their life conditions.
We can’t underestimate the possibility that the uniforming effect of media myths and languages may result in a backlash against these standardized models, and an increased resistance against local nationalistic trends.
Anti-globalists are right in raising the alarm and calling for more responsible choices, but they should adopt a more realist approach, while globalists should be more critical and look beyond the surface of fast material progress.
A monoculture is by its own nature inbred, sterile and destined to extinction, and nature will hopefully devise some expedient to ensure that the variety of humanity will remain, globalisation does not necessarily imply homogenisation.
Appadurai, A. (1996) Modernity at large: cultural dimensions of globalisation – Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.
Barker, C. (1999) Television, Globalisation and Cultural Identities – Maidenhead, Open University Press/McGraw Hill Education.
Barthes, R. (1970) L’empire des signes – Paris, Skira.
Barthes R. (1980) La Chambre claire, Notes sur la photographie – Paris, Gallimard/Seuil/Cahiers du cinema.
Bayart, J. F. (1996) The illusion of cultural identity – Paris, Libraire Arthème Fayard.
Brand, S. (1994) How Buildings Learn – New York, Viking Press
Burdieu, P. (1986) The habitus and the space of life-styles – London, Routledge.
Chomsky, N. (1997) Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda – New York, Seven Stories Press.
Chomsky, N. Herman, E. S. (1988) Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media – New York, Pantheon Books.
DeCoste, F. C. Schwartz, B. (2000) The Holocaust’s ghost: writings on art, politics, law, and education – Edmonton, Alberta, University of Alberta Press.
Ferguson, N. (2004) Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire – London, Allen Lane/Penguin Press
Fong, M. Chuang, R. (2004) Communicating ethnic and cultural identity – Lanham MD, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.
Foucault, M. (1969, 2002) The Archaeology of Knowledge – London, Routledge.
Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age – Cambridge, Polity Press.
Hafez, K. (2007) The myth of media globalisation – Cambridge, Polity Press.
Hall, S. (1977) Culture, the media and the ideological effect, in J. Curran, M. Gurevich and J. Woolacott (eds) Mass Communication and Society – London, Edward Arnold/Open University Press.
Hall, S. (1992) The question of cultural identity, in S. Hall, D. Held and T. McGrew (eds) Modernity and its futures – Cambridge, Polity Press.
Hassner, P. (1995) Violence and peace: from the atomic bomb to ethnic cleansing – Budapest, Central European University Press.
Hendrix, J. S., (2009) Psychoanalysis and Identity in Architecture – School of Architecture, Art, and Historic Preservation Roger Williams University Bristol, Rhode Island, Faculty Papers. Paper 10 http://docs.rwu.edu/saahp_fp/10
Klein, N. (2000) No logo – New York, Picador.
Kristeva, J. (1993) Nations without Nationalism – New York, Columbia University Press.
Lacan, J. (1966) Ecrits – Paris, Les éditions du Seuil.
Lull, J. (2001) Culture in the communication age – London, Routledge.
Lull, J. (1991) China Turned On: Television, Reform and Resistance – London, Routledge.
MacBride S. (1980) Many Voices One World, Report by the International Commission for the Study of Communication Problems, UNESCO – London , Kogan Page / New York, Uniput / Paris, UNESCO.
McLuhan, M. (1962) The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man – Toronto, University of Toronto Press.
Sontag, S. (1977) On Photography – New York, Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Sparks, C. (2007) Globalisation, Development and the Mass Media – London, Sage.
Speck, L. (2006) Architecture, Globalisation, and Local Cultural Identity http://larryspeck.com/2006/01/04/architecture-globalisation-and-local-cultural-identity/ Originally published in Technology, Sustainability, and Cultural Identity, New York, Edizioni Press.
Stiglitz, J. (2002) Globalisation and its discontents – London, Penguin.
Additional readings, not quoted
Bauman, Z. (1998) Globalisation: the human consequences – Cambridge, Polity
Christopherson, A. Garretsenb, H. Martinc, R. (2008) The world is not flat: putting globalisation in its place
Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Cambridge Political Economy Society http://cjres.oxfordjournals.org/content/1/3/343.full
De Block, L. Buckingham, D. (2010) Global Children, Global Media: Migration, Media and Childhood – Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan
Nayak, A. (2003) Race, place and globalisation: youth cultures in a changing world – Oxford, Berg
Rantanen, T. (2004) The media and globalisation – London, Sage Publications
Siapera, E. (2010) Cultural Diversity and Global Media: The Mediation of Difference – Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell
Thussu, D. K. (1998) Electronic Empires: Global Media and Local Resistance – London, Bloomsbury Academic
Torre, S. Fox, G. (2007) Architecture and the construction of cultural identity or learning from Latin America – Multicultural Urban Design http://www.mudonline.org/aat/