Subverting Emic and Etic Perspectives in a Commodified and Central Cultural Apparatus.

On Cultural Exchange and Global Markets.

Division and bipolarity are not new to humanity. In the twentieth century only, we have experienced various forms, such as axis and allies, democracy and communism, east and west and Pictorialism and formalism. Today, these divisions seem to have vanished, as if the line that separated these diverse but recurrent opposites has been blurred by globalization and cultural migration. But to what extent have these divisions been obscured? This essay attempts to analyze the current situation of the cultural apparatus in the global context. To start with, we need to understand the world in terms of Centre and Periphery.
Cultural centers such as London, New York, Copenhagen and Berlin are usually referred to as cosmopolitan and multicultural. Between these two terms there is a very small difference yet very important. Two differences can be distinguished here: the first one relates merely to people from different territories, the second, to alien cultures and ethnic groups integrated within a society. I would like to leave ethnicity aside, and take the term culture and society for the purpose of this essay.
Let’s take London as a case study. In this city we find various cultures.
But can we say London is multicultural, merely cosmopolitan or both? If we were to make a culture-geographical map of London, following the line of the psycho-geographical maps that the Situationists constructed, we could clearly map different territories for different cultures in the city. The most evident differences could be drawn in the periphery. In the center, we would find a multicultural pastiche or hybridization, closer to what is considered as English culture. The main cultural institutions are found in the center, and cultural flow occurs from center –where the dominating cultural institutions are found- to the periphery. We can see cultural influence from the center in the periphery, and an adaption of the central ideas of culture. The center in turn, allows cultural difference of the periphery, but expects the periphery to adopt the center’s socio-cultural ways. This is a condition to exist within society and also have access to the center. The peripheral cultures are manifested in the center as well, but this manifestation occurs only in an academic level and through political interests.
In an analogy to the global village, this example comes as close as no other; the difference being, that the periphery remains territorially independent – although never culturally independent. Still, cultural flow happens from center to periphery and in order for the periphery to be taken as a form of culture, there must be an adoption of central ideals of culture. Otherwise, the periphery runs the risk of being considered as a lower form of culture, or even as an enemy of hegemonic culture.
This problem of cultural flow manifests in the periphery. In a way, it does the opposite in the center: it helps it’s citizens in accepting their hegemony in the world, allowing an easier understanding of the peripheral world, and reinforcing the idea that “they are not so different after all”.
In the case of Latin America, this unidirectional cultural flow has interrupted the process of cultural identity formation that has been going on for only two hundred years. » Read the rest of this entry «