From the Imperial Family to the Transnational Imaginary: Media Spectatorship in the Age of Globalization

Shohat and Stam claim that media are central to studies of globalization and identity. They hold this central position because they facilitate engagement with distant peoples and places, which is necessary for globalization.
The Ambiguities of the Local and the Global
The terms "local" and "global" have come up numerous times in the course, often as dichotomies. Many theorists have claimed that the two are interdependent and that they are not opposite ends of the spectrum, but I still feel that they are pushed to the periphery and seen as extreme cases of the globalization era. I also feel that postcolonial studies tend to view the global as bad. That is not necessarily true.
Shohat and Stam discuss how the media has a global reach, and that allows culture to move outside of nation-state boundaries. Third and First Worlds are interlinked and interdependent. Nation-states have multiracial people and multiethnic practices. The term globalization evokes utopian ideas of a seamlessly wired global village, the worldwide availability of information and the transcendence of ideological and political agendas. It also evokes dystopian ideas of homogenization of culture, annihiliation of political economy and an ecological catastrophe. As I mentioned above, critics tend to place globalization in extremes when they explain it, and fail to account for the position that our world sits at on that spectrum. Shohat and Stam say the same thing: to avoid the two pitfalls of euphoria and melancholy.
Even though older hegemonies have died out, and colonial rule has come to an end, "much of the world remains entangled in neocolonialism, that is, a conjuncture in which direct political and military control has given way to abstract, semi-indirect, largely economic forms of control whose linchpin is a close alliance between foreign capital and the indigenous elite" (Shohat and Stam). The contemporary global scene is now dominated by powerful nation-states: Western Europe, the United States, Japan. Neocolonialism has made First World countries cultural transmitters and Third World countries cultural receivers. Even though each nation produces its own culture, only the First World nations project their culture onto the global scene. Example: Hollywood movies in practically every nation in the world, even where people do not speak English. In rural Pakistan where the English language was non-existant, the film Titanic was the highest grossing film of that year. When Kate Winslet went to visit some of these areas, she was surprised to find out that the rural folk knew her as "Rose". (Personally, I would have been rather embarassed if I'd known that conservative people in rural Pakistan had seen my film and me nude). Third World movies make up the majority of world's cinema, yet they are not featured in cinema, nor discussed in academia. Third World cinema is economically dependent on funding, and if they attempt to limit Hollywood exposure in their areas to promote their own cinemas, Hollywood (and the US) will pull out funding in some other area like trade, and leave the Thrid World nation at loss. Hollywood also makes its budget in the US/First World markets, and can afford to "dump" its productions on Third World audiences at low costs. Shohat and Stam also notice that the flow of culture and productions between the First and Third Worlds is not balanced. More information flows from First to Third, taking its ideologies with it. And very little information flows in the opposite direction. This silences one producer while raising the voice of the other producer. I would like to point out, however, that South America and India are using the power of the people to regain some of the information flow into the West. Due to the large numbers of people from South America and India in the West (diasporas), these nations can send their productions out into the West and target them at their diasporas. Eventually, these productions tend to leak into the mass culture as well. For example, the boom of Indian musicians in the UK happened because Indian artists like RDB, Bally Sagoo, Rishi Rich, etc. made music for the Indians in England and that music eventually crossed boundaries and became part of popular culture in the UK, Singapore, Canada, the US and other nations. The same principals can be observed in South American artists (RBD, Shakira, Ricky Martin, Sean Paul).
Shohat and Stamp do have some criticisms of the media imperialism thesis:
- It is too simple to imagine an active First World forcing its products onto a passive Third World.
- Global mass media does not replace local media, but the two coexist.
- Western mass media can be indigenized and localized.
- Some nations like India, Egypt, Brazil and Mexico dominate their own markets and even export their culture (as I'd mentioned above).

The Antecedents of Globalization
Globalization comes out of colonialism, imperialism and European colonialism. The begining of cinema coincided with imperialism. The silent-films most prolific producers were also leading imperialsit nations- Gernamy, France, England and the US. This led to the boys in their nations who were exposed to these films to believe in imperialist proceses as their future duty. The cinema raised future colonizers. Cinema helped cement both a national and an imperial sense of belonging among many disparae peoples, and it allowed an assimilated elite to identify with its empire and against the colonized people.

Spectatatorial Displcements
Spectatoship of film does not automatically have an effect on the imperial imaginary. It is a site of negotiation between interaction and struggle with ideologies.

Media Culture and Community Identity
Ciname provides blockbusters as well as alternative films which help different audiences react differently. Audeinces do tend to notice disclusion from the media, and are increasingly taking stand to present their counter-media. Examples of this would be films like Rang de Basanti in India, Omni TV programming in Canada and even "brown jams" at clubs in Toronto.