Globalization and Cultural Hegemony: The Case of the Theyyams of Marakkappu.

Dr K M Sherrif Reader, Dept. of Studies in English Kannur University Abstract Globalization is often understood primarily in terms of Cultural hegemony, the USA posited as the hegemonic state which imposes its culture on the whole world. Alarm bells ringing in literatures of marginalized cultures amplify this concern. There are two crucial problems in this approach. For one, the economics and politics of culture are ignored. Secondly culture is defined mostly in terms of art and social ritual, and rarely in terms of lifestyle or material culture. This confusion prevailed in several analyses of the Chinese Cultural Revolution of 1966-76. It is true that globalization has blurred the difference between the two. The global market not only imposes lifestyles but also appropriates existing ones. The tourism industry that has developed around Ayurveda and Kalaraippayattu shows that market forces are more loyal than the king in preserving cultural heritage when it suits their interests. . Resistance in literatures of marginalized communities to the cultural hegemony imposed by globalization which ignores the role of market forces end up as cries in the wilderness. Such resistance often turns revivalist and is appropriated by global capital. It fizzles out unless it allies itself with the writing of political resistance which confronts global capital head-on

Full text
Globalization and cultural hegemony are often discussed in the same breath. The cultural hegemony one talks of in such instances is that of the West, more particularly of the USA. Marginalised cultures, especially tribal cultures, are counterpoised in discussions. Such discussion often arrives at the notion that globalization can only be resisted by the invocation of the vitality of the indigenous culture. One can take the article of Jeanette Armstrong, the Canadian First Nation writer and activist on the effects of globalization on her Okanagan community as a symptomatic instance. globalization often talk about globalization in terms of Cultural hegemony: the imposition of Western (often narrowly focused as US) culture on marginalized communities. This is especially marked in the counterpoising of tribal cultures in the Third World or even in Canada or Australia with European/Western cultures. The notion is that globalization can only be resisted by the assertion of the vitality of indigenous cultures. Globalization is depicted as destructive force which takes upon itself the mission of wiping out marginalized cultures to create a uni-cultural world. This notion of the cultural hegemony of globalization has to be examined from several angles. One, whether intolerance to a multi-cultural world is built into the logic of globalization. Two, whether cultural hegemony in its classical sense is a direct consequence of political hegemony. Third, whether global capital has any stake in imposing cultural hegemony.

Although globalisation is a comparatively new word, the phenomenon signified by the world is not new at all. John Ralston Saul quotes from John Maynard Keynes a description of how it was for a colonial global citizen in 1914: The inhabitant of London could order by telephone, sipping his morning tea in bed, the various products of the whole earth, in such quantity as he might see fit, and reasonably expect their early delivery upon his doorstep; he could at the same moment and by the same means adventure his wealth in the natural resources and new enterprises of any corner of the world, and share, without exertion or even trouble, in their prospective fruits and advantages . . . (P.9)It should be noted that when globalisation was set in motion in the early Seventies its proponents stressed beyond doubt that the prime motivation for globalization was economic. John Ralston Saul notes that the entire thrust of the present globalization movement which began in the early seventies was in making economics a religion (P.36-51) and that it failed to tackle European Cultural diversity. Such was globalizaion in its earlier avatars too, especially during the centuries of globalization. In fact British colonialism would provide the perfect backdrop for a discussion on the economics vs. religion debate. Imposing cultural hegemony was never a priority with them. Remember Queen Victorias proclamation banning missionary activity in India. Those colonial powers which have attempted imposition of cultural hegemony have fared worse off than those who were least bothered about it. Remember that Mcaulays minutes recommending the introduction of English education in India only had the very limited utilitarian aim of creating a class of clerks to do the companys work.