Globalization and Cultural Hegemony

Music is probably one of the most effective sociological and communication tools. Depending on the kind of music, it could appeal to individuals of almost every age group, gender and ethnicity. With the advent of the Internet and other means of telecommunication, music can also be appealing across boundaries. In short, music is now subject to globalization and this has been the case for the past several decades.


I love hip-hop music and closely follow artists like Eminem, The Game, Tupac etc, and thanks to the globalization of music, I am able to enjoy the same music that people from other nations listen to. Cultural globalization involves some sort of cultural exchange between different geographies that directly results in these countries enjoying foreign goods. These goods may not be solely materialistic goods, it could also be non-materialistic goods like music or lifestyles for instance. This process can take varying forms and produce a multitude of outcomes. According to some sociologists, this expanding transnational cultural exchange will in turn be profitable to certain countries, and in most cases, the United States seems to be yielding the most out of this cultural globalization. In fact, it would be right to say that the United States has established, knowingly or unknowingly, a cultural hegemony through its various music genres.

From fast-food culture to listening to hip-hop music, I believe that I am a part of America’s cultural hegemony. Although I listen to several American music artists, it is not necessary that an American should listen to Indian music (I am from India, FYI). Therefore, we see that cultural flow is only one-way, from dominant culture to peripheral culture, but not the other way round. By using tools like the internet and various applications, people around the world can tune in to listen to any music you want. I recently happened to learn about an application called Spotify, through which we can get access to almost all the music in the world even in your cellphone. I believe applications like these contribute a lot to the phenomenon of globalization.

So, is cultural globalization a positive phenomenon? Or is it just too overwhelming to know that you have been culturally imperialized? Something for the readers to think about.

Social Status defined by Material Culture

Maintaining a social status in the 21^st century is a tricky business. Back in the day when the birth of a child into the right family guaranteed it’s “enhanced” social status, people were fully aware of their places in the society. Now however, in many parts of the world, simply having ancestors who once held an important position in the society doesn’t fully guarantee the same to the successors. With the increasing flow of money in the global economy, money has become an increasing factor in achieving a higher degree of social status. In other words, money has become a symbol of power worldwide. I think at this point in time, it is okay to generalize the fact that the money has become a material culture which influences the social status of everyone. This form of achieved status has become very common in developing countries like India. A man with riches gets greater attention from the people around him than a mild-mannered reporter, even if he turns out to be Superman’s cousin.

But to be more exact, its how a person carries around his money that makes all the different in the world. In India, a rich family is expected to have at least two expensive cars at minimum along with drivers. The other wealthy people would almost always shun the one driving a car by a local manufacturer.

But this does not mean that there are only two status in society - rich and poor.

There are those which lie in between. For example, taking the example of Indian farmer, there is a gradient of distinction between the rich farmers and poor ones; even though, farming is considered a completely different status in society. A farmer is considered wealthier in society depending on his possession of land, his cattle, and other living stock.

A social status in general creates various interesting things to the economy of a country. In some Asian countries like China, large corporations hire Caucasian men to be the face of the company while expanding across borders. This is done to increase the “validity” of the company. The person is hired simply because he is Caucasian (white-skinned) and speaks good English. The person need not even have any commendable qualifications. This can be seen as an example of a master status overshadowing even that of the CEO (in certain cases). This can also be seen as impression management.

In Qatar, its interesting to see how perceived social statuses can play out on the road while driving. Drivers generally tend to give way to more expensive looking cars than ones that seem like they were made in a shed by Jeremy Clarkson (an observation my father and I share in common). And also, similar to the Indian culture, the possession of multiple cars is another indicator of a higher social status. This generally goes the same for other third world countries wherein the difference between the rich and poor is large.