The impact of American culture on other countries

Da har jeg fått tilbake min eksamensbesvarelse i internasjonal engelsk. I etterkant ser jeg at jeg kanskje skriver i overkant pretensiøst, men ellers jeg ganske fornøyd. Jeg har rettet opp et par skrivefeil. Karakter 6.

In our modern world, the USA has a military hegemony, and along with it, a cultural, informative, philosophical and political hegemony. Largely, this is to be expected: since the fall of the Soviet Union, Pax Americana has been the state of the world, and the USA is not only ensuring our national security; it has since World War Two financed almost all European defence expenditures (thus freeing up resources to create the European welfare state). Arguably, European states have de facto become American protectorates, and from this one would expect a lot of influence on European thought.

There is also a significant economic component to this development: especially with regards to news reporting, many resources are needed to provide adequate covering of world events, which relatively small economies like the Norwegian simply cannot provide. Furthermore, relying on international news agencies is profitable, as it saves the expenses from individual reporting and investigation; hence, Norwegian newspapers will often merely just translate bulletins from international companies like Reuters, without adding editorial additions, individual investigation, or even mere fact checking. Indeed, when the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten decides to print in-depth coverage, they will normally just translate and reprint articles from American news papers. Hence, Americanized news coverage is largely caused by necessity, not ideology.

The positive aspect of this is of course that it is economically optimal; that cooperation between news agencies is more efficient than each agency individually covering world events, and that the spared resources are used to provide better coverage for all parts. The problem, however, is bias. Many would like to mention the news channel Fox News, which is seen as the arrowhead of the neoconservative movement, and whose motto “Fair and balanced” seems laughably hypocritical. I am, however, critical towards this view, as Norwegian media remain rather indifferent towards Robert Murdoch’s media empire; I believe other news agencies, like NBC, CNN and Reuters, whose centrist-leftist bias coincides more with the views of Norwegian news reporters, are far more influential, and thus are a larger threat to Norwegian media’s integrities. Indeed, with news agencies coinciding in this way, one risks having only one “official” view, and deviating voices are thus silenced.

Furthermore, by relying on American news providers, we import their focus on Western, and specifically American, affairs. Hence Norwegians are rather knowledgeable when it comes to American culture, politics, economics and so on, while knowing little about the world outside the West. Indeed, with regards to Africa south of Sahara, Norwegians are shockingly ignorant, tending to view the entire continent as a gritty hellhole of poverty, starvation and disease.

The economic argument applies to culture as well: when broadcasters decide to air American films and TV shows, it is from lack of resources to fill the air time with their own productions. Still, this alone does not explain why all the imports have to be American (or, to be fair, English-speaking, as British productions are also quite prominent). Why do not Norwegian broadcasters air French television series, or movies from the outstanding Brazilian film industry? Are their American equivalents really that superior? I believe much of the explanation resides with English representing the known; Norwegians are not only familiar with the English language, but with the culture of the English-speaking world in general. American culture, with Hollywood as the prime example, is simple, streamlined and easily consumable, while productions from other parts of the world tend to be more high-browed and intellectually stimulating. (One might retort that this is a harsh generalization, and that for instance Indian popular cinema is just as low-browed as American cinema, to which I would agree. Still, Indian cinema is streamlined towards the Indian consumer, whose culture and taste is vastly different from ours.) American productions attract more viewers; thus, dictates capitalism, they are given preference.

American influence on Norwegian media is exemplified by the development in Norwegian cinema during the last decennium. In his brilliant article, the Norwegian film critic Aleksander Kielland describes the sudden rise of popularity of Norwegian films, and argues that Norwegian cinema, inspired by Hollywood, has devoted all of its attention towards the plot, viewing photography, music, acting etc. as mere garniture. He contrasts this with the Swedish and Danish cinemas, which to a much larger degree have individual identities and whose auteurs, like Lars von Trier, are world famous. Consider, for instance, the Norwegian war epic Max Manus, a heroic, streamlined and one-dimensional portrayal, with the Danish Flammen & Citronen, with its darkness and ethical ambiguity. Kielland’s explanation is that Sweden and Denmark have rich filmmaking traditions to build upon; Norway however has no such foundation, so its film industry has had to import its identity; and what identity to import then, but the identity of Hollywood?

Kielland argues, however, that the Norwegian film industry has not imported the ideology of Hollywood, the simple tale of good versus evil. Rather, Norwegian films like Buddy and Elling portray what he describes as a revisited version of the Norwegian national identity, a peculiar, drifting social misfit, and this stereotype is alleviated rather than criticized.

This brings us to the third component of this analysis: ideology. Some would like to paint a bleak picture of corporations and market forces imposing a far-right ideological drift. I am less pessimistic: as I have argued, the influence is not so much from the American right as from the American centre-left (centrist by European standards). Politically, while markets are liberalized, the European trend is towards larger welfare states; the states are moving in the diametrically opposite direction of towards the American model. Furthermore, much of the development must be seen in economic terms alone; economic globalization by itself, as countries are forced to adapt in order to be able to compete, imposes structural reform on nation states.

To the distinct ideological impact American culture however does have, it is my view that much of it comes from within. The Western world, as it has been since the Industrial Revolution, is founded on the ideas of liberty and individualism; of the individual, free from state coercion, providing for himself by his own means and pursuing his own happiness. From this point of view, it is welfare states that are a deviation, while the USA is the very epitome, the symbol, of this ideal. Furthermore, while these values originate in the Western cultural sphere, they are not so much specifically Western; it is my view that humanism is grounded in human nature, and that these values are indeed universal. If one views the USA as a force for good, then the impact of American culture can be seen not so much as cultural imperialism; rather America serves as an inspiration for other countries, because the implementation of these values is the source of our high welfare and equips us with the tools we need to pursue our happiness. When the Chinese dissident and Nobel laureate Liu Xiabou defends these values, it is not because of his Western cultural inheritance — indeed, his contact with the Western world is minimal —, it is rather because these values are universally good, and ought to be universally implemented.

This however does not sufficiently explain why the products of this way of living, the consumer goods, are so Americanized or directly American. All over the world people eat American food (to the point where foreign foods can be said to be American Italian food, American Chinese etc.), drink American branded soft drinks, drive American cars, wear American clothes, watch American movies and American television, and shop in Americanized shops and malls. But these things have one other distinct feature in common: they are developed for and streamlined towards the mass consumer; they are the products of individualist capitalism. So perhaps this development is not so much American as consumerist?