Post #1

I think that Harindranath makes an important and valid counter-argument to Tomlinson in the essay, "Reving Cultural Imperialism".

Tomlinson argues quite rightly that much of the argument of cultural domination- the complaint that "The West dominates the Rest"- has gotten stale, and is outdated and oversimplified. He unpicks the term 'cultural', as used by critics like Schiller, and unpicks the way an anti-imperialist critique of the Disney comic Donald Duck "assumes that reading American comics...has a direct pedagogic effect." He suggests that a closer examination of the "relationship between text and audience" will probably reveal that the viewer has more agency and creativity in his self-construction, he is not mindlessly brainwashed into worshipping the 'West'. His analysis of the show 'Dallas' shows just this- that a viewer can disagree with the values of a show and still enjoy watching it without too much inner conflict.

This point about agency is a good one, and it has been stressed by many thinkers in the post-colonial era, who wish to give agency to the post-colonial 'subject'. For example, Jean Comaroff criticises just this "West dominates the Rest" story when she writes, “such binary contrasts…are a widespread trope of ideology-in-the-making; they reduce complex continuities and contradictions to the aesthetics of nice oppositions…(colonization) had unforeseen outcomes…societies were never simply made over in the European image despite the persistent tendency of Eurocentric scholars to speak as if they were.” (Comaroff, Modernity and its Malcontents, 251). Ashish Nandy writes about the Indian situation in particular, and suggests ways in which a certain group of Indian 'colonial subjects' found ways to creatively weave 'Western' and 'Indian' influences into their identities in ways that allowed them to sidestep the hegemonic ideals of 'modernity' posited by the colonial ideology.

While it is true that individuals certainly possess agency in the process of defining themselves, it becomes difficult to posit either 'agency' or 'emulation' or any emotional experience into a population, because such an experience can only be located in the lived expereince of people. For example, Nandy's claim that Indians resolve their colonial past by forming themselves as 'happy hybrids' has no meaning if an Indian citizen living today experiences themself as unequal or dominated by some Western structure of values.

Tomlinson acknowledges this, he admits that certain forms of hegemony do exist, but he questions if it can be blamed so easily on media. He suggests that people's 'lived experience' takes place in a number of different spheres and questions whether we have the knowledge to so easily give media a privileged position among them.

The question then becomes: Does media influence the way we experience ourselves? This was the topic of a lot of class discussion the other day.

Harindranath accepts the validity of some of Tomlinson's argument but tries to reinstate a case for aspects of the 'Cultural Imperialism" hypothesis. His retort is about economics: he suggests that we look at the "essentially unequal relations that underpin the global capitalist system" to begin defending the validity of fears of "cultural imperialism".

Another place to look for the validity of the argument is in the "social lived realities" of people; he accompanies this with a picture of an Indian family watching Tony Blair on the BBC. If families still look to the west as a site of desire, instruction, aspiration and greater potential, then there is something unequal there. What matters whn we begin to look at people's 'lived expereinces' is their perception. If I think that American bodies are more attractive, or American clothes more desirable that Indian ones, there is an unequal relationship already, in my mind.

I personally believe Haridranath's argument because I know attitudes exist that think the 'West' (Europe and America) is a better place to live and promises a highly desirable lifestyle. Millions of Indian kids are writing their SATs and getting in lines miles long at consulates, for a chance to come to an obscure American college and gain access to the golden pool of international eliteness that their peers in India are missing. It does not matter if this is objectively true or not, what matters is that I expereince it this way. Several of my freinds have used the words "dump" and "garbage" to describe India and everyday search online for American University degrees to apply to. I like Haridranath's article because aspects of it ring very true for me.

So people do have agency, of course, everyone has agency. The danger in overemphasizing agency is that it obscures the other ways in which power can work. Power here works not through a governmental structure, but through imaginaryu ideas that people develop of the 'West' and the ways those ideas create desires in them. Desiring another, being dissatisfied with oneself, these are ways that power promulgates itself.

Is the media an apt place to lay the 'blame' for this if blame must be laid at all? Tomlinson is right that we dont know enough about reader-audience relationships to say for sure. It cannot be denied that people's imaginaries are shaped in part by images shown on the media. For example, in India there are ideas of America as a place where women can wear miniskirts and not be hooted at (greater sexual freedom), a place where popular music artists and performances are easier to access (closeness to a cultural center) or as a place where food, luxury and entertainment are more available. There are even ideas of American bodies as being healthier, stronger, better-fed, and cleaner. I'm generalizing, and maybe we shouldn't be so quick to call this 'imperialism,' maybe the blame cant really be placed at all. But there are things going on here and 'agency' readings are dangerous because they ignore these processes.