The media theory of cultural imperialism was first developed in the mid-twentieth century. Originally, it was a response to societal changes after the spread of advanced telecommunications.
Although various models of globalization displaced it during the 1980s, CI theory has been revived in the twenty-first century. Here is an outline of the media theory's development and main ideas.
The Post-War Beginnings of Cultural Imperialism Theory
The first important insight of CI theory was that historical patterns of "traditional" imperialism – i.e., political and military domination – can be applied to new patterns of electronic communication.
Responding to the situation in the two decades following World War II, Herbert Schiller identified the United States as the preeminent imperial power of the time. What gave American ascendancy a structure different from previous imperial projects, according to Schiller, was its "marriage of economics and electronics."
The self-denying aspect of American imperialism was another novelty; unlike the British, American officials downplayed their position of power.
Yet Schiller maintained in Mass Communications and American Empire that "to less officially-oriented observers there can be a different reading which sees an aggressive and powerful industrial-electronics complex working to extend the American socio-economic system spatially and ideologically." Thus for Schiller neither the good intentions, nor the lack of self-awareness, of the imperial power negates the fact of empire.
Coming from a tradition of American communications studies, CI theory was particularly concerned with broadcast media and technological infrastructure. CI theory also assumed a simplistic model of audience reception and a hierarchical framework for understanding international power relations.
From Cultural Imperialism to Media Imperialism
The precise role of the media, beyond their role in military communications networks or state propaganda, was undeveloped in early CI theory formulations.
Oliver Boyd-Barrett sought to rectify this in the 1970s with his concept of media imperialism. Boyd-Barrett agreed that the flow of media activities internationally was notable for its highly unidirectional nature and the limited sources from which these activities come. Not only were most media products disseminated from the United States and a handful of European countries, but the ultimate sources were mostly American media conglomerates.
Boyd-Barrett defined media imperialism as "the process whereby the ownership, structure, distribution or content of the media in any one country are singly or together subject to substantial external pressures from the media interests of any other country or countries without proportionate reciprocation of influence by the country so affected."
In this formulation, "imperialism" is an appropriate label because there is an element of "cultural invasion" as well as an "imbalance of power relations" between the countries involved. The nation-state remained the unit of measure, however, as media ownership was framed by nationality.
CI Theory and Core-Periphery Models
Another feature associated with cultural imperialism is the "core-periphery" model. The idea of power and cultural flow emanating from metropolitan centers or developed countries to the rest of the world originated in the 1950s, in relation to discussions of economic power.
One version of this idea, and some of its cultural implications, had already been developed by Canadian economist and media theorist Harold Innis. But Innis's approach was far more nuanced than that of his fellow economists, and had little influence at the time – an early and ironic example, perhaps, of cultural imperialism at work.
Regardless, some version of the core-periphery model's assumptions about control is implicit in CI theory formulations, whether the focus is on economic, technological, or cultural disparities.
Globalization and CI Theory Critiques
Schiller and Boyd-Barrett's positions would be critiqued in the 1980s and 1990s in light of developments in digital communications technologies and neoliberal economic policies. It was thought, broadly speaking, that faster, cheaper, and more widespread communications, coupled with free markets, rendered the kind of control described and denounced by CI theory obsolete.
Though many of these critiques would come to be categorized as "globalization" arguments, the term itself remained problematic. Like CI theory, globalization theory would have different branches, whose proponents focused on different cultural, economic, and political phenomena.
Unlike CI theory, however, globalization would become a popular rubric amongst non-academics, policy-makers, and uncritical scholars. David Harvey has called globalization a "seemingly neutral mask" to gloss over troubling issues of power and disparity.
As these imbalances have grown more pronounced after the 1990s, cultural imperialism theory has been rehabilitated. Now transnational corporations, rather than nation-states, are seen as the agents of cultural imperialism, amassing greater control over the ownership and flow of cultural products.
Sources
- Boyd-Barrett, Oliver. 2010. "Media imperialism reformulated." In International communication: A reader, ed. Daya Thussu, 139-153. London: Routledge.
- ———. 1977. "Media imperialism: Towards an international framework for the analysis of media systems." In Mass communication and society, ed. James Curran, Michael Gurevitch, and Janet Woollacott, 116-135. London: Arnold.
- Harvey, David. 2005. "From globalization to the new imperialism." In Critical globalization studies, ed. Richard Applebaum and William Robinson, 91-100. New York: Routledge.
- Schiller, Herbert. 2002. "Not yet the post-imperialist era." In Media and cultural studies: Keyworks, ed. Meenakshi Gigi Durham and Douglas Kellner, 319-333. Cambridge: Blackwell.
- ———. 1969. Mass communications and American empire. New York: Augustus M. Kelly.
- Watson, Alexander John. 2006. Marginal man: The dark vision of Harold Innis. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Luke Arnott - Luke Arnott has a Master's Degree in Comparative Literature from the University of Western Ontario, where he is currently enrolled in the ...
Join the Conversation