RSS

# 2 Sept 23 - Translation and Globalization

#2 “The discourse of cultural imperialism,” John Tomlinson in Globalization: Critical Concepts in Sociology, vol. IV, pp. 85-118.

6 意見:

Ron 提到...

文化帝國主義(cultural imperialism)對我而言,並不如帝國主義那樣造成威脅。想到帝國主義,過去西方以及日本等殖民主義國家立刻浮現:國家機器運用軍事武力迫使殖民地就範。想到文化帝國主義,就沒有具體的罪魁禍首浮現。是美國嗎?是資本主義嗎?美國內部一直存在所謂的文化戰爭,包括少數族群、性別、同志、好萊塢的自由派、環保、社會主義等等議題,不但沒有統一的價值觀,反而時常尖銳對立。在這種多元對立的情況下,恐怕很難形成強而有力的機器,向外強行推銷某種特定的文化價值。

根據Tomlinson,媒體的帝國主義是文化帝國主義的重要討論範疇之一。英文媒體,尤其是好萊塢的電影在國際市場上佔很大競爭優勢,不過媒體的優勢並非不可抵抗。中國大陸限制外國電影數目與檔期,南韓電視的黃金時段只能播本國節目,但是這種作法對國家真的是利多於弊嗎?無論如何,中國網民主動突破封鎖,尋求觀看外來的影視節目,很難將這種行為歸類為「遭受文化帝國主義侵略」。

Unknown 提到...

Tomlinson 在這篇文章中討論「文化帝國主義」(cultural imperialism)的概念,或者說究竟應如何討論文化帝國主義、以及其內涵所在。
相較於過往討論文化帝國主義,常偏重於宰制(domination)的概念,Tomlinson 由一張英國電視公司的聖誕賀卡出發,提出許多有趣的觀點。在這樣一張澳洲原住民看著電視的「歡度節慶」卡片中,究竟可以看到什麼?除了西方電視成為視覺焦點之外,這些人的文化是否受到影響,他們究竟「在這樣的環境(context)中做著什麼事?」,或許才是真正的重點。
由此,Tomlinson 先討論了文化帝國主義的複雜與不易定義,進而提出重點在於了解此概念如何在真實的情境中活用,而不需拘泥於分析(92-93)。於是,Tomlinson 再以「瞎子沒象」(vs. 瞎子摸象)來討論關於文化帝國主義命題(cultural imperialism thesis),認為不應假設有某一特定命題,而應抱持開放態度。
話雖如此,過於開放則無利討論,於是 Tomlinson 在「The Discourse of Cultural Imperialism」的大題下提出四個小的論述方向(discourses):文化帝國主義作為媒體帝國主義、國族主義、對全球資本主義的批判、對現代性的批判。
Tomlinson 雖然仍無法解決發言權(who speaks?)的問題,但至少他坦然承認,並且從研究方法(著重環境及動作主體)以及態度(同理心、對自身身份的自覺)試圖減輕所造成的影響。如此一來,對文化帝國主義的論述或可脫離單由宰制面或「先進國家」觀點的角度,而較能窺見全貌。但「沒象」的比喻也實在稍嫌過於激進,或許我們還無法斷言所「摸」的主體,但至少這個主體正在建構當中,或說我們正逐漸了解其樣貌。

Craig 1 of many 提到...

John Tomlinson acknowledges the all encompassing nature of the term cultural imperialism and tries to narrow the definition into something workable. His sense is that the term's definition should be constituted out of the contemporary discourses that surround it. Exploring any moment of history, recent or distant, in any place around the world, what we realize is that cultural imperialism is pervasive, normative, inevitable and takes many forms. While its existence today is not exceptional, perhaps its forms are more so, since they are shaped by exceptional times. The question that arises is not whether cultural imperialism should exist, but rather how we can live with it in a way that serves a wider majority of individuals, mitigate forms that are clearly exploitative, and also realize that cultural productions are always interpreted locally, and therefore their export and import create unpredictable results. In this sense, theorizing can only relativize the fact of cultural imperialism, producing locally germane conceptions and highly subjective constructions. I mostly agree with Tomlinson here, but question his underlying assumption that situates thinking solely in the academic community—which is a form of cultural imperialism that he seems comfortable wielding. He goes on to discuss the exclusive nature of academic publishing, which actually is only concerned with a small minority of people (academics) and has a questionable relationship to how the vast majority of people in this world live. Decrying the lack of translations of academic discourse into the language of Peruvian aboriginals, he states “there is simply never going to be a viable market for such a translation. So the effective exclusion of certain cultures – here those of South American Indians – from the 'global conversation' of intellectuals and scholars indicates how loosely we speak in speaking of a global community of scholars.” It seems like a big jump from “never going to be a viable market” to “effective exclusion.” No viable market clearly indicates no desire on the part of these “Indians” to read academic books, or to have their own ideologies reconstructed along the lines of the minority culture known as “community of scholars” - global or otherwise. What Tomlinson overlooks is that while academic productions seem locally meaningful within his own community, to the vast majority of the world's population, they are merely esoteric.

Craig 2 of 3 提到...

Critiquing the UNESCO charter, Tomlinson contends that the very existence of the organization relies on “access to discourse,” which is likely true, but again he seems to suggest meaningful discourse is the exclusive province of this institution, or of academia which he puts on an equal footing with this and other international organizations (we might take a moment here to compare the amount of power wielded by the United Nations and that by the academic community). Actually, a virtual babel of local discourses among everyday people concerning cultural imperialism exists separately from ivory-tower-like institutions. While Tomlinson condemns these local discourses as “narrowness,” they are still globalized since they take into account world events as filtered through local (imperialist?) media, and are also sufficiently powerful to constitute local ideologies relevant to local contexts. It seems these grassroots realities serve their constituencies without directly participating in the form of academic exchange that Tomlinson aggrandizes. For me the crux of Tomlinson's critique of cultural imperialism as an academic construct, is that it does not have sufficient access to other local discourses vocalized by local agents in a way that is satisfying to academics (who speaks, identity politics, the authentic voice and representation have been problematized by many academics, and also later in this book). But I would like to suggest that academia's feelings of guilt, inadequacy and envy regarding levels of exchange are probably not felt by those people who are the object of academic discourses. Local discourses, constructed in local contexts with high local value, probably seem adequate to Peruvian native peoples, or there would be mass demonstrations demanding good translations of Tomlinson's books into Quechua. Moreover, on that local level there is most likely less concern for the hierarchy of discourses that Tomlinson assumes.

Craig 3 of 3 提到...

It is interesting here to compare academic networks of production and delivery with the current globalized system of international art exhibitions. These exhibitions, which mostly take the form of biennials, number in the hundreds (thousands) and bring works of art by international artists around the globe. These multi-vocal exhibitions not only present a fluid exchange of “local” (to the extent which authenticity can be said to exists) cultural signs, but also a meta discourse of cultural imperialism; both through juxtaposition and through specific artwork with comment on globalization. In this sense, art has become “ideology as entertainment,” a recent permutation of the traditional “art as medium for promoting official ideologies.” Presenting this entertainment on a traveling public stage, while still esoteric, most certainly reaches a wider audience than academic books, as these biennials draw large crowds of local populations worldwide.

Tomlinson goes on to raise the issue of what right international institutions sponsored by powerful countries, or national institutions wielding domestic cultural imperialism, have in making economic and political determinations for underrepresented, or provisionally represented peoples. This is good point, but seems to veer off the path of “The Discourse of Cultural Imperialism,” which is the title of his essay. The links between economic, political and cultural imperialisms are well established (today, the latter two mostly ride on the back of neoliberal capitalist mechanisms formulated by Milton Friedman and first promoted by Reagan and Thatcher, and then later reaching their apogee in Bush-era deregulation and the global economic meltdown of 2007), but focusing on a narrower working definition of cultural imperialism as specifically related to culture, for me, facilitates a more productive discussion.

Eveline 提到...

提到 cultural imperialism, 我第一個感到困擾的即是我應該要以什麼樣的理解來討論這個字眼。每個人對這個字的詮釋,都會因為他的ideology (在這裡不想翻譯為意識形態,因為中文顯得比英文字狹隘許多)、他對這個兩個字的認知、接受經驗等等而產生不同的解讀。譬如說我初看到這個字,讓我直接聯想到的,的確是1960年代美軍與俄軍冷戰的那個年代。挾持著經濟力量,美軍於世界各地進行種種經濟與文化政策,以抵抗蘇聯的共產主義。而在這樣的歷史情境下,cultural imperialism最常被使用的就是這兩大強權如何運用其文化政策、經濟力量影響著處於冷戰對峙中的各個受扶持與統治的國家,到後來,capitalism也似乎與imperialism 畫上了等號。有著這樣的聯想,在使用這個字作為文化研究的主題之時,不免令人感到危險,彷彿自己隨時都會落入政治的討論之中。雖然,文化和政治的確很難脫離關係,只是有沒有去察覺到它的存在罷了。
基本上,imperialism這個字眼若要用在現代的文化討論中,我個人認為似乎有點過時。因為imperialism這個字與軍事、政治、經濟、以及戰爭的歷史連結太過強烈。所以,如果脫離不了繼續沿用這個字,卻試圖要拋棄過去所累積下來的歷史意象,則似乎又太過任意與抽象。因為,有關這個主題的對話的確是涵蓋了過去的種種歷史與經驗才得以延續到今日。
而Tomlinson果然很認真地處理了這個問題。他從各個向度來討論何謂culture,何謂imperialism。得到的結論,是傾向不去做狹義的定義,而是納入各種面向的discourses: ”it has more chance of grasping the significant ongoing intellectual and political arguments which, …, are the real substance of cultural studies.” 對話與辯証,才是讓真相顯現出來的最佳方法。
但為了更具體的釐清彼此互相討論的基點,cultural imperialism這個詞確實需要放在context中討論。它仍可以是政治的、經濟的、媒體的、藝術的種種意涵,但先認識它原本是一個很難釐清的”complex whole”,再用context去截取特定的意涵並加以討論,就可以盡量避免彼此horizon不同所產生的溝通障礙。

張貼留言