Arguably the two most famous and iconic corporate brand logos in the world – Coca-Cola and McDonalds (fair use)

(11) CULTURAL IMPERIALISM

Coca-Colonization and McDonaldization!

Yes, cultural imperialism is much broader than the spread of American corporate brands – extending throughout culture and cultural values or traditions – but Coca-Cola and McDonalds serve (heh) as useful symbols of it, as well as the most recognizable.

In my opinion, however, cultural imperialism is a somewhat nebulous concept, typically co-opted for ideological or political argument rather than to connote anything meaningful.

Sure, empires routinely engage in the acculturation of their imperial subjects, so much so that there’s a whole litany of terms with the suffix “isation” or “ization” for it, such as Romanization for the Roman Empire, Americanization for  the global influence of American culture (including Coca-Cola and McDonalds), and so on.

To the extent that such acculturation is imposed by direct imperial diktat or policy, then it probably counts as cultural imperialism. Outside of that, it is less clear.

For example, cultural imperialism is usually defined in terms of “asymmetrical power” – that is, “it relies on economic, political, or military superiority rather than equal cultural exchange”.

Firstly, however, I’m not sure that “cultural exchange” is ever entirely “equal”, or even what would qualify a “cultural exchange” as “equal”. A better adjective might have been “free” rather than “equal”.

Secondly, and more fundamentally, cultural exchange itself may “rely” on – that is, be influenced or motivated by – “economic, political, or military superiority”, to emulate or achieve that superiority. Indeed, military “superiority” is one of the clearest examples of cultural exchange for such a purpose, particularly if that superiority is based on some technological or organizational development.

Also, as critics of the concept have pointed out, it oversimplifies how imperial subjects or other people interact with “foreign” or imported culture – they often “reinterpret, resist, or localize imported culture rather than passively absorbing it.”

It also overlooks “counter-flows” – that is, the culture imported by an imperial nation from its subjects. For that matter, it overlooks the extent to which imperial nations also routinely practice cultural laissez-faire or tolerance when it comes to their subjects – to minimize disruption and resistance, avoid unnecessary drain on their resources, co-opt local elites, or even from genuine love or respect for local culture among other reasons.