全球化背景下，民族文化到底是走向同化還是多樣化？

12-29

過去，我們有文的概念，有化的概念，但今天所說的「文化」這個詞是不是從日語里來的？如果是的話，這個來源就構成了對問題的某種回答。

「文化大於種族」，我願意從這個判斷出發。民族有時候就是由文化聚合起來的，有些「民族」想從「民族大家庭」里「分裂」出去，有些國家肯自願結成共同體，就是對文化的認同或不認同。不嚴謹的好萊塢電影和嚴謹的國際關係學者，都相信幾十年後，世界可能出現幾大類似歐盟的洲際政治經濟軍事組織。對於這種預期，我感覺，應該是一種文化的結果。但好像很多人不信，認為除非侵略戰爭，斷無此事——當然，不能和信奉戰爭的人辯論。

文化確實有強弱，信奉戰爭的人覺得，軍事強就是文化強，雖然他家買菜刀還得去街道辦登記呢。基本上，整天談論別人在侵蝕他的文化的終日處於焦慮的一方就是弱者。另外，因為某種看上去很堅定的東西（宗教獨裁威權）而充滿文化自信的，也被外界視為弱方，何況本國人都在研究移民偷渡。我樂於承認任何人群都有自願選擇文化的權利，但人都想要更舒適更自由的生活，強勢文化之強，就在於和更舒適更自由的生活一致。舉個敏感的例子，比如藏區。文藝青年喜歡藏民保持淳樸和虔誠，雖然有摩托車了但是最好還騎馬雖然有煤氣罐但是哪有牛糞的炊煙曼妙等等，以便於沒事兒了進去騎行時合影留念，這種美好願望和一百來年前到中國來獵奇的外國人似乎沒什麼區別，基本上是耍流氓。

同化不等於無差異，所謂同化，大概是有足夠接觸面即可，承認一個規則，活法各有差異。有些時候，一個民族會完全捨棄自己的一切文化因素融入另一個民族，或許有強力，或許是過弱，雖然遺憾，也沒有辦法——我常見一些人（知乎上就不少），學美范或英范或法范的穿著打扮口音舉止吃喝拉撒擦嘴揩腚惟妙惟肖到令人感動，想必是從來不燒香上墳的，但他們很高興啊，所以恐怕連遺憾都沒有。

我的結論是，只要世界朝向通常意義上的好的（和平和交流）方向發展，文化會逐漸聚攏，可接觸的面積會越來越大，可以談論的事情會越來越多。

文化融合的好處，就是方向雖時常搖擺，但進程大體圓滑，不用誰操心，幾乎是一種自然而然，有時候，一系列偶然的因素或貪圖短利的選擇，會把前程推到棘手的境地，但它總要慢慢扭轉過來。49年而58年，58年而66年，66年而76年，抹掉或改造了數代人，冠以文化的革命之酷烈之徹底之強盛更不在話下，但是為什麼鄧麗君、加里森敢死隊一進來就所向披靡呢？在集權國家裡搞文化鉗制，是個悲壯（cui）的事業。通常認為它有一條主要線索，常有這樣的論述：比如宗教，因為廢黜羅馬皇帝的日耳曼人信奉基督教，於治理國家又沒什麼主張，上帝就取代凱撒了；比如政治，女真人看漢人給自己脖子上套的鎏金枷鎖實在趁手，一拉就齊齊跪下，索性栓根新繩子，拿起來就用；再比如科技，加快了速度，拉短了距離，從陳冠希開始，由被動流出到精心擺拍，人人都恨不得馬上開始一個時代，人人都不畏懼創造一種文化，連馬化騰都在談論見什麼連接什麼的問題……

好大的問題。

首先如何界定「文化」？目前沒有絕對的答案。狹義的理解可以是一個族群的思想、理念、行為、風俗、習慣等；廣義的理解可以是一個族群所生產或創造的，而後傳給其他人由這個群體整體意識所輻射出來的一切活動。我這裡暫且取狹義的定義。

我認為同化是大趨勢，全球化背景下會出現經濟體多極化發展特徵，經濟多極化會使各種沒落的民族文化擁有經過一定變異後重新崛起的機會，貌似使全球文化更加多樣化，但實際上這種多樣化是文化同化的徵兆所在，區域文化經過變異後會變的讓區域外的人更好的接受。所以當前文化的多樣化本質不是分裂，而是一種交融發展。

當人類科學技術的發展使地球區域限制近乎消解的時候，會出現重大的變化。比如航天時代的到來。

目前的航天事業，相當於五百年前歐洲諸國的航海冒險。只不過當時在毫無收入與結果的情況下，海洋探險更多的是由私人主導誤打誤撞的；而不像當前，對宇宙的冒險雖然同樣毫無收入，但由國家為主導有系統有計劃的進行（所以對於現在很多人罵航天事業就是白燒錢的人來說，你的子孫最終會像唾棄明朝封閉海洋那樣唾棄現在的你）。航天事業是一個門檻極高，而且相當依賴國家的綜合工業水平，不可能像五百年前那樣出個麥哲倫哥倫布勇氣+運氣就發現新大陸了。

由於當今發達國家和大部分落後國家在航天上的差距不斷的擴大，航天在今後地球完全不夠人類蹦躂的時候，將極大的拉開國與國之間的差距。我在月球、火星或其它行星上有無盡的資源，而你腳下的土地已經枯竭，我失去了你僅僅是失去了一塊市場，你失去了我你什麼都沒有了。

這比18、19世紀的殖民時代國與國之間的差距更慘，那個時候落後國家雖然被工業革命武裝起來的各種帝國完全碾壓，農耕經濟尚且可以維持國家運轉，而且土地下還有一定的能源雖然不怎麼會利用起碼是日後翻身的一張好牌；而航天科技一旦躍變促使真正航天工業革命到來的時候，落後國家面對航天先進國家，將是資源的全面壟斷，欠發達國家手中唯一擁有的就是市場（在未來廉價勞動力都不能算是資源）。儘管人類文明進步了不會再重現黑奴等悲慘的東西，不過如此巨大的國與國差距會造成很廣泛的社會問題。航天時代的到來會產生少數幾個超級文明，當優勢到達一個量級後，贏者通吃。

如果只產生了一個超級文明，那麼所有的文明將會向此文明靠攏，最終融合形成普世的民族文化的概率相當大。

壞就壞在如果誕生了多個超級文明怎麼辦，就得看那個時候文明間的政治態勢與人類自身的文明認知程度。若超級文明之間較為緩和，文化的同化會同樣緩慢的隨著人類的認知與哲學高度不斷的提高與發展，走向不自覺的融合。若超級文明之間沒有克服人類的劣根性（畢竟太陽系就那幾個星球，星系旅行實在是太過遙遠），只有參見1914年之前的歐洲史。唯一不同的是高科技下慘烈的戰爭會比一戰二戰更為猛烈，如果發生全面核戰爭人類的生命和物質遭受史無前例的損失之後，帶來的是倖存者精神的全面升華，我相信全球的核戰之後，還是會有可以生存下來的人。徹底的人類民族統一思潮會種植在每個倖存下來的人心裡。

但是，也僅僅是存在在心裡。

由於戰爭對環境與社會的極大破壞，倖存者分散在世界的各個地方（甚至在別的開發的已經可以自成生態體系的星球上），很多倖存者族群需要從農耕文明再來一遍，與艱苦惡劣的戰後環境做鬥爭會促使團體凝聚力的全面增強。人類民族大一統的思潮錯過了絕佳的機遇，最終形成了新的民族與文化。歷史走向輪迴。再或者由於其它星球的人類科技體系留存的相對完整，重新經過艱難的開拓與進步後，回歸地球面對滿目蒼夷，與地球上的倖存者再次走向民族文化的全面融合。

所以我的結論是，人類各個民族文化始終都在同化的道路上邁進，但同化的道路極其艱難，甚至永遠無法達成。

分享一篇我大學三年級時候寫的文章，正好是討論這個

我的結論是：

1. 文化不但沒有同質化，反而走向多樣化、複雜化

2. 發達國家的顯性文化進入其它國家後遇到反彈，會尋找妥協之道並改造自己

3. 技術的發展，讓流行的事物變更地更快，導致任何一個地方都有機會輸出自己的流行文化，顯性文化無法長期佔據，阻止了同質化的發生

只是學期科目作業，非論文，無需親自調查，也無需答辯，可能欠缺嚴謹；

圖片不重要，故不轉載

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GLOBALIZATION AND HOMOGENIZATION:

A CRITICAL VIEW

《如何看待全球化與文化同質化的關係》

by Jerry EU C.

Abstract

There is no direct connection between globalization and homogenization of culture or dominance of western culture. Even though the homogenization is a possible outcome of globalization, it may not be the only case. McDonaldization and global consumerism, as two typical examples of cultural globalization, shows that besides cultural homogenization, differentialism, heterogeneity or hybridization can be any direction of cultural development in global scope. Hence, the dominance of western culture does not necessarily arise.

Keyword: Cultural globalization,homogenization, heterogeneity, hybridization, McDonaldization, global consumerism, negotiation, competition

What is globalization? Different scholars usually give various explanations. Though no consensus about definition of globalization is achieved among social scientists as yet (Steger, 2003), it is a phenomenon surely existing.

As an existing phenomenon, globalization becomes one of the major issues being researched in social science field. Social scientists divide this topic into three major dimensions: economic globalization, political globalization and cultural globalization. Any study on globalization will fall on one or more than one of these three aspects. Therefore, the identification of relationship between globalization and cultural homogenization, in this article, will follow such pattern and falls on cultural dimension.

Fig. 1 Friedman"s book The World Is Flat

Globalization as a study usually brings about conflicts among different scholars. The origin of these conflicts is distinctive views of such phenomenon. Some scholars claim that globalization is more or less the same as liberalism, westernization, or even Americanization in the whole world. One of these figures is Thomas L. Friedman, an American journalist, columnist and author of New York Times who is famous for his book, The World is Flat (2007). Friedman defines globalization as the spread of free-market capitalism to different countries in the world, which resulting in market openness, deregulation and privatization. In addition, these evolution are the products of incentives from states and individuals for establishing a more competitive economic structure. Friedman interprets globalization in a neo-liberal perspective by observing successful models from newly industrialized countries including China, India, etc. Economic booming comes and national power rises after adapting a more capitalized and liberal market system in these countries. Therefore they obtain higher international status and become more influential worldwide, which is the outcome of globalization and on the other hand pushes this process forward. These scholars are categorized as hyperglobalists which preserving optimistic attitude towards globalization, while some others, the sceptics, deny the existence of globalization and criticize those hyperglobalists. Sceptics usually criticize hyperglobalists for equaling globalization to westernization or Americanization. They fundamentally regard globalization as a myth and hence disagree with the existence of homogenization of economic, political and cultural institutions or values. The battle of ideas mostly occurs in cultural dimensions, since the other two are usually explicit and therefore can be measured more easily.

Under this situation, whether cultural homogenization or even the dominance of western cultures occurs or will come becomes doubtful. This controversy will be discussed in this article with the aid of two typical examples.To identify whether there is a direct connection between globalization and homogeneity of culture or dominance of western value, basically it needs to recognize the existence of globalization. As indicated at the beginning of this article, though no final agreement is made on what globalization is, the phenomenon itself in fact exists. A more moderate view will be applied for further discussion of this controversy, which is transformationalism.

Neither implication nor different perspectives of globalism comprising hyperglobalism, global scepticism and transformationalism is the theme of the discussion, therefore they will not be dissented much in the following parts. Instead, the phenomena of globalization itself and outcomes of it will be the main foci. In addition, since it is the study of cultural homogenization, cultural globalization is undoubtedly the central route for heading to destination, i.e. the final conclusion.

Cultural globalization, by its definition, is an interaction between people of diverse cultures, values and ways of life, which the culture, according to Manfred B. Steger, is referring to symbolic construction, articulation and dissemination of meaning in daily life (Steger,2003). The exchange of ideas, attitudes and values can lead to either positive or negative results or both. The advancement of communication, transportation technologies accelerated cultural globalization which technological development being the key factor for this process.

When different cultures in the world interact to result in cultural globalization, cultural homogenization functions by diffusing western culture to non-western societies with spreading of cultural products and values through those multinational corporations. Cultural homogenization is a combination in global culture following the global economy, i.e. a world culture and a set of universal values and institutional forms are established by homogenizing different cultures. Cultural globalization and homogenization are the same concept with interacting and fusing of cultures, and become unequal without fusing of cultures. A more intuitive description is, when different cultures merge by interacting to each other, there will be no difference between cultural globalization and homogenization. Otherwise they are two distinctive concepts.

Further research of cultural homogenization process discovers two dimensions or foci of it: cultural products and assimilation of elites. Cultural product is a media for multinational corporations to disseminate their own country』s culture to others through marketing. From McDonald』s (a brand of fast food) to Titanic (name of a movie), any items for consumption can become cultural products. The case of McDonaldization as a typical example will be discussed in the part of global localization. Elite assimilation, on the other hand, describes a process which social elites in non-western countries being assimilated to western countries for undergoing western education. It is feasible for western knowledge, technologies and even values, mainly the capitalist cultural ones, to be disseminated to non-western countries by this course.The media in such case is the social elites in those countries. These people are named as elites as being able to receive higher level educations in western developed countries and potentially becoming the major pillars for their motherlands. Since these elites are well educated comparing to other citizens, they have greater competitiveness in society. Similar to elites in western countries, these social members enter governmental or administrative bodies more easily. Being nurtured by western educational systems at the same time helps to obtain greater chances to become members in international organizations including United Nations (UN), International Monetary Fund (IMF)and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which hold powerful grips on international economic, political and cultural affairs - it will further spread western cultures and values to the whole world.

Being more powerful and hence more influential than any other regions for western countries led by United States as one of the two superpowers in modern era and the only one after collapse of Berlin Wall radiates their own cultures and values globally, therefore cultural homogenization, under this circumstance, is not much different from westernization especially Americanization. An American-style capitalist culture and liberal democracy becomes the dominant values in the global society by such mean.

Fig. 2 Huntington"s Clash of Civilizations

While hyperglobalists take this process for granted as well as welcoming it, sceptics reject such thought by claiming that cultural resistance to the invasion of western culture is witnessed with the evidences of religious fundamentalism and the cultural ethnic conflicts labeled as the clash of civilizations. Clash of Civilizations, first being proposed by American political scientist Samuel Phillips Huntington in the magazine Foreign Affair in 1993, is a term for describing possible conflicts among different cultural systems in a modern world. The reason for such possibility is cultural differentialism in nature and difficulty for eliminating them. Globalization ties various regions to increase interactions itself is a source for more frequent collisions among cultures. Dissolution of the Soviet Union even terminated ideologies and pushed cultures to the front line, i.e. when ideologies were still the main characters in global conflicts, cultural problems stayed behind the historical curtain and were almost forgotten, therefore clash of cultures were not significant during cold-war period. When reviewing human history, cultural conflicts existed since they are distinctive fundamentally. Religious collisions composed Cruciata (from 1096 to 1291) and some other warfare. In Huntington』s later book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1996), cultural including religious conflicts were narrated as the product of cultural differences, consciousness or awareness of them and human nature of liking similarities while hating heterogeneous, i.e. discrimination. Cultural differences were too immutable to reduce following conflicts. Economic developments and social changes lead people to leave from their homelands which diminish their local identities. As a substitution, cultures and religions provide identities transcending national boundaries which were provided by territorial consciousness. In addition, the spreading of western cultures triggers protection of local values. On the other hand, successful economic regionalism with the aid of economic globalization in countries comprising China and India enhance global influences and competitiveness, which consolidate cultural consciousness and encourages these countries to export their own cultures reversely.

Fig. 3 World map of civilizations illustrated by S. P. Huntington

The scenario of clash of civilizations in contemporary world is performed by some major civilizations, including Hindu, Islamic, Japanese, Orthodox, Sinic and Western cultures,because these six civilizations are more possible to clash with each other. African, Buddhist and Latin American civilizations will develop to draw world』s attention. He even anticipated that western cultures would withdraw and those from non-western countries progressed in the world of tomorrow.

Huntington confronts with criticisms from some scholars even after his death, still his views help to introduce another concept which is opposite to homogeneity: the heterogeneity. Heterogeneity supported by sceptics because the dominance of western media, for instance, leads to dominance of western propaganda and values, and triggers resistance from non-western countries. According to sceptics, this scenario may be illustrated by a phrase: war on cultural imperialism.

Regardless what opinions sceptics hold, homogenization itself is flawed. It is basically over-simplified, focusing on the production of culture only. People in all countries are assumed to be willing to accept western cultures with no question simply because western products are powerful to capture their hearts, which is practically impossible since human beings think critically and have ability to interpret the meaning of any culture product. As illustrated before, cultural consciousness resists propagation of western cultures. Impacts of colonization show its defects at the same time. Former colonizing nations, which were all western countries except Japan (which was the colonizer of Taiwan during the Second World War), do not always remain strong ties with former colonizing regions. Singapore,a former British colony until 1963, is an independent nation with different languages and religious believes. Main festivals in this country consist of Chinese New Year, Christmas, Eid al-Fitr, Diwali and National Day. The first four festivals come from Sinic, Western, Islamic and Hindu Kulturkreis (culture circle). In this case, British influence has been weakened. One of the possible reasons is that about 74.1% of citizens are Chinese Singaporean (Statistics Singapore, 2012), which becomes the dominant force in cultural development. The same situation can be found in India, as another former British colony. Ethnics in Philippine are more diverse such that local dominant culture cannot be formed, which still maintains a strong cultural influence from United States, which was its former colonizing nation. Even though, US』s influence on Philippine is not as significant as before. Therefore the population percentage of certain ethnics may become a factor to decide whether influence

When homogeneity seldom explains substantial facts comprising cultural resistance and Huntington』s clash of civilizations theory, heterogeneity overcome imperfections of it by acknowledging the increasing diversity of globalization among cultures and especially within cultures.

Unlike homogeneity, heterogeneity is a trend for cultures to become more different with each other. Indeed, culture influences each other and western cultures have more ability to influence other countries,western cultures themselves become more influenced by peripheral cultures. Since people interpret meaning of culture, it is feasible and possible for objects in western cultures to be indigenized and given new meanings. If so, homogenization or dominance of western cultures seldom takes place.

Global localization and multi-centered phenomenon are the two major aspects for reviewing heterogeneity. These two dimensions will conclude how impossibly the homogeneity can exist.

Fig. 4 KFC sells Chinese traditional breakfast in Chinese Mainland

Instead of homogenization, global localization has been and should be the situation and solution for multinational corporations to launch their business in various regions. McDonald』s, as a well-known global fast food enterprise, has adjusted its images in different countries. Though brands and standardization process are still identical in the world, restaurants indifferent regions are providing different kinds of food and tastes to satisfy local customers. When French fries and coke is main dish in United States, they are regarded as snacks in China. To attract Chinese customers, McDonald』s hires local nutrition experts to formulate dishes suitable for Chinese people. The marketing strategies, design of restaurant and food supply are different from those in United States in all aspects. Such phenomenon is found in other countries. In Indonesia, the selling of McRice is much welcomed; and in Philippines,the most popular product among Filipinos is fried chicken with plain rice. McDonald』s sell these products to them instead of to local Americans because rice is a main daily food for Southeast Asians. By comparison, KFC in mainland China even introduce Chinese traditional food including Chinese fritters and soya bean milk in its breakfast list. When a global company runs its business locally, i.e. with different strategies and standards for meeting the needs from various cultures, it is named as global localization.

McDonaldization, being defined as the product of globalized market economy and with ration, efficiency, effectiveness and standardized McDonalds" system which has been accepted in most societies (Ritzer,2009), differs itself and turns into a form of intercultural hybridization: partly in its origins and partly in its present different localized varieties of forms.

Such case shows that the global and local developments may be mutually reinforcing rather than necessarily in conflict. Western cultures negotiate and mix with non-western ones to become more competitive. Hence it is evident that heterogeneity or hybridization rather than homogeneity will become the tomorrow of globalization. Even if cultural homogenization will occur in the future, it will not simply become a dominance of western culture or Americanization.

Meanwhile, multi-centered phenomenon helps to indicate that peripheral cultures may integrate to become core regional cultures. Multiple cores hold global cultural power together, rather than a simple core-periphery relationship between United States and the rest of world. For example, people in Irian Jaya (an island nation near the equator) feel pressure from Indonesianization rather than Americanization; Japanization may be more powerful for Koreans; Indianization for Sri Lankans (Sri Lanka is an island nation next to India), and Vietnamization for Cambodians (Cambodia locates between Thailand and Vietnam). Peripheral countries in global scope may become a core in smaller scopes. They are able to play a more important role than western cultures for cultural influence on countries nearby. Another example is still food-related. When hamburgers flow from United States to Asia, Chinese food on the other hand brings impacts on local American cuisine. Sushi,as a typical Japanese food, even becomes popular worldwide.

Besides homogeneity and heterogeneity, there is another possible process for globalization, which is hybridization of culture. Hybridization seems to be a negotiation between homogeneity and heterogeneity because cultures mix with each other. Though cultural changes indicate loss and destruction of traditional culture and practices, it may also bring creative global ideas and values. Since local citizens are able to interpret those global or westernized cultural items with their own traditions and values, their original cultures will innovate and become more diverse. In brief, hybridization mixes several cultures to make each of them more complicated.

Food is still a good case for explaining hybridization. Local businessmen in some regions build fast food chain restaurants to sell traditional cuisine, in order to terminate the monopoly of McDonald』s or KFC, etc. In China, a local chain called Kungfu owns over 400 branches which serve Chinese meals,e.g. steamed food and dumplings. In Moscow, the Ruskoje Bistros opens to sell Pirozhki, a traditional Russian snack. In Japan, MOS Burger sells hamburgers made from rice instead of wheat. These restaurants may adapt some of the ideas from American counterparts, the cultural difference in both foods supplied and service among them, however, exist. The innovations of McDonald』s and KFC outside United States can be regarded as cultural hybridization as well. In this case, they adapt some ideas from non-western countries.

By comparison, hybridization is better than homogeneity and heterogeneity to explain contemporary globalization phenomenon in most of time. In Islamic societies which resist western cultures more often, heterogeneity is still more appropriate to be used for description.

After discussing the topic of clash of civilizations, McDonaldization and numerous practical examples, it is concluded that homogeneity or dominance of western culture is not easy to occur in reality. Instead, hybridization is more proper for sketching the contemporary globalization process; meanwhile, heterogeneity is still useful for explaining cultural resistance in conservative societies. The article should have ended here. However, by studying global consumerism, it is found that even hybridization is not enough for answering what globalization in nowadays looks like. Therefore in the final part, global consumerism will be discussed.

Consumer culture or consumerism, by its means, is referring to social arrangement in which the relations between the lived cultural experience of everyday life and social resources exist. Mediating through markets, meaningful valued ways of life and the symbolic and material resources on which consumers depend are linked.

There are four major features of consumerism:

1. Pervasive and rapid circulation of commercial products which are goods produced for exchange within a capitalist market

overtakes the role of government which used to redistribute social resources.

2. Relative independence of consumption activities from those related to production and the growing power and authority allows consumers to own more market dynamics.

3. Citizens shift their role into consumers and producers by changing relationship between different systems of production and valuation in society, which is increasingly interlinked and mediated by market values, i.e. consumers ask how much a product should costs or at what price level should they sell it.

4. Consuming is an instrument for showing one』s social status of individuals because with much more abundant good supply, people no longer consume for purpose of surviving only, instead, consuming better goods reflects better life of a consumer.

Consumerism basically relies on supply of products.Therefore producers carve the structure of consuming behaviors of people. McDonaldization, as mentioned for several times, brings impacts on consumerism by standardization. Fast food chains such as McDonald』s and category killers including Wal-Mart reshape the purchasing habits of consumers. Global medias,for example, CNN and Facebook, usually provide information freely; in return for this, they obtain the power to control public opinions. Global manufacturers including Pfizer, one of the world』s largest medicine producers,make consumers more rely on them. Global brands comprising Coca Cola and Louis Vuitton, a luxury brand, influence consumers』 values towards consumption.

When multinational corporations which mainly come from United States spread their products and additional cultures worldwide, some express worries about cultural homogenization or even the dominance of western culture, because these companies are backed by state power and those developed states bring influences of values and habits on other countries purposively. Local cultures will be threatened under this situation. Obviously these worries are unnecessary since homogeneity, as concluded before, rarely happen in the real world.

Some scholars notice the importance of global consumerism in recent years, therefore it is possible to study and compare different views of it.

The first view being discussed is from Leslie Sklair. Sklair states that consumer culture is the center of globalization, which citizens transfer their role into consumers (Sklair, 2002). He also applies the fall of Soviet Union as an example to show that consumerism can even bring about political innovation. Néstor Carcía Canclini focuses on hybridization and diversity of global consumerism. For him, goods are produced from different regions and consumed by the whole world, therefore consuming is a good method for sensing the world (Canclini, 2001) and interacting individuals to each other. Benjamin R. Barber holds the opposite views. He claims that both homogeneity, which is represented by McWorld, and heterogeneity, being represented by Jihad, are threats to democracy development (Barber, 2008). In deed, McWorld eliminates isolationism and brings about economic and political stability, it result in secularism among people. Besides, McWorld puts threats on states which are the main force for democratization. His final argument is difficulty of finding equilibrium between roles of consumer and citizen, since the former rises dependence and needs, the latter pursue for independence and democracy, i.e. these two roles are conflicting in nature. George Ritzer does not agree with Barber. He states that threatening as well as promising features of homogeneity and heterogeneity co-exist. Finally, in Douglas J. Goodman』s view, global consumer culture may exist, however people need more researches to verify its existence (Goodman, 2008). In addition, no matter what Sklair, Canclini and Ritzer』s opinion are, they fail to verify the existence of global consumer culture. His conclusion is that global consumerism may exist in some extents, but this process needs money spending. As a result, consumer culture is limited.

No matter what results these scholars give, they should have provided sufficient hints for others to collect more findings. In this article, global consumer culture or global consumerism is found as a phenomenon with four characteristics.

Firstly, it is unevenly developed among different regions and conflicts exist, which means that global consumerism mainly originates in developed and western countries. However, more and more such culture is produced in other countries. Conflicts are not necessarily happening between westernized global consumer culture and traditional cultures though they usually exist. In fact, traditional values and anti-consumerism inside those western countries are the other forces resisting the advancement of global consumerism. For example, in San Francisco, California, United States, anti-McDonaldization movement did occur.

Secondly, homogenization never comes true. This point has been illustrated in the part of global localization. The examples of local fast food chains in several cities prove the existence of cultural hybridization.

Thirdly, Goodman』s argument, which is that consuming needing money, is in fact not that correct by comparing this statement to the reality. Internet is evidence to the contrary. Though a computer is required for surfing on the Internet, consuming products on it is almost free. Videos on YouTube, games on Facebook, etc charge nothing but time. Marginal cost is zero when watching one more video or playing one more game, which result in nearly-zero average cost even take the cost of computer into account after certain amounts of these products are consumed. Despite digital divide between developed and developing countries, people in the world are more easily to access the Internet even they themselves have no devices. For instance, among 238,600,000 Indonesian populations, only 16.5% (39,600,000) are Internet users. Still it cannot prevent citizens from obtaining information on the Internet. The Korean music video named Gangnam Style, as the most viewed video on YouTube, is influential in Indonesia.Even one of the five flash mobs of Gangnam Style shows in the world is held in this country. Since marginal cost for watching one more video as well as watching by more than one people with one computer is nearly zero, most Indonesians can still use this technology for connecting to the world. Otherwise there is no proper explanation for the popularity of Gangnam Style in here.

Fourthly, as consuming is not necessarily costly, people nowadays can produce with much lower costs. The cost for producing Gangnam Style is much lower than that of any Hollywood movies. However the number for watching that funny music video and is several times greater than the movie Titanic, one of the most popular western movies. YouTube, Facebook, Wikipedia, all these platforms allows ordinary people to produce some goods with nearly no cost. The term We Media or Web 2.0, therefore, are providing a vision that any person can be a producer. Anyone can produce influential products to the world under this circumstance, which lower the hurdle for people in non-western countries to express their culture more often.

Fig. 5 Snapshot of Gangnam Style"s MV

On December 15th, 2012, Google published its searching statistics report Zeitgeist 2012. According to this report,Gangnam Style is ranked at the second top of keywords searching, only coming after Whitney Houston, a deceased female singer in United States. The result was much different in the last year, which Justin Bieber, a Canadian teenager singer, ranked at the top of list. This fact tells one argument, which can be described as easy-hot and easy-fade. This phrase means that in contemporary world, it is easy for a figure or a culture to become influential. However, nearly none of them can capture the public attention for as long time as before. In this part, it can summarize that since different cultures have more chances to be shown to the world, they will be more often to be hybridized.

Globalization brings intensive interactions of people around the world, linking different culture and values together. Multinational corporation and nowadays any individual can be the media for cultural globalization process. Cultural homogeneity is an impossible outcome, instead, heterogeneity and hybridization are. In addition, cultural globalization is a procedure of competition and negotiation. When competitions take places among different cultures and values, negotiations arise between multinational corporations and a certain country - the only incentive for these companies to do so is the demand of consumers. When cultures in developed countries are confronting with challenges from those in developing countries, all of them will seek an equilibrium position. All or none of them can have any advantages when comparing to others in the end. Competitions among cultures exist during this process. Meanwhile, multinational corporations produce products under the influence of consumer preferences, therefore cultures and values from those consumers can reversely shape the culture and values in these companies. Therefore when contemporary multinational corporations are trying to produce dominant cultures and values, they themselves are influenced by preferences, tastes or values of consumers in different regions by negotiating with them - business achievements will tell whether their negotiations are successful. In short, heterogeneity, hybridization, competition and negotiation are all possible for cultural globalization process. Whether they exist fully or partially are base on the circumstance in certain cases.

Reference

Barber, B. R.(2008), Shrunken Sovereign: Consumerism, Globalization, and American Emptiness

Canclini, N. C. (2001), Consumers and Citizens: Globalization and Multicultural Conflicts (Cultural Studies of the Americas,Vol. 6)

Friedman, T. L.(2007), The World is Flat

Goodman, D. J.(2008), Globalization and Consumer Culture

Huntington, S. P.(1996), Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

Ritzer, G. (2009),Globalization: A Basic Text

Sklair, L. (2002),Globalization: Capitalism and Its Alternatives

Statistics Singapore (2012), Statistics Singapore - Latest Data - Population (Mid-Year Estimates)

Steger, M.B.(2003), Globalization: A Very Short Introduction

Google (2012), Zeitgeist2012, from Zeitgeist 2012

這世上，嚴格來說，壓根不分什麼民族文化和異族文化，也不分本國文化和外國文化，因為伴隨人類社會發展，各族各地文化一直都在不停交流融合變化，哪有血統純正的啊。

所以，只分先進文化和落後文化，所謂先進文化，即順應絕大多數人性需要（更先進更容易被人接受的生產生活方式）的文化，所謂落後文化，即容易被先進文化替代的文化。

至於一個國家或民族，到底是該被全球化同化還是保持多樣化，一句話，取精華舍糟粕。換句話，取決於本民族文化中有多少先進文化。

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------扯句題外話，總覺得吧，以血緣、民族、出生地來劃分一個群體或國家，很不靠譜。假如按觀念的異同劃分，是不是內聚力更強呢？

想起了巴別塔的隱喻，從同化到異化再到同化，只是一個循環。

舊的民族在被同化，新的民族正在形成。

看亨廷頓(Huntington)的 the clash of civilisations

人們不願意看到同化,但是多樣化更多情況下是一個童話.
各自文化仍將存在,但是在世界範圍內的文化主導權將掌握在經濟佔據主導權的國家手中.文化的交流和融合隨著科技的進步將會越發廣泛而深刻,融合的各種成分中肯定會有主次之分.
以今日美國為例,世界流行文化的舞台基本上是美國的舞台.
但是文化畢竟是個有歷史積澱的東西,個體文化還是會存在的,完全消亡是不現實的,能否在世界潮流中佔據主流,要看承載這種文化的國家,民族的實力密切相關.
個人偏向於,未來的世界文化將處於一種你方唱罷我登場的局面. 但是在任一個時刻,將表現出現在處於主導地位的文化對其他文化的強勢影響和同化.

首先，多樣化就是個偽命題。民族已經存在，伴隨他的文化自然存在，只是其他人是否知道或認可上存在區別。全球化難道會讓全球已有的民族增多嗎？如果不是，多樣化就是偽命題。

如果換種理解方式，多樣化指的是歐美髮達文化強勢統治地位下的其他文化爭奪到話語權，這樣才是有可能的。全球的價值觀憑什麼要照著他們的方式發展，沒有道理。

另外一方面，隨著全球化和全球交流的廣泛深入，確實會自發和非自發的形成某些人類統一的價值觀念，也就是普世價值觀。這便算是文化的統一。

你要真說，未來的文化發展還是那句老話，求同存異。但是隨著全球化，不少民族是在消亡的，他們的文化也不存在了。保護世界弱勢民族的文化遺產，更是真正人文學者和公益者更需要急切做的工作。

所以，以我個人觀點，未來的文化發展是逐漸增大其公共價值部分，但其他差異部分則逐漸聚類，形成幾個更加鮮明的大類，而其他的文化差異則成為演進過程中的毛刺和雜訊，逐漸消失。

當然是多樣化，因為沒有人是上帝的選民，可以假借上帝的旨意用自己狹隘的文化統一七十億人的地球。文化歷史深厚的國家順著現代化的趨勢潮流會恢復繁榮，而沒有文化底蘊的那些寄生國家只會成為附庸。

趨同和進步就意味著部分的捨棄。然而這已是有YB的時代，什麼都可以被記錄，只要當下有人在關心著。

全球化提供了一個懸浮的平台，更多的工藝、文明、思想等這些原本受地域限制的「文化」被挖掘，得以展示。只不過太多人都有選擇綜合症，即便是賦予了選擇的權利他們也寧願選擇簡單輕鬆的趨附一個或者幾個實力強大的文化體。而依賴於被更多人所依賴的這些文化體的策劃者就需要更加專註的去發現其共同核心，歸納這些依附者所關心的共同點即精神訴求，以擯棄「無用」的代價作為突破創新的動力。

沒有經濟實體的支撐，民族文化很脆弱，特別是落後的地區的民族文化更是難以保存。君不見考古頌揚的都是璀璨文明，小地方的博物館裡陳列的文物化石只能證明這個地方曾有人跡。多數落後地區的文化一般來講也都是支流，總能在它處找到相似，所以其實價值和貢獻意義基本不大，但收藏家的癖好是一根毛的差別也不能放過。

全球化最終會出現一個或少數幾個文化標杆，它們基本已經褪去民族風，腦洞大開的步邁向全宇宙。而退一步說，人性的弱點總是在尋求一種安全感，一生都在激流勇進的能有幾人，所以保存部分的高端民族文化多樣性為的是讓這些老兵能退居二線休養生息待到來年開春再次蓬勃發展，這也恰好可以解釋時尚圈子裡的一句話「六十年又是一圈」。

三環以外看各自發展，不再贅述。

總之吧，什麼事情不要總盯著「最」，這個就是人類啊奇怪的心理，從來不往內在看看什麼才適合，直接在外面淘啊淘，非要想著做最高最快最強，把自己搞得很累，又翻不出花頭，這兩年奇奇怪怪的建築就是典型的栗子。

扒一扒自然界頂級群落，大概也能稍微解釋一下這個問題了。人從大自然里來也可以回去尋找幫助。所以獅子王里大樹爺爺是智慧的化身這種思想的前瞻性真是太么么么么噠了！

文化各異，文化承載趨同。

當我們說文化的傳承時，已經意識到文化多樣性的寶貴。現代化技術與全球化推進，不僅僅是暴躁的推土機，還有精巧的施工隊。

全球化背景下，是求同存異。

地球各大洲，以主體文化與多元文化共存的情況演進，在演進過程中以人為載體的文化必須保證＂人口的生命力＂與＂精神的生命力＂為前提才能不在歷史中淹沒。

融合，世界不同文化一直都是相互影響相互融合的，根本不存在完全獨立的民族文化。今日的民族文化，在過去看可能不是民族文化。

融合成多元的新民族←_←然後你就會在一個人身上發現幾個民族的特點……

個人認為文化即不會多樣化也不會同化，而是要麼以國家為單位將文化隔離，要麼就是只有一種文化能夠存在於地球上，其他的文化被消滅。

互相影響互相融合，文化一定會越來越豐富多彩

整體慢慢會被同化，不管你願意還是不願意承認

同化到一定階段，就會追求多樣化，個人感覺「民族的才是世界的」不無道理。

求同存異

我認為越往後的發展越會凸顯民族化，就美國和中國而言，美國的發展程度要高很多，然而美國有一個很大的特色就是民族問題，或者叫做種族問題。美國是全世界最典型的一個多民族相融合的國家，這也是他的偉大之處。