Cultural Domination
Sep. 7th, 2011 03:33 pmSo, this post by the insightful Aliette de Bodard got me to thinking about an argument I had years ago.
I don’t remember how it started, and I don’t remember the precise ins and outs, but it was a pretty simple argument. On the one hand, there was me, arguing that the most dominant culture on the globe, right now, was American. On the other hand was my friend Kristen, arguing that it wasn’t, that other cultures were suprior. The cognitive disconnect that fueled the argument was, of course, what was meant by “dominant.” I tried, as I recall, to point out that “dominant” didn’t mean “better,” it just meant that it had the most reach, the most eyeballs–the most pageviews, in a sense, if that term had really meant anything in 1997. But Kristen felt that dominance implied a qualitative judgment, rather than simply observational. We left the table with the argument mostly unresolved, but I think I scored the final point. How?
By pointing out that we were having that argument in a Planet Hollywood restaurant in Helsinki, Finland.
The only other thing I have to offer to the arguments being tossed around in Aliette’s blog comment section is the notion that, on two levels, there is virtually no such thing as “American culture.”
On the one level, once you get past the First Nations/Native Americans, every other component of American culture is borrowed from somewhere else. Whether you believe in the melting pot concept, or prefer fruit salad, or whatever food-based metaphor works for you, the reality is that all of that stuff that went into the pot came from somewhere else. Very little of it is wholly original to this continent. And that, of course, is that nature of the place. Where France (for instance) has been in most respects been inhabited by largely the same group of folks for thousands of years, the US has been steadily, aggressively colonized over and over and over again by places that have been settled much longer than the US. Our identity, in large part, is that very nature and the export of American culture is mostly the regurgitation of all those tropes and standards and concepts and archetypes that have been collected from all over.
On the other level, it’s as hard to speak of “American culture” as it is of “European culture.” While there are some obvious, common baselines, the reality is that the cultural map of the US is as fractured as any other given swath of 330 million people. Black urban culture has almost nothing in common with white rural culture, and neither have much at all in common with suburban/country club culture, and so on. Mississippi is as distinctly different from Michigan as Sweden is from Spain, but a (mostly) common language and single over-arching government provide an illusion of greater unity.
And I think this is what makes American culture, especially Hollywood movies, such tremendous exports: for 80 years, the US has been a sort of petri dish in which the cultural scientists of Hollywood get to experiment with what can reach across the most demographic and cultural lines. Sometimes what succeeds here flops overseas, and vice versa, but given the depth and breadth of American cultures, Hollywood has a much better grasp of what will work elsewhere than any other collection of filmmakers. No one else has quite that same advantage.
Again, and to reiterate my argument to Kristen 14 years ago: I’m not saying that this makes what America exports qualitatively superior. It just means that it has the best chance to connect with the widest audience, given the wide cultural divides it already spans domestically. That, in turn, leads to a sense of pervasiveness because of the economics of advertising and distribution.
Anyway, you should go read Aliette’s post, if you have not already. My only actual quibble is that American culture does incorporate a lot of what she wants to see more of–it just does so in smaller bites that are much less visible to the international audience. The trick is finding it.
Mirrored from Bum Scoop.