Naomi Smith 254958 - BA (Hons) Illustration Level 5 OUIL501 Context of Practice 2 - Studio Brief One
To what extent does globalisation have an effect on how people value their national identity? Globalisation is the process of moving something from a national to an international scale. When this concept becomes specifically targeted towards culture, it speaks of the building and extension of relationships between people of different cultures and the sharing of ideas, knowledge, traditions, meanings and values. Tomlinson (1999 : 30) writes that our world today ‘increasingly exists as a cultural horizon within which we (to varying degrees) frame our existence’, which states that as people from different cultures have been allowed to meet and consequently blend, we are starting to form this merged world within which we all have our own place. We are so much more aware of what it is like to live in other parts of the world because we seem to have adopted aspects of these varying lifestyles within our own cultures. Statelessness occurs when someone does not have a nationality and the UN Refugee Agency say that this statelessness is applicable to around 10 million people across the globe and over a third of these are children (no date : 8). As the world continues to progress, cultures continue to blend and boundaries continue to be broken, it raises the question whether we are becoming more of a ‘human race’ rather than being separated into these subcategories known as nations. Giddens (1991 : 187) writes that people growing up in modern day have ‘phenomenal worlds [that are] for the most part truly global’ which suggests that globalisation is having a positive effect on the world. However, to truly understand the impact of globalisation on the individual, theories of identity need to be explored alongside matters of heritage, the evolution of meanings and the questionable credibility of race. The extent of which people value their national identity is very much dependent on how people choose to define themselves and whether the category they technically fit into on legal documents actually has any effect on their personal identity at all. The two main opposing concepts of identity are essentialism and post-modern identity which divide people into those who believe identity comes from within and those who feel identity is fragmented and is constructed from your experiences. Essentialism is the traditional approach to identity, the theory being that it is biological make-up and soul that defines the identity of an individual. It means that there is an essence within people that is unaffected by their surroundings, they are born with it and it stays with them for life. In turn, this explains that essentialism opposes the idea that globalisation affects how people value their national identity, because to anyone with this belief, any external factor is considered irrelevant. This image (Fig. 1.) by Saul Steinberg reinforces the concept of essentialism as it depicts a portrait of a man constructed from fingerprints, suggesting that a person's biological makeup is the primary contributor to their overall identity. The way that the external view of this person is being shown through fingerprints, a symbol of genetics and inbuilt characteristics, implies that this person is channeling their inner qualities they were born with through to the way they present themselves to the rest of the world. The post-modern theory of identity supports the idea that globalisation has an effect on identity as it is about identity being constructed through social experiences and the encounters and performances of everyday life. It speaks of a fragmented self and the approach is based on the idea that a person’s identity is constructed from numerous discourses (Beighton, 2015). Taiye Selasi proposes that ‘all experience is local, all identity is experience’ in her talk ‘Don’t ask where I’m from, ask where I’m a local’ at TED Global (2014) which supports the idea that identity is constructed and follows the postmodern theory. She believes that what you have been through
and how you have lived your life so far is what builds your identity as a person. With ever increasing numbers of people being brought up in a country different to their supposed home nation, her argument claims that the nationality stated on your birth certificate has no impact on your identity unless it matches the environment you exist within now or have existed within for a significant part of your life. Psychologists are using the term delocalisation or dis-placement to define this. The location where a child was brought up in has a decreasing effect on their identity as the young are now growing up with an increasing global consciousness. Some people can accept delocalisation as the way the modern world functions but for others it can cause a feeling of loss and no strong sense of belonging. (Tomlinson, 1999) Depending on the individual’s story and their reaction and experience of delocalisation, this could have varying effects on how they value their national identity. However, in a general sense, the fact that a child’s home nation has a decreasing effect on them as a person suggests that their value for it is less. It is inevitable that there are going to be some blurred boundaries between identity coming solely from within or only being affected by external factors. Barthes says that we accept the ‘doxa’ as natural (1977 : 47). The ‘doxa’ is a word derived from ancient Greek meaning the common belief or opinion. By accepting these beliefs as a matter of course, people are subconsciously being influenced by society even from the very beginning of their lives before decisions can be made on an individual, informed basis. This creates a blurred boundary between what people think comes from within and what society has actually had an effect on. Howard (2003 : 166-169) supports Barthes’ statement by speaking about how people would see nationality as a ‘natural feature’ and very few would accept that nationality did not come from within. People talk of the blood of their country as if their nation has a genetic effect on their body, but actually, these two writers suggest that as humans with conscious minds, we choose which aspects of our nation we want to carry with us through our chosen interests, belongings and experiences we choose to participate in. Society has power over us and as cultures blend and societies evolve, we do too as people. Postmodern theories of identity say that people take influence from many places and factors and these feed into our everyday lives, often without us consciously choosing for them to. As cultures and subcultures blend, merge and evolve, it is inevitable that some things will start to lose meaning or adopt new implications. A prime example of this would be within the music industry when jazz music, which was originally a huge part of black culture, was ‘fed into mainstream popular culture during the 20s and 30s’ (Hebdige, 1979 : 46) and it began to change. Jazz opened out and evolved into white swing, it was a modified version of the original genre which had been altered and toned down to appeal to a wider audience and it now had ‘none of the subversive connotations of its original black sources’ (Hebdige, 1979 : 47). This example shows how transitions like this can occur over time and if we adopt certain things into our lives, we are carrying their influences on towards the future. It is a never ending process of change. If this is happening with musical influences, culinary influences, fashion influences, entertainment influences, the list goes on, there will become a point where the roots of all the things we deem to be part of our individual identity is so far in the distant past that we can no longer identify and acknowledge them. This idea illustrates the postmodern self, ‘what the postmodern did was deprive the modern of its idea of a single anchoring centre’ (Hutcheon, 2013 : 124) which means that it is numerous factors that contribute to the identity of one person, often without the person having knowledge on the initial roots of these individual discourses. It is clear that globalisation causes cultures to diffuse, and as mentioned previously, meanings do change as time goes on and cultures and subcultures evolve. However, this meets a level of controversy when the topic of appropriation arises. Cultural appropriation occurs when elements of one culture are used by people of another culture without a proper understanding of the true meaning and connotations of the product or tradition in question. McRobbie proposes the argument that consumer culture ‘runs the risk of inducing a sense of political complacency’ (1999 : 31) which suggests that people are are willing to accept what they see at face value and deem it to be sufficiently fair. It can often lead to offence being caused as it shows ignorance towards learning about other cultures and their values. This raises the question on whether the sharing of cultures can be classed as genuine all the time. It could be argued that influences regarded as cultural appropriation cannot affect the value a person holds for their national identity because
the value of the element they have appropriated is not understood or respected by the individual. It could also be seen as diminishing the value of someone else’s national identity as it is not being shown true respect. The concept of heritage opposes the idea that globalisation has an effect on the value of national identity because it is an appreciation of history which cannot be changed by what is happening in the world today. Hutcheon speaks of how ‘one’s particular national culture and history had a determining effect on one’s theorising’ (2013 : 125) which suggests that the thoughts and opinions of an individual are influenced on some level by their history, therefore having an effect on their identity. This could potentially have two opposing effects on individuals as some might value their heritage more as something to be proud of and others may feel they want to intentionally distance themselves from it. There are many social, political, religious and personal reasons as to why an individual may choose either of these options. When writing about heritage in relation to identity, Howard (2003 : 147) states that its ‘common purpose is to make some people feel better, more rooted and more secure’ which suggests that people find it comforting and have a reliance on their history. This statement raises the question whether heritage is valid as a contributor to identity. Describing heritage as a method of reassurance and an attempt to validate your place in the world suggests there is not always an appreciation for heritage and it is not classed by everyone as a legitimate part of your identity. Another argument would be that race and nationality are merely concepts invented by society a long time ago and therefore should have very little standing at all in modern day. This in turn would suggest that they could at some point cease to exist and nobody would hold any value for their national identity. It has been said that ‘race turns out to be a false idea that has had, and continues to exert, powerful global consequences even after its fundamental falseness has been recognised’ (Amoko, 2013 : 132) which supports this idea and goes on to mention how this has a detrimental effect on the human race as a whole even though people have realised the underlying downfalls of the concept. It is difficult to adhere to the rule system of race because ‘its boundaries are notoriously unreliable and its identity categories … are internally incoherent’ (Amoko, 2013 : 132). He describes ‘the inventedness and falseness of race’ as ‘reactionary’ (2013 : 133) because these boundaries of race invented by man are inhibiting the progress of the world, in this case socially, politically and culturally. Amoko, alongside writers including Brian and Audrey Smedley (2005 : 16-26) and Evelyn Nakano Glenn (2000) are able to recognise that race is socially constructed and this method of labelling people is wholly unnatural. Putting people in a certain racial category causes many world issues even though the idea of race is totally constructed by society itself. This realisation of the falseness of race implies that national identity itself is invented, therefore the process of globalisation is battling against the barriers humans have put in place to achieve one united human race. This therefore shows that globalisation would be lessening the value of national identity, or in the most extreme circumstance, eliminating it entirely. Looking deeper into postmodern identity theory and the fragmented self leads towards the topic of hybrid identities. In the book, ‘Global Youth? Hybrid identities, plural words’ edited by Pan Nilan and Carles Feixa, hybridisation is described as ‘a process of cultural interactions between the local and the global, the hegemonic and the subaltern, the centre and the periphery.’ (2006 : 2) To support this concept, Arnett writes in ‘The Psychology of Globalisation’ that ‘in addition to their local identity, young people develop a global identity which gives them a sense of belonging to a worldwide culture’ (2002 : 777) The introduction of global identity dilutes the local identity of an individual, therefore this will alter the levels of value they hold for each. It is impossible to generalise one as having more impact than the other because this exists purely on a personal basis. The focus on young people in Arnett’s previous quote suggests that this concept of global identity merging with local identity is something that is becoming increasingly apparent in more recent generations. It implies that, looking towards the future as cultures continue to blend and influence each other, the likelihood that global identity will become a more powerful factor of influence on someone’s identity is high. Consequently, this would have an effect on the value people hold for their national identity as an increasing part of their fragmented self would be held by a global culture.
The idea that a hybrid identity is a merging of local and global culture is contested by a marginally similar yet opposing argument that ‘hybridisation is a process of cultural transactions that reflects how global cultures are assimilated in the locality, and how non-western cultures impact upon us’ (Nilan and Feixa, 2006 : 2), the first part of which suggests that it is worldwide cultures directly causing a change in local cultures, instead of them working together in partnership. The mention of the direction in which the impact occurs suggests that as western cultures, we have a lower impact on non-western cultures than the reverse. This highlights the point that the sharing of cultures is not truly balanced and therefore the concept of a global identity is not equally representative of everyone, therefore resulting in varying levels of reciprocated impact. It suggests that those cultures who contribute strongly to overall global culture see less changes to their own culture as a result, whereas those cultures who only contribute mildly to global culture will see more of a change locally as a result of a higher influx of influences. The varying levels of give and take will evidently result in varying levels of change and, in turn, strength of effect on people’s value for their nationality. In conclusion, it is clear that the the process of globalisation has affected the way people are distributed around the world and the pathways people’s lives take nowadays are far less structured as they used to be before travel and communication was so easy. In the near future, it is possible that there will be minor changes in the way people identify with a nation. It may become necessary for people to be able to choose and change their nationality more freely and easily. The practicalities of the having a nationality will most likely remain for legal, political and documentation purposes as nationality is a social concept which is now deeply ingrained in politics and the way that countries work with and against each other. The rise of the hybrid national identity is evidence that the world is progressing towards a globalised state. Hybridity is an ‘in between-ness’ (Nilan and Feixa, 2006 : 2), a state where an individual neither belongs solely to one nor the other. The continuation of this in the future will undoubtedly cause changes in how people value their nationality, and which nationalities they actually choose to value at all. The real blending of cultures takes place over a long period of time, so in the distant future it is a possibility that the world could consist only of global culture and the concept of having a nationality could be no longer existent. There comes a point where blending multiple elements together reaches a point where it cannot be mixed any further, it has reached neutrality. The individual elements are all still a part of it but cannot be extracted back into their original forms, nor separated from each other. Hybrid national identities can only develop so far before the concept of national identity itself becomes meaningless, this suggests that in the future the value for national identity would be almost non existent. As humans, we should have the right to identify as what we want to be recognised as, whether this be a chosen label or a total lack of one. Barthes writes "to give a text an author is to impose a limit on that text” (1968 : 147) so in the scenario of an individual being the text and the author being the nation this person supposedly belongs to, the individual is restricted by the label of this. Surely continuing the ideology of nationality will only allow conflict, discrimination and oppression to continue, supporting Amoko’s proposal of the concept being ‘reactionary’ (2013 : 133). It is easy to generalise about the topic of globalisation and its effect on the value people hold for their national identity, but on some level, it is only fair to say that it is down to the opinions of each individual person as to whether nationality means anything to them at all. Some people may still follow essentialist ideas and identify internally, believing that the root of true identity is embedded within. However, people who identify with postmodern identity will feel a stronger connection to their external factors may be more inclined to identify more strongly with their country, therefore valuing their nationality more highly. Alternatively, they may use their postmodernist theories to dispute the label they have been given and feel more free to align their identity with discourses non-inclusive of nationality.
Word Count : 3078
Fig. 1.
Figure 1. Steinberg, S. (1951) ‘Fingerprint Man’ [Illustration] At: http://insolacion.tumblr.com/post/60371112524/fingerprint-man-1951-by-saul-steinberg (Accessed on 30.01.16)
Bibliography Amoko, A. (2013) ‘Race and Postcoloniality’ In: Malpas, S and Wake, P. ‘Critical and Cultural Theory’, Oxon, Routledge, pp. 120-130. Arnett, J. (2002) ‘The Psychology of Globalization’, American Psychologist. October 2002. Barthes, R. (1968) 'The Death of the Author', London, Fontana. Barthes, R. (1977) ‘Image, Music, Text’, trans. Stephen Heath, London, Fontana. Beighton, J. (2015) ‘Lecture on Identity’, Context of Practice 2. Leeds College of Art, 5th November 2015. Giddens, A. (1991) ‘Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age’, Cambridge, England: Polity Press. Glenn, E.N. (2000) ‘The Social Construction and Institutionalization of Gender and Race’ In: Ferree, M., Lorber, J. and Hess, B. eds. ‘Revisioning Gender’, California: Alta Mira Press, pp 342. Hebdige, D. (1979) ‘Subculture - The Meaning of Style’, Oxon, Routledge. Howard, P. (2003) ‘Heritage: Management, Interpretation, Identity’, London, Continuum. Hutcheon, L. (2013) ‘Postmodernism’ In: Malpas, S and Wake, P. ‘Critical and Cultural Theory’, Oxon, Routledge, pp. 120-130. McRobbie, A. (1999) ‘In The Culture Society’, London, Routledge. Nilan, P and Feixa, C. eds. (2006) ‘Global Youth? Hybrid Identities, plural worlds’, Oxon: Routledge. Selasi, T. (2014) ‘Don’t Ask Where I Am From, Ask Where I Am A Local’, video recording, TED, viewed 11 October 2015. Available at: https://www.ted.com/talks/taiye_selasi_don_t_ask_where_i_m_from_ask_where_i_m_a_local?la nguage=en Smedley, B and A (2005) ‘Race as Biology is Fiction, Racism as a Social Problem is Real: Anthropological and Historical Persepctives on the Social Construction of Race’, American Psychologist. Vol60(1), pp16-26. Tomlinson, J. B. (1999) ‘Globalization and culture’, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. UN Refugee Agency (no date) ‘A Special Report: Ending Statelessness Within 10 Years’ [Online] Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/546217229.html